We all heard the recent statement from UK Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron called Monday for a new law to give police the temporary power to seize a passport in case a British citizen is suspected of trying to travel to support ISIS.
Cameron told lawmakers meeting in the House of Commons on Monday there were two gaps in Britain’s fight against the threat of terror at home. The first pertains to suspects traveling abroad, he said “Passports are not an automatic right,” he said. “We will introduce specific and targeted legislation to fill this gap by providing the police with a temporary power to seize a passport at the border, during which time they will be able to investigate the individual concerned. “This power will include appropriate safeguards and oversight arrangement. Work to prepare legislation to allow this will begin immediately, Cameron said. As well as stopping would-be jihadists, Cameron went on to say, “The “root cause” of Britain’s terror threat is “Islamist extremist.”
But wait the UK was one of the first to welcome Muslim refugees particularly in England. The UK chided other countries for not being compassionate and unwilling to offer social and educational benefits to these soon to be citizens of their country. Other countries like Italy, France and the Netherlands followed UK’s lead and so Muslim immigrants were pouring into these countries.
The UK went one-step better allowing Sharia law to be applied. Sadikur Rahman, of the Lawyers Secular Society, fears a practice note issued by the Law Society could compromise the Code of Conduct for solicitors and increase the application of Sharia law in the UK.
It was with incredulity that I saw this practice note issued by the Law Society last week.
Lawyers will know that practice notes issued by the Law Society are guidance on best practice for specific topics or areas of law.
This practice note provides guidance to lawyers specializing in areas such as wills, succession and inheritance, and in particular how to accommodate the wishes of clients who want to ensure their assets are distributed according to ‘sharia law principles’ on their death.
I’m not a wills lawyer, but according to memory in the UK unless you draw up a will, on death your estate will be distributed according to the rules of intestacy. I’m sure most lawyers will also say that clients can do whatever they want with their assets, and it has always been the case that a lawyer must follow the client’s instructions on such issues.
But what this guidance does is legitimize discrimination towards women and “illegitimate children” – if that term still has any meaning in English law. In an astonishing few paragraphs the guidance states (at Section 3.6):
“The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognized. Similarly, a divorced spouse is no longer a Sharia heir, as the entitlement depends on a valid Muslim marriage existing at the date of death.
What happened to the Church of England and UK’s laws? All was altered to accommodate the Muslim faith and what did it get them. Hugh expenses to care for Muslims who did not succeed in creating new businesses or were undereducated for the jobs available. But it may be that the embarrassment of the ISIS beheading of an American journalist by an UK citizen might have been the straw that broke the camels back for PM Cameron.
But wait, before we tsk, tsk the UK what about our own behavior. In 2004 Dearborn Michigan authorized the daily call to prayers for Muslims to be broadcast every day, seven days a week. It was best voiced by a woman at a public hearing meeting on approving the daily broadcast when she said, “”My main objection is simple,” she said. ”I don’t want to be told that Allah is the true and only God five times a day, 365 days a year. It’s against my constitutional rights to have to listen to another religion evangelize in my ear.”
Can you imagine allowing Billy Graham broadcasting over a loud speaker five times a day for three hundred sixty five days the superiority of the Christian religion? The ACLU would be in court and the liberal press would go nuts objecting to inserting religion into the daily life of an American city. However at no time during the Obama administration has he or his representatives made reference to Islamist extremist among the Muslims in this country. Obama did the politically correct thing, not unlike the UK and offered sanctuary to those coming to America for a better life.
While PM David Cameron may have learned his lesson because of ISIS our administration is still insisting the situation does not require an increased threat level. The President said and I agree we should not take military action in Syria against ISIL until we have an end game, assuming if we engage ISIS militarily we win. Meanwhile why not learn from the UK and start to impose constraints on all U.S. citizens foreign born or domestic who express an interest in fighting for ISIS or any Islamist extremist and start calling them what they are Islamist extremist whether they want to fight with ISIS or in any way support any extremist that can hurt our country.