old Grump
07-21-2011, 05:01 PM
21 July 2011
Published in: Melanie's blog (http://melaniephillips.com/%5b%7E%7E%5d)
(http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=melaniephillips)
Whooaa! Is Britain finally about to go over the cliff into official Islamisation?
Paul Goodman of Conservative Home (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/07/draft-four-government-mulling-compulsory-state-registration-of-religious-marriages.html) has obtained a copy of a discussion paper for the government’s draft ‘integration strategy’, its new attempt at countering Islamic extremism and terrorism. Some of the proposals he cites here (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/07/draft-3-muslim-groups-to-face-public-interest-test.html) seem to show a refreshing new determination to shut down non-violent but extreme organisations promoting the subversion of Britain and the establishment of an Islamic state or global caliphate. According to Goodman, a new 'public interest test'
... could apply to groups that ‘support the implementation of a Caliphate; rejection of democracy or fundamental rejection of UK institutions (as opposed to trust or criticism), and calls for the wholesale implementation of sharia’.
Excellent. But here (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/07/draft-four-government-mulling-compulsory-state-registration-of-religious-marriages.html) is the kicker. Goodman writes:
The Government may recognise polygamous shariah marriages.
This is because the paper states:
‘Similarly, religious marriage is not recognised by the State unless you choose for it to be so. This leaves an individual who enters into religious marriages unprotected if their partner enters a second or third religious marriage. This can be remedied by requiring both religious marriages and religious divorces to be registered with civil authorities. Likewise, there could be a duty on anyone conducting religious marriages and divorces to register with the state.’
Goodman writes:
Although this language doesn't specifically cite Islamic marriages, it clearly refers to them, since no other mainstream faith allows a person to enter into more than a single marriage at one time. Under Islamic law, a man is permitted up to four wives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Marriage).
For the state to register religious marriages would raise the question of whether or not it recognised them in law, breaching the traditional position of marriage being an act that legally takes place between one man and one woman.
Well hang on a minute. The wording is surely ambiguous. The paper states:
‘This can be remedied by requiring both religious marriages and religious divorces to be registered with civil authorities. Likewise, there could be a duty on anyone conducting religious marriages and divorces to register with the state.’
The law of the land prohibits polygamy. So on its face value, the proposal would seem to mean that all religious marriages and divorces must conform to the law of the land by registering with the civil authorities. That would mean that no Muslim could marry more than one wife at a time, since that is against the law. That would be a terrific advance, and a real protection for Muslim women.
But is it likely that the government would indeed be proposing effectively to outlaw polygamous marriages -- towards which it has so far not only turned a blind eye, but even informally acknowledged them by recognising polygamous claimants under the benefits system?
The alternative interpretation, which Goodman suggests, is that the government is proposing to recognise polygamous sharia marriage. If so, that would be appalling. For Islamic law would thus have been allowed to destroy a bedrock value of British and western society – the principle of monogamy and the outlawing of bigamy and polygamy.
Monogamy is fundamental because, amongst other things, it alone ensures the equal treatment of women. If polygamy were to be recognised under English law, it would mean that Muslim women would be officially endorsed by Britain as being second-class citizens. Far from giving them protection, it would give their inferior status the imprimatur of legal recognition.
It would also mean that the cardinal principle of a liberal democratic society, that minorities must adapt to the bedrock values of the host culture and not seek to force the host culture to adapt to them, would be breached. And it would also make a mockery of that other suggestion in this discussion paper -- the outlawing of groups which call for
‘the wholesale implementation of sharia’.
For if this went ahead as Goodman interprets it, it would mean the implantation of sharia into English law. That would be unconscionable, since sharia is inimical to democratic values, refusing as it does to acknowledge that any secular legal system can hold sway over itself.
So is it likely that this government would be proposing to tear up the fabric of British society? Or is this just a case of sloppy drafting – or sloppy thinking?
http://melaniephillips.com/is-londonistan-turning-into-lemmingland
I'm guessing she and our resident in the White House wouldn't see eye to eye on very much. :smiley08:
For some reason gradually turning into a staunch conservative she is today from the liberal Jew journalist she used to be has a large part of Merrie olde England upset with her. Do you suppose it was something she said?
Published in: Melanie's blog (http://melaniephillips.com/%5b%7E%7E%5d)
(http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=melaniephillips)
Whooaa! Is Britain finally about to go over the cliff into official Islamisation?
Paul Goodman of Conservative Home (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/07/draft-four-government-mulling-compulsory-state-registration-of-religious-marriages.html) has obtained a copy of a discussion paper for the government’s draft ‘integration strategy’, its new attempt at countering Islamic extremism and terrorism. Some of the proposals he cites here (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/07/draft-3-muslim-groups-to-face-public-interest-test.html) seem to show a refreshing new determination to shut down non-violent but extreme organisations promoting the subversion of Britain and the establishment of an Islamic state or global caliphate. According to Goodman, a new 'public interest test'
... could apply to groups that ‘support the implementation of a Caliphate; rejection of democracy or fundamental rejection of UK institutions (as opposed to trust or criticism), and calls for the wholesale implementation of sharia’.
Excellent. But here (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/07/draft-four-government-mulling-compulsory-state-registration-of-religious-marriages.html) is the kicker. Goodman writes:
The Government may recognise polygamous shariah marriages.
This is because the paper states:
‘Similarly, religious marriage is not recognised by the State unless you choose for it to be so. This leaves an individual who enters into religious marriages unprotected if their partner enters a second or third religious marriage. This can be remedied by requiring both religious marriages and religious divorces to be registered with civil authorities. Likewise, there could be a duty on anyone conducting religious marriages and divorces to register with the state.’
Goodman writes:
Although this language doesn't specifically cite Islamic marriages, it clearly refers to them, since no other mainstream faith allows a person to enter into more than a single marriage at one time. Under Islamic law, a man is permitted up to four wives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Marriage).
For the state to register religious marriages would raise the question of whether or not it recognised them in law, breaching the traditional position of marriage being an act that legally takes place between one man and one woman.
Well hang on a minute. The wording is surely ambiguous. The paper states:
‘This can be remedied by requiring both religious marriages and religious divorces to be registered with civil authorities. Likewise, there could be a duty on anyone conducting religious marriages and divorces to register with the state.’
The law of the land prohibits polygamy. So on its face value, the proposal would seem to mean that all religious marriages and divorces must conform to the law of the land by registering with the civil authorities. That would mean that no Muslim could marry more than one wife at a time, since that is against the law. That would be a terrific advance, and a real protection for Muslim women.
But is it likely that the government would indeed be proposing effectively to outlaw polygamous marriages -- towards which it has so far not only turned a blind eye, but even informally acknowledged them by recognising polygamous claimants under the benefits system?
The alternative interpretation, which Goodman suggests, is that the government is proposing to recognise polygamous sharia marriage. If so, that would be appalling. For Islamic law would thus have been allowed to destroy a bedrock value of British and western society – the principle of monogamy and the outlawing of bigamy and polygamy.
Monogamy is fundamental because, amongst other things, it alone ensures the equal treatment of women. If polygamy were to be recognised under English law, it would mean that Muslim women would be officially endorsed by Britain as being second-class citizens. Far from giving them protection, it would give their inferior status the imprimatur of legal recognition.
It would also mean that the cardinal principle of a liberal democratic society, that minorities must adapt to the bedrock values of the host culture and not seek to force the host culture to adapt to them, would be breached. And it would also make a mockery of that other suggestion in this discussion paper -- the outlawing of groups which call for
‘the wholesale implementation of sharia’.
For if this went ahead as Goodman interprets it, it would mean the implantation of sharia into English law. That would be unconscionable, since sharia is inimical to democratic values, refusing as it does to acknowledge that any secular legal system can hold sway over itself.
So is it likely that this government would be proposing to tear up the fabric of British society? Or is this just a case of sloppy drafting – or sloppy thinking?
http://melaniephillips.com/is-londonistan-turning-into-lemmingland
I'm guessing she and our resident in the White House wouldn't see eye to eye on very much. :smiley08:
For some reason gradually turning into a staunch conservative she is today from the liberal Jew journalist she used to be has a large part of Merrie olde England upset with her. Do you suppose it was something she said?