I am aware of the fact that some British people speak of Europe as “somewhere else,” to which they do not belong. In my opinion, Britain is very much a part of European civilization whether they want to admit so or not, but I am willing to grant them a special place within the European tradition. There is a reason why English became the first global lingua franca. While I focus mainly on the history of science in my essays these days, let us have a brief look at some of the political ideas and concepts championed by the British in the modern era.- - - - - - - - -
England was by the seventeenth century emerging as a great power whose influence increasingly stretched far beyond Europe. It was also one of the most intellectually creative regions in the world. After Isaac Newton had published his Principia in 1687, probably the single most influential text in the history of science, the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), a friend of Newton, in 1690 published his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, proclaiming the doctrine eventually known as the tabula rasa, where humans come into the world as blank slates. This was perfect for a world in which reason ruled and everything was possible. Human nature itself could be improved by applying reason, and history could take the direction of eternal progress. Locke published his Second Treatise of Government, stating that government is the servant of men, not the other way around, and that men possess natural rights, expanding on Thomas Hobbes’ concept of the social contract.
In the early 1700s, England’s combination of economic prosperity, social stability and civil liberties had no equivalent anywhere in Continental Europe, at least not among the larger states; smaller states such as Switzerland is a different matter. The French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778) lived in England for several years in the 1720s and knew the English language well. He preferred British constitutional monarchy to French absolute monarchy. Voltaire praised England’s virtues in Letters on the English from 1734 when he returned to Paris. This caused great excitement among French intellectuals for the ideas of Newton and Locke and the plays of Shakespeare, but their own philosophies went in a different direction.
The sad part when writing this is that while Britain was once admired for its political system and was rightfully hailed as a beacon of liberty, today Britain is one of the most politically repressive countries in the Western world, which is saying a lot given how bad Politically Correct censorship is in the entire Western world these days. Britain today is a Multicultural police state where sharia, Islamic law, is quite literally treated as the law of the land. I suppose there is a strange sort of symmetry in this: Britain was one of the first countries in the West to embrace political liberty and is now among the first to leave political liberty behind.
Read the rest at Democracy Reform.
56 comments:
Thank you for posting. It is of course unfair to single out Britain alone for criticism; the democratic system has broken down throughout the Western world, and in much of Europe in particular because of the EU. It's just more visible in Britain, which once in a distant past used to be a beacon of liberty. While all Western countries are sick, some are sicker than others. The UK is definitely among the worst.
I remember the West Midlands police investigation into the makers of controversial C4 documentary "Undercover Mosque". The documentary uncritically filmed the things that are said in these Mosques, some of which had Zanu-Labour approval as "mainstream moderates". The police alleged that the makers of the documentary had edited the footage in a "racist" manner. That's how insane PC is.
That's what Britain is like. You encounter this oppressive PC everywhere now, people are quick to correct themselves in conversation if they say "man" instead of person, you are liable to be harangued by "diversity trainer" idiots at work if you connect anything of dark colour with something negative (for example "I was in a black mood that day" or "where can I find the black bin bags?".) It's worst in the public sector but really it's everywhere.
Britain. NATO member, 21st century totalitarianism.
Of course it is worst in Kosovo where the Serbs are violently cleansed from their lands by Albanian illegal immigrants and then viciously mocked by the West for not showing sufficient commitment to "multi-ethnicism". All the evil trends in the Western culture can be found in their most extreme form in the rape of Serbia.
Fjordman,
Some very thought provoking and well thought out points as always!
Yes, it is all rather an unfortunate state of affairs in my country right now.
I think it has become apparent to most ordinary people in the UK now though that this tyranny is the product of many multifaceted organs, and that it has been slowly established over some considerable time with a definite end goal in mind and that our politicians in it up to thier necks to almost a man (and woman!) That coupled with the fact that this PC tyranny has been imposed with almost synchronicity in every western nation globally has finally caused much alarm - finally.
We have laws in Britain that are not even remotely recognisable as British ideas and concepts, the worst being charges that do not allow the truth as a defence.
But as well as state imposed tyranny - all brought in one step at a time with the problem-reaction-solution formula - we have far too many people that have a vested interest in maintaining the tyranny, the illegal immigrant, the asylum seeker, the deluded left etc. and of course we have our fair share of our own 'sheeple' who are only too willingly to act as the states thought crime wardens for that warm glow of perceived moral smugness and the security of being on big brothers lap.
It is very sad indeed, but I was under the impression that the tyranny was somewhat worse in Sweden and even Canada now?
Would I be right in that?
Baron,
You should repost the entire thing here, or else Fjordman should reformat it over there. It's virtually unreadable due to lack of visible paragraph breaks; and while *I* am willing (and eager) to press on and read it, I'm worried that some of the unconvinced might give up.
I will ask Ohmyrus (the blog owner) to break it down into several paragraphs, but it is in the middle of the night Asian time now. It may not be done right away.
Europe is the sick man of Europe.
"It is very sad indeed, but I was under the impression that the tyranny was somewhat worse in Sweden and even Canada now?"
Funny that you happened to ask that question. Yesterday there was an article in Sydsvenskan about oppression against bloggers in not so democratic states. There was not many comments then but I made one comparing them to Soviet-media. Then I forgot about it and wasn't reminded about it until many hours later, last nightfrom another posting on another blog. When I went back to the article I soon noticed that not only the comment-function had been closed but the comments had been erased, all of them! I can only speculate to what has happened during those hours. A fair guess is a tsunami of ironic and sarcastic comments which in the end probably became too much for them. I wish I hadn't forgot about it and went back earlier for a screen print before it all disappeared. Yes, Sweden is a democracy but only on paper now, not in reality. You're not allowed to have a different opinion about islam, muslims and massimmigration in general if it contradicts the PC MC's. Simply as that. People can get fired if they speaks out about stuff like this and be stigmatized in their social life as well. So far we have not official sharia courts yet, only unofficial like in Rosengård and other places. So far no children has been prosecuted for cracking the wrong jokes but aside from details like that we are not very far behind you.
Thanks for the clarification Robin, I haven't been to Sweden for a while but I had heard stories.
As to your last point about children, I am afraid I have to admit that the PC junta in the UK has been rather more proactive then Sweden in using them as weapons of tyranny:
"Children as young as eight have been recruited by councils to "snoop" on their neighbours and report petty offences such as littering:
The youngsters are among almost 5,000 residents who in some cases are being offered £500 rewards if they provide evidence of minor infractions.
One in six councils contacted by the Telegraph said they had signed up teams of "environment volunteers" who are being encouraged to photograph or video neighbours guilty of dog fouling, littering or "bin crimes".
The "covert human intelligence sources", as some local authorities describe them, are also being asked to pass on the names of neighbours they believe to be responsible, or take down their number-plates.
Ealing Council in West London said: "There are hundreds of Junior Streetwatchers, aged 8-10 years old, who are trained to identify and report enviro-crime issues such as graffiti and fly-tipping."
Source
The PC junta of the UK have a strange war going on with underlings over - bizarre as it may sound - bins, and has employed every tactic and technique of the secret police in its prosecution of this war, including legislation supposedly designed to allow extraordinary surveillance of terrorists without warrent, through to this use of paid 8 year old "covert human intelligence sources."
Pretty remarkable stuff really; I can only presume the "battle of the bins" is the forerunner of bigger plans.
Brave New World Meets the Reality Borg-- Welcome to the 21st. Century
Well, welcome back. This post will throw out somethings to think about in "another dimension".
First, a quote:
"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves: and THEN we shall save our country"
Lincoln, 1862
I confess I tire of the "nuke the MME, and our problems will be solved" theory -- not because I am an "anti-racist liberal" but because it is misguided "microwave generation wishful thinking".
Consider this-- if Islam did not exist, we still now face another threat -- Brave New World
This book is NO LONGER SCIENCE FICTION, but a (perhaps sugar-coated) explanation of what are society will look like if the LEFTISTs are NOT driven from power.
One must see the future AS IT COULD BE, NOT AS THE PRESENT OR THE PAST.
Leftism is getting more and more oppressive. Reality is irrelevant to Leftism. We also know that Shariah is anti-freedom, but that it is static.
From these two facts, a logical question arises--
At what point IN TIME will SHARIAH BECOME THE "LESSER OF TWO EVILS"?
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOMEDAY [IF THE LEFTIST OLIGARCHY COMPLETELY OPPRESSES FREE SPEECH FOR ALL BUT MUSLIMS, and said oligarchy shuts down all resistance to both ISLAM and leftism, that the Native European proleteriat will BEG THE ISLAMISTS to "LIQUIDATE THE ELITIST OPPRESSORS PER SHARIAH, AND WE WILL SERVE YOU?"
This argument is in the line of "do you trust the devil you know (shariah) vs. the devil you don't know (Brave New World Leftism) [especially if the devil you know won't get any worse, but you know that the devil you don't know WILL get worse CONTINUALLY].
Will the MME someday be more free than the West?
This may sound crazy, but compare the LEFT 20 years ago to the LEFT NOW (or the West, for that matter).
We must organize to eliminate the Leftists from cultural power NOW.
TWO GREAT WRONG IDEAS Western people have come to believe are
1. Progress is inevitable. Our culture is most advanced. Therefore, our survival is inevitable.
2. We can just live our lives and go about our business and EVERYTHING will be all right.
Few people in the West have realized HOW BAD THE PC MC POST-MARXISTS CAN MAKE THINGS GET. In the pre-Western Cultural Revolution (before 1963) the third jihad WOULD NEVER, EVER HAVE SUCCEEDED [that's why it didn't exist]. With a Brave New World, the 3rd Jihad, COULD NOT FAIL.
Where the West moves toward (1950's or Brave New World] will determine whether the 3rd Jihad will set up the Eurabian Caliphate. All the debate of getting rid of "the muslim problem" is academic without removing the Left from power.
Fjordman, I enjoyed the essay ... but I think yourself and Takuan Seiyo both miss the point about the "Why" the drift to PC and Multiculturalism and the "soft totalitarianism.
To me, the answer is simple: Women.
Or more wordily put, women having their own income, lives, privacy, control over their reproductive cycle, living anonymously and with status/money as good as men, have ordered things to their liking.
Women support the soft Sharia and PC totalitarianism, because it empowers them and takes power away from White Male rivals. Women really hate most White men, who are not high-status enough, and both competitors in the workplace and bearers of unwanted sexual attention.
There are IMHO no Pod People or Gramscian Long March, rather the simple inevitability of women discoupled from most men, due to technology, democracy, individual liberty, and so on.
It's telling that the biggest political struggle in Britain is over recycled trash in the Wheelie Bins, something only Women would find important to spend time on. Men would not care. It's also telling that the principal movers in the PC jihads are educational people, dominated by women (and gays).
What I find very interesting (and disturbing) in the BNP's MEP election victories is that they have attempted, fairly successfully, to peel White women away from the PC-Multicultural alliance against White Men by accepting socialist institutions, particularly NH, and aiming to make it run for White Women/Men with White Women in the drivers seat (a look at their website confirms this message). White women are now at the more rear part of the Bus, certainly not driving, and that play is an obvious one.
But then I'm probably far more cynical. My mental map of how politics works is like the competing gangs in Red Harvest.
Britain today is a Multicultural police state where sharia, Islamic law, is quite literally treated as the law of the land.
Case in point: not too long ago, I read an article published by a Manchester-area newspaper about how laws against domestic violence were no longer being strictly enforced exactly due to political correctness.
In present-day Britainistan, protecting women and children from abusive mahoundian males, and making sure they've got someone to turn to when they're abused, equals "racism" and/or "islamophobia."
Islamic law, is quite literally treated as the law of the land.
Fjordmann seems not to know the meaning of the word "literally".
Actually Mary, I think it may be you who is mistaken:
"ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Source
First, the so-called sharia courts are not courts but Aritration Tribunals, whose decisions must conform to English law.
If you don't drink alcohol, you are conforming to sharia law, but you are not contravening English law.
Secondly, for a less hysterical and more informed analysis of the position of Sharia law in England and Wales, see here.
I repeat, Fjordmann and it seems others do not know the meaning of the word "literally". Or they are ignorant about England. Or both.
Mary Jackson: Secondly, for a less hysterical and more informed analysis of the position of Sharia law in England and Wales, see here.
From your screen name, it seems reasonable to presume that you are a woman.
Given that, if you are contaminated by even a hint of rationality, just the merest suggestion of shari'a law and its practice of Abject Gender Apartheid should inspire monumental disgust and loathing.
If it does not, you are a tremendous threat to your fellow Britons.
No, Mary, you are defiantly mistaken.
Fjordman is quite right when he says "Islamic law, is quite literally treated as the law of the land."
These Sharia courts in the UK have legally binding verdicts; and the presnet scope of its authority is, of course, just the start:
"Islamic sharia law courts in Britain are exploiting a little-known legal clause to make their verdicts officially binding under UK law in cases including divorce, financial disputes and even domestic violence.
A new network of courts in five major cities is hearing cases where Muslims involved agree to be bound by traditional sharia law, and under the 1996 Arbitration Act the court's decisions can then be enforced by the county courts or the High Court."
Source
Well then it might be better to say that in some areas of the country, Sharia is the de facto law of the land. Deny it if you like but there are areas where British law is no longer enforced, particularly areas around Bradford, parts of east Manchester and other spots along the M62 corridor, parts of Birmingham and east London. I'm not talking about things like veils or not drinking alcohol but sharia-sanctioned punishments like the apparently ubiquitous "honour killings", removing hands and feet for theft and a whole slew of other Islamic legal practices.
But even those arbitration councils are bringing in Sharia on the sly, if you think about it. They're used in divorce cases, where the woman is pressured to accept the ruling of these arbitration councils, which treat women as chattels; or in domestic abuse cases, where the arbitration court invariably rules in favour of the man no matter what the situation. You may argue that this is their culture, but I refuse to accept that their culture should be allowed to oppress women in this way on English soil, and to give official sanction to this Islamic law through the back door of arbitration courts, where the women involved are given no chance to seek an alternative, denied justice and treated as little more than baby-making sex toys that can be thrown away at will is a fundamental breach of justice.
Sharia law cannot be enforced if it contradicts English law. So it is only the law of the land in the way that the rules of a tiddlywinks club are the law of the land.
So it is not "quite literally the law of the land", now is it? English law is the law of the land.
As I said, for a less hysterical and more factual account, follow the link I give above. There is still considerable dispute, as you will see, whether these Sharia "courts" can be enforced at at all. This has yet to be tested, and would only be tested if their findings contradicted English law, when they would be thrown out.
People can agree, under Arbitration, to follow the laws of Greenland or the Jedi Knights, but only if doing so is legal under English law.
If Sharia were "quite literally" the law of the land, it would apply to everyone, including non-Muslims and have precedence over English law, which is not the case.
No not "quite literally". In fact, not at all.
the apparently ubiquitous "honour killings", removing hands and feet for theft and a whole slew of other Islamic legal practices.
Hmm. Do you know what "ubiquitous" means? Also, those practices are illegal.
"De facto" is better. But the law of the land is in fact, literally, there to put a stop to those practices before they become, literally, ubiquitous.
Getting nitpicky about language are we?
They do appear to be everywhere, though, don't they. The daughters of muslim families die quite regularly in "accidents" involving balconies and rocks to the head, in stories that just about make page 11 in the local advertiser and never hit the national news headlines. Oh you could say that they're not proven but when you've walked through a town and seen more one-handed people than can reasonably be accounted for by work-related accidents you do start to wonder just how well enforced our law really is.
Face it, Mary, you're just in denial. They're here, now, enforcing their law over entire towns. Whether it's the literal, virtual, de facto or in principio law of the land makes no difference: it's here, parts of it are being enforced by our courts, and when civil arbitration terms are breached they are further enforced with criminal sanctions. Literal, defacto, whatever, that is our courts enforcing elements of sharia law on British soil.
parts of it are being enforced by our courts
Any examples of courts enforcing the decisions of these tribunals? Any county court or family court judgements? Any examples of someone wanting to go by English law, but the courts enforcing sharia in contradiction to English law?
Any single sharia case enforced by an English court of law?
No. Not one.
Unofficial enforcement and criminality (honour killings) yes.
But Fjordmann's claim is that Sharia is "Quite literally" the law of the land. It quite literally is not.
Fjordman's bloviation interestingly enough is accurate.
"Unofficial enforcement and criminality (honour killings) yes."
Which makes Sharia the law of the land in an literally autochthonous sense.
Mary,
If we are going to nitpick -- something I don't mind, I think we should be careful with words -- it should pointed out that the formulation "quite literally" was not by Fjordman, but by Ohmyrus.
So it is not "quite literally the law of the land", now is it?
No, you are right about that. And initially I agreed with you, and I think it's silly of people to turn against you as if you were not aware of the situation. Your argument is about the choice of words. However, now I looked again and see that what what Ohmyrus literally wrote was that Sharia "is quite literally treated as the law of the land".
And to state "treated as" is something fundamentally different from stating "is". As far as I can see Sharia is always respected by the British justice system today. Court rulings are accommodated to be in line with Sharia, or issues are not even taken to court. Can you come up with a British court ruling the last few years that is in breach with Sharia? If we can't, the formulation of Ohmyrus should be considered accurate. If there are, after all, he should drop "literally" for a less hard formulation.
Sorry Mary, but you are mistaken.
--"If Sharia were "quite literally" the law of the land, it would apply to everyone"--
Only if there was just one law that governs all.
--"Sharia law cannot be enforced if it contradicts English law [...] only if doing so is legal under English law."--
You are wrong:
"Crucially, the legislation does not insist that settlements must be based on English law; all that matters is the outcome is reasonable and both parties agree to the process. And it's in this space that religious courts, applying the laws of another culture, are growing in the UK."
Source below.
--"There is still considerable dispute, as you will see, whether these Sharia "courts" can be enforced at at all."--
Again, you are wrong. This example from the same source also describes the Jewish Beth Din courts system in England; the Sharia courts are based on exactly the same laws.
"The court cannot force anyone to come within its jurisdiction. But once someone agrees to settle a dispute in the Beth Din, he or she is bound in English law to abide by the court's decision [...]
Faisal Aqtab Siddiqi, a commercial law barrister and head of the Hijaz College Islamic University in Warwickshire, says he has already adjudicated in a number of contractual disputes.
"Because we follow the same process as any case of arbitration, our decisions are binding in English law. Unless our decisions are unreasonable, they are recognised by the High Court."
Source below.
--"Any single sharia case enforced by an English court of law?"--
It doesn't need to be. As long as the party agree to come under the Sharia court jurisdiction it is legally binding and would have to be appealed at the high court.
Source
And by the way Mary, you started off quoting Fjordman as saying ""Islamic law, is quite literally treated as the law of the land" and you have somehow changed it to "So it is not "quite literally the law of the land" - two very different things and a claim that was never made.
I think the lot of you are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Disputing the putative existence of shari'a law in Britain or its extent is rubbish. We all know bloody well that it has insinuated itself into the British legal landscape.
THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO OUT SHARI'A LAW FOR BEING THE GROSS AND WHOLESALE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THAT IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
Arguing semantics and other such canoodling is a waste of time. You are effectively legitimizing shari'a with such grammatical dithering.
Far better is to pound this Islamic tripe into the ground whenever it rears its ugly little head. Far, far better is to NEVER permit it to be brought up in discussion without noting what a BARBARIC, UNJUST and CRUEL tissue of BU!!$HIT this supposed legal code is.
Archonix: ... when you've walked through a town and seen more one-handed people than can reasonably be accounted for by work-related accidents you do start to wonder just how well enforced our law really is.
I cannot tell you how deeply disturbing and loathsome the notion is of seeing shari'a intrude upon civilization proper. It inspires a willingness to agitate for the immediate use of nuclear weapons.
Archonix, do you mean that actually chopping off hands and feet is practiced already on british soil now? I'm well aware that muslims wants full sharia and not only sharia light but I'm amazed it has gone this quickly. This must be exposed. Finding witnesses and posting it all över the internet. MSM will of course not touch it so it is up to us on free blogs and forums to get this out in public, that barbaric sharia is practiced already on western soil.
Please! The correct term is "al-Bion."
Here's an example of the double-standards on free-speech that are common in Britain these days:
- "Behead those who insult islam." - Who doesn't know these infamous words from one of those placards held at anti-Denmark protests, following the publications of the Mahound cartoons? But, to the British authorities, that was just plain old free-speech, and no mahoundian should be punished for voicing his opinion that way.
- "Behead those who follow islam." - I've never heard of or seen such a sign, but I'm sure that if someone had one that displayed those words at a political rally, that individual would certainly be charged with hate speech.
If infidels become the target of mahoundian hate through free speech, that seems to be a-ok. British infidels raising their concerns about the islamization of their country would tell politicians that they ought to do something about those offering resistance to their project of turning the UK into the North Sea Porkistan.
It's even better than that!
One doen't even need to display a "Behead those who follow islam" sign. All one need do is object, no matter how mildly, to the "Behead those who insult islam" sign.
So, there have been no English courts enforcing sharia.
That's all I need to know.
Literally the law of the land? Literally treated as the law of the land?
I don't think so.
Ah but when he said literally he didn't mean literally literally, did he?
Court rulings are accommodated to be in line with Sharia
Evidence? Even one case?
Can you come up with a British court ruling the last few years that is in breach with Sharia? .
Er, where do I start?
Every time a magistrate grants a pub licence - thousands of times a day - that's in breach of sharia. Every time an inheritance case goes to probate - a thousand times a day - it's in breach of sharia. Every female judge, politician, teacher of male students is appointed it's in breach of sharia. Every time a woman is granted divorce or custody of children it's in breach of sharia.
Every solicitor in England, every judge, every policeman in England breaches sharia dozens of times a day.
Sharia law is broken by the legal profession millions of times a day and billions of times a year.
Nice try.
Mary,
Sharia, quite as the Spanish Inquisition, has jurisdiction over its own adherents. If you are going to discuss Sharia, you'll have to take in account what Sharia actually is. India is the country where multiculturalism is perfectly institutionalized, where the law applies differently depending on what religion one belongs to.
So if I'm an Indian, and I want to marry a second wife, and avoid bigamy, I just simply have to declare myself a Muslims, and then I can legally do it. Britain (and Sweden etc.) of today is in practice closer to this than to being a country of common law, and it gets worse by the day. And pub licenses being granted (even thousands a day) doesn't change that. Sharia does not apply to us infidels, Jihad does.
Your argument is very nice though, and any Turk could say that same about pub licenses, female politicians, etc, implying that Turkey (quite as Britain) is not under the yoke of Sharia.
Your reasoning seems to be based upon the idea that laws that are not common laws by definition cannot be laws of the land (and thereby do not exist?) I think you should discuss this with an Indian. Such laws are indeed very real, even if you manage to avoid them (you are more likely to be met by Jihad). Multiculturalism/Sharia spells the end of common law. If we have glasses with a filter where we do not see laws which are not common laws, we won't see Sharia coming. My local pub still has its license, what's this fuzz about Sharia?
I guess you already know all this, really. Don't you?
Not that I even mean to imply that I'm telling you what to do or not do with your time, but I do want to point out that it's logically impossible to reason or argue with someone who is intellectually dishonest.
I said what I said to illustrate to people how BADLY WE ARE IN TROUBLE WITH LEFTISM -- OR SHOULD I CALL IT SECULAR STATISM (SS)-- 'SECULAR PROGRESSIVES' WANT TO SET UP A Secular Theocracy. No, it is not an oxymoron, for SS is a RELIGION cloaked in an ideology. "THERE ARE NO GODS BUT THE STATE AND OUR IDEAS, AND WE ELITISTS ARE [the gods'] prophets)".
You can only imagine what the islamists we do when they realize this.
Now, Mary, they already have Shariah tribunals in the UK, on a "voluntary" basis, for such matters at family law, financial matters, and domestic violence. If a women is cajoled into going to this court and gets a, ahem, shariah ruling not to her liking, the British 'Secular' courts will enforce the ruling. I know, 'tis a limited start. Unforunately, it doesn't stop there. Check out
islam4uk.com and see what is going on.
HOwever, Mary, if you are a Leftist I fear you will not learn until you are being beaten for being "uppity". You need to read THE DEATH OF FEMINISM by Phylis Chesler, who was a liberal who learned from experience.
Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head here Ilíon; there seems to be more of an axe to grind on Mary's behalf then an actual, evidential point. That is why I decided dealt with the semantic nuances that arose as a result.
I think now though, in all reasonableness, Mary has had her contention quite demonstrably and evidentially refuted.
For instance: "So, there have been no English courts enforcing sharia" has already clearly been explained that there doesn't need to be. As long as the party agrees to come under the Sharia court jurisdiction it is legally binding and would have to be appealed at the high court.
And the other contentions that Mary has espoused, such as : "Sharia law cannot be enforced if it contradicts English law [...] only if doing so is legal under English law."
Has been evidentially refuted by the source above explaining that:
"Crucially, the legislation does not insist that settlements must be based on English law; all that matters is the outcome is reasonable and both parties agree to the process. And it's in this space that religious courts, applying the laws of another culture, are growing in the UK."
And so, in fact all of Mary's contentions have been shown to be erroneous, and these very points now seem to elicit only silence from Mary.
And the whole contention has been refuted in basis in any case, from Mary's frankly 'straw man' effect of
changing the original position of: "Islamic law, is quite literally treated as the law of the land" to it being "Literally treated as the law of the land."
OK, now this forum has gone into bullying mode again. This time against Mary Jackson. And it's ugly as always. She's not a dishonest leftist effectively legitimizing sharia with grammatical dithering, etc., etc. I suggest you check up a person and who she is before going into attack like a mob, with a belligerence in some cases seemingly on the verge to declare her an enemy.
How many followed the link provided by Mary, compiled by Lord Pearson (he who invited Wilders to the UK) and Sam Solomon. Are Pearson and Solomon also dishonest leftists effectively legitimizing Sharia?
I agree that especially her last answer was particularly bad, but what happened to civilized debate? Why this aggressiveness?
Your reasoning seems to be based upon the idea that laws that are not common laws by definition cannot be laws of the land
This is not my reasoning. It is simply a matter of fact. Laws that are not laws of the land cannot be laws of the land.
Sharia is not the law of the land. English law is. For Fjordmann to say it is "literally" the law of the land when it literally is not, is farcically silly.
My last post listed a tiny set of the thousands of examples of ways in which sharia is breached thousands and thousands of times a day in England. Not that it makes sense to write about sharia being breached because sharia law is not English law.
There are no instances - not one, not one single one - of sharia being enforced by an English court, or an English court makin any decision - any at all - which is in accordance with Sharia and goes against English law.
Not one single instance, set against millions of instances to the contrary.
Mary,
If Anyway, to cut to the chase. The essence of Mary's point is that the UK has not become Saudi Arabia. And I think we all agree about that. But in practice it has become India. And is also more comparable with Turkey and several Middle Eastern states, compared to what it once was (still with the important difference in the number of Muslims though).
I'm glad the UK (and other European countries) have not become Saudi Arabia. But I consider becoming like India/Turkey as bad enough. Isn't it?
Crucially, the legislation does not insist that settlements must be based on English law; all that matters is the outcome is reasonable and both parties agree to the process. And it's in this space that religious courts, applying the laws of another culture, are growing in the UK."
As I said above, Arbitration can take as its basis the laws of the Jedi knights, the laws of a foreign country etc as long as people agree to them. This is true of all arbitration tribunals, and the legislation is nothing new here. People can thus waive their rights, for example to a divorce settlement or an inheritance.
If challenged in court, the decision must be found to be reasonable. You can't stop people agreeing to waive their rights. That's what wills are for.
There is no instance of a Sharia decision being enforced that is against English law. (Or a Jedi Knight or Beth Dhin decision).
Not one.
But in practice it has become India.
Actually, no it hasn't. That's a really silly thing to say.
India has separate laws for Muslims.
England does not.
But I consider becoming like India/Turkey as bad enough. Isn't it?
If it were the case, yes it would be. But it isn't.
Have a look at the Pearson document linked above, with its detailed comparison of English and Sharia law.
Go through it carefully and report back on any aspects of English law, as detailed in the report, that don't apply in England. Then go through it carefully again and report back on any aspects of Sharia law, as detailed in the report that do.
Think carefully - I'm talking about law, not "things that go on" which are not legal like honour killings and wife beating. I'm talking about things that are actually enforced in English courts today.
Go on, have a go.
Mary,
If you filter out all laws from your reasoning, that are not common laws applied equally to all people of the land, as you are doing for the purpose of this argument, then by definition you are making yourself blind to the impact of Sharia (which is never common law), and you will tautologically always come to the same conclusion, at least until the day the UK is fully like Saudi Arabia (and all are considered subjects of Sharia).
Through this sort of prism you won't agree with Ohmyrus (it was still not written by Fjordman) until the day that the UK is fully like Saudi Arabia, and the pubs close down. But how about having become like India or Turkey? In India the multicultural non-common laws are indeed fully institutionalized, while it is not yet so in the UK. But the old tradition of a common law is already broken.
OK, I give up. This debate is useless and weird in just too many ways.
If you filter out all laws from your reasoning, that are not common laws applied equally to all people of the land, as you are doing for the purpose of this argument, then by definition you are making yourself blind to the impact of Sharia (which is never common law
Do you know what the term "common law" actually means? I suspect not, anymore than Fjordman knows what "literally" means or Achronix knows what "ubiquitous" means.
Common law is the law of the land, namely English law, derived from decided cases not statute. Much of it, enforced daily in our courts and on the street, contradicts sharia, as does much statute law, not least on equality.
Common law is English law, not sharia. It applies to all those living in England including Muslims.
Thus a man cannot kill his daughter, because it is "murder, contrary to common law", while in sharia, of course, it would be permissible.
So which law is literally the law of the land?
I've talked about "common laws" and there's probably another technical term for that in English, which someone with English as his mother tongue could come up with. But it does not change my point. Either the laws are common for all people or separate based on religion.
But never mind that. I'm wasting my time here anyway. This has been a surreal experience in many ways. It's pointless to go on.
Either the laws are common for all people or separate based on religion.
Agreed. And English common law applies to all people regardless of his religion; thus a man can't honour kill his daughter under English common law (see above).
Some countries have separate laws based on religion. England ain't one of them. Literally.
Conservative Swede,
I am not sure why you think there has been any bullying; all that I can see that has happened is that many people disagree with Mary's contention and have politely refuted it whilst no one seems to agree with Mary's position and so she has been left alone with it.
And I personally did try to "check up" on her profile and blog to see where she is coming from but her profile is empty and so is her blog.
Mary,
Conservative Swede is right that it is both pointless and surreal to continue. Every tenet of your position has had counter evidence presented to challenge it and you have proceeded on a 'straw man' position from the start.
Sentinel:
Perform the exercise in my comment above, viz:
Have a look at the Pearson document linked above, with its detailed comparison of English and Sharia law.
Go through it carefully and report back on any aspects of English law, as detailed in the report, that don't apply in England. Then go through it carefully again and report back on any aspects of Sharia law, as detailed in the report that do.
It will take ten minutes of your time and will increase your knowledge by about 100%.
My blog is here, part of New English Review. Clearly you haven't read it.
CS: "But never mind that. I'm wasting my time here anyway. This has been a surreal experience in many ways. It's pointless to go on."
As I pointed out earlier, it's logically impossible to reason or argue with someone who is intellectually dishonest.
"Clearly you haven't read it."
Maybe because it is not in your profile using the identity you are posting under, and the blog that is linked to is empty, Mary?
But this is most certainly circular now; pointless and surreal.
I did read your link but I also posted evidence that challenges your entire contention, which was wholly based upon something that was not even said.
Oh well. At least we still have the freedom at the moment to be able to debate with each other freely, and that is something to be thankful for.
Good luck Mary, all the best.
I've noticed Mary Jackson "quite literally" repeats herself several times on this thread. Obviously, she believes the dictum, "A lie repeated often enough will be accepted as truth."
No wonder Richard Flynn found a reversal of the Flynn effect in the UK.
You read like a character out of "1984," Mary.
I should have said, that despite playing fast and loose with the word "literally" and the details of English law, Fjordman makes some very good points.
Well...it might be prudent to find a more positive approach to pointing out these linguistic disagreements. You have to admit, you were rather blunt about it. I think we can see from the arguments you, I and others have presented here that it's counter-productive to be so inconsiderate. If we're broadly on the same side, we can let the odd disagreement slide, surely?
I know I should... :)
OK, sorry - I did dive in with the negative stuff, when in fact it's a good piece, as Fjordmann's stuff generally is.
Post a Comment