The following conference has not been officially announced yet, but according to the Uriasposten blog it is being planned by the Judicial Institute at Aarhus University for June 4th.
Sharia law and Danish law: Can Islamic law be implemented in Denmark?
Jørgen Bæk Simonsen: Advantages and possibilities for Sharia in Danish law
Helmut Schledermann: Tolerance without law conflict. In defence of equality before the law.
Maja Holmlund: Problems with sharia in marriage law and children law.
Jens Jørgen Viuff: Problems with sharia in inheritance law.
Source: Uriasposten (Danish)
See also: Netherlands: 'Sharia and European law are based on the same principles', Tilburg: Sharia in Europe symposium
6 comments:
What opportunistic pricks, those great and clever dumb skulls.
It just shows that a University education can seriously damage your Nation's health.
Who pays attention to these processes? If the average voter watches and listens to such arcane debates, what impact will it have on general voting patterns? Will the average person who votes know what this is about, this new dual layer of law, this exceptionalism in law? One might hazard the guess that the answer is "No."
And the import? This: that as the gradual implementation of exceptional law gives the state two classes of people, one subject to national law, the other to sharia, one has two kinds of citizens, one, perhaps native, who are subject to laws others are not, for whom it is illegal to do what the other class or interest may. Thus, in American terms, if I may, not all people are equal, or, as it means in America, equal before the law. No, one might be subject to law, not according to ones universal right to equality simply as ones innate Humanness allows now, and since both the French and American Revolutions, but one will be subject to law according to ones ethnicity, to ones location, to ones religion or lack thereof, or two ones decision to be something else in the face of a law one happens to dislike the obeyance of. Example, if I live with my wife and decide I hate her, I convert to Islam, divorce her on the spot, and pick up four new ones regardless of what my previous laws held to be criminal. And if I wish to risk death for apostacy, then I might convert back again if i get tired of feeding and housing four women rather than one, and so on till I run out of things to offend.
Then perhaps I might demand a new tier of law within, for example, Islam, that allows me to enslave people. Who can argue? It's halal, and what is not haram is halal.
But I'm far enough away here from the more immediate stories of the day to raise the real point: That through ignorance or apathy or stupidity the voter might allow for an exceptionalist legal system, one law for him, one law you you; meaning, dear reader, no law at all but anarchy and privilege. One might vote for (or perhaps not vote but let others vote for,) in effect, a dictatorship of arbitrary law, one brought down by the whim of those who hold the coercive powers of the state. One law for some people, one law for other people, and then a law unto themselves for the rulers, the church, the merchant class, and so on.
Knowing something about the history of France in 1789 the reader will see where I lead. For now, I leave it at that and welcome further input from those like-minded, with, if I have it, Esther's kind permission of course.
I'll get notice from here if there are further comments, or one may write directly at No Dhimmitude.
Hi dag,
You're always welcome to start off discussions here.
About sharia law - it might give some people 'more' rights, but it also means taking away rights from other people (for example: women, children)
Sharia law gives no rights whatsoever. The only rights man has are those he has fought for and achieved. Sharia law is imposed by a theocracy. They enforce their rights. It is feudal.
Esther, thank you for hosting my part in this discussion. I will tread lightly here given the nature of what I wish to discuss, i.e. the legitimacy of a state with two levels of citizens, one native,(i.,e. dhimmi) and one Muslim, and the nature of the response one can legitimately practice as either.
To save us from any future confusion, let me make it clear to begin with that there is only one kind of person, and he is universal Man. That is to say, he is woman, he is Negro, he is anyone at all: not equal in aptitudes or beauty or intelligence, certainly, but equal as man before the law for all regardless of his qualities as a man or lack thereof.
I'm no expert by any means in jurisprudence but even a layman such as I can take it as axiomatic that there is only law legitimately as written and codified so all can be aware of its nature and ones duties, responsibilities, and rights toward it. No legitimate law can arrive ex nihilo nor impromptu; nor can one group enforce a law ex post facto simply due to contingency. Nor can law arrive unannounced after closed and private debate among the privileged. There are numerous ways laws can be laws without being legitimate laws. Governments can be governments as well while being illegitimate ones. We would do well to question such thing in light of our current problems in the Modernity we share with those who seem currently to be doing their utmost to disassemble it.
I ask, much to the dismay of my colleagues, "What is to be Done?"
We face, I believe, a problem in our "multicultural" societies of inequality before the law, some privileged, some not. Multiculturalism is structural, and hence it is positive, even consensual. We voted for the bastards who brought in such discriminatory laws. However, we have done something illegitimate in our societies by doing so. We have, in effect, voted for illegitimacy, voted against our public and private interests as citizens and legitimate residents, and we have violated our previous agreements with ourselves and against universality, upon which our legal systems are based. Not to belabor the point, I believe we have accidentally voted against ourselves and created a hostile government in the majority of Western nations. Further, any concessions to shari'a or to multiculturalism entrench an illegitimacy we should be rooting out.
I write currently from Canada where quasi-judicial bodies are bringing before them numerous private citizens for trials on charges of "discrimination." We are witnessing private citizens acting in conjunction with state employees and, to make this perfectly absurd, their fellow employees in government, bringing charges against lawyers, journalists, bloggers and others under the fuzzy rubric of "hate-speech."
Example: Mark Styne and a national circulation magazine in Canada are held-up for trial by a private citizen who worked as an investigator for the very court hearing the charges. Styne and McCleans magazine are charged with violating hate-speech codes. Styne quoted mullah Krekar in the book, America Alone. Muslims, some of them, in Canada found this to be a case of hate-speech when McCleans Magazine published the excerpted chapter. A non-legal court, a "Human Rights Tribunal" will hear the case and, with a 100 per cent conviction rate as of so far, pass judgment and levy a penalty if there is a conviction.
We must ask: Who voted for this law and the creation of this court? This court has coercive power but no accountability to the public, being a creation of the parties in government-- after the fact. So who does one turn to for legitimate grievance and the abolition of this travesty of common law and natural law? To the voter, of course.
One must go to the voter and tell him to vote against a government that imposed "Human Rights Commissions" on the public. Please, you go first.
Thus it is that shari'a, the Pact of Omar, dhimmitude, and Islamic exceptionalism are brought into our societies by our own hand.
Aeschylus writes of an eagle shot by an arrow; the eagle exclaims: "Thus by our own feathers are we undone."
And I ask you, dear reader, "What is to be done?"
Post a Comment