COLUMN SNIPPET:

"There is no due process under Sharia law. Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle."

In the West, it is the Judges who have given away the Freedom of the masses,
hard won by the blood of others,
but now lost forever, if they can get their way.

Coming soon to Detroit, Philadelphia, LA, and maybe even your town!

(In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law. Sharia law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself)

In essecense this socialist judge tries to have his cake and eat it too and in the end really says nothing. Since Sharia Law trumps all law in the minds of these people and in no way is equal or fair or moral or right then it can not comply with existing English law. More to the point if it did then why use it and not the Englsih law?

I agree — you’re correct.

Why stop there?

Why not allow those within muslim communities to be defended from discrimination and maltreatment by foreign armies operating on British soil?

Shahada-boy Phillips sez: “A furore muslimnorum libera nos domine!”

This is the problem with officials in jurisprudence being trained primarily by case law. By such a course of studies, a judge can easily find a case that somehow enables him or her to make the decision he or she wants to make. It also cripples a judge intellectually from understanding the foundation of Western jurisprudence.

Obviously, this judge is a very poorly educated man and not very intelligent, for he has overlooked the inconvenient and bleak reality that if you allow Muslims ‘in their community’ to base contracts on ‘other than English law’, you consequently allow them to enforce and exact punishment for breaking those contracts on ‘other than English law’.

More fallout from moral relatavism and multiculturalism.

this judge is a very poorly educated man

Yes, lots of times the nobility are poorly educated.

inconvenient and bleak reality that if you allow Muslims ‘in their community’ to base contracts on ‘other than English law’, you consequently allow them to enforce and exact punishment for breaking those contracts on ‘other than English law’.

Not necessarily. This situation often arises in the United States when parties will contract to have the law of one state govern the contract and then sue to enforce the contract in another state. It isn't uncommon to apply the substantive law of the contract state and apply the remedies of the enforcing state, particularly if the enforcing state finds the remedies of the contract state to violate its public policy.

There is NO justice in Sharia law.

Vote Barack Obama - and you will see similar offerings in this nation.

The article concerns England.

If the English judge has found sufficient precedent to allow contracts to be based on other than English law, then another English judge may very well find sufficient precedence to allow fines, fees, or other punishment for breaking those contracts based on ‘other than English law.’

My point was that case law begins a slippery slope and loses touch with the foundation of jurisprudence.

In America, this has resulted in the USSC citing European laws and social mores in ruling on constitutional issues.

By extension, Lord Phillips, the Jewish population of England can abide by the following law (fair is fair):

Leviticus 18

Exhortation to Obedience and Life

18:1 The Lord spoke to Moses: 18:2 “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘I am the Lord your God! 18:3 You must not do as they do in the land of Egypt where you have been living,1 and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan into which I am about to bring you;2 you must not walk in their statutes. 18:4 You must observe my regulations and you must be sure to walk in my statutes. I am the Lord your God. 18:5 So you must keep6 my statutes and my regulations; anyone who does so will live by keeping them. I am the Lord.

“So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper. “

I see someone listens to Michael Savage. He just said this not too long ago. Perhaps a month or two ago.

England is dead, they were defeated from within without firing a shot. if this is not a wakeup call for the USA then i don’t know what will be. they are here and they are doing the same thing. they are winning the war from within and have not fired a shot. how much more are we going to stand for before we do something to stop them from winning here?

...The article concerns England.....

...The article concerns the country formerly known as England...

The Chinese should just surround their pathetic little nation with gunboats and dictate terms of surrender. They have nothing left but banks that lend to African despots, out of control street crime, the world’s worst cuisine, and periodontal disease.

to allow contracts to be based on other than English law, then another English judge may very well find sufficient precedence to allow fines, fees, or other punishment for breaking those contracts based on ‘other than English law.’

A couple of responses: first, your situation seems unlikely, given our experience in the United States on contracting for substantive law outside a jurisdiction.

Second, so what? Shouldn't I have the right to contract for whatever I darn well please? Isn't an unfettered right to contract at the heart of liberty?

their objective appears to be domination of England, not assimilation

DUH ! !

Wow! Honor killings sanctioned in England. England has committed suicide.

Cal Thomas:

So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.

The most senior judge in England has declared that Islamic legal principles in Sharia law may be used within Muslim communities in Britain to settle marital arguments and regulate finance. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."

In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law. Sharia law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself.

And so the English who gave us the Magna Carta in 1215, William Blackstone and the foundation of American law are slowly succumbing to the dictates of intolerant Islam and sowing seeds of their own destruction.

... It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that forces all other religions and cultures to accept an inferior status once Muslims become the majority.

... British Muslims who wish to live under Sharia law might have stayed in the countries from which they came - or return to them. But their objective appears to be domination of England, not assimilation. This also seems to be the goal for Muslims in other countries with large and growing Muslim populations.

There is no due process under Sharia law. Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle.
 

Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

OK, Mr. Chamberlain..., er, Lord Phillips. Where is Great Britain's next line in the sand?

cross-reference - another MUST READ

Islamists' Catch-22
Townhall.com ^ | July 07, 2008 | Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

Amen!

Sorry folks, it pains me to say this but Cal Thomas is taking one very small statement and running far beyond the end zone with it.

"Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."

This statement is true right now in both England and the United States and in fact has been true since the days of the Magna Carta itself.

This is simply the right to contract and it's nothing new at all, so long as the details of the contract violate nothing in the secular law.

While I have no doubt the Islamo-Fascists will try to make more from this statement, Mr. Thomas is misleading everyone with this panic stricken screed about forced marriage and pretending that the full scope of Sharia law has been blessed by this judge. That's not what the judge said at all.

The right to contract is an essential right between citizens , including even the right to surrender a right under the terms of the contract.

I'd need to see the full statement from the judge to be 100% sure but the snippet quoted here is not new or original and I'd be much more concerned if the statement were reversed.

Relax, one of the really nice things about living in a nation of law is that it means what it says (in theory!).

This alone should be grounds for kicking their sorry a$$es back to the sh*thole they came from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlLaUCAQlQQ

(coming soon to your neighborhood)

How about “Khan’s Law”? My favorite! Perfect for enhancing the cultural and economic goals of civilization.

In essecense this socialist judge tries to have his cake and eat it too and in the end really says nothing.

His opinion was just nuanced.

Here is a sample of a recent surrender agreement that Raila Odinga put together for Kenya. I am sure Raila is a consultant on Islam to his cousin Barack Obama.



Raila is the Muslim PM of Kenya







Barack campaigning with Ralia Odinga in Kenya.

Memorandum of Understanding between Hon.Raila Amolo Odinga Representing the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) and National Muslim Leaders Forum (NAMLEF) All Barack has to do is Change The verbage of “ Republic of Kenya” with the “United States Of America” and he has his new agreement. Now how easy was that for the new Messiah.

You are aware, of course, that Mr. Savage was quoting (without attribution, no doubt) Mr. T.S. Eliot??

For a truly depressing treat, hunt up "The Hollow Men":

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar ...

No, you shouldn’t, if recourse for breaking the contract is out of the bounds of state/national jurisprudence.

You and I don’t have the legal authority or right to enter into a contract that would allow me to imprison you if you break the contract. That exceeds the purview of contracts and jurisprudence.

When an English judge says that citizens can enter into contracts not based on English law, he is in essence saying that private contracts are not under the purview of their national law. If such is the case, the next-most-likely case that the Islamofascists will make — based on their efforts in other nations such as France and Sweden — is that they should be able to have their own courts with their own proceedings, their own laws and their own punishment for breaking those laws. Yes, France and Sweden are beginning to give in to these demands.

A nation such as England — and America, if this is your point — should never allow such a balkanization of jurisprudence. Our collective stance should be: you have a right to enter into private contracts, but those contracts must be drawn and voluntarily agreed to within the bounds of our laws. For example, if you enter into a marriage agreement, if your wife is found talking on the street with another man, you do not have the right to beat her. Sharia law is demented. It should never be accepted as an acceptable alternative basis of jurisprudence in a civilized nation.

No Mr. Savage did quote T.S. Eliott... When he said it...

What a remarkable document! I am sorry for Kenya.

Shouldn't I have the right to contract for whatever I darn well please?

Yes, as long as it does not violate the large body of federal and state contract law.

Interesting decision, but I wonder the consequences. In the UK a Catholic cannot be Prime Ministe because of the role the PM plays in the CoE. Is that now no longer operable. Also can a Catholic husband go to an ecclesiastical court and deny his wife either an abortion or divorce and have this denial enforced by the state?

By saying the rulings must comply with English Law the High Court has made a ruling with no effect. In NY the state recognizes Catholic annullments and the rulings of Orthodox Jewish courts ( I forgot their name) as long as their rulings do not conflict with the Laws of the State of NY.No one can say the Church or the Orthodox community are outside the laws of NY. Until a judge, in a western nation, gives Sharia jusrisdiction regardless of the civil law, these decisions are a topic for discussion and venting but little more.

I agree.

“More to the point if it did then why use it and not the Englsih law?”

OPINION: I have absolutely no idea what the judge was thinking and/or if he was thinking at all.

There is never a good reason to use Sharia (shariah) law in a civilized society.

'Common Purpose' is the fuel behind actions like this one.

Lord Philips is a joke, and was only nominated as Lord Justice because of his political opinion fitting inline with the Marxist PM of the time Tony Blair.
They are all spouting this rubbish right now as they know that if the Lisbon Treaty is made law in Europe, Tony Blair will probably be the EU President, and then they will be in favour in Common Purpose circles. They are lining their beds!

Common Purpose, that's what got him the position, and gave him the voice to try to undermine indigenous British law.

What is so strange is why the British accept him saying this? After all, the innovations of the British in scripting solid law has been the underpinning of societies all over the world. It's one aspect of the British which I've always admired.
Like the saying, if it's not broke, don't fix etc. blah blah

Buy more ammo - we’re gonna need it ............... FRegards

.. British Muslims who wish to live under Sharia law might have stayed in the countries from which they came - or return to them. But their objective appears to be domination of England...

Sadly, Muslims who have no desire whatsoever to live under Sharia law - and moved to England for a better life away from medieval thinking - will now be forced back into Sharia also.

You and I don’t have the legal authority or right to enter into a contract that would allow me to imprison you if you break the contract. That exceeds the purview of contracts and jurisprudence.

Well you can enter the contract legally, but it's just not enforceable. And I agree that this is the current state of the law. Where I might take issue, though is on the question of whether this SHOULD be the state of the law. We're all grown-ups here and we're capable of evaluating the risks and appreciating the consequences of our decisions. If I want to contract for a certain type of remedy, I ought to be able to enforce it.

When an English judge says that citizens can enter into contracts not based on English law, he is in essence saying that private contracts are not under the purview of their national law.

How is that different than you and I entering into a contract that is governed by, say, Canadian law? Or by English law? Those contract provisions would very likely be enforced, and similar ones are enforced every day, except to the extent that they conflict with the public policy of the enforcing state, which is exactly, it seems to me, what the Lord Chief Justice is saying here.

The following is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat:

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights'.

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

Nation	% Muslim
United States	1.0%
Australia	1.5%
Italy	1.5%
Norway	1.8%
Canada	1.9%
China	2.0%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Nation	% Muslim
Denmark	2.0%
United Kingdom	2.7%
Germany	3.7%
Spain	4.0%
Thailand	4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

Nation	% Muslim
Switzerland	4.3%
Philippines	5.0%
Sweden	5.0%
The Netherlands	5.5%
Trinida and Tabago	5.8%
France	8.0%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).

Nation	% Muslim
Guyana	10.0%
India	13.4%
Israel	16.0%
Kenya	10.0%
Russia	15.0%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Nation	% Muslim
Ethiopia	32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Nation	% Muslim
Bosnia	40.0%
Chad	50.1%
Lebanon	59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Nation	% Muslim
Albania	70.0%
Malaysia	60.4%
Qatar	77.5%
Sudan	70.0%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Nation	% Muslim
Bangladesh	83.0%
Egypt	90.0%
Gaza	98.7%
Indonesia	86.1%
Iran	98.0%
Iraq	97.0%
Jordan	92.0%
Morocco	98.7%
Pakistan	97.0%
Syria	90.0%
Tajikistan	90.0%
Turkey	99.8%
United Arab Emirates	96.0%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Nation	% Muslim
Yemen	99.9%
Afghanistan	100.0%
Saudi Arabia	100.0%
Somalia	100.0%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel."

– Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’.

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.