Saturday, July 05, 2008

Lord Chief Justice: British Muslims should be able to live under Shari’a Law

As a result of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which removed the judicial functions from the office of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice is now the head of the judiciary of England and Wales. The title goes back to 1268, and the current holder of this post, the Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, will become the first President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom when it comes into existence in October 2009. It is worrying, therefore, that he advocates Shari’a Law as a viable way of administering justice in the UK (though he cannot, of course, speak for Scotland or Northern Ireland).

Matthew Parris has an excellent article in The Times, on the philosophical point of ‘equality’, and how Shari’a jurisprudence is incompatible with English law which advocates equality for all under the law. He also identifies those crucial contentious areas of debate which the Lord Chief Justice avoided, and noted his support for the Archbishop of Canterbury’s view that we may develop jurisdictions within a jurisdiction:

A point that the Archbishop was making was that it was possible for individuals voluntarily to conduct their lives in accordance with Sharia principles without this being in conflict with the rights guaranteed by our law. To quote him again ‘the refusal of a religious believer to act upon the legal recognition of a right is not, given the plural character of society, a denial to anyone inside or outside the community of access to that right'.

Mr Parris is right to point out that it is by no means certain that a group of individuals may voluntarily conduct themselves according to Shari’a without breaking English law: ‘It depends what Shari’a says. We are not free under English law to agree (however willingly) to break English law. We may not agree to discriminate on racial or (usually) on religious grounds against third parties or even each other. A woman may not agree to accept diminished employment rights. We may not agree to punish each other (as elsewhere Phillips acknowledges) unlawfully. Without a clear account of what Shari’a demands, Lord Phillips cannot know.’

And he summarises the Archbishop’s contribution that ‘in a multicultural society it is fine for people within a culture to agree not to exercise certain rights, even if English law would allow them to’. This becomes:

...a charter for male dominance. It's a charter for cultural bullying; for peer-group pressurising; for self-oppression. It's a charter against women and teenagers who cannot make wholly free choices because they have nowhere else to go; a charter against individuals whose circumstances have made it difficult to think outside the cultural box; a charter for discreet duress. I am sorry to hear the Lord Chief Justice endorsing it.

Cranmer is not only sorry; he is aghast at the level of ignorance displayed by Lord Phillips. The proposal is not the same as Roman Catholic or Beth Din courts: Shari’a is not some conveniently codified system of law which, as in the English tradition of case law and convention, has straightforward meaning and is applied uniformly; it has itself developed over a millennium with labyrinthine interpretations, is applied variously and variably throughout the Islamic world, and is antithetical to Christian notions of justice and mercy. It is inadequate for the Lord Chief Justice to advocate Shari’a in England without identifying which Shari’a he means, and who will adjudicate on which aspects of Shari’a are to be admitted and which are not; and also by what right should this distinction be made by a non-Muslim.

And when he begins to answer such questions, it will dawn on him that there will emerge a Muslim High Justice to set down the law on arranged marriage, the subjection and seclusion of women, unequal divorce and property arrangements within marriage, freedom to convert, preaching hatred against apostasy, or the ostracising of homosexuals.

Cranmer has considered for a while that the destruction of the United Kingdom is a collusion between the politicians, the clerics and the judiciary. Yet none of them understand the theology of this agenda, for it will eventually subjugate the laws of England and Wales to a totalitarian religio-political system. Shari’a is a code of law which cannot be subject to secular law, for the secular is to be brought into the Dar al-Islam through jihad. Shari’a transcends the laws of the secular state and Western notions of ‘liberty’ or ‘rights’, and it is a tragedy for the nation that the most senior judges and clerics cannot see this.

O Lord, open their eyes.

16 Comments:

Blogger Scott said...

The towers of our civilisation have all been captured by radicals. This will take a long time to sort out. If even an English Lord Chief Justice is in favour of Sharia there is almost no goodness left in our establishment.

Where has the common sense and Christianity of the past 1500 years fled to?

5 July 2008 at 11:06  
Blogger Dave said...

When we have the Police openly admitting that they will only police with the people's consent, and we now having the Judiciary allowing for two separate law systems that are mutually incompatible- how long before communities like Leicester, Bradford or Blackburn to declare a form of UDI, where Sharia law will take precedence over English Law?
The Police will be warned off, and they have already declared that they will only police with the public's consent, they will not intervene.
What then?

5 July 2008 at 12:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think we can be fairly certain that this "reluctance of the police to police" which is everywhere to be seen, could be reversed almost at a stroke with the introduction of directly eleceted chief constables.

5 July 2008 at 13:28  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Trahison des Clercs

What is remarkable about English Judges is their ignorance and utter contempt for knowledge or learning.

They approach each subject with arrogant disdain for anyone who has an opinion based oin knowledge as opposed to legal prejudice.

It is the manner of Lord Phillips as he parades himself like a musical hall dame replete with catchphrases and an absolute lack of self-awareness, that he is mocked and ridiculed by the public at large.

Lord Phillips show why it was The King had a Lord Chancellor and why Straw and Blair in shrinking this great office of state have stripped the judiciary bare and let the public see just what trivial little men parade themselves as judicial authority.

The authority of judges derives from The Crown and yet Lord Phillips shows that a fool and jester can occupy a post that has hitherto been behind the screen. Now we see how empty and intellectually limited the apex of the judiciary really is...it is no better than the nether reaches of Crown and County Court.

One more institution devalued

5 July 2008 at 14:26  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Multi-culti is a cult of ignorance. It doesn't require you to know anything, except being "open" and "tolerant".

There was another famous man who was "open" and "tolerant." His name was JIM JONES. He participated in new-age rituals and spiritualism in the early 1950's and then began to think he was the reincarnation of Buddha, Lenin, and Jesus. By the end of his life he thought he was in contact with "discarnate extra-terrestrial entities" i.e. demons.

When you give yourself over to a vague idea of "tolerance" and "openness" the demons get in and begin to act. The complete irrationality displayed in the arrest of the makers of "Undercover Mosque" is a dark sign of the times.

The 20th century saw many instances of mass-murder, the 21st century is seeing mass-suicide.

5 July 2008 at 14:49  
Anonymous voice of the misterons said...

I have come to the conclusion that we are having this crap violently forced down our throats for a reason. If I was a Muslim, I would be very concerned, its basically not looking very rosy up ahead.
It seems obvious to me that hatred is being nurtured under the guise of misguided, or over zealous tolerance: and it's bloody working as well! Because I for one would have no qualms what so ever operating certain levers and pipes.

5 July 2008 at 15:06  
Anonymous Katy said...

Dave; there are already two forms of policing in Bradford. The police dare not cause upset/riot by, heaven forbid, arresting someone for committing a crime. They've openly admitted it in two cases I know of, which only serves to display their ignorance because the riots were nothing to do with religious or cultural tensions. They were part of a protection racket. Those businesses which paid their protection money, whether muslim-owned or not, were left untouched night after night. Those businesses which did not, muslim-owned or not, were repeatedly vandalised.

5 July 2008 at 15:13  
Anonymous spectrum is green said...

THIS IS THE VOICE OF THE MYSTERONS. WE KNOW THAT YOU CAN HEAR US EARTHMEN. OUR RETALIATION WILL BE SLOW, BUT NONETHELESS EFFECTIVE. IT WILL MEAN THE ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION OF LIFE ON EARTH. IT WILL BE USELESS FOR YOU TO RESIST, FOR WE HAVE DISCOVERED THE SECRET OF REVERSING MATTER, AS YOU HAVE JUST WITNESSED. ONE OF YOU WILL BE UNDER OUR CONTROL. YOU BE INSTRUMENTAL IN AVENGING THE MYSTERONS. OUR FIRST ACT OF RETALIATION WILL BE TO ASSASSINATE YOUR WORLD PRESIDENT.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae7vJpZiOf8&feature=related

5 July 2008 at 15:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is another example in the calamitous decline in the intellect of the senior judiciary over the last 25 years.From a generation of the likes of Lords Reid,Morris,Wilberforce and Scarman,we are left with self important pygmies such as Bingham,Phillips and the politically correct Hale.Only Hofmann is at all up to it .

5 July 2008 at 17:54  
Blogger Johnny Norfolk said...

This should go ahead as soon as Christians are able to follow their beliefs in Muslim countries.

5 July 2008 at 18:46  
Anonymous Voyager said...

From a generation of the likes of Lords Reid,Morris,Wilberforce and Scarman,we are left with self important pygmies such as Bingham,Phillips and the politically correct Hale

I still recmember Lord Denning...nevertheless Bingham, Phillips, Woolf were all on the commercial side of the legal system not the criminal.

There is now a plethora of Commercial Lawyers in the uppre reaches. Hale is one who had an affair with another married lawyer while serving on the Law Commission

5 July 2008 at 21:23  
Anonymous some english bloke said...

Let the Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers be the one to cast the first stone at an apostate, homosexual, 'adulterer' or beardless man.

Katy, Would you care to expand upon your suggestion that the Bradford riots were the result of a protection racket ?

5 July 2008 at 22:52  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

the lord chief justice , has an anomoly " he said of course we wont have stoning" well i think you will find there will be middle class muslims who think it should be as allah was inspired.

dont forget that when trevor philips was pressured at a meeting last year to pursue the sharia agenda, these were not the radical one handed clerics that we are used to seeing, these were doctors, lawyers accountants , the most eductaed !!

the problem is immigration was never meant to cause catostrophic multicultural breakdown , it was thought of as a "bon anmee" , but it has been twisted now , there is numbers problem and to top it all off they want mosques and sharia and to be even more different .
the more they hate our history the more we will resent there future.

i am sorry that so many muslims do not see , that withing our history are many incidences of sudden change to correct a inbalance.
Quite who has created this imabalnce the historians will have to argue , but as i predicted there is growing hard support to reduce immigration both illegal and legal .


if it then equates that we are over populated , it could come to a head .


should your grace read : hope you have seen john sentemus statement on rowan williams , faction bishops secret meeting at vatican.

the warnings are comming that we cannot carry on with the liberal agenda

6 July 2008 at 01:10  
Blogger BrianSJ said...

Melanie Phillips (no relation presumably) has a piece in the Speccie
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/816511/what-part-of-theocracy-does-this-man-not-understand.thtml
'what part of theocracy does this man not understand?'

6 July 2008 at 13:52  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

The Law Society Gazette carried a piece from a Muslim lawyer soon after Rowan Willaims set this particualr hare running in which he fairly and reasonably attempted to offer a way forward. He proposed that any Sahria Court would need to be subject to the law of England and Wales and that it would be overseen by a body similar in function to Ofsted.

That seemed all very reasonable until I pointed out that Sharia Courts do not have women Judges and accordingly would fall foul of the current attitudes to religion in the same way that the Catholic Adoption Agencies could not be given special dispensation to operate according to their special circumstances.

New Labour are in a complete mess when it comes to reconciling the agendas of groups they wish to placate.

6 July 2008 at 18:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IF BRITISH LAW IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEAL WITH ANY RACE OR RELIGION THEN PERHAPS IT SHOULD BE SCRAPPED!.
TO ALLOW SHARIA LAW IMPLIES THAT BRITISH LAW IS LACKING AND OPENS A PRECEDENT.

9 July 2008 at 22:09  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older