Even after the foundation of this nation, we still relied on British (English) law as to procedures, definitions, citations (Until we had our own) and all the convolutions which so appeal to judges. Even in the recent "hand-gun decision", some of the arguments presented to the Supreme Court of the USA were those in British law or directly based on such. Why? Because the flow of such a legal system was towards one law for all under it.
The elimination of "benefit of clergy", sanctuary, trial-by-combat and trials before the House of Lords for peers all moved all of the Queen's subjects towards equality under law.
Now, Muslims have their own legal system (Sharia) inflicted on themselves for domestic case (Where Muslim women complaining of mistreatment have few, if any, real rights (Especially with the pro-Sharia cooperation of the Police) and the judgments of Islamic judges enforced by the British courts. Now, Muslim men are effectively beyond the reach of democratically passed domestic-relations laws binding on other British subjects. (Family pressures, with the usual Islamic threats of murder and beating, as well as that of police will insure that women "volunteer" to accept Sharia jurisdiction.)
I do wonder how long it will be before Muslims maintain a legal claim that their Mosques are secure from even warrant-based searches for fugitives and their stores of weapons.
For those in the USA, the Commonwealth and other nations with British based law systems, the degeneration of the UK's law away from "equal justice under law" should be a warning. For the British, it may be a sign that they truly need: A new government; A new Chief Justice; And, a new Archbishop of Canterbury. For the Scots, it may mean that even more serious consideration be given to disunion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment