09. Jan. 2010. – 12:12:24
There is a simple question to be answered
which is the basis of today`s observations. And that question is whether or not
English Law and its peripheral requirements are supreme when in direct
opposition to supposed religious practice. My comments are based not on my
expert knowledge of law....magistrates are not legally qualified.......but more
from a philosophical and logical understanding of the consequences of a
District Judge`s decision recently at Luton Magistrates` Court where she
accommodated the requirements of Islamic fundamentalists who have no respect
for English jurisprudence and its traditions. In my opinion Islamists are as
much to be compared to Muslims as are the Ku Klux Klan to Christians.
In the matter in question seven Islamic
defendants when brought into court to face charges of using threatening,
abusive, insulting words and behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm and
distress to others refused to stand when the Judge entered the courtroom
stating that it was a grave sin in their religion to stand to show respect for
anybody except Allah. Reports do not make it clear but apparently although they
were warned of the legal consequences of contempt of court they were removed
from court, the Judge remained and they were then returned to court where they
entered the dock and sat immediately. The case continued. That the defendants
were following accepted Islamic practice has been rejected by many scholars
including Mohammed Ali Musawa of the anti-terrorist think tank the Quilliam
Foundation who stated that to stand to show respect for the institution of law
in the person of a judge or magistrate is perfectly compatible with Muslim practice. I myself have used similar words to a defendant who refused to stand
when requested.
Is this elevation of so called religious
practice to supersede non denominational English legal practice? If Jedi
Knights recorded in the last census as being the religion of thousands appeared
wearing full face helmets are those to be tolerated? Would pagans waving
various tree branches as part of their "religion" be tolerated doing
so in defiance of a court`s request. There are many absurdities which could be
quoted but the principle is clear. Luton is where there was a case in 2004 of a
child insisting on wearing a headscarf to school against the wishes of her head
teacher. A High Court judge said the school's uniform policy was aimed at the
proper running of a multi-cultural, multi-faith secular school and headscarves
were forbidden. The legal system is not an archaic form of control; it evolves
over the years to accommodate requirements of a changing society but a
fundamental basis of our system is equality before the law. Thus eg there is
affirmation for those who do not want to swear on a holy book be it Bible,Koran
or Ghita; religious Jews and Rastafarians can keep their heads covered in court
but above all this is a democracy not a theocracy. Religious practice must be subservient
to the law where the two coincide. A couple of weeks ago The Jewish Free
School`s appeal against its entry requirements based on the "who is a
Jew" religious concept failed. They were found to be illegal in English
law.
Generally the happenings at the level of
Magistrates` Courts do not set precedents. I do not have to be a betting man to
say that it won`t be long before similar actions are attempted before a judge
at a Crown Court. I would hope that when that happens the good judge will have
more consideration for the underlying nature of our open and secular society
than those in our midst who mouth equal/human rights and/or support for the
Taliban and wish to import to this country the intolerance they espouse in
Afghanistan.
No comments:
Post a Comment