Thursday, 7th February 2008
3:28pm
I knew it was too good to be true. Hot on the heels of a sensible speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury comes this today:
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London later on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.
He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
But Dr Williams says the argument that "there's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger".
Give me strength. This is the head of the C of E, one has to remind oneself, arguing for the adoption in legislation of Sharia law because Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty" and that the argument that "there's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger".
He's like some satirist's caricature of a limp-wristed vicar, always doing someone else's bidding.
This pathetic excuse for a national leader thinks that it is a stark alternative to choose between obeying the law of the land and the precepts of a religion if they conflict. It's stark in one sense, yes. Because there is no dilemma, no debate and no choice. If you live in the UK, you obey UK law and no other if there is a conflict, whether it's Muslim, Jewish, Hindhu, Sikh, Scientologist or whatever. And that's it. If you don't like the law, either campaign democratically to have it changed, or leave.
As for having one law for Muslims and one law for everyone else: the "bit of a danger" is when supposed national leaders give up the ghost of defending Western values and cave in to demands for the adoption of Sharia.
I'm not a Christian, so it's not for me to embarrassed by having this cretin as head of the church. But as a citizen of the country he wishes to see impose one law for Muslims and one law for everyone else, it absolutely is for me to say that his idiotic pronouncements should be treated with the contempt he and they deserve.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (14)
1:26pm
Egypt might not be an Islamic theocracy, but it certainly knows how to police a border Sharia-style:
Egypt's foreign minister said that no further violations of its borders would be tolerated in the wake of a 12-day breach on its frontier with Gaza and said anyone daring to cross would have their legs broken, the state news agency reported.
(Thanks to Tom Massey)
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (4)
12:58pm
A shame, this.
Damian Hockney, a 'One London' member of the GLA, is to run for Mayor. I appear to disagree with him on almost everything. However, my interest was aroused by his stance on the Olympics. His manifesto starts off very promisingly:
London's Olympic bid was either a fraud or the product of serious maladministration, perpetrated by the Government and the Mayor on London's taxpayers. Damian Hockney was attacked by politicians from all parties at the London Assembly when he predicted three years ago before the bid had even been won that the Olympics would cost £10 billion. He was even accused of being unpatriotic! But the government has now increased its estimate from £2.375 billion in 2004 to £9.3 billion. Already it looks like that figure will be breached later this year (but after the mayoral election).
Aha, I thought; that looks more like it! Perhaps he will use his candidacy as a last ditch effort to campaign against the Olympics. He could simply refuse to honour the commitments made so far - and damn the consequences. If he promised to spend the entire period in the run up to the election on that theme then he'd garner lots of support - including my own.
But no, it's a damp squib. Here's his promise:
Londoners must not pay a penny more for the Olympics and a strong Mayor is needed to defend this position. The current mayor has already agreed to increase Londoners' liability by £300 million (an increase of nearly 50%). Damian Hockney has never been a cheerleader for the Games and would be prepared as a last resort to withdraw London's support for the Olympic Games if the budget continues to balloon out of control. This would mean handing full responsibility to national government, which would then need to decide whether to withdraw its invitation to the Olympic Committee to host the 2012 Games or to stage further raids on overstretched national taxpayers and lottery funds. If the government can contain the budget, Damian Hockney as mayor will offer full support in ensuring that the Olympic Games are a truly memorable sporting event of which Londoners can be proud.
Big deal. He'll huff and he'll puff and then he'll run away.
Have some backbone, man.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (1)
12:06pm
I can barely believe my ears. I'm listening here (the item starts at 22 minutes, 25 seconds) to a report on the Today programme about a new pilot scheme in Derbyshire for criminals, called Skills Builder. Instead of going on 'traditional' community service, offenders are sent on a skills programme - electrics, plumbing, etc.
Some probabtion chap is saying that becaue the offenders tend not to have connected at school, it's far more useful than usual community service.
What a genius idea: break the law and get free job training. That's not punishment, it's a reward. But then punishment is a dirty word in some parts of the criminal justice system.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (4)
11:29am
I guess I'm out on something of a limb here, and I rarely disagree with Matt, but I'm not sure how a swell party for the Tory beautiful people helps. Surely it reinforces the image of the Conservative Party as the party of the better off.
Hmmm. Much as I loathe Gordon, I've yet to be convinced by Mr C and his merry crew. The only area of Conservative policy yet enunciated which I find appealing is Michael Gove's voucher scheme. And yes, I might well vote for them just for that. But their health policy is - so far - much, much worse than Labour's, and will retrench producer capture rather than maintain, let alone extend, the consumer focussed reforms - albeit far too limited - of the government.
But there's something about the images from last night's ball which reignites everything I have always loathed about the Conservative Party - that self-satisfied, smug, born-to-rule, superiority which needs to be fought against, not embraced.
(It's an issue writ small in the London Mayoral vote. Much as I loathe Ken Livingstone - for whom I voted last time, because I idiotically put all concerns other than the congestion charge out of my mind - I can't bring myself to vote for a buffoon as Mayor. Boris Johnson is a very funny writer, but I'm not even sure he's of sufficient calibre to be a front bencher, let alone Mayor of London. So I'm sort of stuck.)
UPDATE: This has been (slightly) edited.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (4)
11:15am
There's one thug fewer playing professional football today:
(And the reason why Berkovic is on the ground in the first place and lashing out is because Hartson has just hacked him down.)
Hartson's retirement should have been in prison, serving time for assault.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (1)
11:09am
This story from the excellent Red Box puts the Speaker in a much better light than is now fashionable:
One of the few pieces of good news for Parliament was the appointment last week of Jill Pay as the first ever female Sergeant at Arms - the official in tights in charge of Commons security. Popular amongst her colleagues, the achievement is the result of years her hard work as she rose through the ranks.
Apparently, however, it nearly didn't happen. When the Parliamentary authorities realised that there was a shortlist of one - a woman, gasp - they hesitated and introduced a second name, a retired army type with little experience. But the prospect of an army buffer trumping years of graft appalled the Speaker who stepped in and ensured that she got the job - something that has gone down well amongst Labour colleagues.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (0)
Wednesday, 6th February 2008
5:43pm
There are a couple of interesting observations in this post on The Corner by Larry Kudlow:
It’s very curious that the stock market has plunged on either the day of, or the day after, the four or five recent primary election contests. While there may be no direct causality, one can’t help but wonder whether the investor class hasn’t been disappointed with the shape of this election battle.
...McCain may also be moving toward a broad-based, pro-growth tax-reform plan. He has surrounded himself with an all-star supply-side team that includes Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, and Steve Forbes, along with senior McCain staffer Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (0)
4:55pm
Here's a rather good exposition of the theory behind the Laffer Curve:
Given the increase in the tax burden under Labour, so we now have a greater tax burden than Germany, it's all the more important that politicians understand this. And that voters understand why all this matters.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (1)
Previous
