Thursday, February 07, 2008

The end of one law for all?

Here's an interesting article on the evolution of law in the UK. Seems there is growing acceptance, even by some leaders of the Church of England, that multiculturalism requires the allowance of different laws for the different cultures now living within the UK.

This seems starkly contrary to the American pledge of "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" in which the "one nation" guarantees a equal justice for all its citizens. However, it's not hard to see how the trends even in this country are leading us down the same path away from the concept of "one nation indivisible". At the end of liberal worldly rule, it seems, lies ultimate division; while at the end of fascist worldly rule, lies the opposite of uniformity through the elimination of liberty.

Thank God we belong to another kingdom, where ultimate justice is maintained forever.

Sir Chuck


  1. That system used to be customary in the Middle Ages. It comes from the time when one ruler would rule over several different ethnic groups and special interests. In those days that was considered a matter of course. The Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires were like that until their end. So was British India as has been indicated.
    However, this method is a way of ruling an Empire; or a feudal or dynastic state, not a western style nation-state. In other words it is the style Moslems would regard as consider just according to their history. They can't be blamed for wanting that in England. Come to think of it England and Scotland have long had slightly different laws.
    And of course letting them live by their native customs among themselves(polygamy is an exception westerners can't be expected to permit it) is fair enough-so long as they don't use force to prevent those who wish to leave that system. But they already have that right and no one dreams of interfering. And in fact that is probably the weak point of their analogy with the Jews. Jews don't live under separate laws in the sense of being able to stone adulterers(assuming they would wish to retain that custom which they obviously don't).
    The problem comes when Moslems wish for different criminal laws for themselves. This is pressing on the authority of the state. More pragmatically it is a potential means of facilitating rebellion. Not to mention giving a sanctuary for petty criminals.
    Another point is that it could be taken as an attempt to intimidate the state. Given the past history of Moslem immigrants, that is not an implausible interpretation. There is only so much "danegeld" can be given the "danes".
    Come to think of it that is not a bad analogy.
    It is less of a problem in America which has never thought of itself as an ethnic state and never really had to make arrangements like that.
    In any case Moslems seem to have a
    remarkable case of wanting to have their cake and eat it to. They want to have the infidels money and better administered laws but they don't want those laws to apply to them when it is inconvenient. Not to different from Moslems conquering infidels is spreading the faith but infidels conquering Moslems is imperialism.

    Sir Jason

  2. One thing that is true is that if someone is going to become a citizen he can't complain if it is expected that he obey the law.

    Sir Jason