Archbishop of Canterbury Steps In It

[Kathianne]

Sharia alongside English law. Uh huh!

I thought this was already on the board, if it is I can't find it. It's creating more than a bit of outrage across the pond:


http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...just-dim.thtml

Dhimmi — or just dim?
Saturday, 9th February 2008


The man doesn’t even have the courage of his lack of convictions. Far from defending what he actually said about sharia law, the Archbishop of Canterbury is fighting to save his job by frantically back-tracking and claiming he has been misunderstood. It was all got up by the tabloids… no-one actually read the lecture… people have jumped to the wrong conclusion from a few misleading headlines. Ye gods. What planet is he living on? Everyone heard what the man actually said on the World at One; by now, many have heroically ploughed through his lecture as well. It is the words that he actually uttered that have caused unprecedented numbers to take to their keyboards in outrage. And it is the words that he actually uttered that make the statement on his website attempting to justify himself, written in the third person by an anonymous apparatchik at Lambeth Palace, disingenuous to the point of being seriously misleading.

The statement says:

The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law. Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that ‘as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law’. When the question was put to him that: ‘the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable’, he indicated his assent.

This implies that it was only in answering a question that he coyly agreed that the use of sharia was unavoidable. But he was actually promoting this idea himself as a desirable development. And as for not having proposed a parallel system of law, this is simply untrue. In his lecture, he said in terms that he was talking about the state recognising sharia in certain circumstances as a ‘supplementary jurisdiction’. It was a central argument of this lecture that the state, which already recognised some provisions of sharia (alas, too true) should recognise other provisions such as family law, and that individuals should be able to choose which system they wanted, in

…a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters, so that ‘power-holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents’. This may include aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution – the main areas that have been in question where supplementary jurisdictions have been tried, with native American communities in Canada as well as with religious groups like Islamic minority communities in certain contexts.

That means two systems existing side by side with equal status. In other words, parallel systems....

[NATO AIR]

Absolutely outrageous. Thank God the Pope isn't such a moron. This guy should be fired immediately from his post and never to associate himself with the Anglican church ever again. This was a disgrace, not only from a man of God and the Christian faith but from a supposedly loyal British citizen. His claims to be misunderstood or misquoted fall completely flat when one listens to the bile that emanated from his mouth.

A traitor to England, his church and his parishioners.

[diuretic]

He's been badly and seriously misinterpreted and I'd say deliberately so by many of the tabloids.

But it does indicate how techy the Brits are about multiculturalism.

[Kathianne]

First case?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...in-london.html

Sunday, February 10, 2008
Beheading in London

Police are still looking for the head.

Police have not yet named the headless victim. (BBC)

Police have arrested a 45 year-old man in north London for the beheading of another man whose body was found by shoppers wrapped in a blanket behind a supermarket.
Sky News and ROP reported:

Police have charged a 45-year-old man with murder after the headless body of a man was found behind a shopping centre.

Mohamed Boudjenane, of Kingsgate Road, Kilburn, north London, will appear at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court on Monday.

The headless body, wrapped in blankets, was found by shoppers in a supermarket goods cage in Kingsgate Place, Kilburn, on Wednesday.

Police are still holding a man and a woman on suspicion of assisting an offender. (They all live in the same house.)

All three were arrested in Alvaston, Derby, on Friday.

The BBC has more on the London beheading.

Police are still searching for the head.

[diuretic]

No, Britain has had murders for quite some years. Did you read about what happened to Wat Tyler? How about Thomas Becket?

[Kathianne]

No, Britain has had murders for quite some years. Did you read about what happened to Wat Tyler? How about Thomas Becket?

How long ago? The Tower of London was very popular at one time too. You are better than this kind of equivalency.

[diuretic]

How long ago? The Tower of London was very popular at one time too. You are better than this kind of equivalency.

No Kathianne, until we know the motivation and (assuming there'll be a trial) the evidence, we're in the dark. Who knows what led to this?

[Kathianne]

No Kathianne, until we know the motivation and (assuming there'll be a trial) the evidence, we're in the dark. Who knows what led to this?

I never said differently. My guess though, not a Norwegian visitor.

[diuretic]

I never said differently. My guess though, not a Norwegian visitor.

No whales in the Thames for a Norwegian to harpoon

[Kathianne]

No whales in the Thames for a Norwegian to harpoon

[Kathianne]

Seems the Archbishop was in on something:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nsharia118.xml

Bonds to fit sharia law backed by Chancellor

By Katy Hastings
Last Updated: 11:41pm GMT 17/02/2008

The row over sharia law was reignited on Sunday with the emergence of plans for the Chancellor to approve "Islamic bonds" which would raise money for public spending from the Middle East.

Britain would be the first Western nation to issue the bonds, which meet Islamic rules by avoiding interest payments, classed as "sinful".

The move could lead to wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen and banks taking ownership of Government buildings and other British assets.
advertisement

The Treasury said last April that it was interested in exploring the possibility of borrowing funds through bonds compliant with Islamic law, known as sukuk.

A consultation exercise on the issue, launched in November, ends on Thursday.

MPs are expected to be updated on progress in the Budget next month.

But treasury officials have reportedly been working on the proposal for months. The Chancellor, Alistair Darling, is said to be ready to approve the proposal.

A Treasury spokesman said: "We want the City of London to be one of the gateways globally for Islamic financial products and we want it to be competitive on all products you can imagine, so we should be competitive on Islamic finance as well as any other."

Critics have hit out at the move saying it would undermine Britain's financial systems.

The senior Conservative MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said: "I am concerned about the signal this would send - it could be the thin end of the wedge.

"British common law must be supreme and should apply to everyone."

....

[gabosaurus]

How can you you tell it was the archbishop of Canterbury?

Tattooed on the back of his neck!

[diuretic]

Islamic banking is an interesting topic, not that I know much about it. I believe it's very strong in Malaysia (don't know about Indonesia).

On the UK govt. They're in big trouble with Northern Rock going belly up and being nationalised, I think they're panicking.