And it’s not Sparta. It’s giving people their own police, based on their religion.

MUSLIM crime victims could gain the right to have their cases overseen by police from their own religion, it emerged last night.

Police in London already give victims the right to ask for a Sikh officer to be involved in an investigation but the scheme could be introduced for other religions elsewhere.

Chief Supt Joanna Young, from the Met’s Criminal Justice Policy Unit, said: “If it’s a success, I would encourage the other (police) associations to do likewise.”

Let’s be honest. The law is blind. When you read the words on the pages, they are not written towards any race, religion, or sexual disposition (for the most part).

Where issues arise is in what we in the sub force call “Malicious compliance with the procedure.” Selective strict enforcement of the laws is where people get into trouble. Always has been, always will be. It’s the constant struggle of good cop vs bad cop.

But determining which cops enforce the law for certain people is not the way to go. Because when you do, you grant de facto permission to selectively enforce the law. In essence, you might be granting a certain group immunity from the law because the sympathetic group of officers may see no problem, for instance, with honor killings.

You’d hope this wouldn’t be the case, and that they would all enforce the law universally, but you never know.

It’s a crazy world we live in….

This entry was posted in Life and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Madness

  1. Niall says:

    You have to understand that the way the UK thinks about the law is very different from the US. They have no constitution and no bill of rights, for example. Also, something that is not widely reported, is that for almost a century the UK has allowed Orthodox Jews their own family court system, called the Beth Din. So giving Muslims and Sikhs their own courts or police is actually not something new and not some weird, threatening accommodation they are suddenly making to Muslims. It’s very much in character with how the Brits have accommodated minorities in their justice system.

    It’s still crazy, IMHO, but not something being specifically introduced or tailored to Muslims. The Jews have been accommodated into this system for far longer.

    The thing you always have to keep in mind when you are thinking about Europe is that US-style assimilition of immigrants has never occurred there. Europe is all about separateness, segregation and separate but equal. They are about half a century behind us on that question.

  2. fastnav says:

    Good info. I just hope people over here don’t get wind of it and start thinking of it as a good idea.

  3. virgil xenophon says:

    But if one reads the UK bolgs and newspapers the UK Jewish community takes the threat of the rapidly growing Muslim community so seriously they have publicly said they would give up their own courts in order to stop the spread of Sharia law.

  4. Niall says:

    But Virgil, these aren’t just courts for Jews as such, but for Orthodox Jews. I doubt very much the Orthodox Jews want to give them up. Less conservative Jews in the UK may want to, but that’s another matter.

    And “the threat of the rapidly growing Muslim community” will still be there (or not), whether they have separate courts or not.

  5. virgil xenophon says:


    I’m certainly no expert in the field and stand ready to be corrected, but I think you underestimate the centrality of Sharia Law to the Muslim experience and the extent to which it is used as a tool to drive the societal wedge
    of Muslim intrusion and gradual dominance of the state. Thus seen, stopping the spread of Sharia Law is key to stopping the eventual take-over of Islam as Sharia Law is used as the hook to hang their legal arguments to leverage their influence to bend society in Islam’s direction through the camel’s nose under the legal system tent.

  6. Niall says:

    There’s really no difference between Jews and Muslims on this issue. The importance of a literal interpretation of the Torah is every bit as “central” to orthodox Jews as a sharia is to orthodox Muslism. And for both communities there are plenty of Jews and Muslims who don’t want that to be their law.

    I live in Los Angeles, where there is a very heavy and visible orthodox Jewish presence. The various orthodox sects here are always asking that secular law accommodate their beliefs, across a spectrum of issues. Yet no one ever sees this as a “threat” to civil society.

    Likewise, orthodox rabbis have a theocratic hold on Israeli society. Only the orthodox can marry or divorce Israelis, for example, and, more interestingly, only the orthodox can decide who is and who is not a Jew. A rather important function in a country that calls itself a Jewish state.

    Israel is very much a theorcratic state itself, yet no one seems to mind that.

    Your comment also alludes to some creeping conquest by sharia law in the West of secular law. Yet no such conquest is occurring. It is just a handy myth of islamophobes in Europe. It’s the modern version of the myth of the creeping Judaization of Europe so common in the 20s and 30s.

  7. fastnav says:

    I think your definition of “theocratic state” is slightly off.

    I agree that the rabbis have a huge influence in the Jewish society, to call Israel a theocracy is a complete misnomer.

  8. Niall says:

    fastnav –

    A theocracy exists when fundamental aspects of a society are determined by religious law, not by secular law. I can’t think of anything more fundamental than the questions of who can marry or divorce, and who can be considered a member of that society in the first place. In Israel these decisions are not just reserved to the religious authorities, but to only one sect of religious authorities – the orthodox and no other.

    My real point here is that if Muslims in Europe were asking for similar privileges and restrictions, it would absolutely be called a move towards theocracy.

    How would you feel if only conservative Souther Baptists could decide who could marry and divorce in the US, no matter what your own religious beliefs were? How would you feel if only conservative Southern Baptists could determine who is and who is not a citizen of the US?

    I guarantee you you would think you were living in a theocracy.

  9. Niall says:

    Forgot to point out that Israel is by a state explicitly defined by religious affiliation. It is explicitly defined as a Jewish state. And Jewishness is defined exclusively by the most religiously fundamentalist sect of Judaism – the orthodox. MOreover, non-Jewish citizens of Israel have second class status and do not have all the rights accorded to Jewish citizens.

    How would you feel if Muslims in Europe were demanding the same privileges?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s