Tuesday, October 24, 2006

UK courts adjourn – ‘because of Eid’

What is the justice system of the United Kingdom coming to? Hearings in the Glasgow High Court and the Hamilton Sheriff Court were adjourned yesterday - because of Eid.

Both trials were dependent on Muslims attending, and they refused because they were celebrating the end of Ramadan. While the Sheriff’s case was a relatively minor issue of assault, the High Court case involved terror charges. The accused, Mohammed Atif Siddique of Clackmannanshire, was excused in order that he may eat (halal), drink (probably not alcohol), and be merry (as much as pending terror charges permit him).

While one of Scotland’s leading advocates said it was unacceptable that justice should grind to a halt over religious objections, Osama Saeed, Scottish spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, said: ‘This is like asking a Catholic to come in on Christmas Day.’

Does Mr Saeed not know? Has he not heard? In Islamic countries, Christians have to attend their courts not only on Christmas Day, but also Whitsun, Easter, throughout Lent, and indeed whenever their courts instruct them to do so. Shari’a justice does not grind to a halt out of respect for any religious observance, save that of Islam, and any suggestion that it should would probably be met with a death sentence.

Cranmer is irritated by the assault case, not only because the victim has to wait a further month for justice, but also because the adjournment conveys the message that the religious sensitivities of the accused are more important than justice for the victim. Yet he is incandescent at the adjournment of the terror case, which means that the cleverest Muslim terrorists may plan their atrocities during Ramadan, and execute them during Eid, with impunity. Indeed, religious observance becomes the ultimate smokescreen for acts of terrorism; the police will not make arrests for fear of accusations of ‘racism’, and neither will judges hear cases if any of the participants want to party.

But why stop here? What about courts not sitting on Diwali, Holi, Navaratri, Raksha Bandhan, or Janmashtami? And what about Guru Nanak’s birthday (or the other nine)? Or Wesak? And let’s not forget Pesach, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah. Has anyone ever heard of UK courts not sitting out of respect for the holy days of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

The 2002 census established a very sizeable community aspiring to the Jedi Knight fraternity. How long will it be before British courts are adjourned to permit celebration of the birth of Yoda?

24 Comments:

Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

Your Grace.
Your answer to all these problems is what?
Tolerance?
High time all these camel jockeys and swamp dwelling parasites were rounded up and shipped back to whatever craphole they emerged from. If they refuse to go home we should exterminate them like the vermin that they are.

24 October 2006 at 20:21  
Blogger Voyager said...

I think it is more important that those registering as Jedi on the Census are permitted to dress like Darth Vader whenever they meet a group of women in black death-shrouds

24 October 2006 at 20:26  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Peter,
Are you OK? You seem a tad over- wroughtSurely, you are not really calling for the extermination of ethnic minorities?

24 October 2006 at 21:53  
Blogger istanbultory said...

If we allow the Church of Scientology to function openly and without hindrance, then why not the Jedi?

24 October 2006 at 22:11  
Anonymous Colin said...

Istanbultory,

Don't worry about Peter. He is often enjoying the use of heavy doses of sarcasm. And I am starting to understand why.

24 October 2006 at 22:19  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

you are not really calling for the extermination of ethnic minorities?
More of a gentle prod with a bayonet as they are put on a boat home.
I don't mind darkies in small doses, especially if they stay in their own countries.
I even enjoy discovering new delicacies in their shops, I just think that they should be made to know their place and only allowed here in limited numbers.

24 October 2006 at 22:51  
Anonymous Myles Coverdale said...

Regular readers of this august blog will note that it is not the first time that the Sheriff's office has been found to be bias in favour of Islam, being the instance of the case of Boruc, the Celtic goal-keeper, who was cautioned for making the sign of the cross, earlier this year.

Since the actions of this Sheriff have already been condemned by a "leading advocate" let us hope it is a flash in the pan and not a dangerous trend.


I am not convinced that an Islamic terrorist would stop his plans for mayhem during such festivals. Since it is already clear that opposing Muslim factions are prepared to desecrate their own places of worship at any time it is a amusing to me that any follower of Islam dares to plead this kind of egregious piffle.

And so, these people are having their moment, where they can bask in the indulgence of the liberal elite.

And I thought I was going to sit down and enjoy eternity.

Your Grace; Elizabeth sends her love.

Coverdale

25 October 2006 at 00:40  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I find the headline inaccurate - these are Scottish Courts in the part of Great Britain with very few Muslims.............must publicise it more so they all move up to Pashtunland

25 October 2006 at 06:41  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Good Morning Mr Voyager.

When His Grace last checked, Scotland was part of the United Kingdom.

These Scottish courts adjourned because of Eid. The story is sourced.

The headline is not, therefore, inaccurate.

Mr Peter Hitchens,

You are developing an irritating tendency to articulate comment which may be construed as racist. Since other visitors to this blog have informed His Grace that they find some of your contributions offensive, His Grace seeks to remind you of the necessity for all contributions to be intelligent and erudite.

Thank you.

25 October 2006 at 07:17  
Anonymous Voyager said...

When His Grace last checked, Scotland was part of the United Kingdom.

His Grace is correct though it did occur after his own time, the point was to highlight that next year we could celebrate by revoking the 1707 Act of Union which guaranteed Scotland its own legal peculiarities such as taking a partial break for Eid and no doubt Ramadan.............the lassitude of the Legal system leads one to think that some of the practictioners are in a similar state to your Grace following his trip to St Giles

25 October 2006 at 08:10  
Anonymous vikki said...

Would that John Knox were here.....

25 October 2006 at 09:27  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

We've got our modern-day John Knoxes in this quarter of the UK, and they don't go down very well. The problem is that anyone who says anything remotely 'Christian' is accused of being narrow-minded or bigoted.

Breaks for Eid are a logical extension of the belief that all religions are equal, and the UK is multicultural. Citizens therefore have the right to demand that their holidays rank equally with the Christian ones. If a Muslim doesn't turn up to give evidence, what are you supposed to do? Arrest him? That'll make him a martyr. Can you imagine the headlines? - "Muslim arrested for celebrating Eid", "Racist police bust Eid". The Macpherson report put a stop to the likelihood of such headlines ever emerging. It is cultural Marxism.

25 October 2006 at 09:54  
Anonymous Colin said...

His Grace,

"your contributions offensive, His Grace seeks to remind you of the necessity for all contributions to be intelligent and erudite"

I don't know how I got the obviously incorrect impression that this appears to apply also to His Grace's undoubtedly highly intelligent remarks about other nations, cultures and religions.

In regard to Peter Hitchens contributions, I am surprised that His Grace is unable to see the sarcastic nature of his remarks. According to Wikipedia, Sarcasm is sneering, jesting, or mocking a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound -- stating the opposite of the intended meaning.."

Happily, the internet provides us with a Tutorial: How to be Sarcastic which explains, "sarcasm is usually innate; however, if you would still like to attempt developing this ability, your chances of success would be greatly increased if you are intelligent, or at the least not mentally incapable of detecting and reproducing sarcastic remarks. Because if you cannot make your very own sarcastic comments, you can still pass as having some grasp of this art by being able to recognize sarcasm when it is produced by someone else."

The internet is full of treasures, isn't?

25 October 2006 at 11:10  
Anonymous vikki said...

Queen Mary was reputed to fear the prayers of John Knox than any army. Dare I say prayer is still a valid.....weapon?

25 October 2006 at 11:41  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Colin,

His Grace is puzzled by your decision to quote only half a sentence. The omitted words explain the concern.

I just think that they should be made to know their place and only allowed here in limited numbers.

While the latter point may be expounded into erudite arguments to limit immigration, the former is lacking any potential clarification known to His Grace.

If Mr Peter Hitchens would intelligently explain what he means by 'their place'? And in what sense and how are they supposed to 'be made' to know it?

Sarcasm may be in the mind of the originator, but it is a highly subjective contentious pursuit, and if the intended recipient is not receptive, for whatever reason, it exposes itself to misinterpretation.

25 October 2006 at 11:47  
Anonymous Voyager said...

We've got our modern-day John Knoxes in this quarter of the UK, and they don't go down very well

Oh, I don't know. I think the good Dr has many admirers, as one of the most consistent and forthright politicians of the past 40 years..........he does have that self-righteous streak we tend to associate with the more westerly parts of the United Kingdom, but as a latterday Carson he is well-suited to the role

25 October 2006 at 11:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Visitor from Brussels Journal here. Keep up the good work Cranmer - you're a man of prophetic insight. Ignore the flack. Tell the truth. It is worth dying for.

25 October 2006 at 19:38  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Sir,
The Venerable Cranmer has intimate experience of martyrdom.

25 October 2006 at 21:37  
Anonymous Oiznop said...

Who's the majority in Scotland???....What are the laws in Scotland based on???...Sharia???...or Scottish law (Scottish law?...Oh, yeah, Arlen Specter's favorite, especially when it comes to impeachments!...;-D..)........Is Eid a federal holiday in Scotland/UK?...(Oh God, don't ask that...It's coming!!!....)....In this country, if you are a Jew and you are the accused, and your trial date is scheduled for Yom Kippur, you are to be in the courtroom on that date unless a law is passed saying otherwise..If you are Catholic, and are accussed, and your trial date is All Saint's Day, you show up for your trial, unless a law is passed saying otherwise...Christmas is a bad example, Mr. Saeed, because in the USA, it's a Federal holiday, and has been since the mid 1800's...I believe mandated by President Grant...I am not sure if that is the case in other countries...The point is, if you are accused of a crime and your day in court is set, you don't have the right to dictate something like this unless the law OF THE LAND says otherwise.....Stop this nonsense and get a clue, Mr. Saeed, it's not your country!.....

25 October 2006 at 23:52  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Sorry the decisions of The Courts in Scotland do not rest on "a Law" - this is a management decision not a legal one.

The Courts Service of England & wales breaches the law in its daily functions - its slothful incompetence breaches the Human Rights Act by taking 18 months to bring cases to trial because they lose paperwork

It is Management not Law that makes such crass decisions

26 October 2006 at 08:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think we should appreciate Mr Saeed desperate wish to show tolerance towards his Christian hosts..
He only claims that Muslims should be spared from justice on their holy days.
His true conviction is probably that Christians should be under no circumstances allowed to judge over Muslims in any way. So only asking for a Ramadan exception (about a month) is a true sign of islam's tolerance. We infidels should indeed be happy that he gives our courts the implicit permission to judge his fellow Muslims on 11 out of 12 months.
If I weren't such a stubborn politically correct dhimmi assuming any legal system to be equal (like sharia compared to Europe's legal systems) - I would suggest to simply kick out Mr Saeed and send him to some Sharia governed country. Better for him, better for Europe.
Yours sincerely,
a sincere Dhimmi defending the true values of the EU (Emirates United)

26 October 2006 at 13:32  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Still now that Traflagar Square can be used by the Mayor of London to celebrate Eid...............fortunate that those Christian Nativity Cribs are no longer in public places to cause Muslim foaming at the mouth............

28 October 2006 at 07:18  
Blogger kris said...

The point I have put to Mr Saeed, to which I have yet to receive a sensible response, is that if court dates are not moved for the convenience of counsel- why are they moved for the convenience of the accused?

28 October 2006 at 11:51  
Anonymous ? said...

Anonymous sed -
"So only asking for a Ramadan exception (about a month) is a true sign of islam's tolerance. We infidels should indeed be happy that he gives our courts the implicit permission to judge his fellow Muslims on 11 out of 12 months."

correct me if im wrong, but he was only askin to be excused for 1 day, not the whole month, so its actually permission to judge muslims on 363 days out of 365, (if we count both Eids)

29 October 2006 at 21:50  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older