Letter to Trevor Phillips, Chair of Equality and Human Rights Commission

11


Maryam Namazie and Anne Marie Waters of One Law for All and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain met with Trevor Phillips, Chair of Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), on 28 June to raise our concerns about sharia courts in Britain and the Charities Commission’s refusal of charity status for secular organisations. Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto was also present at the meeting.

 

Below is our follow up letter:

Dear Trevor,

Thank you once again for meeting with us. We appreciate your taking the time out to hear about the work of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.

Just to highlight a couple of the issues we raised:

On One Law for All and Sharia Law

1) There are currently two major bodies carrying out sharia based arbitration and mediation in the UK – these are the Islamic Sharia Council (a registered charity) and the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (operating as an independent tribunal under the powers of the Arbitration Act 1996).

Written By: Maryam Namazie
continue to source article at bit.ly

11 COMMENTS

  1. Since the leftist establishment imbibed the poison of “multiculturalism”, an ideology whose key teaching is that civilisation has to accept barbarians, but barbarians don’t have to accept civilisation.

    I hold out no hope that Mr Phillips will take any action to address the concerns in the letter.

  2. Oh no. I hope this does not turn out to be yet another “multiculturalism” debate, especially when people don’t define what they mean by that term. Ah, what the heck. For me, it means multiple cultures without the “ism” and the ideology that that may entail.

    As such, it is clear that multiple cultures exists everywhere on earth. One could argue that the Scots, English and Welsh are different cultures, even though they have much in common. And that which they have in common, such as the English language, was imposed by one set of victors over another set of losers following various battles in history.

    I would say more: whenever you find a mono-culture, therein also lies ethnic cleansing.

    Unless you think mono-cultures are a good thing (I don’t), I would say that it’s a good thing then the English, the Scots, the Welsh and so on still have vestiges of their own cultures.

    It’s a good thing too that Jews, Arabs, Asians, Africans and so on have been able to integrate and enrich what we call British cultural life.

    The problem starts when communities within these cultures refuse to integrate; or when government policies etc aid and abet those refuseniks; or, worse, when the refusers seek to impose their Old Country ways of doing things in the New Country that they have adopted.

    By all means have your own culture. But there should be one law and one law only for all! And when your culture runs counter to the law of the land+, so much the worse for your culture.

    + The exception to this is, for instance, if the law of the land is so egregious that it offends internationally accepted standards for human rights.

  3. I was in a meeting of The Chiltern Humanists at which Anne Marie Waters spoke about Sharia Law, and it was frightening.

    This so called “god’s law” poses a threat to a certain document issued in Britain in the year 1215; namely, Magna Carte Libertatum; most of our American cousins doubtless know about it, but those who don’t may like to visit Wikipedia and bone up on the subject.

    I bought a copy of “Sharia Law in Britain” (a threat to one law for all & equal rights) and it’s a hairy read.

    Further to which, apparently, out of “respect” for Muslims, at Socialist Workers’ Party meetings women are now expected to sit at the back.  

    And, Islamists are influencing Government in the House of Commons, because politicians are afraid of losing the Muslim vote I suppose, whereas One Law for All is not managing to gain a toehold there, although they have received a favourable response from The Lords I understand; the reason for this may be that the current bunch of degenerates in the Lower House have not a scintilla of historical perspective, – witness Anthony Blair’s decision to INVADE AFGHANISTAN???!!! - but members in the Upper Chamber do possess the requisite knowledge.   

    What ever, time for wakey wakeys I think!

  4. The arbirrary rules of mysogynistic medieval barbarism have no rights here. Our democracy, our principles of government by the people, laws, rights and freedoms granted to EQUAL individuals were not handed down by some crackpot 8th century illiterate bedouin brigand.  They were fought for by men of principle and established on the battle fields of places such as Naseby.  No one should forget the blood we have had to shed since in order to defend those freedoms.

  5. They were fought for by men of principle and established on the battlefields of places such as Naseby.

    Naseby led to our own Taliban rule: The Puritans. Pubs and theatres were closed. Women’s make-up, football, Christmas and kids playing on sundays were banned. Adultery became a capital offense.

    Sorry to nit pick but the tone of your post pissed me off.

     

  6. I read through the link, and the reasons given for refusal of charitable status for Maryam’s organisation. The main ground for refusal appeared to be that you could not hold political objectives and be defined as a charity. (Even though those objectives were associated with human rights). Why then have we got bishops sitting in our upper chamber? And how is Amnesty International a charity?  (The charity number for Amnesty International UK Section Charitable Trust is 1051681) Don’t you love consistency?

  7. “Naseby led to our own Taliban rule: The Puritans. Pubs and theatres were closed. Women’s make-up, football, Christmas and kids playing on sundays were banned. Adultery became a capital offense.Sorry to nit pick but the tone of your post pissed me off.”

    Sorry to nit pick even further….but the principle of one law for all goes back to this document in 1215….

    http://www.bl.uk/treasures/mag

    The principles put forth by that document, and their effect on Parliament and the nation, are precisely why Cromwell’s repressive Puritans did not last long. That’s they key issue. The road to ‘the Mother of Parliaments’ was never a rosy one…..but even back in the 1600s it had already brought about changes that ensured we’d not long put up with any Mullah Omar imposing Sharia on us.

    I guess it took the advent of ‘multiculturalism’…..whose originators really ought to have their heads put on spikes at The Tower for treason…… to reverse 800 years of progress !

  8. You need not apologise for ‘nit picking’ as you put it.  The point you make is important

    The English civil wars were the cradle of democracy, and put paid to rule by absolute monarchy that is the important point. I am quite aware that the puritans were an unwelcome lot and about as unpleasant as the catholicism they despised.  Their world view didn’t last long but the effect on our government did and it is this ultimately from which our present democratic principles stem.  Without government by the people we’d still be in one form of taliban or another.

  9. Sharia law is fit only for countries ruled by islam and should not be allowed anywhere near countries such as ours, what would start as no more than a toe hold in areas with strong muslim neighbourhoods would quickly spread like japanese knotweed and strangle the whole country unless kept in complete control.

  10. thebaldgit

    “Sharia law is fit only for countries ruled by islam and should not be allowed anywhere near countries such as ours, what would start as no more than a toe hold in areas with strong muslim neighbourhoods would quickly spread like japanese knotweed and strangle the whole country unless kept in complete control.”

    Must disagree.

    Nettles. Definitely nettles.

Leave a Reply