|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Brown ‘rejects’ Sharia law in UKFebruary 7th, 2008 |
 16 comments to Brown ‘rejects’ Sharia law in UK |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Damn and I was really hoping we would get this good stuff in the UK too. I mean, just because Islam is primitive barbaric misogynistic crap, that is no reason to disdain it, right?
’bout bleedin time! I thought I was going to have to post on DK.
Where does “Tree” Williams get this reputation for intellectual acuity come from? His press releases?
I have read some of his speeches before, and felt like Tony Hancock on a wet sunday afternoon trying to read Bertrand Russell with a dictionary to hand.
Flick flick. Read. “Well if that’s what he meant why didn’t he say so in the first place! Oh I give up!”
Apparently Tree thinks his great mission is to “Unite” the faiths, whilst his congregation would much prefer if he just bothered one God at a time.
He is very miffed at Bishop Ali for talking of no go areas in Britain.
Pisses off the Muslims apparently (ah Friggin diddums!)
Now we get bend me backwards over the hostess trolley and fuck me sensless nonsense like this.
What the hell does Rowan Williams think he’s playing at?
He’s not thinking of reverting is he? I mean he’s got the beard and all and he likes wearing funny robes!
Because if he isn’t thinking of reverting then shouldn’t he be advocating Christianity? Speaking up for Christians and leading the Anglican Church.
I mean that’s what he’s paid for.
From Reuters:
A Church of England bishop sought police assistance this month after receiving death threats over an article which claimed Islamist radicals had turned some parts of the country into hostile “no-go areas” for non-Muslims.
The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, said calls had been made to his home, threatening him and his family.
Perhaps Dr Williams might even consider supporting one of his own bishops? I know it’s a big ask but…
There’s been some rum buggers been Archbishop of Canterbury but most of them at least pretended to be Christians.
Oh, it’ll happen anyway, creeping in a little at a time. It’s being discussed by the Stablishment, so it’ll happen.
The pace of the change is actually quite remarkably rapid. It only seems like yesterday we were all first learning the word “sharia” as being some weird and abominable thing that Nigerians had riots about. Now it’s part of the hegemonic discourse or whatever you call it here.
The process continues, inexorably. Sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, but it never stops. The western world is being dismantled from the inside. The facade will be last to go; standing in the street outside you won’t even realise the building is being dismantled. But inside the columns go, and the walls, and the floors, one at a time. We live during the ending of a great civilisation. That’s a quite an interesting time to be alive, really.
In the Chinese sense? Certainly.
Sorry to sound dim, but does anybody have any idea what is being referred to here?
Perry,
In a half-way sane world that would be un-Hariet Harmann-believable. Alas the world is nucking futz.
RAB,
Call me especially observant but I detect you feel some umbrage with your fellow Welshman?
“Unite the faiths” eh? How long have they been having ecumenical conferences with the Catholics again? And they both share the Nicene Creed etc. yet they’re no further forward. How the hucking fell do they seek to reconcile with a totally different religion?
John Sentamu needs to slap some sense into Dr Williams.
Speaking of DK, Williams has form.
(NB above link contains very strong language).
Now correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t the first protestant martyrs killed for upsetting Catholic dogma over essentially free-speech issues. Tyndale and Latimer and folk. Does Dr Williams even have a nodding aquaintance with his own faith.
Furthermore does he know anything about Islam. Does he not realize they see tolerance as weakness?
Of course while Dr Williams is worried about hurting people’s feelings the Muslims have got their pantyhose in a twist over this unmitigated bastard who wants to hurt a lot more than feelings.
The ironic part about the dismantling of the West is that those who set it in motion are not the beneficiaries.Gramsci,Foucault et al that destroying the pillars of society would bring the socialist revolution,The liberal left establishment have been beavering away oblivious to the fact that a stronger and more virile culture was flowing into the vacuum.
The poor dears cannot understand it is they the liberals that the fundamentalists hate the most. The louche liberal lifestyle will be the first thing to go,along with all the clergy who have been groveling so miserably…and yet part of me would get great satisfaction from seein Browns Babes in Burqas.
Ian B is quite right. The notion having now been ‘floated’ at high level (albeit predictably slapped down) will be marginally less newsworthy when it is floated again (probably later this year). Then it begins creeping into the general conversation and then it appears as a recommendation in the report of a law commission or two and then “we need a full and frank debate” and then it is quietly enacted into the consitution without announcement or very much attention as “part of a tidying-up exercise”.
teachers, religious leaders – even friends, or so called friends – take over where parents leave off. They demand that we feel only the feelings they want and expect from us. They demand all the time that we perform feelings for them. We’re like actors – turned loose in this world to wander in search of a phantom…endlessly searching for a half-forgotten shadow of our lost reality. When others demand that we become the people they want us to be, they force us to destroy the person we really are. It’s a subtle kind of murder….the most loving parents and relatives commit this murder with smiles on their faces.
1st- There is a misunderstanding- first by the ABofC, and then by the reporting. He is not asking for Stonings etc to be allowed, but that in some civil areas Sharia is recognised- such as divorce. The problem is, it already is, the same as Jewish divorce process etc.
Judaism doesnt recognise Civil Divorce, so a jewish couple who divorce in UK courts, also have to get a religeous divorce. So this is possible under Sharia.
Secondly Courts prefer it if you try to arbitration first, rather than tie up their resources. If the two parties decide to do it under the religeon/superstition/invisible sky fairy of their choice, they can, and if a rubber stamp is need the court will do that on the finalised agreement.
One discussion is Stamp Duty, which is now divorced from its history, and is effectively a purchase tax on house purchases- when you buy a house you pay (I think) 1% of the cost to the Treasury (on top). The problem for muslims is the way they buy houses.
Islam does not allow loans for interest, so strict muslims can’t get a normal high street mortgage. What happens instead is a bank (usually a muslim one) buys the house, then sells it to the person at an inflated price. So they would buy a £150k house selling it to the person at (say) £300k paid over 25 years- the profit being instead of interest. Hoever this would mean the bank pays £1500 Duty, and the purchaser £3000 (plus the 1500 if the bank passes that on)- The stamp duty would be 3 times as high. The treasury has looked at how this could be accommadated, and there should be no loss to the exchequer (they would still get the £1500).
What is more worrying is ABoC call for religeous people not to have to obey Temporal laws over their faith- HE MADE THIS IN REFERENCE TO ALL RELIGEONS.
But it is a mistake to think of Islam as just another religion… it is also a political system and an evangelistic internationalist one at that. Once the state accepts the principle of some sharia, it entrenches people who will expand the boundaries as far as they can, and within the context of a non-assimilating/non-integrating Muslim community, it does not need wild speculation to see that there will be many who will use force to demand Muslims accept Sharia jurisdictions in the UK. Do you seriously think a Muslim woman will be allowed to freely ‘opt out’ and demand a different set of jurisprudence once local sharia gets official acceptance?
I am actually all for polycentric law (is not military law and canon law just a different ‘opt in’ set of law for those who are willing to enter the relevant professions?), but that does not mean I think any law is just as worthy as any other or that any law that can be imagined can coexist with any other.
To coexist within a western legal tradition, any polycentric system must insist all competitors are truly ‘opt in/opt out’ and not at their core barbaric. I just do not see how Sharia can coexist with any liberal western legal tradition.
A point I am making is that you can’t really keep shari’a out of the civil process as Williams sees it- because this is still (despite how the Daily Mail paints it) a liberal democracy, if a couple turn up to court and say we have used process ‘x’, here is the deal, the court is very likely to just rubber stamp it. Williams is looking for problems where none exists. There is no need to recognise a different process, as that is built into the current system which looks to arbitration instead of lawyers.
I am not disputing the fact that there are problems with the fact that Islam is so draconian in states where it is the officially established religeon. Unfortunately it seems to be having the same problems in its 14th century as Christianity did in its.
I am sick to death of people like LastHussar trying to say that Christianity in effect “was like that once”
Well, get this, it isn’t now. And we don’t want to turn the clock back 600 years just to appease some misogynistic barbarians who follow a murdering thief and imagine he has some message for us all. Mo don’t have anything to tell us.
We aren’t like that now, and this bunch of anti-razors came here to settle in our country and then start whinging.
Well the point is, that’s their problem and nobody else’s. They can do whatever they like within the law to get around any arbitrary rules, but that’s it. In a free society, individuals can follow whatever rules, however silly, they like. But that’s nobody else’s problem. If I choose to follow a moral code which tells me I must not wear hairnets, then I can’t get a job in the food processing industry. If it tells me I can’t borrow or lend money with interest, either I need to find some other mechanism personally or be disadvantaged by my own choice. There is no need for special cases in law to deal with this. If muslims won’t take out mortgages, and some bank offers them an alternative means of payment, that’s nothing to do with the law. If it’s a better means of payment than mortgages, then hey, maybe non-muslims will want to adopt that model too. If it’s not as good as mortgages well tough titty, presumably Mohammed wants his followers to suffer inferior financial arrangements.
Nothing to do with anybody else.
Williams has to go.
He’s a threat to Christian society. He’s a crypto-islamist. How can the leader of the Anglican communion advocate the overthrow of secular common law to accommodate a barbarous system like sharia law ? Does Williams not know the plight of Christians in muslim countries where they are at best tolerated at worst killed because of their religion ? While mosques are allowed to raise their minarets in liberal western democracies no Christian spires will be permitted in countries ruled by Islam.
One benefit of Williams’s ramblings is that he has alerted the body politic to a danger not previously sensed.