« New Short Story ... | Main | Coping with a collapsing civilization ..... »
February 09, 2008
Opening one's mouth to change feet ....
Seems to be speciality of Archbishop Rowan Cantaur. Out of loyalty to our Archbishop I have to say that I think I understand what he was trying to say - that the conflict for Muslims between our secular legal system, based as it is (Despite numerous denials by our atheist leaders, judges and civil servants) on Judeo-Christian moral principles, does cause some conflicts for Muslims. The problem is that you cannot allow two legal systems to operate in the same country. One or the other must be given precedence and override the other. But, if you actually read what Archbishop Rowan was saying, he wasn't proposing the adoption of Sharia Law in the UK. Though I have to admit that the journalists who made these assumptions probably couldn't understand half his paper anyway.
Some of you may recall that one of our Blair Babe ministers of state made similar remarks not that long ago, so the Archbishop is not alone in this thinking. He is, in fact, in line with a number of Labour Ministers who see no problem with the idea that we can operate three different sets of laws in this country without a problem. That is what lies at the heart of unease in many minds about the EU Constituion - it is founded on a legal system which is completely in conflict with the way in which the English Law system works, So is the Sharia. Blair's Babes don't want to understand either argument - and most of Labour's foot soldiers wouldn't either. Don't confuse them or the press with facts - their minds are made up. And the same can be said of the General Synod members whose knickers seem to be too tight suddenly. They should shut up and try reading what he really said, and not what it is reported he said out of context and out of malice.
There is also some confusion about the Sharia Law, many, including some Muslims, believe that it is "in the Koran". It isn't. In fact it is the work of 17th and 18th Century law scholars of the Ottoman Turkish Empire who developed this system based upon the Islamic understanding of justice. I am not at all sure that many in this country would wish to subscribe to the rules of evidence it contains, or the fact that the accused is represented by a legal adviser appointed by the court whose job is to plead mitigation - the court having, in most cases, already heard the evidence it thinks relevant. Nor, I suspect, would many Western women willingly accept that three women's evidence is necessary to overturn the witness of one man. Of course there are variations in the way this operates and is applied throughout the Islamic world, but that is the strictest interpretation of it. But the Archbishop is not suggesting that we adopt the criminal part of that code, only some of the "civil" part, which does, in some instances, merit closer examination and, as he rightly points out, much of that is already a part of our legal code anyway. So why the hysterical response from the Press? They, after all, have helped to create this mess.
The Archbishop's statement that its adoption is "inevitable" only reflects the trend in this present government of traitors, who will go to any length to appease their Muslim electorate, including, as they already do, turning a blind eye to Sharia "Courts" already operating in the Midlands and the North East. It may be annoying to many to have the Archbishop express this view - and the hysterical response in the media is informative if for nothing else than the fact that it demonstrates just how frightened our politicians and the "intelligentsia" who have promoted this with their "multi-culturalism" - are about its exposure. As Shakespeare put it, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much!"
That said, the Archbishop has stirred up a controversy, one with the potential to do a lot of damage, not to those responsible for the mess he has exposed, but to the Church of England itself. Not least I suspect will be the renewal of efforts to caste the church off by the political establishment so they can divert even more money to their own comforts and wastage without having the Church to prick their consciences. But then, that is also what the Church needs to be doing, stirring up consciences. If it is to be relevant in this modern day and age it must not shy away from challenging secular thinking and secular immorality in government. Far more than just our Christian principles are at stake here.
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, once described himself as a "Bipediorthodontologist". I think the Archbishop may well be in the same league.
Political and religious leaders have reacted with anger at the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments on the role of Islamic law in the UK.
Dr Rowan Williams said it was unavoidable that aspects of the Sharia system would become the norm in this country.
He said there was a place for finding a "constructive accommodation" in areas such as marriage - allowing Muslim women to avoid western divorce proceedings.
But Downing Street rejected the sugestion saying only British laws should apply here.
A spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown said: "Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes."
He added: "If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the Government would look at.
"In general terms, if there are specific instances that can be looked at on a case-by-case basis, that is something we can look at.
"But the Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values," he said.
Alistair McBay, spokesman for the National Secular Society said: "In a plural society, all citizens are equal under the law and the Archbishop's comments directly undermine this."
Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice said: "This is a Christian country with Christian laws. If Muslims want to live under sharia law then they are free to emigrate to a country where sharia law is already in operation.
"Any accommodation with sharia law does nothing to help social cohesion. Christian law has been eroded by secularism and this country was founded on Christian values."
Dr Williams said other religions enjoyed such tolerance of their own laws, but stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen.
He said it would also require a change in perception of what sharia involved beyond the "inhumanity" of extreme punishments and attitudes to women seen in some Islamic states.
Dr Williams said Orthodox Jewish courts already operated in the UK, and anti-abortion views of Catholics and other Christians were "accommodated within the law".
"Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some western countries with much success; I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the Government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their faith."
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: "Provided an activity prescribed by sharia law does not contravene the law of England and Wales, there is nothing in English law that prevents people abiding by sharia law if they wish to do so."
But the spokesman added sharia law "has no jurisdiction in England and Wales. There is no intention to change this."
Posted by The Gray Monk at February 9, 2008 09:42 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt3.mu.nu/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5323