Google+
Close

David Calling

The David Pryce-Jones blog.

A Place for Sharia Law in Britain



Text  



In Britain, the Lord Chief Justice has just told an audience in one of the largest mosques in London that there is a place in Britain for sharia law. The Archbishop of Canterbury not long ago was of the same opinion. The pillars of the Establishment, in other words, are willing to collapse what they were supposed to be upholding. Amazingly, the feminists have not uttered a squeak of protest about what would happen to women in the event that sharia law was applicable alongside or within British law.

The Swiss are not taking so easily to creeping Islamization. In the past, the King of Saudi Arabia felt free to break building regulations at a palace he owned on the shore of Lake Geneva, and the City Fathers forced him to demolish what had been put up without permission. A mosque already existed in Geneva, but when the Muslim community sought to have a second mosque, the City Fathers replied that this would be possible when the Christians were allowed a church in Saudi Arabia. There is no record that outraged Arabs consequently withdrew their petro-dollar millions held in the local banks.

There are just over seven million Swiss, and they are Europe’s premier example of multi-culturalism, a centuries-old fusion of French, German, and Italian cultures and languages. Muslims, almost all immigrants, are said to number some 300,000. The Swiss Peoples’ Party (SVP) has raised a storm by collecting more than 100,000 signatures on a petition calling for a ban on minarets in the country. Minarets, according to the SVP, are “symbols of political-religious imperialism.” A spokesman for the party pointed out that, “Many women, even socialists, signed this petition because not one Swiss woman can tolerate the way that Muslim men treat their wives.”

By law, a national referendum is now obligatory. Favouring this form of direct democracy, the Swiss constantly hold referendums on every kind of issue. The Swiss authorities, including the country’s President, recommend the rejection of the ban on minarets. They are openly and explicitly terrified of provoking Muslim anger, thus bringing a security risk on themselves. That’s also the sum total of the argument put forward in Britain by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chief Justice. All these great persons on the one hand openly hold themselves and their societies in disdain, and on the other hand show an even greater degree of contempt for Muslims by treating them as creatures of a fanaticism so furious that it can only be propitiated and never reasoned with or moderated.



Text  


Subscribe to National Review