| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
This presents the British authorities with an opportunity to reassert the fact that all in Britain must abide by British law: they could move decisively to shut down these courts, and to criminalize Sharia in Britain. Will they do any of that? Probably not.
"Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britain," by Paul Jeeves in the Daily Express, with thanks to all who sent this in:
MUSLIM radicals have established their own draconian court systems in Britain.Controversial Sharia courts have been set up in major towns and cities to impose Islamic law and enable Muslims to shun the legitimate British legal system.
Last night religious leaders and politicians expressed outrage that Sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in our society.
Critics insisted that the Government is allowing a two-tier legal system to flourish in the name of political correctness and that the authority of UK justice is being undermined.
The Daily Express can reveal that one of the controversial courts has been set up in the home town of the 7/7 London bombings ringleader.
Mohammed Siddique Khan was responsible for the Edgware Road Circle Line explosion which killed six people and injured 120. Our investigation has found that the Sharia court system has been set up in the heart of Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, and that it is a model for others across the country which are operating outside the British legal process.
The Dewsbury court is called the Sharee Council – another term for Sharia – and operates as a Muslim judiciary making decisions by which attendees must abide.
In many countries, hard-line interpretations of the Islamic law allow people to be stoned to death, beheaded or have their limbs amputated.
Non-Muslims are excluded from the secretive court which is registered as a charity to receive British tax benefits.
Although the court has no official legal standing, scales of justice adorn a sign outside a former pub building which has been converted by the Islamic Institute of Great Britain.
Posted by Robert at May 1, 2007 6:24 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
...what are the British planning to do the first time a non Muslim is brought before the Islamic court and sentenced to a beheading for dating a Muslim woman?....
...Unless the British shut down these 7th century moronic courts, it will happen...
...inquiring minds want to know...
Posted by: exsgtbrown![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 1, 2007 6:45 AM
This is a disgrace !
Allowing sharia courts to operate makes a mockery of the once proud British legal system, upon which many other countries systems are based. Adding insult to injury, these "courts" are registered as charities, enabling them to receive tax breaks.
The Brits should crush this in the bud and outlaw these kangaroo courts. Scales of justice indeed - what do moslems know about justice ?
at May 1, 2007 6:59 AM
Incrementalism works. Always operating a hair's breadth beneath the Infidel's threshold for action, the pushy Moslems advance, stop and consolidate, advance again, stop to consolidate again, and so on.
* 2:216 * 4:74 * 9:111 * 8:12 * 4:96 * 56:22 * 38:51 * 55:56 * 55:76 * 56:22 * 8:74 * 9:2 *
It's an exercise in gradual habituation, the kindly Moslem helping us prepare for our ineluctable fate.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 1, 2007 7:24 AM
Although the story lacks in detail about exactly what it is these courts adjudicate, I don't know if it is nessessary bad.
Do not orthodox Jews have a seperate system to adjudicate some areas of dispute amongst Jewish congregants?
If jurisdiction of these Sharia courts is limited to settling CIVIL disputes (marraige issues, business transactions) only between VOLUNTARY Muslim participants, AND the losing party is not punished by what would otherwise be criminal sanctions, I don't see too much harm. Our own legal system in the US encourages outside Mediation and arbitartion where feasible. This appears quite similar.
Of course establishment of Sharia courts hurts efforts to assimilate Muslims into the Brtish community. But, I can think of alot worse things Muslims could do to cause harm in the U.K.
And, although posters above call for elimination of these courts, if participants volunteer for resolution of civil matters, I do not think the British legal system can do anything to stop it.
Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 1, 2007 8:19 AM
This existential threat to British sovereignty presents a real challenge to the British Labour Government. Is it truly a government, or is it just a bunch of pigs in a poke?
Can you imagine the Nazi's being allowed to set up a secret court system in Britain during WW2? No, neither can I. The fact that the islamists feel confident enough and have sufficient support to do this just shows how asleep at the wheel the authorities have been.
This is one of those pivotal moments in British history. The left can't blame this development on the war in Iraq, or on racism, or on Israel.
If it isn't stopped, and stopped quickly and firmly, then: "Well may they say God save the Queen, because nothing will save the (Prime Minister)!"
Roll on the election, let the common people elect their true representatives to Parliament and turn out these Dhimmis!
NB: Apologies to Gough Whitlam for appropriating one of his better known quotes.
Posted by: veil416 at May 1, 2007 8:38 AM
deport participants asap...problem solved
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at May 1, 2007 8:51 AM
"Always operating a hair's breadth beneath the Infidel's threshold for action . . . ."
Alarmed Pig Farmer, you have it EXACTLY right.
And the only defense we have is to become uncomfortably pro-active on every front in this New World War, military, economic, educational, social, legal, commercial, and, of course, spiritual.
Posted by: texan at May 1, 2007 9:03 AM
Also look for sub rosa Muslim prayer rooms. I'm sure many have been set up in workplaces in the civilized West
Posted by: dennisw at May 1, 2007 9:08 AM
Assalamau Laikum all,
I know that you are creating a bit of a fuss ...but really there is no need.
Each country has it's own set of laws...and there is no international (global) set of laws.
This is where mild sharia comes in...rather than fighting against it...why not help shape it...modify the handful of thing that you may not like...bring in the rest through parliment...and lets get on with it....
after all these are the laws that your childrens will live under...you owe them this much anyway....
Posted by: Naseem at May 1, 2007 9:09 AM
sharia law in any form is repressive, violent and totally outdated....7th century rules for 7th century morons...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 1, 2007 9:10 AM
The problem for Muslims is that, if a Sharia court exists, then Muslims MUST use it as their ONLY means of settling disputes among themselves. To use the non-Muslim court system when there is a Sharia court available would brand the person an apostate (with all the dangers associated with that status).
Once the Sharia court is in control of all dispute resolution, then whoever controls the Sharia court is the ruler of all the local Muslims. Which is the whole point
Posted by: PapaBear at May 1, 2007 9:11 AM
Alarmed Pig Farmer....
More dittos on your hair's breadth comment. That's called the slow Mo' jihad. Plus Mohammed's adherents have great confidence in their demographic Jihad which all Muslim participate in, even the nice moderate ones we hear about. That's how Islam will paint the world green.
at May 1, 2007 9:14 AM
'after all these are the laws that your childrens will live under...you owe them this much anyway....'
from our favorite tragically heretical lab rat.
We certainly do owe them. Hence sites like this and JW, waking up kuffar all over the world.
Posted by: Dane at May 1, 2007 9:14 AM
The extreme Muslims want the Sharia courts. They will run them, it will be their domain. Moderate Muslims will be forced to participate in them or suffer violence or ostracism.
Thus these underground Sharia courts are how the fundamentalist Muslims enforce their rule over the Muslims who like some of the freedoms the West has to offer
Posted by: dennisw at May 1, 2007 9:19 AM
Naseem,
Our countries have our own laws. And Muslims and your kind have no right to change them. If Muslims don't like our laws, BTW Naseem honor killings are illegal here, they can leave and move back to Iran, Indonesia, ect. Just to remind you Naseem we do not treat women as second class citizens here. We do not force them to dress like the Amish, We don't allow honor killings here, assault on the wife is punishable here, separation of religion and state is enforced here, chopping of heads, hands or feet is illegal here, freedom of speech is allowed here. We allow Muslims to exploit our freedoms here to spread their filth and lies. There you go Naseen, zieg heil!
Posted by: The Resistance at May 1, 2007 9:21 AM
Naseem, you are so arrogant!! Our children are not going to live under islamic law. That will be reserved especially for YOUR children. Those who will not abandon the religion of the pedophile will be required to live under sharia law EXCLUSIVELY, with no foreign aid, no medical missionaries, no tsunami relief, no welfare payments, and no yummy pork chops.
Your children can do their woodoo and squat over a hole. The girls can have themselves "fixed" by their mothers, raped by their fathers, and killed by their brothers.
Go back to making your crappy furniture. You know, that stuff which we in the West call "firewood".
Posted by: texan at May 1, 2007 9:21 AM
Naseem
after all these are the laws that your childrens will live under
No.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at May 1, 2007 10:07 AM
Over here several muslim areas are sharia ruled. These areas are, at least the ones that I have visited, a network of narrow alleys and cul-de-sacs. It is near-impossible to ascertain what the muslims do in there. Therefore, sharia rules. Recently a muslim male was caught molesting a girl in a dark alley in one such area in my city. The next day in court, he demanded that he be judged by the imams and the mullahs since the child that he was raping was a muslim and not infidel. sharia exists wherever there is a muslim area or ghetto. sharia exists wherever there is a muslim population.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 1, 2007 10:50 AM
Leave Iraq Now,
The problem is with these Sharia courts is that the more ambitious leaders of the Muslim community will want to extend the power of the courts outside of civil disputes. In other words, if they have their way, punishments for adultery (stoning, flogging) and stealing (amputation of the right hand) will be allowed (officially or unofficially). You say it's not such a bad thing to have these courts, and that the only negative effect is that the Muslim community remains isolated? Well, it is a bad thing. If they are allowed to use Sharia, then they are basically saying we are in a state within a state. Actually they already act like certain areas (like Luton, Manchester and Bradford) are not under the sovereignty of the UK.
And even when Sharia is used in civil and family issues, keep this in mind. The testimony of a woman is half that of a man. In Sharia, the man gets custody of the children after a divorce.
Posted by: wrathofasma at May 1, 2007 11:05 AM
As the muslims have been saying of late - England will be their first conquest to be islamicized. We all thought it would be France, but it seems England is on their little minds as being the first to take.
And gee, they have a numb (or is that dumb?) Prince who just thinks islam is a great thing. Prince Charles is as mind numbing as are the Arabs and their wahabbi cult.
We should all worry about the muslims in the whole of Europe for they, their government and their culture closely resembles ours. They are our closest allies who have been doing absolutely nothing to fight the islamic intrusion. They (NATO) watch as muslims slaughter others in Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon, etc. But, their left wing is more (stupid?) active and alive in europe. This is how the muslims have been able to get such a stronghold into their culture. And they have another group that enables the muslims - the Catholics/the Pope.
Posted by: R_not at May 1, 2007 11:07 AM
Alarmed Pig Farmer
Totally agree with your statement.
I have also said many times that the "moderates" and the violent Jihadis operate in tandem. The "moderates" approach the Infidel and ask such and such, because there is tremendous anger in the Muslim community, they say. They further add they are just able to control the young men from breaking into violence, and that if such and such is not granted, then they cannot be held responsible. Violent jihad happens anyway to reinforce the message. The Infidel caves in as he does not want to be held responsible for the loss of lives. And so it goes on.
Posted by: DP111
at May 1, 2007 11:14 AM
Remember the woman in Germany who wanted to be helped by the German courts and the German judge told her to go back to her sharia law system? Or something like that was said. It was only a few months ago, if that long.
Well, I thought that this is exactly what was needed - to wake up the muslims enjoying the Western freedoms. And yes, what I thought was against many on these boards. This, I was hoping, would bring this all to a head and force people to wake up and do something. Instead, I haven't heard squat about anything pertaining to that incident and now hear more sharia is spreading like the smell of a skunk.
I don't know what it will take for people to wake up. Bombs lobbed in their neighborhoods, more snipers, more atrocious crimes against non-muslims, etc - as what has happened in Lebanon, and Eastern Europe?! And look what has happened in those places - muslims are taking over and they are hotbeds of islamic filth. When the people finally did wake up they were branded as the aggressors and once again muslims claimed victimhood.
Posted by: R_not at May 1, 2007 11:32 AM
naseem,
after all these are the laws that your childrens will live under...you owe them this much anyway....
tell your moslem buddies they ought to be glad george bush is president. if the average american citizen were president of the united states the "moslem question" would be solved in short order.
Posted by: Bill Cross at May 1, 2007 11:46 AM
Can't wait to see how the Brits react when their Muslim communities start beheading criminals and stoning adulterers to death in public. Allowing Sharia within a democracy is so backwards and illogical, reading this article is almost Twilight Zone-ish. Just incomprehensible. If this is the type of government these people want, send them off to Saudi Arabia already and be done with it. No use dragging a perfectly good civilized country into the gutter with them.
Posted by: staff_of_magius at May 1, 2007 11:46 AM
Indeed, this is very bad news. The ultimate case will be a case of apostasy, a Muslim living in the UK who decided to leave his/her religion. Will that person be allowed to have freedom of religion and freedom of speech, cornerstones of all Western laws, or will that person be hauled before a sharia court and be punished with death? Would the UK stand by and let this happen to one of its citizens? BTW...isn't Yorkshire, site of one of the sharia courts, also home to one of my favorite characters of all times, James Harriot of "All Creatures Great and Small." I shudder to think what those sharia savages are doing to any of the beloved sheep that he helped throughout the years. Those people are everywhere...not the England that I want to think of in my mind..
Posted by: maryrose at May 1, 2007 11:59 AM
Naseem the peaceful da'wa jihadi, as usual, makes the most sense. Let's surrender piecemeal now to avoid total extermination later. Sounds almost reasonable when she says it.
Posted by: Beagle at May 1, 2007 12:45 PM
"I shudder to think what those sharia savages are doing to any of the beloved sheep that he helped throughout the years."
Posted by: maryrose
...as one Muslim said to the second, who was admiring the sheep: "hey, that's my daaaaaaaaad"
at May 1, 2007 12:50 PM
exsgtbrown jokes:
"...as one Muslim said to the second, who was admiring the sheep: "hey, that's my daaaaaaaaad"
I hope you get away with that HERE. Every time I try that joke at home, my wife gets really upset. I still don't know why, either.
at May 1, 2007 1:09 PM
The Infidel caves in as he does not want to be held responsible for the loss of lives. And so it goes on.
But you would think that, after several tens of thousands of examples, someone would be able to figure the scam out.
Wait. I forgot. Islam is a "relgion," and it would be "bigoted" to point out this obvious scam in order to help save freedom.
Sigh.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 1, 2007 1:10 PM
Shim shiminee, shim shiminee
Shim shim, Sharee.
The law is as clear,
It's as clear as can be.
Shim shiminee, shim shiminee
Shim shim shiram,
The U.K.'s been conquered for Dar al-Islam...
at May 1, 2007 1:29 PM
Do not orthodox Jews have a seperate system to adjudicate some areas of dispute amongst Jewish congregants?
Last I looked, the hearings held by Orthodox Jews do not include such charges as rape, and cannot mete out such punishments as dismemberment and death-by-stoning.
This it-all-must-be-equivalent has gotten out of hand, and it's killing us. Literally.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 1, 2007 1:47 PM
I have a few questions if someone wouldn't mind answering?
1. If I was to convert to islam on my own, would I be able to pick what sect I wanted?
2. If I was forced to convert and the end of a sword, would I automatically join the sect of the moslem forcing me to convert?, or will I still get to choose which sect I want?
3. After someone converts to islam, how long until the jiyza benefits kick in?
I have more questions but I'll wait to see if these questions get answered first.
Thanks to those who reply.
at May 1, 2007 1:59 PM
4.) If a shahid is "gay" will he still receive the 72 virgins?
Posted by: MP at May 1, 2007 2:07 PM
5. Will I be required to participate in stonings and attend public lashings?
Posted by: Infidel_Dog at May 1, 2007 2:14 PM
This is actually a positive development.
How will the left/liberal alliance explain the legal discrimination against women ?
Can you imagine the guardian/independent/bbc sending along a court correspondent ?
How will they explain a womans testimony being worth half of a mans, descrimination against infidels.
The problem for moslems is once you give them half an inch, they take a mile, in full public view.
We need more of this.The people will see, the media will be unable to explain, we will be proven right (again)
at May 1, 2007 2:17 PM
6. Will I have to give up bacon cheezeburgers?
Posted by: texan at May 1, 2007 2:26 PM
6. How long until I'll be able to accuse someone of being a takfir?
Posted by: Infidel_Dog at May 1, 2007 2:27 PM
7. Will I have to throw away my cowboy boots and get some of those funny sandals?
Posted by: texan at May 1, 2007 2:28 PM
8. If I rape a woman and there isn't four male witnesses, did the rape actually occur?
Posted by: Infidel_Dog at May 1, 2007 2:34 PM
Maryrose, you predict:
"The ultimate case will be a case of apostasy, a Muslim living in the UK who decided to leave his/her religion."
This is a very intellectualy provocative proposition.
This is a classic conflict of laws. In this case: whether western law of individual rights would be selected over the sharia law of the tribe, when an individual chooses to leave the tribe.
I believe that the trial of Jesus is instructive. Jesus was tried under Roman law for a "crime" that was defined under Jewish law. The trial and execution were therefore illegal.
Could happen again. What if English law decided to apply sharia? I can see how it could happen.
Posted by: texan
at May 1, 2007 2:39 PM
9. If the imam has sex with a goat, can he sell the meat in the next village even if he preaches there also? Or, does he have to give the meat to the poor? If he likes the goat very much, does he have to kill her, or can he keep her if he only has two other wives?
Posted by: texan at May 1, 2007 2:43 PM
What is a takfir?.....
....to pin your notes on the bulletin board, of course....
at May 1, 2007 2:58 PM
In Islamic law, takfir or takfeer (تكفير) is the practice of declaring that an individual or a group previously considered Muslims are in fact kafir(s) (non-believers in God). The act which precipitates takfir is termed the mukaffir.
Posted by: Infidel_Dog at May 1, 2007 3:01 PM
*edit*
6. How long until I'll be able to accuse someone of being a takfir?
Posted by: Infidel_Dog
I need to re-phrase that question.
6. How long till I can declare someone as "kafir"?
Posted by: Infidel_Dog at May 1, 2007 3:14 PM
As I'm sitting here watching Braveheart in German, I wonder, where is a modern day William Wallace? Freedom is worth fighting for, no matter where.
Islam = no freedom
Naseem, please know that you can only push the west so far. Remember that it took a while to get the US going for WWII, but when they did, they really did. Please ask the residents of Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagosaki, etc.. We know how to deal with evil and can again, we just to get moving, and if your death cult continues with what it is doing, we will.
There is still time to learn the love and salvation that Jesus provides. We will welcome you.
Posted by: schwaben at May 1, 2007 3:21 PM
One extraordinarily important thing to point out is that for a Muslim woman, there is no such thing as a "voluntary" cooperation with a Sharia court. It's a classic catch-22. Say she's in a dispute of some kind, and her husband commands her to comply with the Sharia judgment. If she refuses, she is in violation of Koran 4:34, and can be beaten with impunity because her husband "fears disobedience." She is also at risk of being "honor"-killed, to be immediately replaced by another piece of meat imported at age 14 from some mud-hut homeland village.
Even under ideal circumstances, a woman's testimony is at best worth half of a man's, and is often excluded altogether. Take into account the hyena-like, nearly instantaneous violence of Muslim men against women, and you can see any "cooperation" is utterly illusory.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at May 1, 2007 4:13 PM
Naseem, you get online and exchange messages with strange men.
This sort of behavior where I come from isn't considered very ladylike.
at May 1, 2007 4:54 PM
Robert Spencer has suggested laws making it illegal to try to replace the American Constitution with Sharia Law.
Can anyone think of a workable British equivalent?
at May 1, 2007 4:54 PM
Assalamau LAikum all,
Odyessus simplifies things by saying "Robert Spencer has suggested laws making it illegal to try to replace the American Constitution with Sharia Law".
This will not be possible...Allah's flat earth policy will reverse
Posted by: Naseem at May 1, 2007 5:00 PM
Leave Iraq Now:
"marraige (sic) isssues"
Do you even know what marriage law is under sharia? You make it sound so inconsequential and innocent, just another custom among others.
You must be a male, and an ignorant one at that. I hope you don't have, or will ever breed, daughters.
Posted by: ovidius_naso at May 1, 2007 5:19 PM
"Non-Muslims are excluded from the secretive court ..."
This makes the judgements of the court null and void since all courts in Britain should be open to anyone wishing to observe how judgements are delivered. (Justice should not only be done, it must be seen to be done).
The Sharia Courts violate the rule laid down in 'Scott v Scott' (1913) where Lord Halsbury stated, 'every court of Justice is open to every subject of the King'
Posted by: LondonBorn&Bred at May 1, 2007 5:25 PM
"Non-Muslims are excluded from the secretive court ..."
This makes the judgements of the court null and void since all courts in Britain should be open to anyone wishing to observe how judgements are delivered. (Justice should not only be done, it must be seen to be done).
The Sharia Courts violate the rule laid down in 'Scott v Scott' (1913) where Lord Halsbury stated, 'every court of Justice is open to every subject of the King'
Posted by: LondonBorn&Bred at May 1, 2007 5:26 PM
In the Channel 4 dispatches program we heard
“If a woman does not wear hijab we hit her.”
I imagine a similar level of coercion goes on in these Sharia courts.
at May 1, 2007 5:43 PM
Naseem says "This will not be possible...Allah's flat earth policy will reverse"
She is correct. If the Muslims get a voting majority, then they are in control. Which means that the only way to stop a Muslim takeover is to ensure they never are a significant percentage of the population
Posted by: PapaBear at May 1, 2007 5:53 PM
Alarmed:
As usual, spot on.
Funny how your brief yet insightful and witty posts work alongside and in concert with Hugh's flourishes. He's alarmed too, i dare say, but he doesn't farm piggies. He farms Latin periods and, once in a while, Cole Porter metaphysical fluff. In the end, it's all about the same thing: my pig brother, my friend.
at May 1, 2007 5:59 PM
Odyessus:
Robert Spencer has suggested laws making it illegal to try to replace the American Constitution with Sharia Law.
Can anyone think of a workable British equivalent?
Good question. The answer is no - because we have an unwritten constitution. If there was ever a European constitution, then we could sign up (but I dont think this is safe option).
I dont rate Robert Spencer's suggestion.
Because if it ever got to the point in the USA that replacing the American Constitution was a serious suggestion; for that to occur, it must mean that Muslims in America form 30% or greater in terms of population. And if they form 50% or more, what is there to stop Muslim Senators, Congressman or a Muslim President making the motions to replace it?
The right thing to do is for our politicans to confront Islamic ideology and practices:
1) Immediately halt all Muslim immigration to Western countries.
2) Halt students and others coming from OIC countries.
3) Revoke naturalisation of Muslims from OIC countries and deport them.
4) Start a dialog with OIC countries. If they due to the 1990 Cairo Humans Right Act ban the building of Hindu Temples, Christian Churches in OIC countries why should we tolerate Mosques being built inside the West?
5) Confront OIC countries over their appalling treatment of non-Muslims inside their own countries.
There is more that could be done - but we need to make a start.
at May 1, 2007 6:02 PM
The Muslims in the UK will keep presssing this.
Right now I beleive:
France: Sharia law operates in parts of
UK: Informally in places but not formally - yet.
Canada: Declined. But they will keep asking again and again.
As has been observed, this is operating a State within a State.
It is all slippery slope, thin-end-of-the-wedge.
And the aim is grow the internal Sharia state.
And the aim is to make sure as much of the Sharia law applies
And the aim is to eventually make it equal then dominant.
And the aim is to start applying it to non-Muslims.
And the aim is dismantle the other set of laws, Sharia is complete.
So entertaining that it applies to just civil cases is bad news as more demands will follow.
at May 1, 2007 6:12 PM
Democracy does not mean the majority is always right.
In fact, most democracies go by the rather grander name of republics which have a constitution which guarantees the rights of minorities etc.
This is why Muslims, even if they become a majority in Britain, will not be able to impose their views on non-Muslims.
Although Britain does not have a written constitution, it has a sort of accumulative constitution as LondonBorn&Bred pointed out in a posting above dealing with 'Scott v Scott' (1913)
It was the attempt of the Southern States to secede that sparked the American Civil War.
Why? Because Abraham Lincoln recognized that they were violating the constitution which he had sworn to uphold.
Britain needs a “line in the sand.”
Otherwise it will be death by a thousand compromises.
This is eminently possible, even with Britain’s unique constitutional system.
It is stunning to read that the “Sharia Court” has charitable i.e. tax-free status.
This should be withdrawn NOW
It is clearly in violation of British law.
at May 1, 2007 6:28 PM
Odyessus:
Democracy does not mean the majority is always right.
In fact, most democracies go by the rather grander name of republics which have a constitution which guarantees the rights of minorities etc.
This is why Muslims, even if they become a majority in Britain, will not be able to impose their views on non-Muslims.
"Rightness" is a moral concept.
Of course I dont accept that a majority decision is "right". If the House of Commons voted Murder as being lawful, it would not make it "right".
But it not "rightness" that is under question.
It is whether an overwhelming Muslim party in power in the House of Commons could change and repeal laws so that Sharia law is supreme.
And I dont see anything to stop this situation.
at May 1, 2007 6:40 PM
Posted by LondonBorn&Bred : The Sharia Courts violate the rule laid down in 'Scott v Scott' (1913) where Lord Halsbury stated, 'every court of Justice is open to every subject of the King'.
Ah but Muslims are subjects of allah and allah alone.
at May 1, 2007 6:49 PM
UK Infidel Lover,
There is something which can stop Muslims imposing their views on us.
It will have to be a sort of legal “trip-wire”.
The sort that the Southern States of the USA crossed, sparking the American Civil War by acting unconstitutionally.
If you ask me, it has been crossed many times already.
I suppose one of Britain’s “Constitutional experts” could advise us on this, what bedrock, we should ask him, lies beneath the law?
Would Norman St.John Steven do? Actually, he is something of a nitwit.
We are talking about a line in the sand………
at May 1, 2007 7:01 PM
Odyessus,
In the final analysis people only pay attention to the laws as long as somebody is able to muster enough guns to ensure that they do. It is the same with Constitutions, written or unwritten.
If the imams can decree that no pork shall be sold in London, and can muster enough thugs to burn down any butcher shop that defies them, and the police do nothing, then the imams rule. The law will not matter, the Constitution will not matter.
And the genteel, and utterly disarmed, British public will do nothing about it, because the disarmed man is the slave of whichever armed man chooses to give him orders (unless he chooses as his final act of freedom to die)
Posted by: PapaBear at May 1, 2007 7:21 PM
It should come as no great surprise that Sharia Law is being practiced within UK Muslim communities to some degree, and has been for some time. The problem here is they are quite happy to let us know about it now; the genie is out of the bottle.
Over in Northern Ireland we have the IRA and the UDA in their relative communities meeting out summary justice, only they resort to ‘Kneecapping’ with a bullet or the baseball bat in extreme cases.
The Muslim thing is of course quite a different thing entirely, here we have a growing separatist movement (Islam) which feels that it is so important that it has the right to thumb its nose at the establishment and get away with it.
There can be NO mistaking this as a full frontal attack on the constitution of our country and if the powers that be accept this without giving serious consideration to the ramifications resulting from acceptance of this Heaven only knows what will happen. It should perhaps be considered just how this 7th century troglodyte law will fit in with Brussels and the European Laws, human rights for instance.
This is, as has been said already, the thin edge of the wedge…..well to be honest there have been MANY thin edges of quite a few wedges shoved up our behinds as the trundling march of Islam makes it’s merry way into our hearts and minds.
The Japanese, Chinese, Hindu, Buddhist, and heaven knows how many communities have never made so much bloody racket as this lot do. Fact is I’d be hard pushed to list how many communities that live in this Multi Cultural melting pot because the rest are so damned quiet! This should be a lesson in never allowing ‘enclaves’ to be established, it emboldens the inhabitants.
As Churchill could have said “Never have so few ripped the knitting of so many!”
We have local elections coming up this week and I look forward to the Labour canvassers coming to my door for a spot of political motivation! They will be greeted by a mighty “Allahu Ackbar, you pratt, what have you done to my country?”
Should be fun.
at May 1, 2007 7:28 PM
Oh this is great, hopefully this will help wakeup more Brits to realize that Sharia is the best!
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
religion should make all law
men will proclaim what God wants
only believers are good
.
at May 1, 2007 7:29 PM
I suggest all the Brits that support freedom immigrate to the US. The UK is done.
Posted by: Elric66 at May 1, 2007 7:34 PM
Anarchy anyone? Well maybe when Europe gets over run we can make a prisoner exchange.
Posted by: Ameriki at May 1, 2007 8:59 PM
There are dozens of points at which sharia law conflicts with the human rights act. While settlement of disputes by reference to a third party for arbitration is perfectly legal, the moment there is even the barest suspicion of coercion is involved it becomes criminal and even treasonous. This is where the whole thing breaks down: the reputation which the Muslim community has for routine physical intimidation, threats of ostracism and a blind faith in texts prescribing blood curdling punishments makes it intolerable that sharia courts should be allowed in this country at all - ever.
Posted by: wallyUK at May 1, 2007 9:07 PM
My opinion is going to create controversy. For an anti-jihad advocate like me-I'm even surprised.
As long as these courts do not make rulings that violate British law, and they limit themselves to civil disputes, I see nothing wrong with them. By violating British law I mean rulings such as granting divorce decrees, punishment for adultery, granting estate rights where none exist, and awarding custody of chlidren - just to name a few.
Hypothetically, lets say that two Muslims have an auto collision, and they cannot reach an agreement as to who might be at fault, and who owes who what. (A true blue Mohammedan would not have auto insurance.) If a sharia court acts the part of an arbitrator, then I don't have too much of a problem.
I have seen a Christian preacher help negotiate a dispute between two church members over a dog bite.
Posted by: Pelayo at May 1, 2007 9:54 PM
We of Western Civilization are faced with fratricidal useful-idiot leftism which has merged with genocidal islamofascism - i.e. utopia-on-earth-or-death totalitarianism. The goal of this alliance is to destroy us -the West. There are few options remaining: submit to dhimmitude/enslavement by utopia-on-earth totalitarians or fight back. Start the fight by overthrowing global useful-idiot leftism. Useful-idiot leftism is the only reason islamofascism has gained any ground in its current jihad - against the "dar al harb". Without it - islamofascism will not be able to sustain its jihad nor anything else (as proven by 14 centuries of failures) - including itself. Overthrow the useful idiots-who have a stranglehold on our -the West's throat now - islamofascim will crumble.
at May 1, 2007 10:15 PM
Pelayo,
O please. You're being naive. Some time ago a number of Canadians went through all these arguments -- the pros and cons of having Sharia law established in Ontario (with Canadian civil courts enforcing Sharia court decisions). Can you guess who some of the most outspoken critics of Sharia were?
It was Muslim women who had fled Sharia indoctrinated states -- they do not want Sharia laws enacted here in Canada, because they know that these laws openly discriminate against women. Women do not stand a chance in a Sharia court. Whether you're talking about divorce settlements (children of a certain age automatically go to the father), about inheritance (brothers obtain the family monies), on and on, women are disadvantaged.
Furthermore, much of this talk about Civil Law under Sharia as somehow "benign" -- well, no, it's not. In reality it is to get Muslims under the thumb of Imam X. And for those who refuse to comply, then they will be labeled as "apostates" and suffer the consequences. Sharia, in reality, is to enforce "religiosity" (actually Sharia is a form of coercion) amongst Muslims and is aimed to identify and target those who make any attempt to "opt out." Thus, it is a process designed to not tolerate the existence of "secular" Muslims.
No matter how "nice" the notion sounds, it is not nice in practice and should be opposed.
Posted by: J.S. at May 1, 2007 10:46 PM
UK Infidel Lover and jihadtobekidding:
The key seems to be finding ways to control immigration of Muslims, since once they immigrate they start to own and control the government, just like other citizens. Since according to polls, some 50% of UK Muslims favor Islamic law, and some 7% of UK Muslims agree with those who carry out terrorism in the UK, one must be concerned that the remaining 50% of Muslims may passively go along with the rest or could be intimidated into going along. Since the Muslim population is growing so rapidly in the UK through high reproductive rates and immigration, the UK could be an Islamic state by the end of the century or before (according to Mark Steyn and Bernard Lewis, among others), or fall into civil war before then in the effort to prevent a sharia state from arising.
I see two ways to control immigration of Muslims:
1. Stop it, or
2. Increase immigration of non-Muslims and decrease immigration of Muslims.
#2 might be politically easier than #1 to push through because:
a) Europe desperately needs immigrants and
b) #2 can be argued for purely on the basis of multiculturalism and diversity, thus fitting in with the dominant PC mindset.
But the truth is that politically the only immigration action that might somewhere within reach right now is to have immigrants who wish to become citizens made first to sign a document affirming that they accept equal rights for all religions, for women, for gays, and do not wish to institute Islamic law in the UK. Of course many would-be-citizens would lie and just sign the document, but at least the government would then have a signed agreement on the basis of which it would be possible to deport citizens who had signed, if those citizens were found to be breaking the citizenship contract.
I gather Robert Spencer is or was working on a possible immigration contract along these lines, but I haven't heard much about it. I hope he's still pushing that somehow. Apparently something like it was considered (or even implemented?) in Germany. But every additional Muslim immigrant to Europe, every additional Muslim baby, makes it politically more and more difficult to resist the creeping intrusion of Islamic law and culture into the politio-legal system of Europe. Thus civil wars, or surrenders to Islamic law, may be what Europe is heading toward during the coming century. I gather one in three babies born in France at present is Muslim.
Posted by: traeh at May 1, 2007 11:26 PM
if we brits dont have the balls to confront this now then we have no more right to the UK and we should concede.
which is it then lads?
a british island run by patriotic free peoples or a sharia islamic state run by non british.
we have our option on May 5th elections. will you choose islam or britian?
at May 1, 2007 11:47 PM
PapaBear correctly points out:
"the disarmed man is the slave of whichever armed man chooses to give him orders . . . ."
Therefore, thinking people will take heed and plan ahead so that they are not lacking when the spaghetti hits the fan. Stock up:
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=366288
at May 2, 2007 12:18 AM
Yee who is without sin cast the first stone!
Posted by: MZ at May 2, 2007 1:39 AM
This is how the muslims have been able to get such a stronghold into their culture. And they have another group that enables the muslims - the Catholics/the Pope.
Posted by: R_not at May 1, 2007 11:07 AM
Want to run that by me again, R_not? Exactly how do the Catholics and the Pope enable muslims?
Didn't Pope Benedict set the muslim community off when he called them on the conversion by the sword tactics? Look up my moniker ... and get back to me.
Posted by: Paleologos at May 2, 2007 2:20 AM
"I suggest all the Brits that support freedom immigrate to the US."
All six of them?
I suggest that the US take extreme caution not to be filled up with European refugees who falsely claim to support freedom. Alas, Europeans have during the last generation demonstrated their lack of a spine twice by:
a) failing to halt the muslim invasion, and
b) chickening away from the fight to save their countries.
Unfortunately not many have made efforts to avoid this, and the ones who do are publicly mocked, lose their jobs etc. I suggest the US only take in the few brave persons who demonstrably belong to these categories.
Individuals who run away would very likely not contribute positively to freedom in the United States, even if they claim to support it. Those who would will rather stay home and resist (in spite of their compatriots' shameful behaviour towards them), as well as warn their American friends not to go down the same road. If you really support freedom, it begins at home.
at May 2, 2007 4:25 AM
Sharia law for the UK NOW!!!
Any Muslim who steals from the state (claims too much social security) - cut their hands off with a rusty axe!! Any Muslim harasses non-Muslim girls - instant decapitation!
I demand these Kangaroo courts get up and running as soon as possible - and they issue the death penalty for the slightest infringement of their medieval psychotic belief system. Dozens of Muslims should be executed on a daily basis - indeed, there should be a quota.
at May 2, 2007 4:51 AM
J.S. - This would have to be voluntary. If someone is not satisfied with the ruling, the real courts would be the next step. Of course no one would allow a Brititsh law to be passed codifying a Muslim arbitration court. If two people decide to take a dispute to an imam, who is to stop them?
If it is OK for a Methodist minister to mediate a dispute, why can't an Imam do the same thing?
I am dead set against passing a law establishing an "official" sharia court. That should be the only issue of debate.
Posted by: Pelayo at May 2, 2007 5:53 AM
Pelayo, J.S. is absolutely correct. You either don't care about the treatment of women, or you don't understand what Sharia would really mean.
To take your example, if one of the disputants in the dog bite case was a women, then her testimony would only be worth half that of a man.
The whole basis of Sharia is that it has been handed down from Allah and isn't subject to restrictions by the state. So while a soft thinking government may think it was being culturally sensitive in allowing one to operate, all they'd be doing would be laying the foundation for further dissociation by muslims from the British state.
As I said in an earlier post, this is an existential threat to British sovereignty. Either you have a British state, or you have a set of communities living in geographic proximity but operating under totally different laws.
Its up to Blair and Brown to decide which option they'll hand over to the next generation to deal with.
At this stage it looks like the British bulldog spirit has been replaced by a lapdog.
Posted by: veil416 at May 2, 2007 6:08 AM
Deliberate disinformation and obscurantism from ABC:
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 2, 2007 7:46 AM
Deliberate disinformation and obscurantism from ABC:
Posted by: sheik yer'mami
I thought it was a 'given' that whenever the words Chemicals, stockpile are repored the word Muslim should be automatically attached by the reader.
Posted by: Jihadtobejoking at May 2, 2007 10:25 AM
Pelayo,
First, I acknowledge that there is a difference between the Ontario government's involvement in the attempted (but ultimately failed)establishment of Sharia Courts in Canada -- and what is apparently occurring in the UK. (Ontario, Canada was actually, I think, the more dangerous situation -- due to this involvement of Canadian courts in the enforcement of judgements coming from a Sharia court.) So I think we can agree on that.
Second, I suspect that what you're saying is "What's the problem, if everything's voluntary?" Well, the whole question becomes "sooo, explain to me what 'voluntary' means." There are, I suppose two issues here. First, if a Sharia "court" exists, would a Muslim woman have the choice NOT to go to such a court? Her husband insists that they go to a Sharia court (to adjudicate a family dispute). Is the woman's attendance voluntary? How do you determine this? (especially given the fact that no non-Muslim is allowed inside said court in the UK.) There is an underlying, implied coercion operating here. Secondly, suppose a "judgement" is rendered by a Sharia court, but a woman is not satisfied and wishes to pursue the matter in a "real" British court. Could she do this? -- as I laugh. Imagine, for a moment, the mind of a Muslim male -- she (the underling, intellectually deficient female) would have the outrageous audacity to assert that a secular (cursed, man-made law of a British court) could possibly be superior in its rulings to that of a religious, Muslim-mandated decree. yeah, now what do you think would happen to so "uppity" a female??
Posted by: J.S. at May 2, 2007 10:46 AM
"Individuals who run away would very likely not contribute positively to freedom in the United States, even if they claim to support it."
Unfortunately for this argument, many of the ancestors of present-day Americans were precisely those who "ran away" from their native countries.
Posted by: JFGR at May 2, 2007 11:30 AM
otranto
why dont you emigrate to the UK and demonstrate your bravery and anti jihad skills? maybe we " their lack of a spine" folk need your help? so what you waiting for? come on, brave sir otranto, come help us, please? our knight in shining armour, we need you.
thats, if you can leave your mummy's basement and can get time off high school.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at May 2, 2007 11:34 AM
The parasite has attached itself to the host and will spread like wild fire and judging the inaction to date, Britain is doomed...
Posted by: eloivsdiablo at May 2, 2007 11:35 AM
"[Ma]ny of the ancestors of present-day Americans were precisely those who "ran away" from their native countries."
They did, but under different circumstances. Those immigrants did not follow the path of least resistance. Immigration to the US was a risky venture at that time, whereas immigrants today get a free ride.
Posted by: otranto at May 2, 2007 1:12 PM
It's never too late to fight back, especially when you foe is a loosely organized gang of stone-agers who apparently have contributed very little to the UK, but have taken, and continue to take, much. Please do not be hestitant to speak the truth, and demand that your politicians stop letting the inmates run the asylum. As an American with British ancestry, I am thankful that I am fighting the same fight as the true Britons. We live in dangerous times, and things may get hectic and messy.
Posted by: MP at May 2, 2007 2:42 PM
Leon,
otranto can't emigrate to the UK -- otranto obviously wasn't born in Karachi, he's an American! And hence for the UK, clearly an undesirable (besides, he writes a decent English, always a suspect sign). jeeez, what's the matter with you anyway?
at May 2, 2007 3:24 PM
Each country has it's own set of laws...
THAT'S CORRECT naseem. Ponder that until you get it.
Posted by: freetoBEfree at May 2, 2007 4:53 PM
“"[Ma]ny of the ancestors of present-day Americans were precisely those who "ran away" from their native countries."
They did, but under different circumstances. Those immigrants did not follow the path of least resistance. Immigration to the US was a risky venture at that time …”
But not half as risky as staying put, obviously. And “the path of least resistance” is one you are imputing to Europeans. Somehow I think they’d rather stay put.
at May 2, 2007 6:57 PM
"otranto can't emigrate to the UK -- otranto obviously wasn't born in Karachi, he's an American! And hence for the UK, clearly an undesirable (besides, he writes a decent English, always a suspect sign). jeeez, what's the matter with you anyway?”
Undesirable because American, eh? And writes decent English? I love this piquant image of the cultured American who is unwelcome in vulgar Europe because he can write decent English.
at May 2, 2007 7:02 PM
J.S. and Veil416, voluntary means VOLUNTARY as in not coerced.
I previously said, "I am dead set against passing a law establishing an 'official' sharia court. That should be the only issue of debate." The US, UK, Canada, and all the other civilized countries cannot allow parallel court systems to be sanctioned by law.
Here is the big however: We cannot possibly stop an imam from setting behind his desk on Wednesday morning dispensing "justice;" neither could we stop the Mennonites or the Amish from settling their own disputes by putting the resolution in the hands of a church elder.
The only way the state could legally interfere is if a ruling causes one of the parties to break existing law or otherwise causes harm.
I'll give an example that happens in the non-Muslim world all the time. Someone dies intestate (For those of you living in Artesia, New Mexico that means there was no will.) the estate will be divvied up according to state law. However, that does not prevent the heirs from reaching a different agreement as long as no one complains via the state courts. The same could happen in the Mohammedan world.
Posted by: Pelayo at May 2, 2007 8:35 PM
Yes, Pelayo, I understand what you're suggesting. But, different countries (even different provinces or states) have different laws. One of the troubling rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada was that (it was a shocker) that private contracts between consenting adults (in other words, a marriage contract or pre-nupt) could supersede provincial laws with respect to provincial civil laws regarding divorce -- for example -- division of property in many provinces is supposed to be 50-50, but a pre-nupt could annul this equal division, and give say, 80 percent to the man and only 20 percent to the woman, ditto custody of children, etc.
The "problem", as I see it, is that procedural rules also need to be enforced. This would include, written transcripts of the "judge's" decision available (the Sharia courts tend to be verbal and not codified); procedures available to ensure that there is equality before the law (men and women given equal treatment -- not at all assured, in fact, nullified by Islamic law), and so on. In other words, Western jurisprudence in terms of procedures would not be assured at all -- even though the ultimate judgement could look valid (that is, not appear to have been "illegal.") In other words, the ultimate judgement could look "legal" but how this judgement was derived could violate all the norms of western jurisprudence. Have I made myself clear? (particularly vulnerable would be immigrant Muslim women).
Posted by: J.S. at May 2, 2007 10:45 PM
Here is the big however: We cannot possibly stop an imam from setting behind his desk on Wednesday morning dispensing "justice;" neither could we stop the Mennonites or the Amish from settling their own disputes by putting the resolution in the hands of a church elder.
Posted by: Pelayo
Yes Pelayo we cannot possibly stop an imam from dispensing "justice". That is the whole point. sharia exists wherever there are muslims and they live by the sharia. Sometimes one of the parties not satisfied with the "justice" that is dispensed by the imam approaches the infidel courts. It happened in my country only last year when a woman (name imrana) who was raped by her father-in-law and was sentenced to accept her father-in-law as her husband and her husband as her son by the justice dispensing imam approached the courts here. The case caused an uproar and did bring out the fact that muslims are not living as per the law of the land. They have created a state within a state and only when they feel dissatisfied with the imam's ruling they seek infidel justice. The woman I mention above now lives with her husband under heavy police protection. By denouncing sharia she has denounced islam, she has insulted islam and according to the imams, she should be beheaded.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 3, 2007 1:53 AM
after all these are the laws that your childrens will live under...
She is saying that our children will live under islamic rule that is they will take over us. This is the mindset of every muslim to bring the whole world under islamic rule.
We never allow that and will throw you people in to the pig farm and you need to live with the pigs. Oh! you don't like pigs?!?! Don't worry, we will confirm that the pigs have no problem living with you people.
Posted by: Shivakumar at May 3, 2007 3:53 AM
>>Immigration to the US was a risky venture at that time …”
>
> But not half as risky as staying put, obviously.
Now, here is an interesting topic: What motivated the immigrants, say from Mayflower until the first world war, to abandon their homeland for the US? What did they leave behind? What did they find? Some of them clearly escaped from hunger (the Irish come to mind).
But in many, if not most cases, the potential emigrant more easily could have made the choice of a predictable life, bowing his or her head to an authority at home and living very modestly, i.e. a life substantially equal to the ancestors'. Class lottery winners clearly had little incentive to go away, but those who wanted a chance to fight their way to a better life had.
There is a rich literature on the lives immigrants to America led during the 19th century, and it probably wasn't easier before. More often than not it is a story about hardships, suffering and lots of work. Many died. And don't forget that they almost never returned to their countries of origin. When saying goodbye to their family before crossing the Atlantic (a tough undertaking in itself) they knew it probably was goodbye forever (paintings from the period illustrate this human drama).
I believe there is sufficient information to conclude that the risk averse stayed home and the risk takers left. Human progress depends of the risk takers, and as a logical outcome the United States developed to the most successful nation on earth in a scandalously short time.
Compare these pioneers to the privileged, unpatriotic class that will try to escape the European civil war tomorrow. The latter will find a wealthy, strong, well-governed nation (although not without faults) that will demand infinitely less sweat than 150 years before, and they will certainly not seek risk. Circumstances permitting, they will be jetting back and fro to keep nostalgia under control, leaving the under-privileged guys back home the dirty job of winning the civil war against islam (they will have no choice).
at May 3, 2007 3:57 AM
"I know that you are creating a bit of a fuss ...but really there is no need"
Posted by: Naseem at May 1, 2007 09:09 AM.
What there is a need for however is an understanding that the population of Britain is not 100% white Anglo Saxon, you know that section that's labeled as 'tolerant'?
There are other 'Races' who live here of varied creeds and colours. It should be noted that although 'racism' is never a topic on this site (which is as it should be) there is racism in Britain and there is a 'pecking order'. For instance, it was reported on a channel 4 documentary that 'Asians' had a serious dislike for West Indians, claiming that they were lazy and various derogatory allegations and I seen for myself while working in Birmingham UK that the Pakistani's hated the Indians and the Indians hated the Kashmeri's Nobody was particulary impressed with the Sikh's then you have the Somali's who have come here to escape islamic repression....this list goes on....
These people are listening and seeing the Islamic encroachment upon a society which has worked for them and been a refuge from Muslim interference so it should perhaps be considered that the traditional 'reserve' of the 'British' just might be pushed aside as any or all of the above mentioned decide to bring things to a conclusion.
I'm so glad I'm not Muslim, really.
at May 3, 2007 6:01 AM
I think we should all pray for a new Winston Churchill in Briton for their sakes and ours. My heart goes out to loyal Britons.
Posted by: Monkeywho at May 3, 2007 10:22 AM
The only way to stop this happening is to vote BNP which I have just done.
Posted by: Britishbulldog at May 3, 2007 10:23 AM
“Human progress depends of the risk takers, and as a logical outcome the United States developed to the most successful nation on earth in a scandalously short time.”
A non-sequitur. America’s supremacy is the result of many factors, not least of which are sheer geographical size and size of population. Factors with the help of which China and India are threatening to eclipse the U.S. – and China at least is hardly at the forefront of “human progress”.
at May 4, 2007 7:13 PM
British Common Law and Sharia are not equal,because they are not based upon equal precepts and definitions of victim, innocence, proof, witness and punishment.
To insist otherwise is ludicrous.
I thought the Brits knew better. Giving the reigns of state to fascists is a sure way to derail law and justice for all Britains.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at May 6, 2007 11:52 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)