Treason: Sharia "Courts" in the UK

It was hinted and "nudged", but finally the news is out (anything to distract from Gordon's woes, I suppose) that Sharia "courts" are operating in the UK.

This is both treasonous and utterly wrong-headed.

1. The UK operates an adversarial system where one has a right to defend oneself and be judged by a jury of one's peers. This was created for very good reason - Rule of Law. In Sharia, there is no right to speak or present evidence. The "judge" will decide what evidence will be "permitted" and can disregard whatever they feel like. For all its bogus "religious" pretensions, Sharia is Rule by Men, not Rule of Law.

2. Anyone who thinks this will not result in coercion to agree to a Sharia court is naive, a "useful idiot".

3. Anyone who thinks this will not result in calls for any case involving a Muslim or extension to criminal cases is also naive and a "useful idiot".

Now, Sharia as a voluntary arbitration with no force in law is another thing entirely, for that occurs in a multitude of social interactions, not just Sharia. What is now occurring is quite different - a legally enforceable wedge. It is discriminatory, unequal, divisive, Mediaeval and if people want to live that way personally, then it is their funeral, but it is another thing to tarnish what can be described as the best legal system in the world, English Common Law,

by making it recognise a backwards leap.

This is the work of self-loathers, quislings, appeasers. I suspect most Muslim citizens of the UK will be against this too. It is the last thing they need.

The Libertarian Party will kick this nonsense back to where it belongs - a private matter between individuals.

The Loss of Sovereignty marches forward: EU Court Rulings

Traitors from Britain have supported this scandalous move whereby foreign courts can try us in absentia AND that extradition is AUTOMATIC. 

The combination is very potent and an utter outrage, rendering our courts subordinate and drawing ultimate sovereignty and power to the European level - of course the plan.

I can imagine Federasts from France or Germany proposing such nonsense, or even in Il Duce II*'s Italy. This clearly shows that our administration is infested by lickspittle self-loathers who have absolutely no idea what our freedoms are or why they ever existed. The other alternative is that these traitors are intentionally undermining our system so it can fit into the EUdenrat.

When are these shaved gibbons going to realise that the legal system is there for the protection of the people NOT the convenience of the State!

UPDATE: It seems that our Attorney General, Baroness Scotland has supported the move. No surprise coming from one of my top Traitors (see right). It is an outrage that we have such imbeciles/traitors** in our midst.

* Burlesqueloonie

** Delete where applicable

UK's Stab and Shoot Fest.

More killings. Stabbings, shootings.

Oxford man stabbed. Police car shot on M5. 11 year old shot in back in Liverpool. Not to mention the recent murders of brave souls who's only 'crime' was to get fed up with being intimidated by feral youth.

I don't think carrying a knife is the issue. Using one is.

Use of a knife currently does not bring an automatic charge of attempted murder. You stab someone and you risk killing them. This is attempted murder. The charge should be the default. There should be no other charge unless one is defending one's home or property.

Gun crime is drug related mostly. Witness how Nottingham's gun culture evaporated once a drug baron was put away. Answer: decriminalize drugs and dispense them F.o.C. to cut the business out from under organized grime.

Feral Youth in general. If such people are housed in State funded accommodation or that housing benefit is paid, then this should be withdrawn. Eviction and no more 'duty of care'. Parents should know there is consequence to their inaction, i.e. letting their spawn roam late into the night, and that consequence is to be out on the street with no more money from the people who's lives are made a misery. Make sure parents know this and yes, some high profile evictions if necessary, "pour encourager les autres".

Kicking or beating people when down should also be attempted murder as a default when 2 or more people are attacking another and seriously considered when 1 on 1. What else do you think is likely to happen if you kick someone who is defenceless? Death is a distinct possibility, so the act should be considered as an attempted murder. Ignorance is no defence. Instead of teaching Al Gore's lies about ice caps, maybe the hour or so should be put to more pressing uses.

We do NOT need any more daft laws, but we need our historic laws properly enforced.

Organs, Statism and disingenuous BBC wordmangling.

The march of the Napoleonic forces continues. Now it is the turn of the Chief Medical Officer , Sir Liam Donaldson, to recommend that people should no longer have sovereignty over their bodies, but suggests that the State should give the option to opt out of organ donation. Oh, thankee kindly, great Statan!

How dare they even suggest such a thing? How DARE they "presume" consent! I already have absolute title and possession over my body. It is ABSURD that the law can be changed to enable another to have a prior claim that I have to proactively overrule.

We have Dr Vivian Nathanson, the BMA’s head of science and ethics, moaning “We have exhausted all other ways of increasing the number of organs available”. Wrong. You have NOT had a decent sustained public awareness campaign for ages. I cannot recall the last time I saw something regarding organ donation that hit home. Dr Vivian Nathanson has capitulated and gone for the Statist, Napoleonic option. It is also the convenient (for her) option, which makes it all the more chilling, unprofessional and disreputable.

I suspect we will see organs taken against people's wishes because "there was not enough time to check" or "no record of an opt-out was on der com poo 'ah".

Dr Vivian Nathanson stated “We are now getting closer to a system of presumed consent,”. There, writ large for all to see and thus dispel any doubts as to is existence from their minds, is the Tyranny of the Masses. They want to own your ass because someone else is happy for theirs to be so taken. The details of organ donations pale into comparison to this and the issue of sovereignty over our own bodies. Surely such a ruling would be unconstitutional, as it presumes the State is sovereign over the individual, not its servant.

As a small note, the BBC coverage is a very sloppy attempt by someone lacking in critical reasoning. That, or they attempt to misrepresent the facts so as to promote their self-loathing Sociofascist agenda. It headlines "Everyone 'should donate organs'". Note the quotes. No, this is not about donation, nor is it about 'should'. The title should read "Everyone to have their organs taken". You cannot 'donate' something that is taken without consent (presumed does not count). 'Should' implies a spirit of recommendation or suggestion, which could not be further from the truth. BBC - shame on you. Again.

Fencepost No2. Criminal Justice Bill 2007

We have another fencepost. This time it is in regard to items that "offend".

Some aspects are clearly offensive, such as in regard to the dead and animals, as no concept of informed consent can be applied. The same, would apply to earlier legislation regarding children. That is not under question.

The worry here is in particular the subjective nature of guilt, so that something does not need to "be", but can be decided to appear to be by the prosecution. It also exempts classified or rated material except when a section or image of that material is isolated and deemed to be for sexual arousal even when the images are synthesized or actual and involve consenting adults. I find that part absurd, for if an innocent bystander saw the entire work then saw the section, they could arguably and some would say likely see it as part of the original. To use, if you forgive me, a Wicker Man example, someone keeping the ending of said film (spoilers) could be accused of keeping offensive material. Maybe the Bill should be about "items that someone thinks will arouse themselves a nameless third party"?

This concept of permitted behaviour is all part of the creeping Napoleonisation of our law, in that everything is illegal or not permitted unless the law says so - the reverse of English Common Law which says everything is permitted unless laws exist to prevent it. Our round English peg is being forced into the European square hole.

This law can lurk until someone who needs to be knobbled is found with something on their hard drive. The authorities can be coy about it and destroy a person's reputation. It does not bode well for our freedom.

For those unfamiliar with the term, a fencepost is a law or legislation that is strict and deep rooted but which the breadth of which is not enforced...at first. A previous fencepost was laid when the Smoking Ban was brought in. Not the high profile pubs, but all the other silly encroachments like home offices, company cars and the like which can be used at some stage to knobble someone. I summed it up here thus:

The problem is, they will outlaw almost everything while enforcing very little. Imprisonment by stealth. People will not know they are encircled until it is too late - like putting in all these very deep, robust fence-posts with no fence panels. All seems open. One day you will wake up and the panels are in, you are trapped and they can decide what law they wish to impose to nail whomsoever they desire.

Brown begins carve-up of England

Gordon Brown has announced 9 Regional Ministers. Funny that they mirror the intended EU regions.

No, it is not funny. No, it is not surprising. The dismemberment of the UK, and England in particular, by stealth, has begun. Each minister, I suspect will immediately connect into the shadowy QANGOs that already exist behind the scenes sucking up vast amounts of cash for no benefit and wedging themselves between the people and their government.

We will get yet another layer in England. Once you have the Regions (Scotland, Wales and NI are already Regions, BTW - I suspect they do not quite know the implications of that yet) the purpose of Westminster is in question. This is the intention, I am sure - the argument is built up slowly and with stealth to present a check-mate. Westminster is outflanked, bypassed and then dismantled.

Their real intention is to create the big fat EU Superstate and get their pimply backsides into comfy positions resulting in luxuriant pensions and a protected existence as they are whisked to and fro, caring not for the lives of the people they ignore and exploit represent.

I did not think it was possible to despise Tessa Jowell more than I did, but I do. I suppose infinite contempt can always grow, can it not?

I am a citizen of the UK. I am NOT subject to the Regions. I regard their formation as a subversive and traitorous act.

In less than 48 hours, Gordon Brown has shown his true intent. My suspicions regarding a unilateral abandonment of Britain's nuclear capacity - essential if Britain is to be subdued if it decides to reject the EU - grow stronger. I knew they would set about it, but not so quickly. This is a cunning plan. Inamongst all the blizzard of appointments one more set of posts easily gets lost. The lumpen illitariat, bored already and reaching for their soaps, will not care. Misison accomplished?

UPDATE: As at 18:30, no sign of the appointments on the BBC. Speaks volumes.

Thugs Reid and Blair...I told you so.

Not content with acting as if they run a police state, these two authoritarian shaved gibbons actually want to make one.

Yet again we have more law - more powers instead of following through or implementing existing or ancient powers.

Yet again we have the Sociofascist behaviour of breaking something that worked so they can remake it to suit their twisted, dysfunctional dogma and feed their lust for control.

Best way to stop the unknown or undesireable roaming the streets is to be more careful of who you let in and if they do get in, kick them out unceremoniously. It would also help if the UK was not known as a soft touch for unearnt cash and housing, too.

We have too many lawyers in government, if you ask me. To them everything is a lawyerly nail - i.e. more and more complex and convoluted legislation that can aways have the toss argued at our expense.

I do think we need a reliable means of ID, but why should it be a Government monopoly and a toy of the State? I bet if they did not have the prospect of a juicy set of contracts to dish out they would not be half as interested.

The role of the Government is to "Enable its Citizens to go safely about their lawful business without let or hinderance". By "enable" I do not mean "permit" or "allow" as in the State granting - how dare it get so presumptuous indeed! - I mean the Citizen shall go about and the State is tasked to proactively ensure no obstacles stand in the Citizen's way.

If I am a subject of anyone at all, it is a Subject of HM The Queen. Her Majestey's Government is most certainly not in my reporting line!

The Philosophy of Liberty - Self Ownership

This flash animation is something I can agree with.

It basically outlines liberty, including the consequences of asking others to do bad things on one's behalf.

Such profound statements as contained in the animation should be the yardstick by which government rules. Any new proposal, action, rule or measure should be offered up to this framework to see if it contradicts anything within.

Makes taxation beyond defensive military, police, courts, prisons, border/customs etc pretty difficult to justify. No bad thing.

Hat tip: Guido Fawkes