Latest from UKIP Daily

British Law and Sharia Law

The law of the land and alien legal systems: can they co-exist? A Matter of Allegiance.]

It’s important to talk about the law and to clarify what we mean. If we say “the law” we tend to mean the law of the land. So if I’m in Britain and I say “the law”, I mean British Law, the law that governs Britain.

Upon questioning about the presence of sharia law in the UK, the government response has essentially been that there is no sharia law in the UK. What this means is that because sharia law does not have the weight of state behind it, i.e. the state does not enforce sharia law, there is no sharia law. But there is.

Sharia is not ‘the law’, but it is a set of laws. Sharia law exists in an objective form, as a set of laws, and is adhered to across the world – often imposed by islamic nation states. Just like membership of an association obliges us to obey the laws of that association, sharia law, for many, is to be obeyed in order to be a devout Muslim. Vast numbers of Muslims take that requirement very seriously.

It’s unfair to claim that sharia law is always a choice, for many it isn’t. Apostasy is widely condemned in even the most ‘moderate’ Muslim communities, and people take great risks if they question Islam. But even if sharia was a choice, even if an individual does choose sharia law, should they be able to in the UK? Should that choice be available? The answer has to be no. Sharia, or other sets of laws, should not be available for use if they run contrary to the law of the land.

The Law governs our practical daily life in areas such as driving or taxes, but it is also a reflection of our morals as a nation and a people. It is a reflection of what we believe to be moral and right. One of its primary functions is to protect. Who is protected and from what, is derived from our common morals and values.

The Law prohibits violent physical assault as a criminal offence so we can protect ourselves from violent physical assault, but also to reflect our moral position that we believe violent physical assault is wrong. The Law prohibits sexual engagement with minors so we can protect minors from sexual exploitation and abuse, but also to reflect our common moral position that sex with minors is wrong.  

The Law of the land is built on several foundational and fixed principles that don’t change as new laws are introduced.  Fundamental principles in criminal law for example don’t change: the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is on the state etc.

Family law, the area of law most pertinent when discussing sharia law in the UK, is of the most fundamental importance. Family law also demonstrates who we are as people, what kind of society we seek to be. Like criminal law, there are fundamental principles in family law. Like criminal law, family law principles are consistent, there aren’t exceptions made when new laws are introduced. For example, the equal rights of the parties to a family law dispute don’t change. A husband and a wife have the same status in law, their word carries the same weight. This is fundamental. Also fundamental is the status of children in disputes, the fundamental principle being that the best interests of the child is paramount in any decision involving that child.

Family law determines the status of women (in the family) and of children. In the UK, the woman is equal to the man, and the child’s protection is paramount. We cannot veer from these principles – it is against the spirit of British Law that reflects who we are.

Given this, can we allow a system of laws to be practiced, if they are not consistent with the spirit of our law or the principles on which it is built? No, we cannot.

Sharia law is inconsistent with the spirit of our British Law and its principles. In deciding on a case involving a Lebanese mother who would lose her children under sharia if deported to her home country, the House of Lords called it “wholly incompatible” with human rights legislation.

Many politicians will argue that sharia is not being practiced in Britain, but it is. It has pseudo court rooms, judges, parties, and a decision. The decision might not be binding according to British Law, but it is binding according to sharia law, and that is what gives it its power.

In sharia family law, a wife is worth less than her husband. She cannot divorce of her volition, even if she is subject to violence and abuse. Her testimony in a family law dispute is worth only half of her husband’s. This is intended to make it as difficult as possible for women to ‘win’ in any family law dispute. The reason for this is simply because the Koran deems women to be worth less than men.

Furthermore, in sharia family law, the best interests of the child are not paramount – again in defiance of the standards, principles, and spirit of British Law. The best interests of the child do not come first in sharia because Islam deems that children are the property of their fathers, who has sole power over their lives. Mothers have no input and no rights.

In the practice of sharia law here in Britain, decisions as to child custody are being made. This inevitably means that children will be placed with their fathers irrespective of circumstances, including if he is violent. Because mothers have no rights, they can’t stop this.

Sharia law practice takes on different guises in Britain, including under powers of the Arbitration Act. The Arbitration Act allows parties to a dispute to agree to appoint a ‘judge’ and agree to be bound by the decision.

Arbitration per se is not a problem. In principle, it is a legitimate way for free people to conduct their affairs. But the law itself, i.e. the Arbitration Act itself, places restrictions on this practice that ensure arbitration adheres to the principles of British Law. For example, the Arbitration Act requires that arbitration be fair, impartial, and in the public interest.

Sharia law is not fair, not impartial, and given its terrible treatment of women and children, it is hardly in the public interest.

For the most part however, sharia councils operate as charities.  The problem here is that charity laws tend to view religion as a force for good. It does so without examining the detail of what the religion teaches. Across the board, in public life, religions are deemed to be essentially the same, and are deemed to encourage moral behaviour.

If we are going to oppose sharia law, and we should, we must stop designating unquestioning privilege to religion. We must look at what the religion teaches and the impact these teachings can have on its followers.

We must also stop pretending that there is nothing specific to sharia that should worry us. There is. It is a system predicated on female subservience, on violent punishment, on oppression, on arbitrary whims of clerics, and on complete disregard for the rights of children.

Sharia is not compatible with Britain; it’s not compatible with our social values, our legal principles, or who we are as a nation. Its practice should therefore not be permitted. The fundamental principles of British Law should instead be upheld as supreme.  

[Ed: This is the edited (by Anne Marie Waters) version of her speech given at a meeting in the House of Lords, organised by Lord Pearson, on March 15th 2017]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

33 Comments on British Law and Sharia Law

  1. Ammunition.

    Black Pigeon Speaks (great YouTube channel)
    UK immigration 1066-1997

  2. Excellent Speech, as I note given to the House of Lords.
    May I enquire the size of the audience, the composition of the audience.
    Was there a Q & A session afterwards?
    Has it had any overt reaction, i.e. in printed or verbal statements since.
    Personally, I have heard of Anne-Marie Waters referred to previously, but I have no idea of who or what she is or where she comes from, just as I had heard about John Rees Evans previously, but saw him for the first time on BBC 1 Big Q,uestions yesterday morning, I was impressed particularly that he appeared to stand up in a normal discussion without snide catcalls and public dissent, I thought he conveyed a “sensible” image of UKIP i.e. we are not all a lot of racial fruitcakes – I am beginning to think we missed the boat in the leadership election
    Can we have some articles from him on here please.
    I for one might hesitate a little more from jumping ship, if I felt there was the remotest chance we might discover and put in charge very soon somebody who has some idea of sensible relevant policies and knows how to communicate to the 17.4 million “populist” voters who are unrepresented by any of the legacy parties and who currently we are doing our very best to alienate.

    • Roger, just google Anne Marie Waters and you’ll find all kinds of information including wikipedia, AMW’s own Facebook and other sites on which she’s argued for the abolition of sharia law. And of course, there are the two articles she’s published on here with a huge following and many comments.
      Personally, I’d like to see her as leader of Ukip, but as the party hierarchy have already marginalised her, I doubt they would have accepted her candidacy.

  3. Human rights are an invention as are most laws and regulations. They are a convenience and a choice. Laws are necessary for a society to function, or else murder, intimidation and theft will be the norm. Explain why killing a human being is wrong or why it is wrong to steal. When our laws and regulations become perverse and destructive our society ceases to function. Immigrants, refugees and asylum-seekers have no rights other than the ones that we allow them. When we put them and their rights before ourselves and our rights then we are doomed to be taken over by those that have no qualms about exploiting and dominating us. Submit to us or perish is their mentality, and yet the integration fallacy still flourishes in the feeble minds that we allow to govern us.
    I am actually disgusted that the “people” do not rise up and revolt. We live in a democracy, but the majority continue to vote against their own self-interest. Even though I believe that a majority understand the situation, in the polling booth they choose comfort and to not be “racist”.
    My dilemma is how to convince people that nationalism is a good thing and that we have to discriminate and face up to unpleasantness in order to be able to preserve our way of life. We do not have to be nice all of the time and self-sacrificing, that’s how we cease to exist as a person and as a nation. Stand up and fight.

  4. Alison Wunderland // March 20, 2017 at 12:13 am // Reply

    Coming to a town near you, soon:-

    • Thanks for posting that.
      That was a wake up call to end all wake up calls.
      I hope somebody apart from me took the trouble to look at it

      • Sure did, Roger.

        Our task is to alert people to the threat and the danger of doing nothing.

        • I think most “people” are aware of the problem. It’s the retards at the top who are unaware.

          But scum always rises to the top.

          • Hello Ralph,

            Good to see you here on UKIP Daily! Not sure if you have commented before — I only started in early February …. I’ve visited your blog before and read your critical comments over at Prof Mitchell’s blog …… would be good to see your comments on economic issues too particularly in relation to ‘Modern Monetary Theory’ ….. as we know, in itself, MMT is ideologically-neutral though Prof Mitchell self-identifies on the Left but is eurosceptic (and has written an excellent book critiquing the eurozone) and anti-globalist (though on economic and political rather than cultural grounds also) …..

        • And that is why, in my opinion Panmelia, we cannot afford to worry about Nuttall’s ego, or what another Leadership election will look like – we don’t even need one, we should demand that Peter Whittle, the deputy leader, replace Nuttall, we are the members, and UKIP is the party of Britain. We will NEVER be able to credibly fight against Islam under his leadership – we cannot afford to be nice, we need to be ruthless.

  5. Thank you Anne Marie, for this article, and thank you Viv, for the link to Zerohedge. That is a truly chilling article, especially in the context of our other article on this forum today, the fact that the word Easter has disappeared from many of our Easter eggs.

    Today our Bishop visited our Church. Looking round the congregation, all except 6 were easily over 60. It is no accident that in the main Church leaders are both uninspiring and appeasing – heaven help us if we had leaders who were aggressively Christian.

    The more I read articles from those who can clearly articulate the present danger we now find ourselves in the more I am filled with disgust and, frankly, contempt for our Leadership and,their present stance – to see Nuttall with the mosque in the background of that appeasing Stoke leaflet truly sickens me.

    Do we not think that women, and especially children, and remembering the comment yesterday from the woman suffering daily verbal and physical abuse should be the people UKIP should fight for? If so, I am afraid Nuttall is not the person to lead UKIP – his credibility is shot to pieces, as is the credibility of those who authorized and wrote the Stoke leaflet. What are we going to do about it? The public will never trust him, and therefore UKIP, on this issue.

    • Dee, The party has no purpose after Article 50 is triggered and Brexit is on the way, unless it moves in a new direction.

      If UKIP is just another appeasement party then why bother? Expect it to be back down to 3% in the polls.

      To be fair to Nuttall he did inherit an incoherent mess – Halal is supporting Sharia and Sharia is anti-democratic. It was a serious strategic blunder to do a U turn in April 2015 to go from a humane pro-stun policy to the current inhumane non-stun policy. Was there really nobody at the top of the party who could understand the seriousness of the error?

      What is the point of regaining powers from Brussels if we immediately hand them over to Islam? It really makes no sense.

      I wrote to as many NEC members as I could find their email addresses in the public domain, several days prior to the U turn, with this statement:

      “We must assert the vitally important principle that we must have one law for everyone, and everyone subject to the same law. The slaughter of animals without pre-stunning in nonreligious abattoirs is illegal. Evidently the law currently recognises that it is cruel. If we allow separate laws for different communities this undermines the foundation of democracy itself – we might as well be ruled from Brussels.”

      So they were told plainly enough, by me, and so there is really no excuse for the current confusion and difficulty that the party finds itself on this matter.

      • Exactly, Hugo. I wrote on another thread today that it’s not rocket science for the Party of Independence for Britain to oppose the threat – so I now begin to wonder if there is actually a plan to emasculate UKIP and remove all opposition to the Tories for the foreseeable future, and it would make even more sense if May went for an early election. Then she can get whatever sort of Brexit can buy off Leavers and still suit Brussels to a degree, especially if we really have been signed up by Fallon to a European Army.
        I’m beginning to wonder, even if the clueless cabal give us a few crumbs with Anne Marie there but not spokesperson, and J R-E in an office somewhere, we won’t actually be assisting the demise of Britain by staying loyal.

        • Dee,

          I am going to hear Anne Marie talk tomorrow evening and am looking forward to hearing what she has to say, of course talking about the threat of Islam in this country and the rest of Europe cannot be our only policy, but at least it will be a strong start.

          If I am impressed by her then once my membership runs out at the end of the month I will be transferring my funds and support to her and take no further part or interest in UKIP as it seems to have become defunct.

          • Sadly, DD, I am of the same mind and have already sent her a private donation, I shall not support UKIP with any money while Nuttall is leader, unless Anne Marie is made, as Stout suggested, Minister for Women. Otherwise as he correctly identifies, they will keep her in an echo chamber – please ask her about this.
            Paul Oakden has said MEP’s should not use social media! So Guido Fawkes reports.
            I would love to hear her in person, I am sure she will be most impressive. Lucky you, there are some benefits to not being stuck on a mountain!

          • Dee,

            I will try to ask her about the state of UKIP at the moment, but you know what it is like, it can be difficult to ask questions,

            As for you, you can always yodel from your mountain top and put out a call to arms, in fact why not try doing it in the style of a mosque, that would be bound to attract attention, all the little sheep would come running to the nearest Halal slaughterhouse.

    • GEOFFREY CHARLES ELLIOTT. // March 19, 2017 at 11:52 pm // Reply
      And thank you Dee for your above comment about Nutall,as I was beginning to feel like a voice in the wilderness,as most of the men (if you can call them men) on here,
      many are now saying that he (Nutall) should be given a second chance,for the sake
      of the party.I too am filled with disgust,contempt and utter loathing and hatred for him
      as his lies will never ever be forgotten,but they pale into insignificance,when one considers his greatest lie of all,and that was to us,the activists and loyal party members of UKIP.He and his dullard advisors,conspired to change a most worthy policy of two decades,which was one of the cornerstones of UKIP policies,after the damn corrupt EU,and mass and uncontrolled immigration,and that was to reverse our stance on banning that most vile and cruel non-stun slaughter of our poor animals bloody Halal,and they kept it all hidden from us,in a most sly way.
      This has widespread support throughout our membership,as well as the majority of the general public.Worse was to come,when you found that damn Leaflet,full of praise for all that Muslims do for Britain,and for them being in the Army believe me that is the biggest load of bull**it and lies I have ever heard Most Muslims just don’t work,many are on Jihad Benefits,as for the Army the 1% that were in the Army have all now left,ever since the Imans issued the threat of beheading to any Muslim who still belonged to the British forces,who had been fighting in Muslim lands..
      Dee when I read:LET ME MAKE IT LOUD AND CLEAR: UKIP WILL NOT BAN HALAL etc.Dee, if i could only have been next to him,even at my age within seconds,he would have been down and he would have stayed down.He has set us back years,we may never recover.He and his cronies need to be booted out right now! Click the 3 above links,the first shows the horrors of Halal that animals face
      The second shows Nutall and 3 dullards outside that damn Mosue in Stoke.
      The third and last shows how weak our men have become both in the US and here.

  6. Sharia is fundamentally incompatible with Democracy for this basic reason:

    The laws of Allah are regarded as superior to the laws of man. Therefore the only real purpose of a gathering, even if given the name “parliament”, and even if the members are elected, is to determine the details of the interpretation of Sharia. This is not Democracy.

    Democracy should be free to use best available evidence, obtained by modern means, and crucially to be free to change its mind if new evidence becomes available. You cannot do this if you are relying on 7th century texts.

    Labour introduced Sharia councils. The Conservative – Lib Dem coalition did not revoke that, but added Sharia finance. Unfortunately UKIP supports Halal and so has no moral standpoint from which to argue. There seems to be no mainstream political party in the UK which truly supports Democracy.

    • Hugo, I wish to correct you there. UKIP is not Paul Nuttall and the rest of the leadership who let that humiliating leaflet be distributed. UKIP does NOT support halal slaughter just because Paul & Co cravenly said it was OK.

      The UKIP MEMBERS ARE the United Kingdom Independence Party and we definitely do not want to see halal slaughter in OUR country. Any member who does, or simply doesn’t care one way or the other should think of joining another party.

      Why? Because non-stun slaughter contravenes our humane slaughter laws and NO ONE should be allowed to ignore them or any other British law. Halal meat is sharia law in practice along with many other barbaric things and we, the people, demand that these things that bring our country down to a disgusting 3rd world level need to be STOPPED, not tolerated.

      UKIP needs to be the Party that promises “We WILL stop these things happening.”

      • Then UKIP should issue a statement, on behalf of its membership, setting out its position on matters promoted on the offending leaflet.

        • Dream on Ben, cannot see that happening at the moment.

        • Trouble is, Fen, I don’t know how to go about it. Who would be able to issue a statement, there is bound to be something in the constitution.
          The statement will only be made when branches put forward a vote of no confidence in Nuttall, and some won’t.
          I still support UKIP because of Anne Marie and John Rees-Evans, at the moment they are both loyal to the Leadership.
          I have come to believe that the task was to weaken UKIP so that the Brexit achieved will be one that Mrs May and her Globalist chums are reasonably happy with – whoever suggested that leaflet found the perfect way to do it, and led the ‘clueless cabal’ by the nose at Stoke.
          Only that leaflet could have so perfectly achieved what it has, UKIP, under Nuttall, is no longer a credible voice.
          He needs to step down.

      • Panmelia, unfortunately UKIP policy DOES support Halal and Kosher slaughter. The U turn from the humane policy was in April 2015.

        At the time I and a PPC from another branch tried to prevent the U turn. Unfortunately it went ahead despite our best efforts.

        I wish that it was not true but it is.

  7. Those charged with looking after kids, including those of an Islamic background, are not worth even 1% of what they are paid. Some years ago my daughter told me that her friend, whose parents were from Pakistan planned to take her on “holiday” to Pakistan during term time and against her will. She would have been 12 or 13 at the time.

    I went to see the school who declined any involvement. I talked to social service who admitted that they were aware of the issues but wouldn’t discuss it.

    A couple of weeks later my daughter informed me that her friend had gone to Pakistan. As far as I know she did not return. What is the point of employing such people? The friends of the enemey are everywhere and well entrenched.

  8. Thank you Anne Marie; this needs to be shouted from the rooftops by all of us at every opportunity. Maybe even Paul Nuttall will listen then???

    Are you able to tell us what the reaction of the Lords was?

  9. Well said Anne Marie. It amazes me that this wasn’t immediately obvious. How anyone can be protective towards sharia law in Britain is beyond me. How any party can appease the idea, in order to be all things to all people , and still consider they are serving their parties best political interest is absurd. Although Sharia May seems not to have been harmed by it. Are we approaching a time when enough is enough, and the failings of our current political class are no longer to be tolerated?

  10. May i recommend this article/interview to all readers:
    “Iben Thranholm examines political and social events with focus on their religious aspects, significance and moral implications. She is one of Denmark’s most widely read columnists on such matters.”

    • Well done for publishing that article Viv.
      It certainly analyses and details Swedish surrender to Islamification on the back of state supported diversification and the destruction of Christian ethics as a basis for the cohesion of society.
      We are well warned here.
      I hope you will print the “lead” to this article regularly whenever there is a discussion on the perils of Islam.

  11. flyer, I share your feelings, believe me, but we need to keep cool heads if we are to combat the invaders. We need to target the head, not the body of the enemy: the sharia courts and the imams who run them; the ‘big men’ of the islamic ghettoes who say what goes and do the postal vote rounds at election time telling people how to vote and watching them do it; the taxpayer-funded islamic PR organisations; the mechanisms by which mosques are built with money from S Arabia.

    Most of all, we need to shame the PM ‘sharia May’ into dropping her support of the courts and having them abolished by campaigning for ‘British Law For All’. Any muslims who can’t live without sharia courts can go to any one of 49 islamic countries where sharia IS the law.

    • Good points Panmelia but I fear military assistance will be needed for policing the ghettos; just remember how utterly useless the police were during and after the Bradford riots, and in Rotherham.

      • We shoud have had the Army on the streets for years now in hotspots for terrorism and in the places where sharia gangs are patrolling to bully or beat those who don’t conform.

  12. Anne Marie, this is what I’ve been saying for a long time: no ‘religion’ should automatically be accorded a special status or reverence just because it calls itself a ‘religion’. It’s the fundamental error that many people in the West make: they can’t see past the illusion of ‘religion = force for good’ to the horrendous reality beneath. They don’t know that islam has no equivalent to the ‘golden rule’ that applies to all humanity, rather than just its own adherents. I often refer to islam as a ‘cult’ in an effort to change the perspective. It may claim the label of ‘religion’ because it worships a supernatural power, but its real identity is that of a political ideology seeking world domination.

    I had no idea that sharia courts have charitable status and I’m prepared to bet that the majority of the population doesn’t either. But I’m not really surprised, because many and varied are the ways in which islam funds its promotion in this country, including generous grants of government, ie taxpayers’ money for ‘Councils’ and ‘Institutes’.

    The strong, rational arguments in your article are the platform from which we can campaign against the islamic powerbase in the UK. Top of the list is the exposure and destruction of the government’s disingenuous claim that ‘there is no sharia law in the UK’. Pressure needs to be mounted to revoke the courts’ charitable status. The unequal principles on which they operate to the detriment of women and children need revealing.

    As Home Secretary, T.May launched in May 2016 an 18-month inquiry into the treatment of women in sharia courts, headed by a woman called Siddiqi. Its report is due in November of this year. As it is almost bound to be a whitewash owing to lies and intimidation, I think we need to get our arguments out there first.

  13. When I hear those words ‘Sharia Law,’ it’s like a red rag to a bull to me. I haven’t set foot in my Native Britain for nearly ten years and that was a short visit. When I sit here reading about the things happening in the UK and Europe, I often can’t believe what I’m reading, the place seems to have been taken over by mentally unstable maniacs.

    I was watching Merkel as Trump talked about radical Islam, she was shaking her head, she won’t hear a word said against Islam. That’s in spite of the invasion, the thousands of brutal gang rapes, the Female Genital Mutilation, the crime, violence and killing.

    Theresa May is no better, here’s her response to it all.

    I used to consider my self to be a very racially tolerant person, having lived all over the world: not any more, I’ve had enough.

    Of course Sharia Law shouldn’t be tolerated it’s totally repellent to our culture and way of life. It’s probably as well that I’ll never set foot in the UK again, I don’t think I’d like to be responsible for my actions. If I said what I’d really like to do to these people, I’d probably never be printed here again. I am beyond any pretense of being reasonable.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.