Douglas Murray: the Bravest Man in Britain?
Sometimes, in my cheerier moments, I like to joke with my friend (and Radio Free Delingpole podcast regular) Douglas Murray about which of us is going to be assassinated first. Will it be me, courtesy of the Enviro Loons? Or Douglas courtesy of our charming bearded friends from the Religion of Peace (TM)?
Douglas's work at the Henry Jackson Society - and before that at the Centre for Social Cohesion - has made him an obvious target because (though still barely in his thirties) he has become one of the world's greatest experts on the threat posed to Western society by political Islam. He understands, as so many do not, that terrorism is only part of the problem. Far more dangerous - because more insidious and less well acknowledged - is political Islam's subversion and exploitation of Western liberal traditions and values. For example, the fact that there are now 82 sharia courts known to be operating in Britain - even if they currently only deal with civil matters - make a nonsense of the traditional notion that every citizen is equal before the law. Not if you're a member of the "Muslim community," you're not.
Anyway, have a look at the second photograph down on this blogpost at Harry's Place (a picture I'd put up on this page to make things easier for you if I knew how to work the technology). The guy on the left is Douglas, the guy on the right is a rabble-rouser called Anjem Choudary. But the one to look at is the young, sweet-looking guy in the white just next to Choudary. His name is Mohammed Chowdhury, 21, and he was the ringleader of the latest terror plot uncovered in Britain - a plan to bomb the London Stock Exchange.
As I complain in my Telegraph blog, there's a worrying complacency in Europe - and indeed in liberal circles in the US too - about the menace posed by Islamism. We owe our thanks to brave men like Douglas (and his friends Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders - not to mention, of course, the great Mark Steyn) for risking their lives to tell it like it really is.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Douglas Murray: the Bravest Man in Britain?
I'm afraid Mr Murray is at far greater risk.
Mr Obama, of course, is following Europe's complacency on Islamism. The US politician, or at least remaining Presidential candidate, who is least complacent about this is Mr Santorum - one more reason to support him, I think.
May '10
Re: Douglas Murray: the Bravest Man in Britain?
You won't find anyone as blunt about this subject as Lt. Col. Allen West.
Justice can't exist without truth. Our governments can't be restored to sanity while political correctness goes unchallenged.
Dec '10
Re: Douglas Murray: the Bravest Man in Britain?
The greenie weenies won't assassinate you because they're afraid of how many green house gasses your corpse will give off while decomposing.
Re: Douglas Murray: the Bravest Man in Britain?
A few queries, James, about those 82 sharia courts already operating in Britain: Are they doing so with some sort of official sanction? That is to say, does the Home Office recognize them? Or do they operate purely on their own, representing, as it were, a black market in the administration of justice? Do you know--does anyone know--how many sharia courts are operating in France? Or in Spain? Or whether, for that matter, any are operating here in the United States?
Aug '10
Re: Douglas Murray: the Bravest Man in Britain?
I wondered that as well. Unless they are officially recognized, you can't really say they are making "nonsense of the traditional notion that every citizen is equal before the law", even if they are socially damaging.
Anarcho-capitalist libertarians might object, saying there's no reason for a government monopoly on courts of justice if private consenting parties contract out to alternative institutions. There's precedent for this, in the contract clauses that say all disputes will be solved by arbitration, or establishing jurisdiction under a specific state's law, or churches who define property ownership by orthodoxy.
The question is whether a black market in justice is as necessary as the black markets in commodities and consumer goods, which arise as a result of government restrictions. Is there a good conservative argument against private civil justice systems? (I think there is, but I wonder what others think.)
Mar '11
Re: Douglas Murray: the Bravest Man in Britain?
If I remember rightly, James covered this in some detail in a previous podcast with Mr Murray - I think it was this one. I forget the details, but I remember that Mr Murray explained it very well - in essence the courts have some official sanction, including, most (in)famously, by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Update: Mr Murray at his best, here.
Edited on February 2, 2012 at 11:14pmJul '11
Re: Douglas Murray: the Bravest Man in Britain?
He is a hero whom I hope does not end up a martyr in his battle vs the necromongers.
No sharia here in my country, ever. We cannot go the way of Britain.
Dec '10
Re: Douglas Murray: the Bravest Man in Britain?
I have read elsewhere (I believe it was on Mark Steyn's website) that they are recognized by the British government as official civil courts, to deal with contract law, finance, tort, liability, questions of marriage, and other family matters, but not criminal law (not currently at least).
The thing that people who are ringing this bell are trying to alert everyone to is that the Sharia proponents do not want to and will not stop at just civil matters.
They have gone on record in both print and video stating that what they are after is a complete (civil & criminal) Sharia system of justice that runs along side of (but is unaccountable to) the traditional justice system in Britain. Their ultimate aim is to supplant the traditional justice system entirely, forcing everyone into the Sharia system whether they are Muslim or not.
Continued . . .
Edited on February 3, 2012 at 1:15amDec '10
Re: Douglas Murray: the Bravest Man in Britain?
For those of you saying that Sharia in civil matters is fine, remember that by Sharia, Muslims are not bound to honor contracts made with Infidels. Unenforceable contracts are worse than useless, as they undermine the faith in law that commerce requires.
Remember that, when you go to sign on the Sharia Compliant dotted line.
EDIT: I knew I should have kept that >200 word trick to myself. Now they've fixed it and made it impossible to edit a post that's nearly at the word limit.
Aug '11
Re: Douglas Murray: the Bravest Man in Britain?
In New York (and doubtless elsewhere) rabbinical courts can make decisions on disputes about contracts and torts which have the force of civil court decisions, provided that the parties to the dispute have said in the contract that disputes will be decided by the rabbinical court, or after the dispute has arisen the parties agree to let the rabbinical court decide it. Sharia courts would be accorded the same rights; the matter would be treated as one of arbitration.
It's wrong to suggest that this is inequality before the law, as the parties have to agree to it. The principle that the parties involved have a right to choose the law that will apply to the case is a well-established principle of American law. It does not apply to criminal matters or divorce, however.
Dec '10
Re: Douglas Murray: the Bravest Man in Britain?
That's in the US.
However, that is NOT what the pro-Sharia folks in the UK have in mind.
I wouldn't really care about the voluntary arbitration part, if not for the "free pass to screw the infidels" thing.
If the Jews in question have a similar clause in their rabbinical law (wherein gentiles are not afforded the same rights of enforcement as Jews would be), I'd be awful wary of dealing with them too.
Codifying a two class system where some people have more rights in a dispute than others in the exact same position is a very bad idea.
Contract law is already on shaky ground in the US, given all the damage done since Jug Ears™ landed on the scene (and before too, he's not the only guilty party there). The last thing we need is another hitch in our contract law giddy-up.
Sep '11
Re: Douglas Murray: the Bravest Man in Britain?
In UK law the parties to a civil dispute may agree to have it resolved outside the courts through arbitration, and the arbitrator's award will be enforced by the courts as if it were a court judgment. This is a common feature of commercial contracts. A religious court (Muslim or Jewish) counts as an arbitration. If the parties agree to go to a sharia "court", the award will be enforceable.
There is an express exception for matrimonial disputes, divorce, custody of children, etc. However, the family courts encourage mediation and reaching agreement, and will normally rubber stamp a consent order unless it looks fishy. Women and children are very vulnerable in this situation.
So there is a real problem with sharia courts in the UK but it's hard to see what can be done except educate women not to sign away their rights. There is an organisation campaigning energetically on the issue called One Law For All, but unfortunately their politics are a rather old-fashioned leftism which limits their effectiveness. I've heard Douglas Murray speak on their platform. If he's reading this, I'd love to hear his thoughts on the way forward.