What Wilders would have said if the dhimmi British officials had allowed him in:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.
Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you, seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.
This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.
The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned – all throughout the 1930’s – for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.
In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.
What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.
Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.
Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands you respect, but has no respect for you.
There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.
We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.
Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated.For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.
Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.
But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan’.
I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime’.
You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all it’s calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews? Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.
I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trial.
The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and Jordan on one hand and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.
Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?
We have to defend freedom of speech.
For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.
What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?
The choice is ours.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.
Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.
Thank you very much.
Geert Wilders MPChairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)The Netherlands
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Lord Ahmed- Why Labour’s search for ‘forced’ minority representation is shown to be flawed by the peer.
This week Lord Ahmed was imprisoned for dangerous driving. Though his imprisonment may have been caused by his pushing buttons on his mobile-phone; he has in the past committed far graver offences against Parliament. Recently, he, inadvertently or not, attempted to create a possible mass public order offence, by stating that the presence of a Dutch MP would be met by something akin to muslim riots. Benjamin D’Israeli once set a bench-mark for decency in politics when he said: ‘I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many of the prejudices of the few’. Lord Ahmed has a lot to learn on that front, for he was doing quite the opposite. Perhaps, he felt that his own position was unsafe unless he was out slaying the myriad phantoms of discontent in his head. Through his visceral and ill-reflective manner of debate, he encouraged feelings of disenchantment amongst a few of the muslim community, rather than sought to reduce their fears and search for national and community solidarity. Instead of encouraging muslim vigilance and toleration when Geert Wilders MP was invited he was far too quickly and thoughtlessly up in arms ‘crying havoc'. He thus lost an opportunity to show those of us that are non-muslims and are sceptical about peaceful co-existence with Islamic communities that they are wrong, and that their fears are unfounded. His response was thus lacking in sound judgment and deliberation, questioning as to how much the Government had pondered a possible ‘band-wagon approach’ problem on appointment. His approach was particularly questionable as he himself had allowed a book-launch by a supposed anti-semite, Israel Shamir, in the Lord’s. This picking and choosing of speakers palatability belies a want of understanding of the importance of freedom of speech and intimates an agenda. It also indicates that this is perhaps not a man necessarily to be trusted with his self-appointed representation of British muslims.
There is also a graver and more worrying political issue here. Lord Ahmed became the Lord’s first Muslim Life Peer in 1998, a part of Blair’s search for minority representation in politics. This is a product of recent postive discrimination drives in political appointments, demonstrating the flaws in this unfair approach. Unfair, as it not only pushes out other candidates on the basis of background, but also deleterious as the better candidate is often marginalised. This positive discrimination approach can thus weaken the institution of appointment, as persons are chosen on representation as opposed to calibre. This problem is acute in other areas of appointment, including employment, which suffers from the malaise of interference by so called anti-discrimination laws. It may not be as clear a problem in political appointment to the Lords, which has much more to do with the current shambolic system of appointment to the upper chamber based on party whim. Positive discrimination encourages and re-inforces differences through unfair selection (a non-muslim, non-ethnic minority is thus not picked)that different racial and religious communities need their own representative factions in politics. This undermines the spirit of a singular national identity. Thus forced categorised representation enforces an existing divide that at present feasibly separates communities. We should, of course, be endeavouring to do the opposite. Simply put a policy that seeks a fair representation of ethnic and other minorities can also be harmful to community cohesion. Further, there is at present, perhaps, too much a drive for fair representation, that may leave such appointment processes open to abuse. Not all of our politics are such that we feel only comfortable if there are those from our own superficial ethnic sub-divisions in charge. Some of us, would rather choose someone more able from another back-ground, race or gender in positions of influence if it is in the best-interests of our country. In this spirit, the better of us may even prefer to elect those whom we do not like and those that also dislike us. A similar unfairness exists in the promotion of women over men, though unlike racial, ethic or relgious promotion it does not necessarily come with the same cost of community cohesion.
APG Pandya.
(The Birkenhead Society. The Birkenhead Society does not accept legal responsibility for the factual content or accuracy of its blog or website).
There is also a graver and more worrying political issue here. Lord Ahmed became the Lord’s first Muslim Life Peer in 1998, a part of Blair’s search for minority representation in politics. This is a product of recent postive discrimination drives in political appointments, demonstrating the flaws in this unfair approach. Unfair, as it not only pushes out other candidates on the basis of background, but also deleterious as the better candidate is often marginalised. This positive discrimination approach can thus weaken the institution of appointment, as persons are chosen on representation as opposed to calibre. This problem is acute in other areas of appointment, including employment, which suffers from the malaise of interference by so called anti-discrimination laws. It may not be as clear a problem in political appointment to the Lords, which has much more to do with the current shambolic system of appointment to the upper chamber based on party whim. Positive discrimination encourages and re-inforces differences through unfair selection (a non-muslim, non-ethnic minority is thus not picked)that different racial and religious communities need their own representative factions in politics. This undermines the spirit of a singular national identity. Thus forced categorised representation enforces an existing divide that at present feasibly separates communities. We should, of course, be endeavouring to do the opposite. Simply put a policy that seeks a fair representation of ethnic and other minorities can also be harmful to community cohesion. Further, there is at present, perhaps, too much a drive for fair representation, that may leave such appointment processes open to abuse. Not all of our politics are such that we feel only comfortable if there are those from our own superficial ethnic sub-divisions in charge. Some of us, would rather choose someone more able from another back-ground, race or gender in positions of influence if it is in the best-interests of our country. In this spirit, the better of us may even prefer to elect those whom we do not like and those that also dislike us. A similar unfairness exists in the promotion of women over men, though unlike racial, ethic or relgious promotion it does not necessarily come with the same cost of community cohesion.
APG Pandya.
(The Birkenhead Society. The Birkenhead Society does not accept legal responsibility for the factual content or accuracy of its blog or website).
Friday, 13 February 2009
'Golliwog'- All those that are offended please apologise
Over the last two weeks the story of Carol Thatcher's comment has been drizzled over the press like some overdone and excessively ascerbic vinegrette that often, inadvertently, floods one's caesar salad due to the chef's recklessness. Though foul tasting it might seem to some of us, at least to others, in taste, it may be rather quite different. The point being that offence is very much a matter of personal sensitivity and emotional sensibility, as opposed to something that one can have a fixed judgment on, say like rape. Further proscribing those that express themsleves in the way they wish to is an attack on liberty, as the freedom of choice of expression is very much a part of a human's personal autonomy, and thus dignity. To excoriate people for the intolerance of others, would create a nation in which relations between people were based on of mistrust of one another, if not fear. A nation that censures those who wish to express themsleves using a golliwog against political correctness, rather than an attack on race, is a mark of an intolerant nation.
Personally, I laughed. I told my uncle (who, like myself, has a rather dark complexion) that she was specifically referring to him. As a chair of a free-speech society my intuition was, of course, surprisingly rather different. But who would honestly not be embarresed by being offended by such a comment- it would be child like, surely? We Brits, we take it on the chin. Reading the papers day after day, I was looking for a list of apologies for those who were willing to own up to their childish reaction of 'I am offended'. But none was forthcoming.
The immaturity was put forward by those I expected. Some of the coloured lot of our society for starters (who seem to be suffering from some bout of self-induceable post-colonial race complex) and some left-leaning, quasi-liberal apologists. The rants of the former went along the following lines: That their forefathers had been slaves or governed by force or some other irrelevant and illogical gibberish, thus 'How could she?' 'Are you a slave?'I thought- then grinned, realising that, of course, another more subtle slavery was at work. This was the limit of a human mind that could only digest what it was not senstive to. What I would term 'obtuse perception'. It should become a psychiatric's diagnosis. 'I cannot accept this idea, or thought or speech as it makes me uncomfortable'- a fortiori, I am a child. Please treat me as one; censor all that affects me. And if that is the truth' well- who cares?' I'd rather not know than be offended. Of course, I am making a leap here, that between a statement or a piece of speech and an opinion. But are they so disparate? Does one not follow from the other? And if so, is to censor one not to censor the other? Since when has the nation of ideas and enlightenment become the nation of visceral censorship? We are, dangerously, heading that way. The decision of the Home Secretary to ban Geert Wilder, yesterday, is another example of this. We ban to stop people from being offended. We thus treat them like children, and the state then moves into that dangerous corridor when it can control ideas and opinion by approval or disapprobation. We need to treat both of these instances with more care and think deeply about the implications of this approach. Once we move into the realm of offence and violence, we move away from discussion and Parliamentary democracy and into the breakdown of the rule of law. In this only might is right, by virtue of offence, and those that are liberal and mature in their outlook with more reflective views get pushed on the way-side. With the loss of ideas becomes the loss of thought that can be valuable to our nation as a whole. For this reason we should preserve our hard fought freedom of speech with absolute rigidity-it is the catalyst that makes Parliamentary democracy (Government by choice and election) function. I would thus urge for those who are offended to grow up and apologise, as there is something more at stake here than their selfish, visceral sensitivities.
APG PANDYA
(Copyright Birkenhead Society).
Personally, I laughed. I told my uncle (who, like myself, has a rather dark complexion) that she was specifically referring to him. As a chair of a free-speech society my intuition was, of course, surprisingly rather different. But who would honestly not be embarresed by being offended by such a comment- it would be child like, surely? We Brits, we take it on the chin. Reading the papers day after day, I was looking for a list of apologies for those who were willing to own up to their childish reaction of 'I am offended'. But none was forthcoming.
The immaturity was put forward by those I expected. Some of the coloured lot of our society for starters (who seem to be suffering from some bout of self-induceable post-colonial race complex) and some left-leaning, quasi-liberal apologists. The rants of the former went along the following lines: That their forefathers had been slaves or governed by force or some other irrelevant and illogical gibberish, thus 'How could she?' 'Are you a slave?'I thought- then grinned, realising that, of course, another more subtle slavery was at work. This was the limit of a human mind that could only digest what it was not senstive to. What I would term 'obtuse perception'. It should become a psychiatric's diagnosis. 'I cannot accept this idea, or thought or speech as it makes me uncomfortable'- a fortiori, I am a child. Please treat me as one; censor all that affects me. And if that is the truth' well- who cares?' I'd rather not know than be offended. Of course, I am making a leap here, that between a statement or a piece of speech and an opinion. But are they so disparate? Does one not follow from the other? And if so, is to censor one not to censor the other? Since when has the nation of ideas and enlightenment become the nation of visceral censorship? We are, dangerously, heading that way. The decision of the Home Secretary to ban Geert Wilder, yesterday, is another example of this. We ban to stop people from being offended. We thus treat them like children, and the state then moves into that dangerous corridor when it can control ideas and opinion by approval or disapprobation. We need to treat both of these instances with more care and think deeply about the implications of this approach. Once we move into the realm of offence and violence, we move away from discussion and Parliamentary democracy and into the breakdown of the rule of law. In this only might is right, by virtue of offence, and those that are liberal and mature in their outlook with more reflective views get pushed on the way-side. With the loss of ideas becomes the loss of thought that can be valuable to our nation as a whole. For this reason we should preserve our hard fought freedom of speech with absolute rigidity-it is the catalyst that makes Parliamentary democracy (Government by choice and election) function. I would thus urge for those who are offended to grow up and apologise, as there is something more at stake here than their selfish, visceral sensitivities.
APG PANDYA
(Copyright Birkenhead Society).
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Baby P- Time for complete judicial supervision?
Five years ago I was assisting a senior member of the judiciary of the Court of Appeal during a seminal case of infant/child abuse before our courts, termed Re S Re W (see weblink). That case concerned the possibility of an implied power to courts to force children into care where there was a risk of abuse. This power would come from the right to life in the European Convention of Human Rights. The powers for judges to interpret laws according to the European Convention are derived from s.3 of the Human Rights Act. Thus the Children's Act and other related legislation could be interpretated to incorporate a principle of protecting the right of life for the child. The House of Lords rejected this approach on the grounds of judicial law-making, and taking the powers under the Human Rights Act to interpret statutes too far. However, the gap in judicial supervision of chidren and infants who suffer abuse was left unremedied by the Parliamentary process.
Prior to becoming a High Court judge, the judge had chaired a public inquiry on child abuse in 1989. The inquiry concerned the death of Tyra Henry who had died whilst under the care of Lambeth Council in 1988. Tyra had suffered physical asssault at the hands of her father. There was a distinct and continuous pattern of abuse that care-workers had become aware of. Everytime her parents met she would be beaten by her father. Though the social services and relevant care workers were aware of the relationship between her mother's meetings with her father and the violence, nothing was done. Eventually, she was killed by a physical assault by her father. There was no legal avenue available then, as there is not one now, for the doctors and care workers to refer such cases to a court for consideration. This would allow the court to prevent, insuch cases, the child from being present when the father would see the mother, by placing the child into emergency care. If a Court could have been seised by reference of the social workers or doctors and the judge had the power to grant an exclusionary order backed up by an imprisonable offence to contain the father, then such an abuse would have been prevented. Currently judges in the family courts have no power to order parents from seeing their own children or hear a reference by doctors or social workers as to the risk to a child. If any reform to prevent the Baby P scenario occuring again is made, such powers ought to be given to judges in those reforms. The reforms must include powers of reference to doctors and social workers who see the child.
There are several cases of previous child abuse that come to mind where such a proposal would be effective. Victoria Climbie's case resulted in several reforms brought in to the existing information network to do with recognising child abuse, but no real effective provisions as to how that information would be used. The public outrage at her death led to a public inquiry which produced major changes in child protection policies in the United Kingdom, including the formation of the Every Child Matters programme; the introduction of the Children Act 2004; the creation of the ContactPoint project, a planned government database that will hold information on all children in England and Wales; and the creation of the Office of the Children's Commissioner chaired by the Children's Commissioner. These were reforms, but they were reforms relating to information collection on the status of the welfare of children but none of these bodies has the power to step in and protect the child abused by an adult to the point where its very life is at risk. The EveryChildMatters programme is concerned with the general upbringing of the child, such as sports and other leisure activities and does not specifically cater for child abuse. Suprisingly, if not shockingly the Children's Act 2004 did not remedy the problem of compelling authorities to force children at high risk, those, for example, with visible marks that can be medically attributed to abuse, into care to protect their lives and for their general psychological well-being. This shocking omission led to the dithering concerning Baby P. Afterall social services will go around in circles if they cannot activiely get the law on their side to compel action. The real fault lies with the Labour Government for its ineffective and superficial response via the post Climbie measures.
The proposal of change here would allow doctors to be able to report such faults to an independent abuse or child officer to the family court. Such an officer needs to be set-up by legislation that in turn can be used by the judge to hold an investigation of his own motion. A radical step would be a list of short-term care homes or a list of families that are willing to take in the child until the court deems the risk of abuse is less, or the child is not a 'high risk' case. These will be social services approved, and then checked by the court for appropriateness prior to granting the order.
The UK has one of the most atrocious records for child abuse according to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child, in the world. Those that oppose such an interventionist approach often couch it in terms of an unnecessary intrusion into family life. But what family life? Can a child or infant in such a position of continously suffering violence really be said to have a family life? Or is the closer reality that the level of neglect is such that the Government has failed completely to protect the most vulnerable? We need to grow up on this issue and realise that such a proposal is not as drastic as it seems. It does not mean that parents who smack their children will loose them for a short-period. The power compelled by the court would be in extreme circumstances where there is a real and significant risk to the life of the child, and nothing short will suffice. Courts make decisions on life and death cases at present, and thus have the competence to do so. A recent example was a granting of an order to let hospitals operate on siamese twins, where one baby would no doubt lose its life but barring the intervention both would. This would be within our history of protecting children, we were one of the first countries in the world that outlawed child labour. Where life and suffering of the weak and innocent are concerned, and where those weak and innocent are children such a proposal should be pursued. It is not extreme but one that puts children who suffer from such appalling cowardly conduct out of harm. No civilised state should stand idly by and let the status-quo continue.
APG Pandya
(Copyright Birkenhead Society)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020314/inres-1.htm
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/3126855/UN-to-criticise-Labours-record-on-child-rights.html&t=UN%20to%20criticise%20Labour%27s%20record%20on%20child%20rights%20&b=The%20United%20Nations%20is%20expected%20to%20criticise%20Labour%27s%20record%20on%20child%20rights%20in%20a%20key%20report.%20&m=News&s=compact
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/policyandpublicaffairs/Wales/briefings/UNCRCBriefing2008_wdf61519.pdf
Prior to becoming a High Court judge, the judge had chaired a public inquiry on child abuse in 1989. The inquiry concerned the death of Tyra Henry who had died whilst under the care of Lambeth Council in 1988. Tyra had suffered physical asssault at the hands of her father. There was a distinct and continuous pattern of abuse that care-workers had become aware of. Everytime her parents met she would be beaten by her father. Though the social services and relevant care workers were aware of the relationship between her mother's meetings with her father and the violence, nothing was done. Eventually, she was killed by a physical assault by her father. There was no legal avenue available then, as there is not one now, for the doctors and care workers to refer such cases to a court for consideration. This would allow the court to prevent, insuch cases, the child from being present when the father would see the mother, by placing the child into emergency care. If a Court could have been seised by reference of the social workers or doctors and the judge had the power to grant an exclusionary order backed up by an imprisonable offence to contain the father, then such an abuse would have been prevented. Currently judges in the family courts have no power to order parents from seeing their own children or hear a reference by doctors or social workers as to the risk to a child. If any reform to prevent the Baby P scenario occuring again is made, such powers ought to be given to judges in those reforms. The reforms must include powers of reference to doctors and social workers who see the child.
There are several cases of previous child abuse that come to mind where such a proposal would be effective. Victoria Climbie's case resulted in several reforms brought in to the existing information network to do with recognising child abuse, but no real effective provisions as to how that information would be used. The public outrage at her death led to a public inquiry which produced major changes in child protection policies in the United Kingdom, including the formation of the Every Child Matters programme; the introduction of the Children Act 2004; the creation of the ContactPoint project, a planned government database that will hold information on all children in England and Wales; and the creation of the Office of the Children's Commissioner chaired by the Children's Commissioner. These were reforms, but they were reforms relating to information collection on the status of the welfare of children but none of these bodies has the power to step in and protect the child abused by an adult to the point where its very life is at risk. The EveryChildMatters programme is concerned with the general upbringing of the child, such as sports and other leisure activities and does not specifically cater for child abuse. Suprisingly, if not shockingly the Children's Act 2004 did not remedy the problem of compelling authorities to force children at high risk, those, for example, with visible marks that can be medically attributed to abuse, into care to protect their lives and for their general psychological well-being. This shocking omission led to the dithering concerning Baby P. Afterall social services will go around in circles if they cannot activiely get the law on their side to compel action. The real fault lies with the Labour Government for its ineffective and superficial response via the post Climbie measures.
The proposal of change here would allow doctors to be able to report such faults to an independent abuse or child officer to the family court. Such an officer needs to be set-up by legislation that in turn can be used by the judge to hold an investigation of his own motion. A radical step would be a list of short-term care homes or a list of families that are willing to take in the child until the court deems the risk of abuse is less, or the child is not a 'high risk' case. These will be social services approved, and then checked by the court for appropriateness prior to granting the order.
The UK has one of the most atrocious records for child abuse according to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child, in the world. Those that oppose such an interventionist approach often couch it in terms of an unnecessary intrusion into family life. But what family life? Can a child or infant in such a position of continously suffering violence really be said to have a family life? Or is the closer reality that the level of neglect is such that the Government has failed completely to protect the most vulnerable? We need to grow up on this issue and realise that such a proposal is not as drastic as it seems. It does not mean that parents who smack their children will loose them for a short-period. The power compelled by the court would be in extreme circumstances where there is a real and significant risk to the life of the child, and nothing short will suffice. Courts make decisions on life and death cases at present, and thus have the competence to do so. A recent example was a granting of an order to let hospitals operate on siamese twins, where one baby would no doubt lose its life but barring the intervention both would. This would be within our history of protecting children, we were one of the first countries in the world that outlawed child labour. Where life and suffering of the weak and innocent are concerned, and where those weak and innocent are children such a proposal should be pursued. It is not extreme but one that puts children who suffer from such appalling cowardly conduct out of harm. No civilised state should stand idly by and let the status-quo continue.
APG Pandya
(Copyright Birkenhead Society)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020314/inres-1.htm
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/3126855/UN-to-criticise-Labours-record-on-child-rights.html&t=UN%20to%20criticise%20Labour%27s%20record%20on%20child%20rights%20&b=The%20United%20Nations%20is%20expected%20to%20criticise%20Labour%27s%20record%20on%20child%20rights%20in%20a%20key%20report.%20&m=News&s=compact
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/policyandpublicaffairs/Wales/briefings/UNCRCBriefing2008_wdf61519.pdf
Thursday, 27 November 2008
Sharia law- On the road to madness?
Interesting to see the piece on Stephen Hockman QC's views on Sharia law (as below, though it was the Birkenhead Society and not Islam4UK that organised the debate). Currently Sharia law is applied by lay tribunals for certain commercial and family disputes. Contrary to Stephen Hockmann QC's view that full sharia law needs to be brought in to prevent alienation of Moslems, there is a strong case to be made that its inclusion would have exactly the opposite effect. Its inclusion would lead to further fragmentation of the law and, in turn, a lack of social cohesion. This is because we would be enforcing and exacerbating the differences between communities by creating different laws for different people. This would further unedify the idea of nationhood and the importance of having a singular identity which is currently provided by having one law of the land.
A singular system of law protects a singular system of values, despite differences in view as to what some of those values might be. In a our democracy once one value is chosen through the political process it is the value we all adhere by. A simple example of this would be the making certain forms of fox-hunting illegal. Different systems of law would make enforcing the disparate systems extremely difficult, and would undermine the great values associated with traditional British democracy. It would also undermine the working of the Parliamentary process, that has a monopoly over the law where rule-making is done through debate and discussion. It would allow other
law-making processes to take place, and taken to the extreme, permit an oppressive law-making regime to function freely in a separate community or a separate part of the country.
The importance of having a singular law to govern people of differing races, cultures, and religions is vital to the functioning of any society, such as Britain, that values pluralism, the freedom of ideas and toleration. It is also important in providing social cohesion where there are peoples from varying backgrounds and culture, and to promote extra-ordinary values of the great intrinsic British culture and heritage. Further, only through a singular rule of law that is not arbitrary in its form, content or application can fair system of Government operate. This is particularly important where there is, as in Britain, different peoples from different backgrounds. The rule of a singular law provides the vital cohesion needed for a variety of people to work and function together. To bring about different rules to different parts of the populous is to fragment both state and society. It would leave open the possibility of apartheid, on the basis of ideas and culture. In turn this would encourage isolationism towards national interest and the lack of cohesiveness would unedify interest in the function of our nation state.
The alienation of the Moslem community from the mainstream of our society that a Sharia law would bring about would also increase further the chances of younger members of the Moslem community being radicalised. It would leave fundamental Islam unchecked as it would be left to be self-judged within a distinct system of values. The end result, due to enforced differences between community groups may lead to distrust, fear and loathing. The notion of one nation may quickly fade away.
Hockmann also conveniently forgets what radical forms of Islam stand for. Alienation and abuse of women are rife amongst some countries that follow Islamic law. These proposals would leave open the risk of marginalising progressive and moderate Moslems who wish to practice their religion through our secular state. It would leave to rot Moslem women who have been campaigning for reform in their own community and through the world through the platform provided by British liberalism. If radical elements of Islam are to be dealt with, then giving a carte blanche to unlimited application of the Sharia is certainly not the way forward.
On the other-side of the spectrum there is a need to evaluate whether the rise of political support for other extreme groups such as the BNP is linked to the institutional quasi-liberalism that Hockmann represents. Quasi-liberalism is being liberal for the sake of liberal and forgetting the responsibility of making a value-judgment. The rise of the far right is another form of fragmentation that undermines the cohesive of the nation state. It may bring plurality, but at the cost of undermining that which the plurality of ideas is supposed to serve- the nation state. This is by giving further unneeded assistance to extremism. Quasi-liberalism of this type is not Gladstonian liberalism. It is a form of gratuitous sentiment that has no regard to the large historical processes that gave rise to the nation state, and alienates its people by forgetting or disregarding their history and culture. Thus quasi-liberalism of leading figures such as Hockmann fuels extremism, such as that found in the BNP, by undermining the British identity.
Britain is an extra-ordinary country with a unique and powerful history. It needs to remain one nation in order to promote its political ideals of free-speech, toleration and democracy to the world. The unedification of disparate legal systems does not have to be brought in to undermine this. Mr Hockmann QC needs to sit down and re-think the implications of his suggestions on such a difficult and complex issue.
(For Hockman QC’s views: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3523672/Sharia-law-should-be-introduced-into-legal-system-says-leading-barrister.html)
APG Pandya ©
A singular system of law protects a singular system of values, despite differences in view as to what some of those values might be. In a our democracy once one value is chosen through the political process it is the value we all adhere by. A simple example of this would be the making certain forms of fox-hunting illegal. Different systems of law would make enforcing the disparate systems extremely difficult, and would undermine the great values associated with traditional British democracy. It would also undermine the working of the Parliamentary process, that has a monopoly over the law where rule-making is done through debate and discussion. It would allow other
law-making processes to take place, and taken to the extreme, permit an oppressive law-making regime to function freely in a separate community or a separate part of the country.
The importance of having a singular law to govern people of differing races, cultures, and religions is vital to the functioning of any society, such as Britain, that values pluralism, the freedom of ideas and toleration. It is also important in providing social cohesion where there are peoples from varying backgrounds and culture, and to promote extra-ordinary values of the great intrinsic British culture and heritage. Further, only through a singular rule of law that is not arbitrary in its form, content or application can fair system of Government operate. This is particularly important where there is, as in Britain, different peoples from different backgrounds. The rule of a singular law provides the vital cohesion needed for a variety of people to work and function together. To bring about different rules to different parts of the populous is to fragment both state and society. It would leave open the possibility of apartheid, on the basis of ideas and culture. In turn this would encourage isolationism towards national interest and the lack of cohesiveness would unedify interest in the function of our nation state.
The alienation of the Moslem community from the mainstream of our society that a Sharia law would bring about would also increase further the chances of younger members of the Moslem community being radicalised. It would leave fundamental Islam unchecked as it would be left to be self-judged within a distinct system of values. The end result, due to enforced differences between community groups may lead to distrust, fear and loathing. The notion of one nation may quickly fade away.
Hockmann also conveniently forgets what radical forms of Islam stand for. Alienation and abuse of women are rife amongst some countries that follow Islamic law. These proposals would leave open the risk of marginalising progressive and moderate Moslems who wish to practice their religion through our secular state. It would leave to rot Moslem women who have been campaigning for reform in their own community and through the world through the platform provided by British liberalism. If radical elements of Islam are to be dealt with, then giving a carte blanche to unlimited application of the Sharia is certainly not the way forward.
On the other-side of the spectrum there is a need to evaluate whether the rise of political support for other extreme groups such as the BNP is linked to the institutional quasi-liberalism that Hockmann represents. Quasi-liberalism is being liberal for the sake of liberal and forgetting the responsibility of making a value-judgment. The rise of the far right is another form of fragmentation that undermines the cohesive of the nation state. It may bring plurality, but at the cost of undermining that which the plurality of ideas is supposed to serve- the nation state. This is by giving further unneeded assistance to extremism. Quasi-liberalism of this type is not Gladstonian liberalism. It is a form of gratuitous sentiment that has no regard to the large historical processes that gave rise to the nation state, and alienates its people by forgetting or disregarding their history and culture. Thus quasi-liberalism of leading figures such as Hockmann fuels extremism, such as that found in the BNP, by undermining the British identity.
Britain is an extra-ordinary country with a unique and powerful history. It needs to remain one nation in order to promote its political ideals of free-speech, toleration and democracy to the world. The unedification of disparate legal systems does not have to be brought in to undermine this. Mr Hockmann QC needs to sit down and re-think the implications of his suggestions on such a difficult and complex issue.
(For Hockman QC’s views: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3523672/Sharia-law-should-be-introduced-into-legal-system-says-leading-barrister.html)
APG Pandya ©
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
QUESTIONING A JUDGE’S RIGHT TO PUBLIC DEFENCE:
It is worth noting, see link below, that Lord Pannick last week in the House of Lords proposed that judges should be able to speak out against criticism given to them by politicians. I respectfully disagree as there are inherent dangers with respect to this. This would open the back door for judicial intervention into politics. This would be unconstitutional as it would permit unelected officials to have a say in matters of politics and public policy. This politicisation of the judicial role also undermine the independence of the judiciary.
The comment in question was made with respect to Paul Dacre’s criticisms of Sir David Eady, judge of the High Court of England and Wales. Sir David Eady has interpreted British libel law to ban a book, namely Rachel Enhrenfeld’s ‘Funding Evil’. This is a powerful act that inveighs against our inherent right of free-speech in Britain that has taken several centuries to develop. One has to look no further back than ear-cropping of those who wrote against Elizabeth I, to understand what a struggle it was to establish freedom of speech in this country.
It is no doubt very likely that an activity of judges will be of interest to public and political opinion. However, for judges to have to defend their judgments from public opinion would undermine the integrity and independence of the legal system. I very much hope that the power of the judge in making libel law is thoroughly questioned by politicians and the media, and that judges are aware of the heavy criticism that follows. Libel law in its most draconian form can be used to excoriate and supress genuine opinion, where it is not factual - and this has the danger of concomitantly suppressing the freedom of speech. Paul Dacre was right to scrutinise Sir David Eady, and appropriately there can be no recourse for the judge. It is for Parliament to put right any inappropriate wondering of the judge as it sees fit, and not for the judge to defend him or herself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/3480379/Privacy-judge-only-doing-his-duty-says-peer.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3756954.ece
For Lord Pannick's views: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/81118-
> 0016.htm
APG Pandya
The comment in question was made with respect to Paul Dacre’s criticisms of Sir David Eady, judge of the High Court of England and Wales. Sir David Eady has interpreted British libel law to ban a book, namely Rachel Enhrenfeld’s ‘Funding Evil’. This is a powerful act that inveighs against our inherent right of free-speech in Britain that has taken several centuries to develop. One has to look no further back than ear-cropping of those who wrote against Elizabeth I, to understand what a struggle it was to establish freedom of speech in this country.
It is no doubt very likely that an activity of judges will be of interest to public and political opinion. However, for judges to have to defend their judgments from public opinion would undermine the integrity and independence of the legal system. I very much hope that the power of the judge in making libel law is thoroughly questioned by politicians and the media, and that judges are aware of the heavy criticism that follows. Libel law in its most draconian form can be used to excoriate and supress genuine opinion, where it is not factual - and this has the danger of concomitantly suppressing the freedom of speech. Paul Dacre was right to scrutinise Sir David Eady, and appropriately there can be no recourse for the judge. It is for Parliament to put right any inappropriate wondering of the judge as it sees fit, and not for the judge to defend him or herself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/3480379/Privacy-judge-only-doing-his-duty-says-peer.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3756954.ece
For Lord Pannick's views: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/81118-
> 0016.htm
APG Pandya
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
Be wary of the President who wants 'peace'.
Now, finally, Islamic fundamentalism has the President of its choice. Obama believes in peace and that's such a great thing isn't it? Suspicions and raised eyebrows should start there. Obama campaigned on removing US troops from Iraq, content in leaving the Iraqi people; with a half-finished, half-baked job; at the hands of militants. The threat of Islamic terrorism is as great now as ever, yet Obama the pacifist, will defeat them all with a sigh of peace. He thinks the fanatics will suddenly decide to stop waging the war because he wishes to remove and reduce US presence in both theatres. He is too naïve to realise that they do not hate for the sake of hating but for the destruction of the liberal West, that the US was just as much a risk from them the day before 9/11 as the day after. He doesn't quite grasp the geopolitics of territorial presence and influence. If the West is going to fight Islamic fascism, then a territorial foothold in the Middle East and Afghanistan has to be maintained for security and protection. The possibility to influence a move towards modern democratic governments in other states in the Middle East should not be lost. The Iranians are no doubt amused, that the voice of peace may finally give their nuclear programme the implicit consent it needs to carry on, whilst they live in a dictatorial regime that curtails fundamental freedoms with state sponsored censorship and does little to protect the rights of women. I still remember Obama’s keenness, early in the election, of wanting to get into bed with Ahmejinedad. This instinctive palm-greasing is a dangerous sign. It is the mark of a man who is willing to be a philanderer with integrity in order to gain on a desire to be liked. The possibility of Obama using US influence to change the world for the better, such as a voice for freedom, remains extremely dubious.
The election itself was a disgrace. I have never seen human beings pander in such a vile way to the lowest common denominator of race in an electoral process. Voting for someone because they are black, is as vile as voting for them because they are white, or pink or brown. If one looks beyond the man’s complexion there is very little in Obama’s empty rhetoric- How exactly is going to change the gulf between the rich and the poor that was made obvious by the faces suffering from Hurricane Katrina? He has never outlined any clear method of doing so, the electorate falling for nothing more than flamboyant vacuosity. McCain ran a terrible campaign, by god it was awful. Whilst going on about his war wounds, he never bothered to explain in full why they made him a better candidate. He had no clear game plan for a recession and did not seem wary of it. But then neither did Obama. What exactly is the President’s plan barring an increase of taxes? And is that even the right solution? When people are asked why they voted for him, it’s because of ‘change’. It is difficult to find a more empty and shallow proposition wanting of consideration than that. What and how are not questioned, spoken of, or asked about, hence their delivery becomes near impossible to assess. I am glad to have an ‘African-American’ one said. As if one was trying to bury an old hatchet in some way, it is childish and unedifying to formulate one’s opinions in this way. I would have been embarrassed. Does the choice of Obama for the reason of race mark the dawn of a new era, or reaffirm the existence of an age old apartheid? Obama's victory is a telling sign that many Americans could not see beyond the race issue, and failed to distinguish McCain, a radical in the Republican camp, from the President that was Bush. But the Republicans had fought a war and won, and only the most complacent of Americans have forgotten how important that was to corroborating US Security post 9/11. Once Obama pursues his campaign of peace fully, it is the Islamic fundamentalists that would have been the real victors of last night. They know that peace and toothlessness are one and the same.
APG Pandya.
The election itself was a disgrace. I have never seen human beings pander in such a vile way to the lowest common denominator of race in an electoral process. Voting for someone because they are black, is as vile as voting for them because they are white, or pink or brown. If one looks beyond the man’s complexion there is very little in Obama’s empty rhetoric- How exactly is going to change the gulf between the rich and the poor that was made obvious by the faces suffering from Hurricane Katrina? He has never outlined any clear method of doing so, the electorate falling for nothing more than flamboyant vacuosity. McCain ran a terrible campaign, by god it was awful. Whilst going on about his war wounds, he never bothered to explain in full why they made him a better candidate. He had no clear game plan for a recession and did not seem wary of it. But then neither did Obama. What exactly is the President’s plan barring an increase of taxes? And is that even the right solution? When people are asked why they voted for him, it’s because of ‘change’. It is difficult to find a more empty and shallow proposition wanting of consideration than that. What and how are not questioned, spoken of, or asked about, hence their delivery becomes near impossible to assess. I am glad to have an ‘African-American’ one said. As if one was trying to bury an old hatchet in some way, it is childish and unedifying to formulate one’s opinions in this way. I would have been embarrassed. Does the choice of Obama for the reason of race mark the dawn of a new era, or reaffirm the existence of an age old apartheid? Obama's victory is a telling sign that many Americans could not see beyond the race issue, and failed to distinguish McCain, a radical in the Republican camp, from the President that was Bush. But the Republicans had fought a war and won, and only the most complacent of Americans have forgotten how important that was to corroborating US Security post 9/11. Once Obama pursues his campaign of peace fully, it is the Islamic fundamentalists that would have been the real victors of last night. They know that peace and toothlessness are one and the same.
APG Pandya.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)