Latest from UKIP Daily

Our Judicial System is Under Threat

We live under a judicial system that is over a thousand years old, it is derived from common law and laws made and placed into statute, by those people elected to Parliament to make such laws. It is not perfect but it is tried and tested and is constantly re tested as it knows that it has to be a moveable feast and reactionary to the changing ways in which we live.

Parliament is sovereign in their law making, (I know that the EU has played a large part in our recent laws and statutory instruments, but that is another argument and topic). Our Police force tasked by us to apply the law and it is important to note that application of the law is by the consent of the people, are the only body tasked with that application.No one else is appointed by the people. It is a valuable and enriching concept that we are policed by consent.

It follows from the foregoing that if someone comes to live here, engage in citizenship and embrace all that this wonderful nation has to offer, it is a simple matter of fact and beyond question that they should submit themselves to our rule of law. They must obey our common and statute law and our moral and ethical ways of behaviour. It should not even be questioned that our judicial system is sovereign to the whole nation.

If a body of people who have settled here or live here because of birth decide they no longer wish to be ruled in totality by our judicial system then we have a problem. If that grouping decide they wish to follow a system of law based on a faith, a system of law that is totally at odds with our common, statute law and our moral and ethical thinking we have a very big problem.

Before anyone starts throwing the racist label at me, nothing could be further from the truth. I am simply examining a situation which is in place, and being allowed to grow and flourish without question.

Sharia law is a system of judiciary embraced by the Muslim faith, it is most certainly prejudiced against women. It calls for beatings as a punishment. In its most extreme form it calls for hangings and stoning to death. Sharia courts have been allowed to be held up and down the country, there is no overseeing of these courts, no regulation and no monitoring. Divorce is mostly dealt with for now by a panel composed usually entirely of men. But this is just the thin edge of the wedge.

There are also sharia street patrols, mainly in London for now but nonetheless ‘patrols’. These are composed of men wearing hi viz tabards patrolling the streets of their community. Just what their purpose is,is unclear. However they can only be described as vigilantes, given that they have not been sanctioned by anyone, they have no powers of arrest and detention. As such it begs the question that if a group of non- Muslim men were ‘patrolling the streets’ of their local community would they would be stopped.


An important note here is that if they did physically stop someone and attempt to detain them, it could be argued that that is an assault on the person, as soon as they lay hands on someone. This could and undoubtedly will lead to all sorts of potential problems and allegations.

The other bigger potential problem lies in the fact that, if a grouping of people wish to no longer subject themselves in entirety to our judicial system and are therefore allowed to follow a different system of rules, moral and ethical guidelines it lays the pathway open to other groupings wishing to do the same.

The Polish community in this country is large.  As a large ethnic group they could make the claim to reject our judicial system too. They could make the claim that they wish to be judged and governed whilst living here under the auspices of Polish law. The same goes for Romanians, Somalians and so on.

There is for instance a large number of people domicile here from the USA, if they choose to live under the constitution of the USA, their second amendment allows for the bearing of arms……….food for thought, not a stretch either. If we allow one group to live under the laws of another country, faith and moralistic governance we have to allow for other ethnic groupings to follow the same pathway.

This is a problem we as Ukip have to tackle head on, it is not racist, far from it, it could be argued that it would be racist to not allow other ethnic groups to follow suit and reject the laws of this their host country.

Photo by DonkeyHotey

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Stephen Place (28 Articles)
I am the Chairman of the Ukip Richmond (Yorks) branch. I am also deputy chair of North Yorkshire.

8 Comments on Our Judicial System is Under Threat

  1. How hard would it be for our Leadership to have the restoration of British Law as our main policy? It’s a fairly easy concept to grasp, and be able to articulate. It must be the most important issue facing our country, everyone knows it, and UKIP could lead the debate, and, like the PVV in Holland, be responsible for a change in policy. We do not need to have seats in Parliament to be a real force. It seems to me that the UKIP Leadership only want to change direction and get into Parliament in order to trouser the generous remuneration, as they will soon be redundant.
    Do we really expect to get enough MP’s to be a force in Parliament in the near future? UKIP’s role must be to lead the debate, especially on Sharia Law, from which all ghastly practices such as FGM, child brides and wife beating emanate, to name just a few.
    Anne Marie Waters would grasp this challenge with relish, if she is allowed to.
    This article may not have many comments, but it has had at least as many retweets as Anne Marie’s recent one. People want to hear what UKIP has to say on this.
    What will they have to say?

    • “How hard would it be for our Leadership to have the restoration of British Law as our main policy? ”

      Dee, that is exactly how I see it too.

      We need a mission statement for the party. Short and snappy. It encapsulates both our escape from Brussels, and our need for being rid of Sharia law in the UK.

      Unfortunately the pro-Halal policy that UKIP currently has means that the party is currently pro-Sharia too. So we are no better than Labour which introduced Sharia courts, or the Conservative – Lib Dem coalition which introduced Sharia finance.

      Unless UKIP reverses its anti-democratic pro-religious animal cruelty policy there is nothing to distinguish the party from LibLabCon on this matter. So what is the point of UKIP now that Brexit is on the way?

      My suggested mission statement:
      “We must have one law for all and everybody subject to the same law. With laws made only by our own elected representatives in our own parliament. There can be no outside interference from Brussels or elsewhere.”

  2. It is not just the judicial system which is being undermined. The Established Church has also bowed to Islam.

    In 2008 the then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams paved the way for Sharia to be officially introduced. More recently an Anglican cathedral permitted the Koran to be quoted, with verses which deny the very basis of Christianity. Do the clerics have no sense?

    Labour introduced Sharia Councils (de facto courts) in 2008. I had expected them to be abolished by the Conservative – Lib Dem coalition, however they did not.

    How conservative (lower case “c”) is it to undermine our ancient legal principles? How liberal or democratic is Islam?

    They compounded the error by introducing Sharia finance. It makes me laugh that when the houses of parliament are closed for refurbishment and the MPs are relocated – they will not be able to consume alcohol. The building was sold off using Sharia finance.

    My question regarding Sharia: Is UKIP in fact any better than LibLabCon? By conceding Halal (in April 2015), the party is effectively supporting Sharia too.

  3. Stephen, please don’t duck when you don’t need to.
    No one can or should accuse you of ‘racism’ when you criticise islam because islam IS NOT A RACE. I know there are half-witted Leftards in the UK and elsewhere who either don’t realise this or choose to ignore the fact because they like chucking daft accusations and labels at anyone who disagrees with their particular delusional beliefs.
    But we really shouldn’t pander to those idiots by using the unfortunate and unnecessary opening “I’m not a racist, but …” when objecting to the many moral evils of islam; nor is there any need to become defensive in order to pre-empt such labels, as you do in your 5th paragraph.

    Of course, every word you say is absolutely right. Why the authorities ever allowed misogynistic sharia courts to operate in this country in the first place is a very good question; but then one can go on to ask many such questions: why are muslims allowed to flout the British laws on the humane slaughter of animals for meat? Why have the British laws forbidding FGM been ignored, with no prosecutions over 32 years, when it has been shown that 5,500 girls were so abused and mutilated in the UK last year, mainly by muslims. Why are muslim men in this country allowed to have four ‘wives’ each and claim welfare benefits for all as dependants? Most of these wives do nothing but produce 4 or 5 children each who will be brought up to believe that the UK is theirs for the taking when the time is right.

    Another question: are the PTB so blind, deaf and rubbish at maths as to be unable to work out that at the present rate of muslim reproduction our native Britons will be outbred and outnumbered in their own country, and democracy will be subverted to produce islamic rulers?

    Or are they colluding to bring about that situation because the British people’s ownership of this country, their birthright, heritage and future in their own land means nothing to them at all?

    Not only have our political elite over many decades allowed a mass invasion of muslims into the UK, they have allowed islamisation to creep its insidious way into positions of power, and done NOTHING to stop or control its advance. Folly, cowardice or collusion?

  4. I’m glad to say this article is being widely shared on Twitter. If anyone can re-tweet, please do, everyone has different followers and can reach a wider audience.

    I think this is one of the most important articles up for discussion, it goes to the very heart of both what is so wrong with our country and what UKIP could do for the people of Britain. It follows on perfectly from Anne Marie’s recent article.

    We need to remember that an old man was very badly beaten up recently, for drinking alcohol in a ‘Sharia controlled zone’. This is the thin end of the wedge.

    It might also be useful to remember that schools now regularly visit mosques (though not the places of worship of other faiths, that I am aware of) and I read today that children are given extra points at a school if they attend wearing the hijab.

    As long as we have a Prime Minister who states that ‘Sharia is good for Britain’ we have no hope that those currently in Government will address this. But it is worth remembering that in the last days of the Netherlands recent election Mark Rutte embraced Geert Wilders policy that only those who wanted to fit in with their way of life would be welcome. So UKIP does NOT have to be in Westminster to shape policy, it just needs policies that attract members and voters.

  5. The only regulation needed for the sharia kangaroo courts is to shut them down, each and every one of them, on the spot. They have no place in a civilised country and their continuing existence is a very real threat to this country. Yet that threat is happily tolerated, no actually nurtured, by politicians of the LibLabCon One Party.

  6. Phil O'Sophical // March 17, 2017 at 11:36 am // Reply

    Clear and concise; a perfect pro-British rather than anti-anyone-else text to underwrite a policy. Expect the Ukip leadership to denounce it as nasty, exclusional, hateful and nativist.

  7. Stephen,

    I’m sure that you are in no doubt what would happen if we mounted patrols to support the law of the land. Their patrols need to to be arrested, kept in custody and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    However, we have a problem in that the police, as we have seen in the past, cannot or will not deal with the ensuing riots. That is one more reason why we need a much stronger military presence to anticipate and deal with such events.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.