The list of official sharia-compliant judge's orders which defy common law and equality before the law and comply to sharia norms grows long in the UK.
In Today's Daily Mail, a story about a father who was ordered not to take his son to Church because his mother is a Muslim and won a court order to stop him from doing so.
A British father has been banned from taking his son to a church after the boy's Muslim mother won a controversial court order preventing the boy from attending.
The father – a non-practising Muslim who has forged close connections to his local Christian community and is divorced from the boy's mother – has been warned that he could be denied access to the nine-year-old if he attempts to take him to church or to a leisure centre it runs.
The mother's reasoning is fear that the child may become "confused". The father's reasoning is the classical reasoning of Western civilization since the Greeks. Exposure to more ideas to decide for oneself what is the best course of action for the self.
The courts however have elected to go with sharia compliancy instead of Western thought or law. No freedom-to-decide for Muslim children. It is in fact, against their faith. Death to apostates and so on.
Sometime ago, some drunken Somali teenage girls brutally attacked a stranger on the street after getting themselves drunk. They attacked her whlle chanting epithets like "Kill the white slag" and other racial slurs that would add a lot of length and severity to a criminal sentance if the perps were white and Christian. In this case however the judge let them off with a 6 month suspended sentence and no hate crimes charges.
Apparently, "Kill the white slag" is not a racist remark.
The judge's reasoning? The girls were Muslim and therefore, forbidden to drink alcohol and therefore, must have been unaccustomed to their effects and so had to be found not guilty as they were not under their own control.
A quick look at their photographs at the Daily Mail however, and you know these were not religious Muslims and may well have considerable experience with the effects of alcohol. So even the fully unacceptable reasoning of a British judge does not apply in this case, even if it was an acceptable form of deniability of agency.
I wonder had the actual victim, the girl beaten in the street, if she had managed to damage them in defense, would the judge have said that her loss of control was due to her lack of experience in being gang beat by strangers and so she can be forgiven?
In days where victims were victims and attackers were attackers, yes. Today I think the bookies lean the other way.
Then there are multiple examples of people doing actual jail time for mistreating a book. But only if that book happens to be a koran.
A couple nearly at random:
OK. He should have faced an ASBO (British misdemeanor of Anti Social Behaviour Order given to small scale thefts and graffiti and so on) for stealing the book. He should not have done that. But jail for burning it was the crime he was sentenced for.
19 year old jailed in 2014 for damaging the book which was his own property
British law seems to condone bigamy in contradiction to laws which are obviously older than Henry VIII
In fact, in England today, it seems you can even be forgiven a speeding ticket if you are off to see your second wife.
(I'm not sure even Saudi Arabia is that sharia compliant)
Then there is the ancient British rule of jurisprudence that you have the right to face your accuser.
While not fully implemented into law yet, the overturning of that basic tenet of Western law is about to be tossed out with the baby.
The London School of Economics segregated men and women in a non-religuous university function in direct contradiction of both UK law and university laws. This is an increasingly common phenomenon from the UK to Toronto Canada
There is a most distinct trend towards the abandonment of reason itself, as reason is the basis for Western jurisprudence as well as other systems of government in favour of sharia precepts.
No small part of that is the dismemberment of Freedom of Speech in favour of hate-speech laws, usually applied only where people are critical of Islam, or university speech codes and so on ad infinitum.
That will be covered in another series of articles.
The ruling stipulates he must also feed the boy Halal food and assure him he is an ordinary Muslim boy.
The father has been threatened with loss of custody if he breaks the ban – but he has vowed to challenge the ruling, saying that his son is being brainwashed into Islam and that he doesn’t want him becoming a “dumb sheep”.