Thursday, February 07, 2008

Appeasement is treason.

This is how it starts. Can't upset them. Can't speak the truth about their middle age lifestyle and now we need to let them have their own way.

I was going to write about that plonker Rowan Williams and his call to let sharia law into the UK. Read here. Although no sooner than I had written my piece than I noticed everyone else had too.

Read here about what others feel about this looneys latest ramblings.

Appeasement seems to be another name for treason. Won’t someone shut this guy up? Are there not religious fanatics on our side that can do something about this traitor in our midst?

One thing I have been made aware of from the Palestinian problems in the Middle East. Appeasement does not work. Once they have one concession it’s on to the next until they have the whole package and our dozy negotiators, if they can be called that, are so thick they just don’t see it.


At 11:40 am, Blogger Bretwalda Edwin-Higham said...

Bag, the whole Christian leadership serves the other side. There should be no leadership so if there is and it pontificates contrary to scripture and waxes relativistic, it works for the other side.

At 1:55 pm, Blogger Bag said...

James, excuse my thickness but I don't actually understand what you are saying here. Is the other side Islam or all other faiths? Are you saying that there should be no Pope, bishops etc. at all. I'm with you on Rowan Williams we should get rid of him though.

At 4:41 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I think you are missing the point with what Rowan Williams is saying. If elements of Sharia are incorporated or recognised by British law then there then be no recourse to civil law after having made a binding agreement under Sharia. Thus avoiding the argument of a divisive and separate legal system.

This works for orthodox Jews who seek to settle disputes via Beth Din. In the case of divorce, the Jewish Orthodox faith does not recognise civil divorce over the settled in Beth Din. Although whilst a Jewish couple maybe divorced under Beth Din, they still have to divorce under civil law for it to be legally binding.

It might not be so barmy as it sounds. I suspect the only ones really getting het up over this will be the lawyers.

At 8:33 pm, Blogger Bag said...

Henry, I understand that. Tom Paine did an article with the same viewpoint. However the part that raised my hackles were the words 'the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.'

That doesnt sound like a little group of people in a street saying lets create a little court where we can settle our disputes like gentlemen and deal with cases that do not warrant a court session.

Plus the problem is that as reasonable as this sounds it's only the first step not the end. It always is with this lot. Every single step sounds reasonable in isolation until we have given away the whole farm.

At 9:56 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bag, the British legal system is flawed anyway and I don't relate to it half the time.

I think that what the good Archdruid was saying that, and quite rightly, that the British legal system has to get itself up to speed, not only with Sharia but with other customs and traditions.

This is the Frankenstein of the government's own immigration policy and now we see the consequences. It's all very well allowing people to come and live here but the infrastructure - health service, education, policing and the legal system needs to be able to cope with the influx.

Where recognising Sharia under British law will be helpful will be in civil, familial and marital disputes. In a civil dispute it should not be possible for either party to an agreement under Sharia to then renege on the agreement and try and resettle the matter under british law. As long as the Sharia laws are within the bounds of British law and whatever is illegal under British law remains illegal under Sharia, I don't foresee a problem.

The only people who will see a problem are solicitors who really don't want people settling disputes by themselves.

At 12:05 pm, Blogger Bag said...


Just to be clear I do understand the concept of parties agreeing to third party arbitration outside the courts. In fact that is the basis of Judge Judy and soon in the UK, Imam Judy.

My issue was with him saying that some citizens don't relate to the english justice system. Who cares? We all have to relate by law. If they want to use Sharia law then that is their right as long as it doesn't conflict with UK law.

He chose the wrong example in Sharia law to reference as many people are already coming to the conclusion these guys are changing the UK to meet their requirements. This is seen as another example.


Post a Comment

<< Home