Yesterday, I reblogged an interesting and controversial article from the Telegraph. My blog generated a number of interesting comments, including the following from John Gelmini which I am sharing to stimulate public debate. Personally, I share the broad thrust of John’s argument but do not necessarily agree with all of his proposals.
RESPONSE FROM JOHN GELMINI
The law of the land and the one that the Law Society should be concerned about is based on Judeo Christian ethics.
Attempts by the former Archbishop of Canterbury and now the Law Society to change this are, as Dr Alf suggests, misguided.
Sharia Law is an alternative system that belongs in Muslim countries and in the Global Caliphate that some people in those countries would like the world to live under. In my view, it conflicts with the Wills Act and it is against our own Equality Laws, both of which apply to everyone else who is not a Muslim.
This is a threat which, due to the dynamics of birthrate and early family formation versus our falling rates of family formation, we are going to either take on or submit to within the coming decades.
In earlier posts, I have talked about the “replacement rate” for a viable population as being 2.4, whereas the rate for the UK’s indigenous population is just 1.88.
Leicester, Birmingham, Bradford, parts of Leeds, Luton and Peterborough, and sections of London, such as Tower Hamlets, represent, in my view, the “Ghost of Christmas Future” and within 30 years, I predict that they will be the norm in many other places.
For the Church of England, I believe that this means, evangelise or die. And for the Government and the institutions of the state, it means a much more muscular approach to maintaining a sense of what and who we are. That, in turn, must mean, in my judgement:
- No application of any law that does not conform to our own
- A move to a written constitution
- Tough action against rogue mosques that abuse their charitable status by acting as document factories
- No more marches by Muslims demanding a Global Caliphate
- Strong application of the 1318 Treason Act against those preaching sedition, insurrection, etc.
In summary, what is being proposed by the Law Society is special treatment for Muslims who already benefit from Equality laws. Surely, one of the ancient principles of British Law is equality?Why is equality not enough?
Politics and religion – any politics and any religion – do not mix.
The perfect example of this is the failure of Dr. Morsi to achieve even one goal as the first democratically elected president of Egypt. This is a country with a majority of Muslims, but Morsi and his regime failed his nation, failed his poltical followers and completely discredited his own religious base. The shortsighted policies of the Muslim Brotherhood to attempt a takeover of political power revealed their religious superficiality and outrageous hypocrisy to the entire nation, to the extent that, when the Army committed horrible attrocities against the mostly peaceful demonstrators supporting the Brotherhood, these crimes against humanity went mostly ignored by everyone outside the Brotherhood. There was a strong undercurrent of feeling that they got what they deserved for their stupidity. Egypt may be a majority of Muslims, but it has never been a majority of Muslim Brotherhood members.
And this is not a problem limited to Muslims. Pat Robertson of the famed “Moral Majority” of Christians in the USA couldn’t even get elected to the presidency. It’s hard enough to fill a choir from church members, but asking them to mobilize for regime change? It fails from internal implosion every time. Politics and religion are mutually exclusive, no matter how many followers he has, and no matter how badly that religious leader wants to be the next dictator… er, I mean president.
Freedom of Speech and Assembly and Religion are rights that citizens of the UK (and the USA) have excellent reason to be proud of. Eroding these freedoms to limit the rights of citizens with which we have a political disagreement is self destructive and stupidly shortsighted. If the root of the problem is a politically supportive population in decline, we must turn our attention to fixing that, and stop wasting attention on inciting hatred and enflaming prejudices against political rivals. Because, let’s face it, the problem isn’t really what religion is being observed, the problem is an eroding political base.
If we subscribe to Dictatorship, all we really need is an army, as we have seen in Egypt. But if we subscribe to Democracy, we need to understand that the majority rules from the ballot box. Political strategies that aim to undermine the democratic pillars of a free and fair society, especially on the basis of religious beliefs, are ultimately bound to fail, imploding from within. There’s no such thing as Negative Growth, they are mutually exclusive terms. Human intelligence has a much higher potential for resolving problems and differences than most politicians would lead us to believe because they know it’s much easier to fall down under pressure than to stand up and do what is right, and demoralized followers are easier to rally than conscientious people upholding their rights as citizens.
Real leaders, as defined by the examples of the forefathers of our Western governments, face the pressure of the underminers with the strength of Right and Moral Conscience to guide us on a path to build up our communities on the basis of Democracy and Freedom. The same Democracy and Freedom upon which our governments were founded.
Pingback: Opinion: Apprenticeships: Keeping up with the Schmidts | The Economist – John Gelmini « Dr Alf's Blog
I can not really analyze this from UK’s judicial system. However, I would say no to sharia law to be implemented in any countries, even if the countries has majority Muslim population. Indonesia, my country, which has the largest Muslim population in the world, do not practice sharia law as its national judicial system (ok, one province, Aceh is allowed to implement sharia law but protests against its practice that mostly against human rights keep going on). Punishing a person or conducting an act through a religious law does not make the punishment or the act is holier.
Thank you so much for taking the time to share your views.
I am currently in Indonesia, where I have been for three weeks and very much share your views. For me, Indonesia is an excellent example of combining traditional values and culture with modern life, good humour and respect for other people. It’s a shame that the leaders of the UK’s Law Society are so blinkered. Perhaps, it’s time to revoke the Law Society’s Royal Charter and introduce some healthy competition?