Feb 16 2009
And here's why Great Britain was not included in my post about Europe's growing anti-Muslim backlash
Archbishop of Canterbury: “Society is coming round to my (favorable) views on Shari’a law.”
The Archbishop of Canterbury has defended his controversial comments about the introduction of Islamic law to Britain and claimed that public opinion is now behind him. (Uh Oh!)
On the anniversary of the interview in which Dr Rowan Williams said it “seems inevitable” that some parts of sharia would be enshrined in this country’s legal code, he claimed “a number of fairly senior people” now take the same view.
He added that there is a “drift of understanding” towards what he was saying, and that the public sees the difference between letting Muslim courts decide divorces and wills, and allowing them to rule on criminal cases and impose harsh punishments. (They do? Well I guess the Brits are in a lot worse shape than we believed. Can everyone say “dhimmi?”)
However critics insist that family disputes must be dealt with by civil law rather than according to religious principles, and claim the Archbishop’s comments have only helped the case of extremists while making Muslim women worse off, because they do not have equal rights under Islamic law. (But that’s OK, as long we cater to Muslim men, they won’t cut our heads off. Yet.)
The Archbishop, the most senior cleric in the Church of England, faced calls to resign last February when he said it was likely that elements of the religious principles based on the Koran, concerning marriage, finance and conflict resolution, would be enshrined in British legislation one day. (Apparently the calls were ignored)
But in July he was supported by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, who was then the Lord Chief Justice, while it later emerged that five sharia courts are already operating mediation systems under the Arbitration Act, and that the Government allows Islamic tribunals to settle the custody and financial affairs of divorcing couples and send their judgements to civil courts for approval. (Did anybody in the UK get to vote on this? Oh, that’s right, they now have a Muslim apologist as leader, just like we do in the US. Can everyone say “Allahu Akbar?”)
But Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “He has started a process which is deeply dangerous, damaging to Britain and to Muslim women in Britain. Neil Addison, a barrister who specialises in religious discrimination cases, said: “I think the Archbishop has failed to give a justification for sharia law. What’s the advantage it would bring to British Muslims and to British law? (And while you are debating the issue, Shari’a law is oppressing British Muslim women. How many ‘honor killings’ have you had in the last year?)
And here’s another reason:
INTERVIEW WITH BRITISH HOME SECRETARY Jacqui Smith discusses her country’s experience in taking in former inmates from the Guantanamo prison camp and how her country is seeking to reach out to young Muslims before they radicalize.
SPIEGEL: In Germany, a national debate is simmering over whether the country should take in prisoners from Guantanamo. What experience has Great Britain had in accepting detainees from the American prison camp?
Smith: We have taken back 13 detainees, nine of them were British nationals, another four have been residents. All are free citizens now. So we never had to regret our decisions, but of course I do also understand the reluctance of my German colleague Wolfgang Schäuble in this matter. (Yes, your German colleague is wise not to allow terrorists to run free in his country. When you get attacked again, can I say I told you so, Jacqui?)
SPIEGEL: How did those citizens and communities react to the fact that their new neighbours came from Camp Delta? Were there protests?
Smith: I think they understood how much grievance Guantanamo caused for the Muslim world. (Oh and the grievance they cause to your citizens doesn’t mean anything? You are as dangerous as the terrorists) And even worse, that it undermines our values, our democracy and human rights and that, finally, it makes it particularly difficult for us to maintain our fundamental argument in countering terror. (How can you claim to be countering terrorism when you invite terrorists into your country?You deserve to get hit again with such an attitude.)
SPIEGEL: Have those who came home been brought to trial in Great Britain?
Smith: No, there were no trials but we took certain security measures. (Riiiight, wouldn’t want to offend your Muslim friends with a pesky trial or anything like that, now, would you?)
English Lord Ahmed Threatens UK Democracy With 10,000 Terrorists
Illustrating Islamic Jihad in England, Lord Ahmed has threatened to mobilize 10,000 Jihadists against the English Parliament. Hamas supporting Ahmed was responding to a member of the England House of Lords to invite colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Wilders is an elected member of the Dutch parliament who was invited to screen his anti-terrorism movie Fitna.
The House of Lords is a venerable British institution, but what does one get if one accepts Muslims in?
A member of the Lords intended to invite her colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch parliament, to watch his controversial movie Fitna and discuss the movie and Wilders’ opinions with him.
Barely had the invitation been sent to all the members of the House when Lord Ahmed raised hell. He threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court. The result is that the event, which should have taken place last Thursday was cancelled. But after several hours of discussions on freedom of speech the event was placed back on.
Lord Ahmed immediately went to the Pakistan press to boast about his achievement, which he calls “a victory for the Muslim community.”
A victory for the Muslim community, but a defeat for British democracy where topics to which Muslims object cannot even be debated. That, apparently, is what one gets when one accepts Muslims into the UK House of Lords.