Recent Comments
RSS feed
An urgent message from ‘One Law for All’ about child marriage in the UK
September 18, 2012 — xanthippaThis is the email I received from One Law for All, whose urgent message needs to be seen by as many people as possible (please, spread the word!):
Dear Friend,
We are writing to you today to ask for your urgent and immediate support.
As you may have seen in the papers recently, there is growing evidence that young children – some as young at 5 years old – are being “married” to older men in Sharia courts across Britain. This is increasingly being sanctioned by the Islamists who run Britain’s network of Sharia courts, and there is evidence that this practice is growing.
Recent Investigations
A recent undercover investigation by the Sunday Times found imams in Britain willing to “marry” young girls, provided this was carried out in secret. The imams had been approached by an undercover reporter posing as a father who said he wanted his 12 year old daughter married, to prevent her from being tempted in to a “western lifestyle”.
Imam Mohammed Kassamali, of the Husaini Islamic Centre in Peterborough, sanctioned the marriage, but stressed the need for total secrecy. He stated: “I would love the girl to go to her husband’s houses (sic) as soon as possible, the younger the better. Under sharia (Islamic law) there is no problem. It is said she should see her first sign of puberty at the house of her husband. The problem is that we cannot explain such things (the marriage) if the girl went tomorrow (to the authorities).”
Abdul Haque, who officiates at weddings at the Shoreditch mosque, east London agreed to carry out the formalities of the wedding. However, he told the reporter that he should “tell people it is an engagement but it will be a marriage”. He added: “In Islam, once the girl reaches puberty the father has the right, the parents have the right, but under the laws of this country if the girl complains and says her marriage has been arranged and she wasn’t of marriageable age, then the person who performed the marriage will be jailed as well as the mother and father”.
Earlier this year, it was also reported that at least 30 girls, some as young as 9, were “married” in sharia courts in one London borough alone.
Clearly, child “marriages” are an abomination; they are nothing short of religiously-sanctioned child rape and paedophilia.
Sharia proponents deceptively say that forced marriages are unacceptable under Sharia and that both bride and groom must choose to marry as if that is the issue at hand. Islamists have gotten away with years of misogyny against Muslim women under cover of “choice” and are now using similar language with regards children. Nonetheless, child welfare must take precedence irrespective of religious beliefs. This is something we must urgently remind the Government of. Sharia courts are a scandal and must be stopped.
Arbitration and Mediation (Equality) Bill
One important way to tackle this matter is to galvanise support for the Arbitration and Mediation (Equality) Bill introduced to the House of Lords last year by crossbench peer, Baroness Caroline Cox. The Bill is due for a second reading in October.
The Government has so far declined to support Cox’s Bill. They do not believe there is a parallel legal system in operation. They also insist that everyone has full right of access to the British courts. This is simply not the case. There are many with little or no English language skills, trapped by community pressure, who believe Sharia courts operate as real courts and who regard their decisions as legally binding. The idea that they can easily instruct a high street solicitor to help them access their full rights under UK law is far from reality.
The Government must be pressured into taking immediate action, including by supporting Cox’s Bill, and shutting down Sharia and religious courts. If child welfare takes precedence then the Government is duty-bound to take action.
Sign our new petition in support of Baroness Cox’s Bill; tell the Government that enough is enough! Please sign it now.
Help Us
Baroness Cox has said in the past that her Bill was inspired by One Law for All. To donate to our important work, please either send a cheque made payable to One Law for All to BM Box 2387, London WC1N 3XX, UK or pay via Paypal. We need regular support and also for supporters to commit to giving at least £5-10 a month via direct debit. You can find out more about how to join the 100 Club here.
If you shop online, please do so via the Easy Fundraising’s website. It won’t cost you anything extra but can help raise much needed funds for One Law for All.
We look forward to your immediate intervention in this matter.
Best wishes,
Maryam Namazie and Anne Marie Waters
Spokespersons
One Law for All
BM Box 2387
London WC1N 3XX, UK
Tel: 
+44 (0) 7719166731
onelawforall@gmail.com
www.onelawforall.org.uk
On the topic of freedom of speech…and ‘scapegoating’
September 17, 2012 — xanthippa
Many people think that it is a reasonable limitation on the freedom of free speech to prohibit someone from yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre – provided, that is, that there is no fire.
That little caveat – provided that there is no fire – is often forgotten by those who wold consider this to be a reasonable limitation of free speech. This, indeed, is not surprising – failure to recognize real warnings of danger and simply treating unpopular statements equally, whether they are true or not, is symptomatic of the individuals who most loudly profess that this limitation on the freedom of speech is somehow ‘reasonable’.
According to these people, giving a warning of a real ad present peril (like, say, a fire in a crowded theatre) is worse than letting everyone sit complacently until they burn to death.
I must admit, there was a time when I was persuaded that if there indeed were no fire, then shouting a warning of it ought not happen. OK, I still think that it ought not happen – but not because there are laws against it.
To explain my change of mind, I have to digress a little bit to some examples on utilitarian morality from philosophy. Not that I am particularly versed in philosophy – my ideas are mostly self-reasoned, but a little education has made me widen the scope of my reasoning.
There is that classical moral dilema question: if you see an uncontrollable train going down some tracks where it will hit six people, but there is a lever you can pull that will divert that train onto another set of tracks, where it will only kill one person, should you pull the lever?
Most ‘utilitarians’ will say that yes, you should, because one death is less tragic than 6 deaths.
I don’t think this is anywhere near as clear cut.
If the train stays on its original track, you (presuming the uncontrollable-ness of the train is not your fault to start off with) are not responsible for the deaths of those 6 people.
If, however, you do pull the lever, you will be the direct cause of the death of that 1 person.
People are not cogs, interchangeable for each other. We are individuals. And, if you pull that lever, you will indeed be guilty of causing the death of that individual. What is more, since you have had time to consider it, that constitutes premeditation. You would therefore be commiting murder.
This means that the question itself is improperly formulated.
Rather, it ought to ask if you could pull that lever and save the 6 people – but in the process murder 1 person, with all the legal consequences this carries, should you still pull that lever?
Because that is the real question: is saving the lives of 6 people worth murdering someone – and, perhaps, spending the rest of your life in prison as a result! After all, real actions have real consequences…
Similarly, the person who shouts ‘FIRE!” in a crowded theatre has not actually killed anyone.
It is the people who act before checking whether their actions are based on fact or not, and those who put their lives above others by trampling them to death to save themselves, who are guilty of, well, the trampling. Not the person who – rightly or wrongly – shouts ‘Fire!’
It is always the tramplers who are the ones guilty of the trampling.
But, because there are many of them, and our moral compass has for too long been corrupted by the profoundly immoral Judeo-Christian doctrine of ‘scapegoating’, of ‘vicarious redemption’, that we are willing to put the blame of the many ‘tramplers’ onto the one who may not, indeed, have done any ‘trampling’ at all!
It is precisely this predisposition we have of shifting the blame for the actions of the individuals who actually carry them out onto a scapegoat who is said to have ’caused’ their bad or immoral behaviour that is going to be the downfall of our society!
It is precisely this scapegoating which is at the heart of political correctness and the erosion of the freedoms which we ought to be able to exercise unfettered.
How have we improved our lot if we have liberated ourselves from Christian religious dogmas, if we permit its worst shackles to still imprison our morality, albeit under the new name of ‘political correctnes’?
So, now, I agree with Christopher Hitchens on this point:
John Robson on the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens
September 14, 2012 — xanthippaWhat he said…
A few words on recent events in Lybia
September 13, 2012 — xanthippaOK – I have been avoiding commenting on the happenings in the Muslim world lately.
That is because I feel like a Cassandra…
And it’s only going to get worse.
Much worse!
There is a guide as to how a country will be affected by Islam based on what percentage of the population is Muslim. The lower the percentage, the more easy-going and moderate the Muslim population is. As the percentage increases, so does the aggressiveness of the messages being preached in Mosques and so does the aggressiveness of Muslim’s demand for accommodation and eventually for the supremacy of their way of life. I have seen it in many variations at different places, but here is one scale that is typcial:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will — for the most part — be regarded as a
peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities
and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and
among street gangs.
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to
their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the
introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing
food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on
supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with
threats for failure to comply.
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow
them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic
Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the
entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase
lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we
are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and
results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition
to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen
daily.
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad
militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
churches and Jewish synagogues.
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror
attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers
of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic
ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya,
the tax placed on infidels.
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some
state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations
drive out the infidels, and move toward 100%.
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House
of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a
Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only
word.
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the
most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood
lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
This is true – more or less, let’s put our political correctness in its place and face reality for a while – within individual countries.
Currently, the World Muslim population is at over 20 percent – and climbing fast…because uneducated and subjegated women tend to have way more children than educated, emancipated women do. And, because we stil don’t protect children from being brainwashed into their parents’ religious prejudices…
So, keep in mind the 20% description:
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad
militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
churches and Jewish synagogues.
Please, keep this in mind when you consider world events these days:
And that is why I have not really been commenting on current events…
September 11th is a day for mourning…
September 11, 2012 — xanthippa…no matter how much the political elites and the inteligentsia want to twist the message…
A few hours of lectures by Stephen Coughlin on our ineptitude on ‘the war on terror’
September 3, 2012 — xanthippaYes, this lecture series is a little long – but very, very informative.
If you have read the Koran and the Hadith, and if you are familiar with Shariah, you will be impressed by the depth of Stephen Coughlin’s background knowledge – but there is still a lot of new material there for you because he draws the connections between the beliefs rooted (rightly or wrongly, but demonstrably held by the majority of pro-Sharia Muslims worldwide) in these and the decision-making and behaviour of Islamic political entities.
For example, he is one of the few people to have predicted the ‘Arab Spring’ months before it happened and accurately described it as a Muslim Brotherhood-driven action. He also accurately predicted other events many had considered ‘unpredictible’ – and in this lecture series, he walks us through the steps that made the events predictable.
If you are unfamiliar with the underlying doctrine, Stephen Coughlin provides an accurate grounding in their belief system and demonstrates its doctrinal roots. He also explains the very different concepts meant by Islamic political bodies when they use terms we consider familiar: words like ‘human rights’ (Sharia), ‘terrorism’ (killing of a Muslim without Sharia approval), and ‘freedom’ (freedom from ‘the laws of man’ in favour of the laws from Allah alone), ‘religion’ (Islam and Islam alone as Muhammad’s revelations abrogated all other religions) and more.
What is quite appalling, however, is his description of the depth of willful ignorance of all this by the politically correct decisionmakers who are directing the ‘war on terror’… His frustration is plainly visible and his Cassandra complex and the accompanying frustration are, at times, palpable.
Yet, it is precisely this willful ignorance among our decisionmakers and intellectual elites poses a clear and present danger to protecting our culture, our society and our very basic human rights.
Stephen Coughlin, Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)
Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law
Stephen Coughlin, Part 3: Abrogation & the ‘Milestones’ Process
Stephen Coughlin, Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process
Stephen Coughlin, Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law
I Am Legend (The Evolution of Satan)
August 17, 2012 — xanthippaWhile I enjoy religionist-bashing as much as the next person (or, perhaps, more…), this next video is not bashing anything…it is a truly honest attempt to re-create the evolution of the concept of ‘Satan’ through the Old Testament.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 