Forgive Me Father – I know not what I say

rowan-williams-archbishop-canterbury

Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams – thoughtful, if naive, comments

Islamicdemo

Islamists in Britain ignoring British laws by inciting others to violence

Archbishop Williams, senior Church of England clergyman, has achieved something across Britain that he has failed to achieve within his own Church – UNITY.

Speaking to a slick of lawyers, Dr Williams suggested that, in his view, it was inevitable that some aspects of Sharia law would be incorporated in British law. He was immediately and widely reported, incorrectly, as advocating that Muslims should be able to ignore British laws and observe only Sharia. These reports succeeded in uniting virtually all of British society, illegal Muslim immigrants and Al Qaeda supporters in condemnation of the unfortunate priest.

The reasons for each group to condemn the Archbishop are far more illuminating than anything said by Dr Williams.

The issue that applied across the groups was an interpretation of what lawis.

British Law is now extremely complex. Historically it was made up of Common Law, Canon Law, and Statute Law. Common Law has its basis in common tradition that stretches back more than one thousand years. Canon Law is Catholic Law as created by the Medieval Church and originally a parallel legal system that created friction between Church and Monarchy, resulting in one of Dr William’s predecessors being attacked and killed in his own Cathedral by knights acting as agents of the King. Statute Law is law enacted by Parliament and still includes laws enacted during the Middle Ages, and never repealed by subsequent laws. More recently, British Law has been joined by European Law that is currently enacted as Statute Law but is, in reality, regulation created by unelected Eurocrats in Brussels. With the signing of the European Constitution by “Bottler” Brown, Scottish Prime Minister, non-elect, British Law will disappear during the next few years and be replaced by the fundamentally different Napoleonic Code, but then Britain itself will also cease to exist, as it is carved up under the Balkanization of Europe into a series of Soviet Socialist Republics, this process having begun with the creation of the Arc Manche Republic, with its capital in Paris and comprising parts of North Western France and most of Southern Britain.

Given the current progress to a European Union of Soviet Socialist Republiks, anything that Dr Williams, or any other group, or individual, may predict for British law is irrelevant because all laws affecting the British Isles will be introduced by Eurocrats and rubber stamped by the European Parliament. That Parliament is likely to be strongly anti-Islamic and influenced largely by German and French politicians. It is also likely to be a super state that is strongly centrist and protectionist.

One thing that the EUSSR is likely to crack down on with enthusiasm is any attempt by any group, or individual, to avoid European Law, or any attempt to introduce any parallel legal system in rivalry to European Legal Code.

The reality is that Shari is already operating in parallel within Britain. Islamic communities are ignoring British law and applying Sharia through their own courts. Honour killings and forced marriages in Britain amongst parts of the Islamic communities that have flourished under the Blair Brown Regime apartheid policies are not uncommon. Gangs are being formed on the basis of these religious ghettos, creating a militia.

The reality is also of the adoption of Shari selectively in British regulations. Muslim men who have multiple wives are not prosecuted under the Bigamy laws, but are treated as legal multiple marriages by the Blair Brown Regime for the purposes of benefits under the British welfare systems.

The further reality is that Sharia-compliant mortgages are now available in Britain which has required amendment of legal regulation of the finance industry. The British Government has also tried to make London the capital of Sharia-compliant mortgages.

The difficulties caused by Dr Williams’ musings are potentially very serious and have little to do now with what he is reported as saying.

The Islamic fundamentalists were quick to condemn Dr Williams because they have no intention of seeing some aspects of Sharia adopted into British Law. Their view is that Sharia is superior to British Law and should replace it entirely, with Britain becoming an Islamic State. A number of their mullahs have been happy to preach violence in pursuit of this objective.

More than 40% of all British Muslims apparently want Sharia in place of British Law. The more moderate of these are suggesting that Sharia should be optional as an alternative that any individual could choose. This is confusing because some of these people apparently hope for Sharia that could be selectively chosen and not chosen as a complete and total alternative. Others amongst the number apparently want the choice to be between full British Law, or full Sharia.

Putting to one side the desirability or otherwise of running two parallel legal systems, there would be some practical challenges. The critical first challenge is whether the Blair Brown Regime apartheid policies should be expanded to create Muslim areas in Britain where Sharia would apply and, if so, whether Sharia would apply to all those in those ghettos whether they were Muslims or non-Muslims. There would be the prospect of a non-Muslim adulterer being stoned to death, beheaded, or hanged on the orders of the Sharia Courts. That also raises the question of whether a Sharia Court would be able to extradite a non-Muslim from outside the Muslim ghetto on a charge of adultery that might have been committed with a Muslim outside the ghetto.

In the same way, there is the question of whether a Muslim, living, or working, outside a ghetto could be charged under the Bigamy Laws for multiple marriage.

There is an overwhelming case for applying British Law to every British citizen, and to every person present in the British Isles, equally and impartially. It is the right of every Briton to lobby Parliament to amend, delete, or replace existing laws. If a majority of representatives in Parliament agree, the changes will be made, until such time as laws are only made and imposed by Eurocrats from Brussels.

Part of the current confusion is caused equally by ignorance and arrogance.

Far too few Britons fully understand the history of British law making, or the changes taking place as that function ceases to be under the control of the British Parliament.

There is also arrogance as a small minority of Islamic fundamentalists seek to impose their views on the overwhelming minority.

If a Briton travels to an Islamic country, or chooses to live there, and where that country observes Sharia, the individual must expect to observe the customs and laws of that country, even if the laws and their punishments are seen as barbaric and out-dated. By the same token, a Muslim visiting or choosing to live in Britain should expect to observe the customs and laws of Britain. If the majority of Britons vote for, or accept, European Law, even if that law becomes anti-Islamic, that becomes part of the customs and laws of what was Britain. If a Briton. or someone living in the British Isles, or visiting, does not like that they can leave, as more than 3 million British born individuals already have.

Britain, or more accurately England, Wales and Northern Ireland, are subject to a legal system that is not perfect but has been one of the best ever developed. What made it particularly good was that it was pragmatic and did not seek to apply itself to what people thought or what they reasonably did in private. It has been one reason why Britain has attracted oppressed minorities from all over the world through the centuries. Until recently, each new wave of immigrants has adapted to the British system and integrated with the rest of the population. In the process, they have also contributed some of their original values and customs, adopted because those already indigenous to Britain were happy to adopt them. It would appear that this was the point Dr Williams was attempting to make – that not all of the Sharia is barbaric stone-age rantings and some aspects might be beneficially adopted.

Common Law gives a basis of common sense.

Canon Law provides an element of religious law which the majority of Britons were prepared to accept. Over the centuries this element of law has reduced, reflecting the changing religious views and the strengthening of the secular State.

The conflict between King Henry II and Archbishop Beckett marked the rise of secular power over Church power. Henry VIII broke the Church in England away from the Roman Church. In the process, he firmly stamped the secular State over the religious State, but also made himself Head of the Church of England. That led to centuries of conflict between the Anglican Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church, with its echos still heard in the Twentieth Century.

Elizabeth I created the degree of tolerance that has largely continued since then through British history. She famously declared that she had no interest in creating windows into men’s souls. What she meant was that any of her subjects were free to believe what they wanted, provided that they did not attempt to force their views on others, or use their beliefs as a justification for breaking the laws enacted by her Parliament.

DX.

Leave a Reply