It's a free country - part 2

Shawn Holes is an American who, like a lot of Americans , happens to be a practising Christian. In his case it is a particularly muscular brand of Christianity that he practises, involving street preaching and proselytising.
Unfortunately, nobody told Shawn that, in today's United Kingdom, such activities can get you into an awful lot of trouble.
Around two weeks ago, Shawn was in Glasgow with a group of fellow evangelists when he was arrested under one of the plethora of hate laws introduced since 1997. His crime? He was preaching to a crowd in a Glasgow street and quoted from St Luke's Gospel to answer a query about the biblical attitude to homosexuality. This is how he describes what happened:

"On March 18Th I was arrested while preaching the
Gospel in downtown Glasgow Scotland. I spent a horrible night in jail and
all I can say is that it was just miserable. Too many details from this
specific incident occurred for me to list here. I will say however that
what it came down to was that two people were supposedly offended when I said
that homosexuality is a sin against Jesus, therefore the arrest. I was given two options:
1- plead guilty to some really trumped up charges and
possibly pay a small fine of hopefully only 50 pounds or so and go home by
Monday as planned or
2- plead not guilty and have to spend up to 8 weeks
waiting for the trial NOT being allowed to leave the country with no guarentee (sic)
of winning the case.
I chose option number one. Big bummer though. The
fine was 1000 pounds. Thats (sic)1600 US dollars."

As far as the police were concerned, Shawn's mistake was in asserting that homosexuality is a sin. They were wrong. Shawn's real mistake was in assuming that, because freedom of expression had been central to our existence for at least the last couple of centuries, that this still held good today. Whatever the cause of this misapprehension, it cost both him and us dear. Shawn is financially and spiritually out of pocket. But, we have taken another significant step along the road to moral bankruptcy.

The bunch of fascistic pygmies who currently hold sway over us has made it its business to silence anyone who regards homosexuality as anything other than a completely natural state of being. Actually, what they have done and continue to do, thanks to Harriet Harman's upcoming equality bill, is create a whole raft of lifestyles and belief systems that are protected from comment or opinion, or at least any comment or opinion that does not conform to their narrow world view. They are unable - or unwilling - to understand that suppressing and criminalising opinions is more discriminatory and prejudicial than anything that Shawn and his ilk could ever do or say.

The professional atheist, Richard Dawkins, has a whole website dedicated to promulgating his beliefs. Every day he mocks anyone who believes in God, whatever form that God or belief might take. He does the same in print, on the radio and television and in public and invites his readers and listeners to share his dislike. In its own way, Dawkin's atheism has much in common with the religious fervour of the more extreme religious proselytisers.

As far as I know, he has yet to be arrested for preaching hatred. Which is as it should be. Every opinion is valid and every belief system has some merit, for the simple reason that there is always someone capable of testing or disputing their veracity. 20 years ago, had anyone proposed a law under which a completely innocent, law-abiding visitor to the UK could be threatened with gaol simply for expressing an opinion they would, rightly, have been laughed out of court by the liberal establishment.

Orchestrating the laughter would have been the likes of Jack Straw, Gordon Brown, Tony and Cherie Blair and Harriet Harman - the same bunch of chancers that has done so much to undermine our democracy and create a country completely alien to people raised on the ideal of a free society.

Arch idiot of canterbury

Somewhat after the Lord mayor's Show, this is my take on the ArchBishop of Canterbury and his view that some form of Sharia law is inevitable in Great Britain, despite it leading, in effect, to a parallel justice system.
First of all, let's dispel any idea that this was the kind of vacuous theorising beloved of certain kinds of unworldly, intellectual academic. To papraphrase C.J from the Rise and Fall of Reginal Perrin, Rowan Williams didn't get where he is today by being an unwordly naif. Even in an increasingly secular British society, the position he occupies is important, visible and highly political . For God's sake ( literally) he is not only the leader of the Church of England but the spiritual head of the Anglican church globally. to whom millions of people around the world look for spiritual sustenance and leadership. Nobody gets appointed to this position without a finely-tuned political radar.
So, if he isn't naive and unworldly, what was his motive for saying what he did? Could he really believe that there is a case for certain parts of Britain to adopt Sharia law? If he does, he obviously doesn't have Kensington and Chelsea in mind.
But, should the citizens of Bradford, Burnley, Tower Hamlets and other points east really be encouraged to adopt a legal system that is so at odds with the British one? Does he really think that this would encourage integration, that itwould stop at informal courts dealing solely with matters of marriage, divorce and family? All the evidence point in the opposite direction. Experience over the last decade indicates that, once one elementt of Moslem practice is accepted as the norm ( such as women being allowed to wear the equivalent of a pillar box while giving vidence in court) then it is rapidly used as the thin end of a very large wedge.
Dr. Williams' intervention at this juncture has been timed, I believe, to give that wedge another shove into the gap first created by the Burkha- clad women. He has often spoken of his admiration for certain aspects of Sharia law and the Moslem religion generally. Now, he is simply expressing that admiration in a more practical way. Because, with his lecture he has lit a bonfire that will never die down. The germ of an idea will , by constant repetition and rehearsal of the argument, mutate into something altogether stronger.
Given the alchohol-fuelled assault currently being carried out on our society by gangs of youths with no education, no family background, no respect and absolutely zero prospects, some people find the kind of direct action encapsulated in Sharia very appealing. There are some young scrotes living in my neck of the woods that would probably benefit from the removal of a hand or two ( only joking!). But, if we as a society decide we need is stronger policing and more robust treatment of offenders, it's up to us to demand that we get them; either by badgering our current crop of politicians or, if that fails, by voting them out of office at the next oportunity.
What we do not need is the introduction, even on a limited scale, of an alien system of law and philosophy that treats women as chattels to be bartered in marriage or bondage;that demands the death penalty for anyone who decides that he or she no longer believes in God or the Prophet and that regards all members of other faiths as inferior and treats them accordingly. Were we to allow it, even on a limited basis, the day would one day arrive when the ArchBishop of Canterbury - either the present incumbent or a successor - would become a second-class citizen in his own country. If you don't belive me, look at Egypt and similar middle Eastern countries where Christianity has been established for almost 2000 years and where Christians are now systematically violated in the holy name of Allah and Sharia law.