I apologise right now if what follows seems a rag bag of disorganised and disconnected thoughts. For some while, I have had these bugs in my head, or maybe, bats in my belfry and they flit about in a state of some confusion. Going back to the days when it was thought that blood-letting was thought beneficial for one’s fevered health, I’m going to open my mind and let them all free.
So, prepare the tin-foil hats. Switch off the bigot alarm. Suspend belief. Sit back and try to enjoy – or at least, understand. Agreement is not mandatory. Space for comments is provided.
Sharia Law. What’s that all about then? It seems that a survey has established that 40% of Muslims living in this country wish to have areas where Sharia law is paramount. That 40% includes radicals alongside what are termed as moderates. This is a dangerous team. The radicals can shelter behind the moderates secure in the knowledge that the British government will be keen to be seen as having an understanding of foreign cultures. In other words – they will agree to it. Quite a few of our esteemed politicians have problems with our own law in simple areas such as money handling, walking at night in grassed areas, employment of pretty young men and general honesty and it would be reasonable to say that they have not a single fragment of any idea as to what Sharia law may be.
The word Sharia means "the path to a watering hole". It denotes an Islamic way of life that is more than a system of criminal justice. Sharia is a religious code for living, in the same way that the Bible offers a moral system for Christians.
It is adopted by most Muslims to a greater or lesser degree as a matter of personal conscience, but it can also be formally instituted as law by certain states and enforced by the courts. Many Islamic countries have adopted elements of Sharia law, governing areas such as inheritance, banking and contract law.
What does Sharia decree?
Sharia offers a code for living governing all elements of life, from prayers to fasting to donations to the poor. It decrees that men and women should dress modestly, which in some countries is interpreted as women taking the veil and the sexes being segregated.
"Sharia governs the lives of people in ways which are not governed by the law," says Lynn Welchman, director of the Centre for Islamic and Middle Eastern Law. "Over 50 countries are members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, and you can expect there will be some form of compliance with sharia - either in people's personal lives or enforced through the courts by the state. A lot of states in the Middle East are taking more elements of sharia into their state laws."
What are Hadd offences?
Within Sharia law, there is a specific set of offences known as the Hadd offences. These are crimes punished by specific penalties, such as stoning, lashes or the severing of a hand. The penalties for Hadd offences are not universally adopted as law in Islamic countries.
Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, claim to live under pure sharia law and enforce the penalties for Hadd offences. In others, such as Pakistan, the penalties have not been enforced. The majority of Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria, have not adopted Hadd offences as part of their state laws.
Hadd offences carry specific penalties, set by the Koran and by the prophet Mohammed. These include unlawful sexual intercourse (outside marriage); false accusation of unlawful intercourse; the drinking of alcohol; theft; and highway robbery. Sexual offences carry a penalty of stoning to death or flogging while theft is punished with cutting off a hand.
"This is a system of criminal law which has become a potent symbol of Islamisicing the law," says Dr Welchman. "But there is the question of whether it's actually applied in the countries which have adopted it. There is supposed to be a very high burden of proof, but that clearly often doesn't happen in practice."
Many Islamic countries will have adultery and the drinking of alcohol defined as criminal offences in law, but they are not defined as Hadd offences because they do not carry the Hadd penalty. They are often punishable by a prison term instead.
So, all that seems pretty radical eh? Offences punishable by stoning to death? Amputation of hands – blimey, that makes an ASBO look a bit tame eh? Flogging? Given the current difficulties we have on the interface of the government and the judiciary, even more tumultuous times are ahead.
We might say that Sharia can be adopted within the confines of British law. That would not work as the radicals looked over their parapet and started claiming discrimination. The same argument would be used were we to seek to limit Sharia to certain areas of the country. How would it be adopted as legal – what government review would there be. Who would enforce it – our police or some other body?
That is (more than) enough about Sharia law I reckon. I do not need to know the full clinical description and effects of Lassa Fever to know that I do not want it. So be it with this damned law.
Right to protest. We are still feeling the rumbles of the cartoon capers. Whilst my personal opinion is that this has been a good thing in that it exposes the true nature of our Islamic neighbours in this country, we have opened another thread of disillusion with our police in that they did not act in a more positive manner. We know they can deploy some 17 officers to deal with a small woman reciting the names of soldiers killed in the Iraq war so wonder why clearly illegal banners were displayed. The fact that they were illegal has been confirmed by the police statements that they will seek to identify those who carried them and then seek due process. If the banners incited violence at that time then action should have been taken there and then. Delayed action would only have been justified if the banners said words to the effect “Cut the heads off blasphemers next week end” or were otherwise conditional. Failure to deal with everyone who carried a banner or the failure to convict those prosecuted will strengthen the sense of justification amongst all the demonstrators. Any Padre Blair bleating about law and order procedures having been tightened mean nothing against the background of inaction already shown.
The Police. Having a bad time of it at the moment. In addition to concern at their crowd control procedures we have the ongoing saga of dead Brazilians. This just gets worse day by day. There was the allegation of interference by Commissioner Blair. That seems pretty sure to have happened although we still seem to lack the knowledge as to whether it was laudable in terms of allowing his investigations or to be deprecated if it was meant to protect inefficiency and dishonesty. Much trust was placed in the impartiality and efficiency of an IPCC inquiry but we now hear that the prosecuting authority have questioned much of what they have done and are asking for a rework. Apart from the public disquiet, the delay and uncertainty must be nagging away at police officers of all levels and not just those authorised to carry firearms or required to actually use such weapons in deployment as special units such as SO19 and 18.
This disquiet in the ranks may be exhibiting itself in the question of universal arming of all police officers. The death of one woman officer and the serious wounding of another caused by armed criminals has brought this old chestnut back into debate. It seems that a survey of police officers established that they did not favour being tooled up. Could some of this reluctance be due to concern at what might happen to an officer who used his weapon with effect in circumstances that were later disputed? One might feel that if their duty is to protect the law-abiding citizen, they have a responsibility to be properly equipped to give that protection. If I am in the line of fire of some hopped-up Jamaican yardy I would like something a bit more effective than a 19 year old girl shouting “Keep back – he’s got a gun”. That same female would be much improved in my valuation were she in possession of one of Mr Glock’s products. Maybe the risks of me ‘getting into such a situation are extremely rare’, ‘this country is not America’, ‘police deaths are still very low’ are all trotted out by the police but I am afraid I see them as excuses against positive action rather than valid reasons. There is no need for an officer to draw his weapon until he has made up his mind it is justified but I want him to be able to use a firearm immediately he decides to do so and not have to wait until the heavy mob can be summoned. Surely, it cannot be long before the general publics’ sympathy for dead police officers changes to ‘serve them right – they should have agreed to carry their own protection’
Police? That brings me to those who see themselves as the World Police Force. The Americans. Their approach to terrorists of ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’ is coming under more and more pressure. Understandable. However, my suspicious mind sees another agenda here apart from nice cuddly human rights concerns. If the extremists can engineer the closure – or, indeed, any significant changes – they will have won a major victory. No one else will take on the responsibility of looking for, interrogating, forming charges against and then holding in custody any terrorist of whatever sort or background. The sort of warfare that is being waged in the Middle East does not lend itself to the use of witnesses, closed circuit TV, forensic examination in the investigation of crime. Being in possession of firearms is no guide as to terrorist intent in areas where it is a mark of manhood to carry a deadly weapon. Detailed and exhaustive intelligence is needed to sort out the matrix of terror. These same complications preclude trial.
So, while I tend to abhor what they are doing, I do support the idea that someone has to do it and am unable to suggest any alternative. I hear the cry of those with anguish in their heart at the way we are treating our fellow human beings. “What if just one man is innocent and held unjustly?” My universal mantra swings into action – “Shit happens” Of all the injustice, pain, cruelty and downright evil that stalks this world, what the Americans are doing is of little significance. They are willing to accept the consequences of what they are doing – here and, doubtless, in their idea of the hereafter. Thank goodness for that say I.
There, that is about all of my bugs released. I have concerns about bird flu; of course it will hit us and the government will make a cluster-fuck of whatever they decide to do. As for the buffoons who form our present government, they will go their merry way with scarcely a real, down to earth, thought as to what they might do for us – the peons. We have a leader of the Opposition whose fulfilment of the duty of an Opposition – to oppose the government –is ignored in favour of skulking off to change shitty napkins’
