Once again, sharia exposes its double-standard concerning women, and, once again, dhimmis equivocate. "UK court to rule on Islamic law case," by Meera Selva, for the AP, July 21:
LONDON (AP) — Britain's highest appeals court is scheduled to decide this week whether a divorced woman and her son should be deported to Lebanon, where she claims her abusive husband will gain custody under Sharia law.The case will address the issue of Islamic law and the extent to which Britain is obliged to provide asylum to those wishing to flee countries that practice it.
Lawyers acting for the 34-year-old woman are expected to tell the House of Lords on Monday that her human rights would be violated if she were forced to return to Lebanon. They plan to argue that she has a right to a family life that will be lost in Lebanon.
According to Sharia, or Islamic law, that operates in Lebanon, a divorced mother can only have custody of her children until their seventh birthday. After that, the father can claim custody, and the mother will only be awarded visitation rights.
The woman, known only as EM, sought asylum after she came to Britain with false papers in December 2004 with her 8-year-old son. She told immigration officials she had divorced her violent husband in an Islamic court in Lebanon and came to Britain to retain custody of her child.
Her name has not been disclosed because she fears she may be in danger if she is forced to return to Lebanon.
Her asylum application was rejected in 2005. Judges who presided over her two consequent appeals agreed that she would lose custody of her child and possibly face prison for kidnapping charges if she returned to Lebanon. But they argued that she is obliged to live under the laws of her own country.
Judge William Gage, who rejected her appeal in November 2006, said she would still have some visitation rights in Lebanon, so her rights to family life "cannot be said to be completely nullified."
He said in his ruling that he has "not found this an easy case."
Civil rights group Liberty has since helped EM take her case to the House of Lords.
"We cannot deny this child the right to be with his mother," Liberty legal officer Alex Gask said. "How can the same government which champions equal treatment under British law now deport mother and child to face certain separation under Sharia?"
The House of Lords will hear the case Monday and Tuesday, and will reveal their judgment within a few weeks. Britain's Home Office, responsible for the country's borders and immigration, did not immediately return a call seeking comment on the case.
Lebanon is/was a majority Christian Arab country. This article isn't clear about her own religious affinity. If she is a Christian, then she should be granted assylum. If, however she is muslim then she bears the burden of proof of her intent to deny sharia - she must renounce Islam.
If she has remained a practicing muslim while on UK soil, then she is the one setting the double standard - not the UK courts.
If muslim, this mother should renounce Islam/sharia or go back to Lebanon.
21/07/08
"Judge William Gage, who rejected her appeal in November 2006, said she would still have some visitation rights in Lebanon, so her rights to family life "cannot be said to be completely nullified."
This judge is crazy; how does he propose that her visitation rights in Lebanon will be protected. Does he have jurisdiction or powers to enforce it? She should be given asylum; she can also change her religion. The problem then will be the crazies will kill her.
Muslims will never stop invoking their barbaric laws in the West until they succeed at subverting our society. I refuse to think of persons such as this woman and her son as victims. It is and will remain an unfolding catastrophe for the West as long as Muslims are allowed to live here and remain Muslim. There will always be an endless parade of "cases" where Islam will be pitted against our sytem of justice, and indeed our society at large.
In short, the sheer presence of Muslims on our soil in sufficient numbers guarantees and fuels the ongoing Jihad to destroy us. This woman's plight may be a sympathetic one, but I place the preservation of the integrity of my society well above her grievance with her Muslim husband or her vulnerability to Sharia. This is her great and tragic misfortune for being born under the thrall of the evil cancer of Islam.
But her plight must not become our tragedy. We will be wiped away in the Islamic tsunami that's mounting if we imagine our society can serve as a bastion against Islam's onslaught by granting sanctuary to Muslims from Islam, but permitting them to reside within our camp where they will continue to promote Islam by practicing it here.
Another way Islam keeps a hold over women. What better psychological blackmail than to tell a woman that if she leaves her husband that, under Islam, she will lose her children.
And, gimme a break, if the husband doesnt want her to see the kids ever again, then in a Muslim-dominated country, she will NEVER see them again. She may not even ever see the light of day if this abusive man feels his 'honor' has been damaged and the state may not like that she fled and aired their dirty laundry regarding Islam and it's unfair child custody laws and decide to prosecute her, never to be seen again if they wish.
Yes, this is an example of Sharia's having control over a woman, but it's more than that.
If this poor woman is deported, then Sharia will have trumped the legal system in the UK, and that's what they'll crow about.
UK woman may be deported to face sharia charges
Is this just bad grammar? She's not English, so she should be returned to Lebanon. As justamomof4 said If she has remained a practicing muslim while on UK soil, then she is the one setting the double standard - not the UK courts. If muslim, this mother should renounce Islam/sharia or go back to Lebanon..
The West has enough problems with muslims that we can't afford to step in and then support financially everyone who has chosen to become involved in this suicide cult.
So, on the one hand, the British Courts allow an avowed terrorist supporting preacher to not only stay in Britain but also collect welfare because by forcing him out of the country(deporting him) would possibly cause him to be put on trial in Lebanon, and on the other hand they force this woman out of the country for the grand crime of wanting to get away from an abusive husband. Since they both, the mother and the preacher, entered the country illegally, at the least the British Courts should treat them equally. If she is deported, so should he be, and vice versa. I guess I'm just too unPC to get it, or maybe it has nothing to do with PC'ness but rather my informal education here and elsewhere about Islamic beliefs and just good old fashioned common sense influences my opinion. Ahh, you might say, but since when does common sense have anything to do with not only Britain, but it seems the world in general, in how Muslims are treated. The stories are legion. It's gettin' tougher and tougher to keep hangin' in there.
Absceder, think this through: If Western Countries start letting in anyone who SAYS they don't want to live under sharia law it will open the gates to any moslem who SAYS they don't want to live under sharia law!
I think we should only allow in true vitims of islam!
Those moslems who suffer under sharia should be the engine to change it. Or suffer the consequences.
I am tired of US suffering for THEM!
And all this in a context where real live jihaddis, plain murderers and other criminals aren't deported for fear that they will be tortured or such.
The UK court is about to chose between protecting the innocent and protecting the evil.
Guess which side I'm betting they will choose.
Since the Ummah Kalifate is contemplating instituting Shariah in any case, why go through the motions of deporting her? As it is, members of the ummah are welcome in the UK, so why make her an exception? Institute the shariah charges against her right there in the UK, hand her kids to her husband and imprison her for kidnapping. Maybe even throw in a few amputations.
I think it's a fair assumption that she's either a Mohammedan herself, or a Christian stupid enough to marry one (although I doubt that). Either case, I have no sympathy for her. She should face Shariah - Londonistan or Lebanon is immaterial
What's getting lost in the rhetoric here is that there are International conventions in place to prevent the 'kidnapping' of children by one or the other parent/guardian. The traffic is in BOTH directions.
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/main/pubs/child_abductions-en.asp#3
We may hate their culture, but if we want ME Governments to comply we're going to have to meet them 1/2 way...whether we like it or not. It's less of a problem (now) in N. America because they simply can't get on a plane without the documentation. I'm guessing less of an obstacle in the EU...
Infidel Pride
Quite right!
If the Judges are pushing for shria in the UK how can it be wrong to send her to a place where it is already in force?
For anyone interested, here's a link to the Hague Convention site:
http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=text.display&tid=21
I may have missed it but I didn't spot any of the Usual Suspects under the signatory list (what a surprise...).
Will the son grow up to resent his mother's actions that kept him away from his father? Will he resent the kufirs who helped her, as she chose the corrupt values and laws of the unbelievers over the values and laws of Allah?
Will he one day reawaken to the religion of his father, and his father's father, and become humiliated and enraged? Will he act on that rage in accordance with the teachings of the holy, holy Qur'an?
Maybe, maybe not. Even if not, he owes it to the people of Lebanon to go back and fight against sharia and Islamic intolerance there. With the vast majority of moderates behind him, he's sure to succeed.
In general, Western countries should not make refugee status available to Muslims who continue to identify themselves as Muslims. If they claim that they are ill-treated under a Muslim system, perhaps because of political despotism, perhaps because of inshallah-fatalism, perhaps because of the mistreatment of women that is not only "cultural" but reinforced by, when not entirely caused by, Islam, or perhaps because they just prefer life in the advanced West where there is great legal and social solicitude for the individual, that is all the more reason to make them either openly recognize the Muslim roots of the miserable condition of the countries from which they come, and so abandon Islam, rather than come to the overpopulated, overtaxed, disrupted and far too-tolerant and too-generous societies of the Western world, and bring their troubles to us.
The first thought should always be: what does the admission of such people, who call themselves Muslims, do to perceived Muslim numbers, and therefore to Muslim power. We have example after example of Shi'a Iraqis, and Kurdish Iraqis (see Nashville, Tennessee) who claimied to be "refugees" from Saddam Hussein, and who of course are no longer "refugees" and could go right back, to Shi'a-controlled parts of Iraq, or Kurdish-controlled parts of Iraq, but who stay, and the evidence suggests that they do not abandon Islam, but are disruptive and hostile and even, and not infrequently, downright dangerous to us, to the Infidels who naively hand out that "refugee status" to all kinds of people.
Need one point out the effect, on such places as Lewiston, Maine, of the Somalis now in our midst -- the increase in expense for welfare benefits as the Jizyah is complacently relied on, the hostility and disruption in the schools, the louche activities of every kind. What are these Somalis "refugees" from? They are refugees from the misrule of Islam, but they bring their Islam with them. And that spells trouble for all non-Muslims. Why should we admit those who continue to be adherents of, devout believers in, a Total Belief-System that inculcates the notion that for us, the Infidels, there can only be, at best, the permanent status, under Muslim rule, of dhimmis, that is a status, when Muslims rule, of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity.
Why should we do anything at all, in any way, to make that threat larger? It makes no sense.
In general, Western countries should not make refugee status available to Muslims who continue to identify themselves as Muslims.
I guess, therefore, that we need to require that the asylum-seekers renounce Islam as condition of the grant of asylum. So how do we go about determining whether the renunciation is simply pro forma (i.e., a classic invocation of the principle of taqiyya) or genuine? Do we follow up with them after the grant of asylum to be sure that they aren't still practicing Islam. If not, then the requirement of renunciation is a joke. But if we do, then it's fair to assume that many of them will simply go underground, practicing Islam in secret and assembling in secret the way Puritans used to for worship services in Elizabethan and Jacobean England, or Communists used to for cell meetings in the U.S. during the Cold War, and we'll need to take measures to guard against that possibilty.
Spain faced a similar problem in the 16th century with regard to persons who had merely pretended to renounce Islam and thus evaded the decrees which required Mahometans to leave Granada after 1501, Castile and Leon after 1502, Navarre after 1515, and the Crown of Aragon after 1525. I suppose we could always do what Spain did to deal with the problem, and employ an Inquisition to inquire into whether people are secretly practicing or believing in Islam. We could test those suspected of being secret Mahometans the way the Roman Inquisition used to during the Middle Ages in the case of those suspected of being secret Jews: require them to eat pork, and draw an adverse inference if they refuse.