One Law For All - No Sharia Law in Britain

Why is this racist garbage a highlighted story when the Gaza convey gets no official mention here?

In the UK, civil legal proceedings have allowed both parties to agree to adjudication under their agreed religious beliefs for a long time. For instance, jews frequently apply THEIR religious teachings to civil court settlements in Britain (with, of course, the prior agreement of both parties).

So what Indymedia is telling us is that British muslims must be discriminated against, and not given the same legal rights as jews and christians. What a disgusting filthy racist position.

This story (as with so much clever racist propaganda) relies on the ignorance of the average reader with respect to the existing system, and the mechanisms of their own legal system. While Indymedia constantly covers the actions of the state run BNP party (to allow the genocidal actions of New Labour to go untouched, of course), a clear propaganda mechanism is exposed.

To make my point crystal clear- objecting to ALL religious schools in the UK cannot be said to be racist. To object to muslim schools in the UK clearly would be. To object to any use of religious principles in any civil case in the UK would not be racist- to object to sharia law in civil cases when the equivalent jewish laws are already long in use (for those parties that willingly want them) is an act of filthy racism, far more deadly and vile than any carried out by the BNP.

Indymedia, judging from the comments and the choice of official stories, has become the playground of extreme New Labour racists- the same people that cheered the Holocaust in Gaza earlier in the year.

PS Indymedia, be proud of your new low. This story, with muslim swapped for jew, would have been commonplace in the propaganda of the nazis during their long journey to the world war.

It states in the story;

"The objection to Sharia is a part of a wider objection to any faith-based laws and they call for one secular law to govern all of us. "

So the group are clearly not just against Islamic Law they are against all laws based on religious doctrine.

As for Indymedia being a hot bed of New Labour racism, well that's just laughable mate.

Also, how is a religious faith a race? If i was to convert to Islam or Christianity would i also change my race?

From you: “To object to any use of religious principles in any civil case in the UK would not be racist”

From the article: “The objection to Sharia is a part of a wider objection to any faith-based laws and they call for one secular law to govern all of us.”

All religion are just made-up stories from the distant past to explain things that weren't understood at the time.

As well as that, they are brainwashing bullshit that promotes hierarchy and indoctrination, and is used to control people by removing their critical thinking.

Opposition to power hierarchies like religion is exactly what Indymedia is all about.

This is in no way racist, religion is separate from race, and this event wasn't just about targeting one religion.

Islam, Christianity is not a race its a very thick religion for people who do not want to take control of their own destiny but put "faith" into nutty bollocks like the bible and Koran.

All respect to the women and men who organised the demo. Those people HAVE lived under Sharia and rebelled against it. Though anarchists are against all state laws, whether religious or secular, we should offer solidarity to those fighting against religion.

All power to the self! No Gods No Masters!
Only sheep follow!

Those of us who are both Atheist and opposed to genocide should support secular movements such as this but obviously also be prepared to fight any fash infiltration of such movements.
There is currently a need for solidarity with Muslims since they are current main targets of Zionist genocide (the British State has been controlled by Zionists since Tony Blair, who is a Zionist) and of a variety of other fash groups in Britain.
The State's intention is to allow people to choose to apply Sharia on top of British law where these laws are not in conflict; the same as is already the case with Jewish law. A potential problem with this would be that some people could be pressured to accept Sharia by authorities within their community; so it's not such a free choice as the proposed legislation implies. The State further intends to use Sharia to keep Islam functioning as a social force which strengthens the British State; rather than as the space for insurectionary politics it has become in reaction to imperialism in Palestine, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Egypt, Iran...

But surely anarchists can't be for "one law for all" which simply means rule by the state!

The slogan "one law for all" is dangerous. Anarchists would be expected to support the destruction of "one law for all" in cases such as the Canadian First Nations and the Australian Aborigines. In these cases, it is patently clear that "one law for all" means white dictatorship over indigenous peoples. What about the demand of the Black Panthers that black people be tried by all-black juries? A progressive demand in racist America. (And shariah law bizarrely overlaps with indigenous self-determination in Pakistan's Northwest. Perplexing since the honourable mountain culture of the frontier regions is hardly conducive to rigid religious interpretations).

The argument from posters here seems to be that religions are irrational and therefore must be condemned. This is rather simplistic (religions meet emotional needs for some people), but conceding this for sake of argument - how is unconditional rule by the state any more rational than religion? Why is a boss on earth better than a boss in heaven? (At least we can all say our own choice is in line with the boss in heaven; whereas the boss on earth's say is final).

It is one thing to be against religious doctrines and another to be against equality for those who practice them. At present, Britain does not have "secular" law but a law heavily influenced by Christian doctrine. Even a "secular" law would be no better, replacing worship of God with worship of the state. Anarchists are persecuted in virulently secular societies such as Turkey, the old USSR, China, Uzbekistan, Cuba, etc. British "secular" law may not stone anyone as a punishment (this isn't what's meant by shariah law in Britain anyway), but it does permit police to taser or pepper-spray people and to kill with impunity, teachers to use physical assault disguised as "restraint", prison guards and immigration officers to use choke-holds and "pain compliance" holds amounting to torture, people to be subject to psychological torture such as the "control orders" and "asset freezing" regimes, protesters to be physically attacked by police... the list goes on. Is this really more humane, or just the same thing really? Shariah marriage law might be worse for women in some ways but better in others - for example, divorce is a lot easier, and I doubt Muslim leaders would allow men to keep abusing children the way the family court system does.

We cannot ignore that there is a very widespread discourse here which goes along the lines of: "They come over here, demand we respect their religions, speak their own languages, want council literature translated for them, insist on the food they want in hospitals/prisons/etc, put up big ugly mosques (etc) on our skylines, demand we teach their ideas in schools, want to be protected from being insulted..." and who would take all this away: no racial abuse prohibitions, no discrimination laws, no mosques or other non-Christian religious sites, no prayer rooms, no dietary rights, no translated literature, no race awareness training, no multi-religious syllabuses, no time off for prayers, no council funding for minorities, cutting off jobs and benefits to anyone who can't speak English, bans on Burqas and Muslim organisations and Muslim schools and who knows what else... culminating in "ban the Koran" (the Dutch Nazi Wilders, who recently got a chorus of hypocritical support from the newspapers when he was banned from Britain - while bans on Jerry Vlasek, Qaradawi, Farrakhan etc are either ignored or supported), and beyond that, "send em all back" (either "they" live by "our rules" or "get out of our country"). This is what is connoted in the general public by "one law for all", by opposing "special treatment" for minorities.

Sadly, "secular" in a racist, chauvinistic society means, "in line with majority prejudices". Presumably a strictly "secular" law which gave no place to "faith" would not for instance recognise the right of conscientious objection, or religious exceptions such as allowing Sikhs to carry ceremonial knives or to ride motorbikes without helmets. Which would lead to outright persecution and discrimination. And it would extend to activists too - what about the right to vegan food in prison for example, which is clearly an extension by analogy of the religious and conscientious dietary rights of Jews, Muslims, Hindus? Would those now proclaiming "one law for all" really want a system where every prisoner had the same food? What about the similar extension of "special" rights to people with disabilities, the psychologically different, gays and lesbians? (Yes, I think gay rights are threatened more by the homogenising hostility to difference of "one law for all" than the eking out of juridical corners by people who may turn out to be homophobes - nobody is getting stoned by Muslims here; on the other hand, the anti "special treatment" agenda is a huge threat to all minorities).

For that matter: what about the way in which devolution has ruined "one law for all" by giving the Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish their own laws? (Not a spurious point: in Canada, the issue of shariah law is deeply tied up with Quebecois autonomy, as well as with indigenous Nunevut).

I'm inclined to think that, short of the anarchist position of "no law for anyone", the lesser evil would be a world where people could choose which of several sets of laws to be subject to, rather than a world where there's one law for everyone. I don't see any more problem with allowing people to be subject to the rules of a religious community than with any other kind of voluntary association. Of course this raises the problem that the people campaigning for shariah law don't like apostasy very much (though as with many things, there is a reading of Muslim doctrine which permits apostasy). Not an insurmountable obstacle I suspect, in a multicultural, multi-faith society.

Real-world anarchist and decentred societies have never had "one law" but rather, a diffuse web of customs and approaches irreducible to any single standard. Most states, historically, have also not attempted to dominate society so totally that a single state "law" prevails everywhere (they were patchworks of local jurisdictions of different kinds). The modern nation-state is the origin of the idea of a single law, and the modern nation-state is a greedy, almost totalitarian entity which makes excessive demands - "one law" means everyone must serve in the army, everyone must conform to majority (or elite) prejudices, nobody's particularities or needs or desires can get in the way of the "greater good" of state progress, etc.

Is shariah law any better or worse than other kinds of state law? Sadly when people here think of secular state law, they think of the dying norms of liberal democracy and not of Nazi Germany; when people think of shariah law, they think of the extremes to which it has been put politically by power-holders in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, and not of what would actually occur in Britain - which already occurs in Canada and India for example. At present British law discriminates against Muslims - for instance, what basis is there for the state banning polygamy, except Christian doctrine? Why is the state permitted to kill a Hindu temple's holy cow yet ban people from eating dogs and cats? Why are schools allowed to impose clothing choices on children, treating them like little prisoners to be dressed up and put on display in line with the fantasies of the headmaster, and yet an overriding obligation of religious dress is deemed oppressive? Why is the state afraid of women in burqas, yet sees fit to ban women from showing their breasts in public, and both genders from showing their genitals?

Now more than ever (well, more than any time since the 50s), the state is legislating moral preferences into general laws - banning or cracking down anew on begging, swearing, shouting, insulting, protesting, flyposting, shoplifting, graffiti, mini-motos, sex work, cottaging, smoking, street drinking, recreational drug use, sado-masochist images, fare dodging, replica Samurai swords, street racing, sex in public, masking-up, pranks, fireworks, raves, chip fat diesel, loud parties, file sharing, nocturnal lifestyles, duty-free cigarettes, craft knives, littering, nakedness, bikes on the pavement, "extreme" views, swan eating, non-English speakers, people lacking a "shared culture", and anything a council or judge happens to think worthy of an ASBO... this is pure, straightforward moral policing. I read a report recently on Iran's "Revolutionary Guards" cracking down since the election of Ahmadinejad, people with long hair or brightly coloured headwear using backstreets to avoid the risk of being stopped by moral police... it reminds me of nothing more than our own little Hitler "community wardens" picking on vulnerable people for being drunk, having arguments or sleeping rough. Secular China, too, has these moral police, who trump both Britain and Iran for their viciousness - they're regularly caught beating people up for "offences" such as setting up a street stall or dressing improperly. Moral policing is not a monopoly of the religious. (In fact, on close inspection most of what is portrayed as "religious" oppression turns out to be more about ethnic conflict, local power-elites enforcing their dominance, or the enforcement of hypocrisy; at the very least the religious readings underlying atrocities are generally dubious).

It is dangerous to demonise the laws or states of the Other if it lets the laws or states of the Selfsame off the hook. Some Muslims are seeking their own legal system in relation to some matters, because Muslims are facing discrimination in the dominant legal system. Who can blame them? At the same time I can see why it's important to affirm the rights of those (ex-Muslims and modernist Muslims) who want to opt out of any such system. It's hard to balance the rights of both groups, but ultimately necessary - the demand for secularism simply leads to majority dominance.

"Indymedia, judging from the comments and the choice of official stories, has become the playground of extreme New Labour racists- the same people that cheered the Holocaust in Gaza earlier in the year. "

What the FUCK are you on about? If you even look at the indymedia posts from the last few months you will see constant, pro-Palestine coverage, meetings, movements and photos of protests that many indymedia readers attended. Not only that, but indymedia has long been dedicated to fighting the new police state that has been born of New Labour's stupidity, as well as organizing resistance against racists, fascists and tyrants in and out of the political system.
So fuck you 'sickened'- are you just some misguided Guardian-reading Liberalist with your knickers in a twist over 'those anti-anarchos' and at the very least a pathetic arm chair warrior, or a Met troll trying to stir shit?

Either way, grow up or get out.