Articles

ECHR Judgement Summary: "sharia law is incompatible with democracy and human rights"

Source: “Annual Report 2003 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”

Summary: 
  • The goal of this trial is to create judicial precedent: to ensure that in the future, any criticism or insult against Islamism must be considered "racism".

  • Valentina Colombo, a professor at the European University in Rome, warned early on about jihad by court. In 2009, she wrote that, "The lawsuit that was initiated by The Union of the Islamic Organizations of France and the Great Mosque of Paris against the satirical magazine 'Charlie Hebdo' for republishing the Danish cartoons about Muhammad is one of the most recent examples of this kind of jihad." But nobody paid attention to the warning. And when jihadists came in 2015 to murder eight journalists and cartoonists, nobody understood that "jihad by court" is only the first step.

  • "Legal action has become a mainstay of radical Islamist organizations seeking to intimidate and silence their critics." — Steven Emerson, Founder and President of The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Country: 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)
News Date: 
07/07/2017
Summary: 
  • Islamic preacher Sheikh Ebrahim Bham is to speak at Palestine Expo in London
  • But newspaper claims to have seen footage where he quotes Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels who once described Jews as 'fleas'
  • Other online videos allegedly show him saying women should stay in the home 
  • Communities Minister Sajid Javid previously considering cancelling the event amid concerns organisers have expressed support for Hamas group
  •  
Country: 
Germany
News Date: 
09/07/2017
Summary: 

Islamist gangs are using violence and intimidation to enforce Shariah law in parts of Germany, particularly against Chechen and Chechen-origin women in Berlin, according to reports. Der Taggespiegel reports that a threatening video of an armed man in a hood has been circulating in the Chechen community since March 2017 through the WhatsApp messaging service. “Here, in Europe, certain Chechen wome

Country: 
United States of America (the)
News Date: 
17/12/2016
Summary: 

Costco is being sued by a former employee for religious discrimination. Jean Camara told ABC 7 that when he refused to work with pork, he was told to work outside gathering carts. "Just because you have a different belief, that doesn't give anybody the right to treat you different," said Camara. Camara, a devout Muslim, worked at the Costco in Sunset Park Brooklyn, New York, in September of 2012 as a cashier’s assistant. When pork came across the conveyor belt, Camara refused to handle the product because his religious beliefs forbid him from touching pork or alcohol.

Summary: 

Rotherham is one of the most famous towns in Britain, famous worldwide and famous for all the wrong reasons, a town known for the biggest child protection scandal in UK history. The truth is that the biggest child protection scandal is the whole of the UK, there is not one town or city that has is safe from rape gangs. If there is a kebab shop in your town or city then the risks are high that there is a rape gang operating with impunity.

Rotherham is the one town most of us are aware of, the one we all focus on and are appalled and disgusted by. The true figure of girls raped will never be known but is estimated to be around 1400. The true number of perpetrators will never be known either and most of them are free to walk around in Rotherham and carry on raping, increasing the estimated number of 1400 girls to who knows how many.

Summary: 
  • However, the media-driven PR campaign backfired as the news of the opening of the Berlin 'liberal mosque' reached Muslim communities in Germany and abroad. The liberal utopian dream quickly turned into an Islamist nightmare.

  • Why do Muslim organizations in Germany fail to mobilize within their communities and denounce Islamist terrorism? Because, if there really is a belief that "international terrorism should not be depicted as a problem belonging to Muslims alone" this view seems to indicate that, in general, Muslims do not see it as their problem.

There are some very clear examples in here of why Islamic ideology is very dangerous and that it isn't all 'Muslims' as many do not believe in their hearts but are forced to show outward signs of obeisance to Islam through fear of being killed:

 

"Muslim woman, how could you accept religious traditions that say 'your husband has the right to hit you'?"
Egyptian #ExMuslim pic.twitter.com/vJ9kJRNYlr

Country: 
Germany
News Date: 
08/07/2017
Summary: 
  • Threats of violence against "errant" women are viewed as "acts of patriotism."

  • "They have come to Germany because they wanted to live in Germany, but they keep trying to turn it into Chechnya with its medieval ways." — Social worker interviewed by Meduza.

  • "Everyone's attention is fixed on the Syrians, but the Chechens are the most dangerous group. We are not paying sufficient attention to this." — Police in Frankfurt (Oder).

Summary: 

In a historic speech to an enthusiastic Polish crowd before the meeting of the G20 Summit leaders, US President Donald Trump described the West's battle against "radical Islamic terrorism" as the way to protect "our civilization and our way of life". Trump asked if the West had the will to survive:

"Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?"

 

  • "The greatest difference is that in Europe, politics and religion have been separated from one another, but in the case of Islam it is religion that determines politics" — Zoltan Balog, Hungary's Minister for Human Resources.

  • It is no coincidence that President Donald Trump chose Poland, a country that fought both Nazism and Communism, to call on the West to show a little willingness in its existential fight against the new totalitarianism: radical Islam.

  • "Possessing weapons is one thing, and possessing the will to use them is another thing altogether". — Professor William Kilpatrick, Boston College.

Country: 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)
News Date: 
06/07/2017
Summary: 

More than 100 people in the UK have been convicted of terrorism offences related to Syria and Iraq since 2014, research by the BBC has revealed.

 

BBC gets through the article without once mentioning the words Muslim and Islam!! Remarkable bias by omission https://t.co/2BblZZJtSV

— David Vance (@DVATW) July 6, 2017

Some recent tweets of interest:

 

Start: 21/06/2017

I sincerely hope stay safe. You're a brave and decent man and I wish you the best.

— Anne Marie Waters (@AMDWaters) July 5, 2017

You're one of the bravest people I have come across in the battle against extremism. I hope to meet you one day. Thank you 

— Imam Tawhidi (@Imamofpeace) July 5, 2017

Country: 
India
News Date: 
05/07/2017
Summary: 

“What began as a protest soon escalated into a violent roving mob ransacking houses of the majority Hindu community in the district. It is believed that dozens of businesses, houses, and at least six police vehicles, were torched by a mob in West Bengal’s North 24 Parganas district….Blockades are on in at least 60 places in Basirhat and incidents of police being beaten up are also being reported.”

Summary: 
  • German Chancellor Angela Merkel's refugee policy was not a masterpiece of humanitarian politics; it was dictated by the fear of television images spread all over the world.

  • Even the suffering of our enemies disturbs us, in the humanitarian culture of the West. We are therefore increasingly amenable to policies of appeasement, censorship and retreat in order not to have to face the possibility of such horribleness and actually having to fight it. That is why radical Islam has been able to horrify the West into submission. We have paralyzed ourselves. We censor the cartoons, the graphic photos of the terrorists' victims and even the faces and names of the jihadists. The Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, are not publicity-seekers; they are soldiers ready to kill and die in the name of what they care about.

  • Images, as in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, are published only if they amplify the West's sense of guilt and turn the "war on terror" into something more even more dangerous than the jihad causing the war. The result is to erase our enemy from our imagination. This is how the "war on terror" has become synonymous with lawlessness throughout the West.

Country: 
Saudi Arabia
News Date: 
05/07/2017
Summary: 

Saudi Arabia is the chief foreign promoter of Islamist extremism in the UK, a new report has claimed. The Henry Jackson Society said there was a "clear and growing link" between Islamist organisations in receipt of overseas funds, hate preachers and Jihadist groups promoting violence.

Summary: 

Home » Editorial » British Law and Sharia Law

British Law and Sharia Law

The law of the land and alien legal systems: can they co-exist? A Matter of Allegiance.]

Posted on March 19, 2017 by Anne Marie Waters in EditorialGlobal Vision // 33 Comments

It’s important to talk about the law and to clarify what we mean. If we say “the law” we tend to mean the law of the land. So if I’m in Britain and I say “the law”, I mean British Law, the law that governs Britain.

Upon questioning about the presence of sharia law in the UK, the government response has essentially been that there is no sharia law in the UK. What this means is that because sharia law does not have the weight of state behind it, i.e. the state does not enforce sharia law, there is no sharia law. But there is.

Sharia is not ‘the law’, but it is a set of laws. Sharia law exists in an objective form, as a set of laws, and is adhered to across the world – often imposed by islamic nation states. Just like membership of an association obliges us to obey the laws of that association, sharia law, for many, is to be obeyed in order to be a devout Muslim. Vast numbers of Muslims take that requirement very seriously.

It’s unfair to claim that sharia law is always a choice, for many it isn’t. Apostasy is widely condemned in even the most ‘moderate’ Muslim communities, and people take great risks if they question Islam. But even if sharia was a choice, even if an individual does choose sharia law, should they be able to in the UK? Should that choice be available? The answer has to be no. Sharia, or other sets of laws, should not be available for use if they run contrary to the law of the land.

The Law governs our practical daily life in areas such as driving or taxes, but it is also a reflection of our morals as a nation and a people. It is a reflection of what we believe to be moral and right. One of its primary functions is to protect. Who is protected and from what, is derived from our common morals and values.

The Law prohibits violent physical assault as a criminal offence so we can protect ourselves from violent physical assault, but also to reflect our moral position that we believe violent physical assault is wrong. The Law prohibits sexual engagement with minors so we can protect minors from sexual exploitation and abuse, but also to reflect our common moral position that sex with minors is wrong.  

The Law of the land is built on several foundational and fixed principles that don’t change as new laws are introduced.  Fundamental principles in criminal law for example don’t change: the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is on the state etc.

Family law, the area of law most pertinent when discussing sharia law in the UK, is of the most fundamental importance. Family law also demonstrates who we are as people, what kind of society we seek to be. Like criminal law, there are fundamental principles in family law. Like criminal law, family law principles are consistent, there aren’t exceptions made when new laws are introduced. For example, the equal rights of the parties to a family law dispute don’t change. A husband and a wife have the same status in law, their word carries the same weight. This is fundamental. Also fundamental is the status of children in disputes, the fundamental principle being that the best interests of the child is paramount in any decision involving that child.

Family law determines the status of women (in the family) and of children. In the UK, the woman is equal to the man, and the child’s protection is paramount. We cannot veer from these principles – it is against the spirit of British Law that reflects who we are.

Given this, can we allow a system of laws to be practiced, if they are not consistent with the spirit of our law or the principles on which it is built? No, we cannot.

Sharia law is inconsistent with the spirit of our British Law and its principles. In deciding on a case involving a Lebanese mother who would lose her children under sharia if deported to her home country, the House of Lords called it “wholly incompatible” with human rights legislation.

Many politicians will argue that sharia is not being practiced in Britain, but it is. It has pseudo court rooms, judges, parties, and a decision. The decision might not be binding according to British Law, but it is binding according to sharia law, and that is what gives it its power.

In sharia family law, a wife is worth less than her husband. She cannot divorce of her volition, even if she is subject to violence and abuse. Her testimony in a family law dispute is worth only half of her husband’s. This is intended to make it as difficult as possible for women to ‘win’ in any family law dispute. The reason for this is simply because the Koran deems women to be worth less than men.

Furthermore, in sharia family law, the best interests of the child are not paramount – again in defiance of the standards, principles, and spirit of British Law. The best interests of the child do not come first in sharia because Islam deems that children are the property of their fathers, who has sole power over their lives. Mothers have no input and no rights.

In the practice of sharia law here in Britain, decisions as to child custody are being made. This inevitably means that children will be placed with their fathers irrespective of circumstances, including if he is violent. Because mothers have no rights, they can’t stop this.

Sharia law practice takes on different guises in Britain, including under powers of the Arbitration Act. The Arbitration Act allows parties to a dispute to agree to appoint a ‘judge’ and agree to be bound by the decision.

Arbitration per se is not a problem. In principle, it is a legitimate way for free people to conduct their affairs. But the law itself, i.e. the Arbitration Act itself, places restrictions on this practice that ensure arbitration adheres to the principles of British Law. For example, the Arbitration Act requires that arbitration be fair, impartial, and in the public interest.

Sharia law is not fair, not impartial, and given its terrible treatment of women and children, it is hardly in the public interest.

For the most part however, sharia councils operate as charities.  The problem here is that charity laws tend to view religion as a force for good. It does so without examining the detail of what the religion teaches. Across the board, in public life, religions are deemed to be essentially the same, and are deemed to encourage moral behaviour.

If we are going to oppose sharia law, and we should, we must stop designating unquestioning privilege to religion. We must look at what the religion teaches and the impact these teachings can have on its followers. 

We must also stop pretending that there is nothing specific to sharia that should worry us. There is. It is a system predicated on female subservience, on violent punishment, on oppression, on arbitrary whims of clerics, and on complete disregard for the rights of children.

Sharia is not compatible with Britain; it’s not compatible with our social values, our legal principles, or who we are as a nation. Its practice should therefore not be permitted. The fundamental principles of British Law should instead be upheld as supreme.  

Pages

Subscribe to Front page feed