EHF President's speech at One Law for All rally against Sharia Law
A rally was organised by One Law for All in Hyde Park, London, on 21 November 2009 to protest at the iniquities of sharia (Islamic religious) law and its infiltration into European Muslim communities. Among many other speakers was David Pollock, president of the EHF, who said:
Why are we against sharia law?
For the same reason that centuries ago our ancestors in Britain were against ecclesiastical courts intruding into secular affairs. Church courts used to determine all matters of marriage and legitimacy, wills and inheritance of property - and this wasn’t finally eliminated until 150 years ago! And they operated as a parallel system to the secular courts - “benefit of clergy” gave a soft ride to criminals in cassocks.
Today, ecclesiastical courts, though still tangled with the state by reason of the out-of-date institution of establishment, are confined to internal matters of the Church of England.
But sharia courts seek to provide a parallel legal system. Just like the mediaeval church courts, these informal bodies are concerned with marriage and legitimacy, wills and inheritance of property. And they show signs of straying into child custody and even criminal matters.
Why does this matter?
I’ll offer you just two reasons.
1: Because religious law is not rational or democratic or open to revision.
Sharia law is based on the religious views of dwellers in the desert and oasis towns of 7th century Arabia. It is eternal, unquestionable and dedicated to theology, not humanity.
2: Because arguments for sharia law are based on the concept of group rights. And group rights are inherently hostile to human rights.
Human rights belong to individual humans. Group rights subordinate the individual to the interests of the group - and the interests of the group are determined by the typically conservative and invariably male so-called “community leaders” - of the sort the British Government loves to consult.
Islamist leaders across the world are having alarming success in promoting the notion that Muslims - who in this country (as poll after poll shows) are predominantly liberal minded and democratic - owe a political as well as a religious loyalty to their religion and its spokesmen.
Islamic states have time and again got resolutions adopted in the United Nations Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly demanding that so-called defamation of religion be treated as an abuse of human rights - even criminalised. They have done it again in the General Assembly just a few days ago.
Why? Well, partly of course just to assert themselves politically against the western democracies. But while they talk about Islamophobia and the Danish cartoons, their real targets are usually their own followers.
It is other Muslims who end up being charged with blasphemy because they dare to think for themselves.
It is other Muslims who are sentenced to death for changing their religion.
That is the problem with group rights. Group rights put the individual second - a poor second - to the interests of the group as determined by its religious leaders. They are a way of keeping people in line.
Sanction group rights and you abandon to persecution any but the strict conformist. So much for freedom of religion or freedom of expression. And so much for the freedom of women - the half of humankind who always lose out where religion has power.
We must not allow sharia law to take root in Britain or anywhere in Europe. So, more strength to the secular Muslims and to the ex-Muslims and their marvellous leaders, like the untiring, brave Maryam Namazie here.
One law for all!