High Court judge calls for more Christians in Parliament
Quite why they were not immediately arrested for contempt of court is unknown.
Praising their God in a court of law?
Just about acceptable.
Passing opinion on the limited soteriological options of the British?
Well, it might be ‘racist’, but we’ll call it ‘freedom of expression’.
But ‘Curse the judge’?
How did that pass without immediate intervention by the Judge?
Miss Choudhry appeared by video-link because she 'refused to accept the jurisdiction of the court'.
Why was this permitted? Are all ‘citizens’ of the UK granted this option? Are we not all subjects of Her Majesty, and therefore all subject to the Crown in Court, on whose behalf the Judge presides and dispenses the Queen’s Justice for the maintenance of the Queen's Peace?
As Miss Choudhry was sent down ‘for life’, with a minimum term of 15 years, the Prophet’s loyal rent-a-crowd faithfully protested outside the Old Bailey with their usual offensive placards, hurling their usual inflammatory insults, which included 'Death to Timms’, presumably with the hope or expectation that he might join Margaret Thatcher in hell.
Why were they not immediately arrested for incitement to murder or, at the very least, the public order offence of causing alarm and distress?
If the police do not treat everyone equally under the law, irrespective of race or religion, they give the impression that ‘devout’ Muslims may indeed incite their co-religionists to murder Members of Parliament, and that they may do so with impunity.
But in passing sentence, Mr Justice Cooke observed something very interesting about Stephen Timms. He said:
“I understand that he brings to bear his own faith, which upholds very different values to those which appear to have driven this defendant.This is really quite a significant theological intervention by a High Court judge into the religious constitution of Parliament.
“Those values are those upon which the common law of this country was founded and include respect and love for one's neighbour, for the foreigner in the land, and for those who consider themselves enemies, all as part of one's love of God.
“These values were the basis of our system of law and justice and I trust that they will remain so as well as motivating those, like Mr Timms, who hold public office.”
Mr Justice Cooke referred throughout his judgment to Miss Choudhry’s ‘Islamic duties’ and the ‘Islamic teaching’ which encouraged her to pursue Jihad in order to become a martyr because ‘to fight and die for your religion is the highest honour’.
Whether or not he has interpreted the essence of Islam correctly, he has no doubt that Miss Choudhry’s interpretation of it espouses values which are antithetical to those of Christianity and liberal democracy.
And he is clear in his view that Christian values, which underpin the British foundations of law and justice, can only be sustained as long as there are Christians like Mr Timms in Parliament.
And that is the sort of Christian whose faith informs his politics; who does not hide his light under a seat in the Cabinet and is unafraid to associate with groups like ‘Christians in Parliament’, which prioritises prayer and Bible study.
But there is something in the comments of Mr Justice Cooke which chimes with largely unreported comments made by Baroness Warsi on the eve of the General Election. Speaking at a dinner in Rotherham in response to a previous speaker who had called on more Muslims to enter politics, she said:
"[He] says that we need more Muslims MPs, that we need more Muslims in the House of Lords. I would actually disagree with that because I think one of the lessons we have learnt in the last five years in politics is that not all Muslims that go to into politics have asool."‘Asool’ is Urdu for ‘moral principles’.
Clearly, the Baroness was not saying that all Muslims who go into politics lack moral principles any more than Mr Justice Cooke was saying that all the values of Islam are antithetical to those of Christianity. And yet it is clear that what both are saying is undoubtedly true: there are values in the strident Sunni-Wahhabi expression of Islam which are antithetical to the common law of this country, and not every Muslim in politics is there for the right reasons or with the right motives.
Of course, the same can be said of professing Christians Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists (pace, of course, Dr Evan Harris, whose motives are always as pure as the driven snow). But ‘devout’ adherents of these faiths are not generally inciting murder, insulting our armed forces, subverting justice or attempting to assassinate Members of Parliament.
All of which amounts to treason.
Baroness Warsi specifically opposes more Muslims in Parliament.
Mr Justice Cooke specifically wants more Christians in Parliament.
And the reason?
Both the Baroness and the Judge are concerned with values, moral principles, the common law, the love of God and love for one's neighbour.
These are indeed the bedrock of a constitution of which the Christian Monarch is the Chief Cornerstone just as Christ is to His Church.
Remove that, and the whole edifice will come crumbling down.