There's a Law For You 'uns and a Law For We 'uns...and They Ain't the same Law!
<p><span style="font-size: large; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">THERE'S A LAW FOR YOU 'UNS, AND A LAW FOR WE 'UNS...AND THEY AIN'T THE SAME LAW!</span> <br /><br /> <span style="font-size: medium; font-family: Pegasus;">It ended with nary a sound. The British Empire, that once ruled the seas and dominated the world came to an end without so much as a whimper. Though they once repulsed the Spanish Armada, vanquished Napoleon's armies and stood tall and alone against the **** blitzkrieg, they now do not stand at all. The British Lion has been declawed by its own misguided sense of tolerance. Now Muhammad's feral devils merely make demands and a toothless England acquiesces. Consider this story:</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. Dr. Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London on Monday, Dr. Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue. An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger. </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes toward women as well". But Dr. Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger. There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."(Daily Mail, UK) </span><br /><br /> This is not just anybody suggesting this. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a title respected around the world. Yet here he suggests that there should be a "constructive accommodation" with some aspects of Muslim Law. Muslim immigrants shouldn't have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty?" This sets the bar for "tolerance" mighty high. No sooner had this comment found its way to the front-burner of the news than a follow-up appeared that proved to be even more distressing. <br /><br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">Sharia law "courts" are already dealing with crime on the streets of London, it emerged today. The revelation came after the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, called for an "accommodation" with parts of the Islamic legal code in a speech which attracted widespread condemnation. </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> The Archbishop said parts of civil law could be dealt with under the sharia system but already some communities have gone much further - and it was revealed today that a teenage stabbing case among the Somali community in Woolwich had been dealt with by a Sharia "trial" Youth worker Aydarus Yusuf, 29, who was involved in setting up the hearing, said a group of Somali youths were arrested by police on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager. </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> The victim's family told officers the matter would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail. A hearing was convened and elders ordered the assailants to compensate the victim."All their uncles and their fathers were there," said Mr Yusuf. "So they all put something towards that and apologized for the wrongdoing." </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> An Islamic Council in Leyton also revealed that it had dealt with more than 7,000 divorces while Sharia courts in the capital have settled hundreds of financial disputes. (Daily Mail, UK) </span><br /><br /> That's right. You read it correctly. Sharia Law has been practiced and dispensed within the sovereign borders of a Western nation. Not just any old nation mind you. But England! A country once proudly and staunchly associated with the "rule of law," and with centuries of history to back up that association. Let that sink in. <br /> It is an atrocity of tolerance when immigrants are allowed to violate the laws of their host country, but here we have a case of Muslim immigrants not just violating the law, but setting up and operating an entirely separate legal apparatus within the borders of a sovereign WESTERN nation. Is this an invasion? Hell no! This is full blown conquest. England is lost! This Muslim hoard didn't ask for permission to do this, or even make a demand for it. They just did it. It begs another question. Do we know this hasn't already been done within the borders of the United States? Can we be sure? <br /> How can a society exist when there are two separate legal systems operating within its borders? The law cannot operate as a market that caters to its own particular clientele. The law must apply equally to all or else there is no law, and perhaps more importantly, no order. This makes Jim Crow and Apartheid seem like child's play. But what would you expect? Islam has 1400 years of practice at this sort of thing! <br /> That there have been 7000 divorces settled by Islamic courts within a Western country should give all women pause for concern. Real concern. No longer are we talking about the rights of women living in a foreign land. Now we are talking about the rights of women living within the bounds of, and theoretically at least, under the legal protection of Western culture. Islam has now usurped the laws of the West! And once again no one has done anything about it. Hell the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks it is a reasonable idea!<br /> Women have little to no standing under Islamic law. They are treated as the property of their husbands or fathers. Marriages are routinely arranged. Unlike here in the West, Islamic divorce laws almost exclusively favor the males by socio-religious design. Is this what feminists have fought for or against all these years? What are you going to do about it now? <br /> How about voting for U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama? He said in an interview with a French magazine that if he wins he wants to organize a summit of Muslim nations for "frank talks on bridging the divide between Muslims and the West." Ahh yes. Negotiations. <br /> His priority, of course, is ending the war in Iraq. According to him we can't get out of there fast enough.Obama said: "Once I'm elected, I want to organize a summit in the Muslim world, with all the heads of state, to have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West." He said he would ask Muslim heads of state to join the war against terrorism. (Note to Barack: They already have. They're the ones fighting it. Unfortunately they are the OTHER SIDE!!) <br /> "We must also listen to their concerns," continued Obama. The trouble with "their concerns" is that they are always wrapped up in a series of (the same) demands. You know the ones, stop supporting Israel, stop persecuting Islam by failing to join it, and of course...your favorite and mine...pay us to stop terrorizing you! <br /> Obama also wants direct talks with countries like Iran and Syria, the absolute worst exporters of terrorism worldwide. "We won't be able to stabilize the region if we don't talk to our enemies," Obama was quoted as saying. Well what do you think they want to talk about? Perchance to see about getting Islamic courts set up in America so that Muslims here will not be forced to live under the oppressive United States judicial system where they are treated the same as everyone else, instead of superior to them? Well we are a tolerant society aren't we? We certainly are not going to let England out tolerate us now are we? Who could possibly be opposed to letting Muslims have their own set of laws to live by? Why only women, homosexuals, drinkers, fornicators, non-Muslims, Muslim apostates, blasphemers, adulterers, dog owners etc. etc. etc. Have we left anyone out? And you thought it was only Christians and Jews that had something to fear. <br /> There is good news though! It takes the testimony of four male witnesses, or a confession, to prove rape under Islamic law. So men, don't waste time asking for a woman's permission for sex anymore. "No," no longer means "no." "No," means make sure that four Muslim men aren't around watching and just take whatever woman you want. Hey, its the law. <br /> I have warned you many times, Islam does not believe in a separation of Church and State. To Islam, they are one and the same. Islamic law applies to all aspects of life. The political as well as the personal and/or religious. To implement Sharia law is effectively to break down the fundamental principle of Separation of Church and State and it will destroy Western society. Western culture, particularly in Europe, arrogantly likes to portray itself as having "outgrown" religion. The existence of these Islamic courts prove they certainly haven't "outsmarted" it. It's too bad for England. Their "tolerance" has gotten the best of them. God will not be mocked. You will not turn your back on him. He will turn you over to "other gods" that do not ask for your worship...they demand it! Islam takes what it desires. It always has. It would be wise to notice that nowhere in the Muslim world are alternative points of view perceived to be of equal value. They are not tolerated at all. Islam has a lot of faults, but it isn't afflicted with the self destructive "tolerance" syndrome that has seduced and weakened the West. How many more warnings can the Christian West have left? Must we be next? <br /> The solution is simple. The time has come for Western nations to see Islam for what it is. A Government! It must be outlawed throughout Western Civilization. These people in England were not terrorists. They are not attacking anyone, yet they set up an entirely separate legal system within the borders of a sovereign nation. Why? Because ISLAM IS A SOVEREIGN NATION. Remember these words:<br /><br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy."</span> -Syrian-born Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed <br /><br /> This is exactly what they are doing. Using our democracies to destroy them! Islam is not a religion and therefore MUST be removed from our societies. Look around the Islamic world. Do they tolerate Western laws and practices in their lands? NO. Freedom of religion does not apply to Islam. This may sound tough, but Islam is a destroyer of cultures. They are good at this...as good as cancer. <br /> How many of you would have thought the classic western TV show Bonanza would have been so politically prescient? I tell you they don't make television shows like they used to. You could learn something watching TV in those days. <br /> There was an episode, titled "The Spitfire" in which an old lady was having a dispute with Ben Cartwright. Her name was Maud Hoad. She was part of a family migrating from the West Virginia mountains. In this particular episode Ma Hoad didn't see any point in going to the law in order to extract justice for the killing of her husband. Or, as she put it: "Nobody does a hurt to a Hoad without any pays for it." For those of you that don't speak "suthern" that means she felt like his killing merited another killing to even things out. She wanted to kill Little Joe Cartwright herself. Like a Muslim, she didn't have much appreciation for Western Law such as the laws of the Nevada territory. In fact she expressed it thusly: <br /><br /></span></span></p>
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"There's a law for you 'uns and a law for we 'uns...and they ain't the same law" </span><br /><a href="http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q190/lynnlaur/?action=view&current=grandmahoad.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q190/lynnlaur/grandmahoad.jpg" border="0" alt="ma hoad" /></a><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">Funny, she doesn't look Muslim. I guess the hajib makes all the difference!</span></span></span></div>