Sharia Law Already Devouring UK

Alias

Alias

Banned
In 2008, while arguing for the need to formally introduce Sharia law into the law of the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed Sharia law was “inevitable” in the UK . He denied it was an “alien” system and called for “constructive accommodation” of Muslim law. He did this in a calculated and provocative manner, while denying a place for its more “extreme punishments.”

It is unlikely that many members of the Muslim community would be satisfied with an Anglican primate determining the limitations of the Quran and Sharia law.

This argument was rapidly followed by the Lord Chief Justice: Lord Phillips helpfully said there was a place for Sharia law, particularly in mediation. He lamented the “widespread misunderstanding” of Sharia law. The newly established Muslim Arbitration Tribunals immediately put a picture of the Lord Chief Justice on their website in appreciation of his endorsement.

In the United Kingdom, the many thousands of Sharia courts can quietly go about their business of implementing “justice” in a form totally “alien” to the Judeo-Christian tradition, denying human rights to many of our citizens — particularly women.

The “constructive accommodation” of Muslim law reached a logical conclusion with the declaration this year of Sharia law controlled zones in a number of areas geographically spread over the country, where the Islamist militants enforce their will. Their posters declare: “No music or concerts, no porn or prostitution, no drugs or smoking, no gambling, no alcohol.” A reign of terror has begun, with threats of implicit violence against anyone who “insults” Islam, changes religion, or fails to dress appropriately. I have already been contacted about assisting two individuals subject to Islamist threats.

The police stand passively by, adhering to their diversity training.

If the Labour Party had won the last general election in 2010, I believe they would have introduced Sharia law into the United Kingdom. Things have changed for the better since David Cameron became prime minister — he has criticized “state multiculturalism” as causative of terrorism and radicalism. An inquiry of the Ministry of Justice into the operation of Sharia courts had to be stopped as Muslim leaders refused to cooperate with the government; they wanted to continue to execute Sharia law in secrecy. However, this has only heightened concerns. A Conservative peer has sought to introduce legislation delimiting the operation of Sharia courts as discriminatory against women. The home secretary has at last refused entry visas to “hate preachers” like Zakir Naik. (The last Labour government welcomed Hezbollah terrorists to lecture the police on “political Islam.”)

When I was a boy growing up in London, as Roger Kimball has written, terms like “Sharia” and “jihad” were anthropological phrases analogous to witch burning, using leeches to draw blood, and cannibalism. It would have been beyond my comprehension that our political elite would seek to introduce this medieval system into one of the most advanced societies in the world.

Sharia law is the antithesis of law as representative of rational human endeavor to alleviate the human condition.

In this short piece, it is not possible to fully illuminate the “establishment” of Islam in the United Kingdom (as described by the First Amendment). I can only give examples.

An interesting case of mine involved a church in a part of the country declared a “Sharia law controlled zone.” The church had existed for about 150 years, but it was served with a noise pollution notice for the singing of hymns on a Sunday morning at 10:30 a.m. As the notice was served, the council officer said: “This is a Muslim area.” (Naturally, this statement was denied in court.)

However, it was the court experience which was most disturbing; the local court was in an area with a high Muslim population, and the majority of the judges hearing the case were Muslim. The court closed the church. I thought the only image missing from the scene was about 200 mullahs demonstrating outside the court for the death of the infidels.

The case was appealed, and moved to a district that was predominantly English (where the appeal court was situated). The court opened the church.

This case was similar to a case where Muslim police officers prevented two street preachers, Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham, from evangelizing in Birmingham. The Muslim police office called it a “hate crime” to seek to convert Muslim youths. A Muslim police office failed to uphold British values: social cohesion requires that the appointment of Muslim judges and police officers is in accordance with British standards and values.

In 2005, the BBC broadcast Jerry Springer — The Opera. It conformed to the usual high standards of the BBC: Jesus in a nappy; Jesus a “little bit gay”; the fondling of Jesus’s genitals. Fifty-five thousand complaints were received, and ignored — the BBC governors declared the program “artistically exceptional.” There was legal action against the BBC, but they bravely defended themselves — using taxpayers’ money — by asserting their willingness to challenge sensitivities. No apology was given.

How brave. Yet their courage seems to fail with Islam, and there has yet to be such an “artistically exceptional” program on Mohammed (nor will there ever be).

This must be juxtaposed with a BBC program titled Question Time, a flagship political discussion program in which free speech is vital to open debate. Mr. Charles Moore, a former editor of the Sunday Telegraph and the Spectator magazine, openly criticized the Muslim Council of Britain for not condemning the killing and kidnapping of British troops overseas and suggested they thought it was a “good thing.” The BBC offered a £30,000 payment from taxpayers’ money, along with an apology. No attempt was made to defend free speech.

If this decision by the BBC had been challenged as inconsistent with their position to the Christian community, it would have been dismissed by the court (with costs to pay).

In 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the underwear bomber) appeared on the world scene. He is the fourth British Muslim student leader in three years to be implicated in terrorist activity. He was a devout Nigerian student, clearly radicalized during his time at London University — many of our universities have become hotbeds of Islamic radicalism, where Jewish students keep a low profile. Of course, London University commissioned a report and denied that Umar was radicalized while in their educational care, and they defended the right of free speech. Undaunted, Islamic hate preachers continue to appear regularly at London University.

U.S. readers can rest assured that the university authorities and student unions are taking decisive measures against dangerous and radical religious groups. I was recently contacted by the Exeter University Christian Union after they were expelled from the student union for having a discriminatory membership policy. The policy? Requiring members to be … Christians! I ought to say that at the time, my U.S. colleagues assured me that no Christian society at any U.S. university would ever suffer such a “silly” fate because of the First Amendment.

Poor Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang entered a religious discussion with a Muslim guest at their bed and breakfast hotel in Liverpool. Foolishly in a private conversation, they described Mohammed as a “warlord.” They were prosecuted by the police.

The evidence was so bad that the judge effectively threw the case out (and it is instructive to note that a Muslim guest gave evidence on behalf of the couple), but this was not before a year of awaiting trial and the devastation of their business. Their bed and breakfast had been used by the local hospital, which now refused to use such an Islamophobic hostel. The state used its economic powers to ensure that British citizens’ private religious views conform to state policy.

Simultaneously, the British police act in the vanguard of the Islamification of Britain by selectively terrorizing the British population to use only the “free speech rights” of which they approve. In 2007, Channel 4 produced a documentary titled Undercover Mosque which showed video of imams saying things like: “You have to bomb the Indian businesses and, as for the Jews, you kill them physically,” among a whole range of other religious speech advocating violent jihad. A clear case of a “hate crime,” no?

The Crown Prosecution Service said no charges should be brought, and the police announced they would consider prosecuting Channel 4 for showing the documentary.

You can imagine what the average British citizen thinks. The Islamists can say what they want; anyone who criticizes this or shows it will be prosecuted by the police. Of course, Channel 4 is big enough and wealthy enough to defend itself — they sued the police for libel. The police capitulated and paid £100,000 to Channel 4, and accepted “without reservation” that the documentary was accurate and dealt with the subject matter responsibly.

The question remains: why have the imams not been arrested? And why have the police officers themselves not been arrested for interfering with the administration of justice?

Many British employers permit the hijab, but not a cross, and so on and so forth. I could continue, but I am sure you get the picture. Islam is becoming the established religion. However, while the Islamists welcome it, the causative reason is a liberal elite who are “fellow travelers” with a primitive juristic system. The Labour Party and Democratic Party are sympathetic to religious practice that discriminates against women, homosexuals, and Jews — everything they purport to be against.

This could be coming to a state near you sooner than you think.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/sharia-law-already-devouring-uk/?singlepage=true
 
Are they saying that people should not be allowed to agree to behave a certian way?
 
Return of Dune said:
No he is saying he is a stupid, scared old man, and wants all of us to feel his fear.
Click to expand...

DUNE
ugly.jpg
 
Note that other religions also aren't happy with banning their laws.

Proposed state law draws religious criticism
Monday, December 12, 2011
By Ann Rodgers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A proposed Pennsylvania law to ban courts from considering any "foreign legal code or system" that doesn't grant the same basic rights as the federal and state constitutions was drafted by an anti-Islam activist but is drawing fire from some Jews.

They believe House Bill 2029 could compromise the divorce cases of Orthodox Jews and religious matters that end up in civil court. To examine this, Deborah Fidel, executive director of the Pittsburgh Area Jewish Committee, organized a forum for 7 p.m. today at Rodef Shalom Congregation, Shadyside.

Scholars of Jewish, Islamic and Catholic law will discuss how their religious codes interact with civil courts.

The bill doesn't use the word "sharia" or Islamic law, as some versions in other states did, but it's the same movement, she said.

"In a rush to villainize Muslims, the people backing these bills aren't thinking through the ramifications," she said.

But the bill's critics don't agree with its proponents or each other on what it aims to do.

Its principal sponsor, state Rep. RoseMarie Swanger, R-Lebanon, said it would have limited application, primarily to protect women and children in custody cases. It exempts corporate and business contracts.

"I have read about some other states where foreign law has been creeping into the courts, especially family courts," she said. "I'm thinking of the Near East, where women are not highly regarded and don't have the same rights as men. If those women come here, I want them to have the same rights that we have."

She said the law only would apply if the foreign law denied constitutional rights at stake in the case. It wouldn't stop courts from otherwise considering religious rulings, she said.

That's not clear to Howard Friedman, emeritus professor of law at the University of Toledo whose blog, The Religion Clause, tracks freedom of religion issues.

"When the statute talks about not using another code that denies the rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution, it's not clear whether that means that it somehow has to be related to this dispute," he said.

"If you read this literally, as long as there is anything that would be contrary to the constitution ... that [law] can't be considered. You've got a statute that probably has a lot of unintended consequences."

Opponents of the law say that American jurisprudence already forbids denying constitutional rights in favor of another code. One thing that all sides agree on is that religious law is sometimes at issue in civil courts.

Haider Ala Hamoudi, an assistant professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert on Islamic law, has worked on immigration cases where a judge must determine marital status based on religious law. He believes the bill prohibits any consideration of such law, and said women and children would be hurt by that.

He cited a woman married in India. Her husband obtained a sharia divorce under Muslim law and disappeared with another woman. The ex-wife then married a Marine and they moved to Pennsylvania, where she applied for citizenship through marriage.

"She had to show that she was not already married at the time she married the Marine. How could she do that without mentioning sharia?" he said.

Rabbi Scott Aaron, community scholar at the Agency for Jewish Learning in Squirrel Hill, said Orthodox Judaism doesn't recognize civil divorce, and women can't apply for a religious one. Their civil divorce settlements may require the husband to obtain a religious divorce. If he doesn't, the civil court sorts it out, he said.

Other cases, from state regulation of kosher food supervision to disputes over autopsies, often bring Jewish law into civil courts, he said.

There's disagreement over whether the bill could cause problems for Catholic canon law. In Alaska, where a similar law was proposed, the Catholic bishops said it could wreak havoc if a bishop closed a church and parishioners sued to keep it.

Theoretically that shouldn't happen, said the Rev. Lawrence DiNardo, vicar for canonical services in the Diocese of Pittsburgh and a former president of the Canon Law Society of America. Canon law differs from Jewish and Islamic law because it's an internal system, with no civil implications, he said.

In property litigation, the case would be based on a civil trust, not canon law, he said. No one can apply for a Catholic annulment without first obtaining a civil divorce.

Nevertheless, he thinks the bill is a threat.

"I believe that a law like this has the potential of restricting people's religious freedom and their exercise of faith," he said.

Rabbi Aaron agreed.

"When we start restraining access or even wisdom from [religious] legal systems, we are playing with fire constitutionally. We are really violating the basic tenets of what it means to be Americans. Jews, of all people, know that these things start with one community and it works its way out to others," he said.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents people of all faiths, hasn't litigated the issue but is concerned about similar bills proposed in two dozen states last year.

"We are concerned that if enacted, such a law might make it impossible, for example, for Orthodox Jewish courts to function. ... Since arbitration by religious tribunals of all faiths has gone on for decades in this country, it is unclear what problem these bills are trying to solve," said Eric Rassbach, deputy director at Becket.

The state bills are based on a model from the American Public Policy Alliance. Stephen Gele, an attorney and spokesman for the group, said it wouldn't prevent recognition of religious divorce unless that divorce violated fundamental American rights.

The model was drafted by anti-sharia activist David Yerushalmi, a New York attorney who presents use of sharia in the United States as a trojan horse intended to pave the way for a violent Islamic takeover. He's Jewish, but the Jewish Anti-Defamation League has castigated his work, citing a "record of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black bigotry."

Mr. Gele said the bill should be judged on its merits, not on opinions about its author.

It "isn't meant to prevent the practice of Islam as a religion," he said.

The disagreement over what the law will do shows that "the bill is a hodgepodge of poorly conceived words," said Gadeir Abbas, staff attorney with the Council on American Islamic Relations in Washington, D.C.

"The real purpose of this bill is to provide a forum for Islamophobic bigots to come to the state assembly hearing and say nasty things about Muslims."

In Alaska, prominent anti-Islam activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer testified at the hearing. Ms. Geller criticized stores that allowed Muslim cashiers to change jobs so they wouldn't have to handle pork and cases in which Muslim workers filed successful complaints seeking prayer breaks.

"These actions are merely devices in which to impose Islam on nonbelievers," she said.

Mr. Gele cites about 50 cases in which courts upheld sharia in family disputes to the detriment of women, though most were reversed on appeal. Among those overturned was a New Jersey case in which a husband beat and raped his pregnant wife, but the trial judge denied her a restraining order on the grounds that it would violate his religious rights under Moroccan sharia.

A Maryland custody case upheld by the appellate court concerned a Pakistani wife and mother who fled to America with their 7-year-old daughter. When her husband found them several years later she refused to appear in Pakistani family court, citing fear of execution.

The Maryland appellate court voted 6-2 to uphold a Pakistani verdict giving custody to the father.

"That little girl was sent back to Pakistan. The courts did not do the right thing," Mr. Gele said.

But Mr. Hamoudi said the custody case didn't place sharia law above U.S. law. It held that the Pakistani court used the same "best interest of the child" standard that American courts do.

"They found nothing against Maryland policy in the [Pakistani] decision, which granted custody to the father against a mother who effectively kidnapped the child," he said.

The proposed law isn't needed because "American courts do not enforce judgements based on foreign law, whether that's sharia-driven or otherwise, if those judgments do not comport with American standards of fairness," Mr. Hamoudi said.

The other cases were overturned because "judges do make mistakes, which is why we have appeals," he said.

But Mr. Gele said mistakes show a need for a law, because many victims can't afford to appeal.

The medieval scholars who codified sharia minimized the possibility of draconian penalties, Mr. Hamoudi said. To convict someone of adultery required four eye-witnesses to the precise act of penetration.

"The general view by modern Muslims has been that it is very difficult to enforce any of this Islamic criminal punishment and that the classical authorities really didn't intend them to be carried out because they created such stringent evidentiary rules," Mr. Hamoudi said.

Some modern Islamic movements in Iran and elsewhere have enacted the penalties in an ideological reaction against western influence, he said. Cutting off hands of embezzlers is "more a matter of identity politics than of application of the law," he said.

He believes identity politics also drives these bills.

"There is an intolerance of members of the community who happen to adhere to the Islamic faith," he said.
Ann Rodgers: arodgers@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1416.

First published on December 12, 2011 at 12:00 am

Read more: http://post-gazette.com/pg/11346/1196328-454-0.stm#ixzz1gMoRWLdh
 
Anything and everything that weakens American culture and heritage is on the agenda for the left. Sad to watch a group of people deliberately try take America down the road to ruin. It reveals their hatred.
 
Alias said:
Anything and everything that weakens American culture and heritage is on the agenda for the left. Sad to watch a group of people deliberately try take America down the road to ruin. It reveals their hatred.
Click to expand...

You are an idiot. All of our culture is from foreign countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top