It takes a nation to protect the nation
An "Unacceptable Post" on Social Cohesion
In a recent blog post at The Shropshire Star Newspaper Online (UK, link below) entitled ”Sharia Councils ‘undermine social cohesion,’ ” Mark Pritchard, MP, remarked ”By expanding the powers of Sharia Councils, ministers have set the scene for a breaking narrative which is fractious, discriminates against women, and, incrementally, is establishing a parallel legal system.” I’ll say. Mr. Pritchard goes on to say, “Sharia rulings are more likely to create legal ghettos – undermining rather than improving social cohesion. And in so doing, ministers are found guilty of piecemeal legal vandalism and managing the gradual decline of English jurisprudence.”
Astonishingly, we are told in the article that “Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, commented: “There is nothing whatever in English law that prevents people abiding by Sharia principles if they wish to, provided they do not come into conflict with English law”.” It is as if the weight of the legal argument falls entirely on the first concept - sharia is not prevented – yet no consideration is given to the second concept – whether sharia does or does not conflict with English law. And Mr. Pritchard further observes, “Such conflicts occur throughout Britain every week, and with it, the shunning of basic rights for thousands of British Muslim women.”
MP Pritchard is a member of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and is concerned that sharia violates human rights. So am I. In fact, it is one of my core challenges to sharia in any non-islamic nation – sharia violates all or nearly all national constitutions and charters in some manner or the other. (I am leaving aside the question of whether sharia promotion is sedition.) So, I thought I would participate in the dialog, international dialog at that, and post a comment. I did and while it sat, well I sat, awaiting moderation, I read the ‘content standards.’ They include that contributions must not (emphasis mine):
> Contain any material which is obscene, OFFENSIVE, hateful or inflamatory
> Be threatening, abuse or invade another’s privacy, or cause ANNOYANCE, INCONVENIENCE or needless ANXIETY
> Be likely to harass, UPSET, EMBARRASS, ALARM or ANNOY any other person.
With standards like this, it is a wonder anything of importance is discussed publicly. So, I am not holding my breath to see if my comment shows up. There was, of course, a note by someone calling the blog entry a “right wing xenophobic” comment and questioning Mr. Prichard’s honor. I am posting my comment here in its brief, yet potentially unacceptable, entirety:
"The theo-political ideology of Islam fully implemented under sharia law – consistent with the koran, sira and hadith – condemns freedom (speech, religion association, press, petition of government), forbids equality (between men and women, muslims and non-muslims) and denies traditional sovereignty (national boundaries based on language, culture and shared history). Any form of sharia, implicit (in mosques and ‘at home’) or explicit (as practiced in civil or criminal courts), denies human rights to women and children. Therefore, allowing sharia in a Constitutional Republic or any non-islamic nation violates that nation’s basic laws. The tenets of islam are supremacist and misogynist; they invite or encourage deception toward non-muslims and mandate perpetual hostility to that which is not islamic. Study up before you shout about xenophobia or whatever…"
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2010/04/02/blog-sharia-councils-under...
Astonishingly, we are told in the article that “Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, commented: “There is nothing whatever in English law that prevents people abiding by Sharia principles if they wish to, provided they do not come into conflict with English law”.” It is as if the weight of the legal argument falls entirely on the first concept - sharia is not prevented – yet no consideration is given to the second concept – whether sharia does or does not conflict with English law. And Mr. Pritchard further observes, “Such conflicts occur throughout Britain every week, and with it, the shunning of basic rights for thousands of British Muslim women.”
MP Pritchard is a member of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and is concerned that sharia violates human rights. So am I. In fact, it is one of my core challenges to sharia in any non-islamic nation – sharia violates all or nearly all national constitutions and charters in some manner or the other. (I am leaving aside the question of whether sharia promotion is sedition.) So, I thought I would participate in the dialog, international dialog at that, and post a comment. I did and while it sat, well I sat, awaiting moderation, I read the ‘content standards.’ They include that contributions must not (emphasis mine):
> Contain any material which is obscene, OFFENSIVE, hateful or inflamatory
> Be threatening, abuse or invade another’s privacy, or cause ANNOYANCE, INCONVENIENCE or needless ANXIETY
> Be likely to harass, UPSET, EMBARRASS, ALARM or ANNOY any other person.
With standards like this, it is a wonder anything of importance is discussed publicly. So, I am not holding my breath to see if my comment shows up. There was, of course, a note by someone calling the blog entry a “right wing xenophobic” comment and questioning Mr. Prichard’s honor. I am posting my comment here in its brief, yet potentially unacceptable, entirety:
"The theo-political ideology of Islam fully implemented under sharia law – consistent with the koran, sira and hadith – condemns freedom (speech, religion association, press, petition of government), forbids equality (between men and women, muslims and non-muslims) and denies traditional sovereignty (national boundaries based on language, culture and shared history). Any form of sharia, implicit (in mosques and ‘at home’) or explicit (as practiced in civil or criminal courts), denies human rights to women and children. Therefore, allowing sharia in a Constitutional Republic or any non-islamic nation violates that nation’s basic laws. The tenets of islam are supremacist and misogynist; they invite or encourage deception toward non-muslims and mandate perpetual hostility to that which is not islamic. Study up before you shout about xenophobia or whatever…"
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2010/04/02/blog-sharia-councils-under...
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Kinana on April 19, 2010 at 15:33
-
good news and bad news. my letter was published but not yours. one out of two is not bad!
thanks for highlighting this article. we will have to monitor how he does in the election. This election unlike the last general election more politicians are actually saying the words 'Islam' and 'Muslim' and 'immigration' in the same sentence. we will see
-
Comment by Civilus Defendus on April 11, 2010 at 1:14
-
Your comments are insightful. We have Western islamicus apologeticus - an affliction of many steeped in multi-culturalism to the point of being unable to recognize a threat to life, limb and liberty when facing it eye to eye. And we have islamo-deceptitus - a practice of muslims to explain away all criticism of islam, real or imagined, and denouncing anyone attempting a critical analysis of islamic scripture, history or practice.
Cheers, CD
-
-
Final comment! i have just sent my comment and yours directly to Mark Pritchard with a cover note. will let you know if he replies. thanks for this lead.
-
-
i just looked and the 14th comment, i.e. mine, and it says this:
Kinana said:
Apr 11th, 2010 at 00:04 Your comment is awaiting moderation.
oops! i just refreshed the page and my comment is not there, so though it immediately appeared i did not see the 'Your comment is awaiting moderation.' line.
Which means it may not pass the censors and i will be in the same boat as you! not bad company if you ask me! But hopefully at least one person will actually read it and come to understand a bit more about the issue.
onward!
-
-
my comment appeared instantly, i.e. without any moderation. so i can only assume that the shropshire star has some policy of disallowing and method of detecting overseas postings.
we will see how long my post remains there!
Glad to hear you are part of the Tea Party process. i have a friend in the States who attends every week in his local town.
-
-
Hey CD
i just posted this comment:
'Asad completely (and probably deliberately) misrepresents the thrust of the article by Mark Pritchard. Sharia courts and laws are intrinsically, by their very nature contrary, to the laws of the land because they come from Allah, not from the democratic process of discussion and debate. England is not yet a theocracy!
'He also wants us to believe that a Muslim woman is truly free to attend or not to attend a Sharia court, and also completely free to ignore the findings therein should she so choose to do so. Fat chance. Mohammed, the founder of Islam, never gave women such freedom so why should his male followers? The answer is they should not and they do not.'
-
-
Citizens' Declaraton of Threat & Plea for Relief - 18 Legislative Actions to Stop Sharia:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/citizens-declaration-of-threat-ple... (petition, all are welcome to sign)
http://civilusdefendus.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/call-to-action-1... (pdf)
-
-
Kinana,
Islam and the pressure for sharia are growing here, in massive disproportion to population. There is also, however, a great deal of awareness among a portion of the population and a growing number of elected representatives. For those that see past the trappings of religion and see the political doctrine beneath, it is fairly easy to say sharia is incompatible with the US Constutiton. (And who can abide 2 sets of laws anyway?!)
It is unfortunate that the CAIR and the victim playing islamic groups target schools and small municipalities that may be ignorant or unprepared to challenge the claims of muslims groups for 'equal treatment' while spreading their net of ultimate conquest. I am in contact with www.EducateUSA.com - they are educating schools and other government bodies to the connection of CAIR, Muslims Student Association, etc to the Muslim Brotherhood, the convicted Holy Land Foundation and their status as "unindicted co-conspirators" in the HLF case. Once this information is formally in the record of that body, a reminder is sent that now that they KNOW the connections and risks, THEY are responsible and DUTY-bound to protect and defend citizens against this threat. So, this is going on in California and elsewhere to take a stand and force electeds to recognize their own liability or potential culpability. Slow, but we must take steps.
I have drafted 18 legislative actions (Citizens Declaration of Threat & Plea for Relief) and have shared with some electeds. I plan to take it to Wash, DC in June. I am supporting several Congressional candidates that are openly running anti-sharia campaigns. We are holding a Tea Party even tomorrow. 8-)
Feel free to repost. Thank you for your kind words. One would think intellegent people could look at liberty and totalitarianism and SEE the difference. I tried a post to FOX News with the same result. I might be blacklisted at FOX, for correspondence with commentors and management. 8-)
CD
-
-
CD
As always, an excellent posting. I do not see your contribution to the international dialogue on Sharia courts in the Shropshire Star; Theirs and all their reader’s loss.
I will give it a go this weekend. Maybe it was the international part they did not like.
The ‘content standards’ ensure the editors have a quiet life! But I do see several contributions there which agree with the author, Mark Pritchard. The few posters who write in favour of Sharia courts ignore the inherent involuntary nature of Sharia courts vis a vis women. They assume equality of status and power between men and women.
Are there Sharia courts in the USA?
Welcome to 4 Freedoms!
(currently not admitting new members)
Page Monitor
Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.
Muslim Terrorism Count
Mission Overview
Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them.
At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.
Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.
We need to capture this information before it is removed. The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.
We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.
The 4 Freedoms
These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper).
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:
- Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"
© 2023 Created by Netcon.
Powered by
You need to be a member of The 4 Freedoms Library to add comments!