That's fucking stupid

Posts Tagged ‘jews’

What does it mean to be British? Not a lot really. I’m not British, I’m English and I don’t know many people who would describe themselves as British. In the United Kingdom we have got Scots, Irish, Welsh, English, Cornish, Indian, Pakistani, Jamaicans, Jews, Ethiopians, Bangladeshi, Polish and a whole heap of other cultures.

In the US you will find African Americans, Irish Americans, Jewish Americans and many others but they are all Americans. Their relative racial harmony may stem from the fact that they all pledge allegiance to their country; meanwhile in the UK the different groups fight each other to retain their identity. The BNP is gaining ground in the UK at the moment because they are appealing to the whites who are fed a stream of fear inducing ‘news’ about immigration, young black men stabbing each other and benefit frauds. They wish to promote ‘British’ to mean white nationals and this will further cement the divides. If we want to live in a country that accepts different cultures then we must start to identify British as a diverse and ethnically varied single culture.

New Scientist has published an excellent article concerning research by Scott Wiltermuth of Stanford University in California that suggests that “activities performed in unison, such as marching or dancing, increase loyalty to the group”. The article discusses proposals by psychologist Jonathan Haidt at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville that “this research helps explain why fascist leaders, amongst others, use organised marching and chanting to whip crowds into a frenzy of devotion to their cause”.

The article very carefully skirts around the similarity between the chanting and singing, encouraged by facist leaders, and the hymns and prayers which form the bedrock of religious observance.

I went to school near a NATO base and there were lots of kids from all over the place there. There were a fair few Americans and one or two German kids and in general we got on most of the time.
On one occasion though I remember I got the shit kicked out of me by this German called Thomas. He was a bit of a dick but then that was largely because he had been moved around a lot. His dad was in the army and was stationed over here which meant that the sniveling little brat hadn’t had much opportunity to make friends. He kicked the crap out of me because I had annoyed him, not sure how but I think it was because although I didn’t have very many friends I was pretty successful at school and tended to be good at counting all the plastic money in the play area.
Thomas had just got in a fight with a bunch of other kids and had been beaten so he decided to take it out on me because he thought I would make an easy target because I wasn’t all that popular. Once word got out, although a lot of the other kids didn’t do much to help me, they did give Thomas another kicking and by the time the teacher came over to break everything up Thomas had been given a good battering by a couple of American kids, a local lad and some others.
The teacher made Thomas apologize to me and said that any more behavior like that from Thomas or anyone else would not be tolerated. I pretty much left it at that and we all got on with mucking about and enjoying the rest of our break time.

What definitely didn’t happen is this:
At no point did the teacher tell me that because Thomas had given me a bit of a kicking it was now OK for me to go over to where Ali was playing happily in the sand pit and give him a good kicking. Teacher was quite emphatic that it would not be acceptable for me to play on any sympathy that the other kids might have for me after my beating and the teacher was pretty clear that even if the other kids might be feeling guilty about not helping me out when I was getting walloped by Thomas, they should not channel this regret towards assisting me in kicking Ali out of the sandpit and claiming it as mine just because my big sister had once played in the sand pit a few years earlier when she was at the school.

In the UK there have been a couple of recent suggestions that Sharia may have a place in the English law (and by “English” I include the law of the Kingdom of England, the Principality of Wales and the Duchy of Cornwall). English law is a very fluid system with two main areas, the statutory law which parliament makes and the common law which is that ‘common sense’ law that is borne out of the courts and their interpretation of the law. These areas are subdivided into, amongst others, criminal and civil laws where the police handle matters of criminal law and the individual can press for a resolution on matters of civil law. If I was to steal a car then it would be a matter of criminal law and the police would be responsible rather than the car owner for bringing me to justice however if I borrowed some money and then failed to pay it back it would be a civil matter and the person I borrowed the cash from would need to take me to court to recover the cash.

Where the dumb people have gone wrong is confusing the criminal and civil law and the place of Sharia within those. There is no place for Sharia in criminal law, English law has sovereignty in the Kingdom of England, the Principality of Wales and the Duchy of Cornwall and Scottish law has sovereignty in the Kingdom of Scotland. Throughout the United Kingdoms of England and Scotland the law set down by statute and the common law of Her Majesty’s courts prevails in all matters of criminal and civil law and the law can only be enforced by the courts with the assistance of the police and, in the case of Scotland, the sheriffs.

Where Sharia has a place within the law is within civil law; just as the Beth Din (a rabbinical court of Judaism) is recognised in taking a role in civil mediation. In the simplest form a dispute between two parties, say a dispute over a debt, could be resolved by both parties agreeing to have the dispute resolved by the Beth Din. There is already a provision for this in English law and it is a purely voluntary arrangement with the courts of England and Wales merely enforcing the decision that has been reached by this form of mediation. If one or both parties do not wish to be bound by the decision of the Beth Din then they can argue their cases in the courts under English law.

In this respect the place for Sharia already exists within the English legal system. If two muslims have a dispute then they can opt for a mediation under Sharia and agree to be bound by this decision. If they do not wish to resolve the dispute in that way then English law prevails. If a christian has a dispute with another christian then they may wish to resolve the dispute according to their own religious beliefs rather than go to the courts and can, for example, choose their pastor to mediate the dispute and help them resolve it. This is the way that law has always been handled in England and village elders or parish councils often to this day resolve disputes through mediation rather than the parties going to the courts.

Where Sharia has no place in law, as with the Beth Din, is in the criminal legal system. Criminal law must be equally applied by the courts to everyone regardless of religious beliefs. Criminal behaviour is just that and punishment should be dealt out by the courts of England, Wales and Scotland equally and without prejudice to different belief structures. While parties can opt to resolve disputes by using religious courts there must be no obligation to do so and no punishment can be dealt out by religious courts for criminal matters regardless of if it’s a crime under English law or religious law. Under the laws of England, Wales and Scotland it is permissable to be a homosexual; while many religious groups disagree with this it is not the place of a religious court to place penalites (other than exclusion from the religion) on homosexuals and any physical penalties would be unlawful and the religious courts would be punishable by the relevant sovereign courts.

One area where Sharia is billed to take a major part is in marital and financial disputes. In order to ensure that a marital dispute is handled by Sharia it would be necessary for both parties to voluntarily agree (maybe in the form of a pre-nuptual contract recognised under English law) to have the dispute resolved under Sharia. Again, this is perfectly fine under the English legal system and so long as no unlawful penalties (corporal or capital punishment for example) were imposed then the English courts would no doubt uphold the decision of the Sharia court.

What we must avoid is the fear that the integration of Sharia into civil law will lead us down a path where we have rapists castrated, homosexuals beheaded in the steets and adulterous women stoned to death. These are all extreme examples of the application of religious law and the hangovers from an archaic system which was appropriate in a time long past and a place far away. To understand these seemingly barbaric systems of law we must look at the context in which they were practiced and compare them to the system of law which prevailed in this country prior to the Magna Carta.

Many middle eastern countries in the cradle of Islam and Judaism had little or no system of state government. The tribal and nomadic nature of the people led to a system of fragmented government which still persists to this day with tribal warlords in some areas and titles such as prince adopted by those with money, land and power under their control. Into this anarchic system the wisdom of religious teachers was often sought because the writings of God were almost universally known and contained a framework of morally acceptable behaviour which encouraged a penitent life without killing, rape, theft, adultery and greed. In the absense of a legal system comparable to the ones common in western countries the religious courts of the Abrahamic religions made sense and kept everyone close to a basic social morality which persists to this day in the laws of every nation.

Sharia and Judaic law also governed aspects of how people should live their life and laws about food preparation were the beginnings of health and hygene law. Given the instruments available and the environement of the middle east it was sensible to avoid non kosher or halal foods and the methods of killing animals described in both traditions are arguably the most hygenic and safe methods that were available a thousand years ago in the middle east. Circumcision, practiced by both Jews and Muslims, is a sensible health precaution for nomadic tribesmen and many other laws within the Koran and Bible are concerned with health and hygene. The qustion of how these aspects of law persist into the modern world of improved healthcare and factory farming is one for the religious clerics. With improvements in cooking and food storage it is possible that the halal and kosher traditions could be brought up to date but that would imply that the ‘word of God’ was no longer relevant or correct.