Nigel Farage dramatically quits UKIP because of Tommy Robinson and the party’s supposed obsession with Islam

Nigel Farage MEP one of the founding members of UKIP has decided to leave UKIP over the recent appointment of Tommy Robinson and what he sees as the party’s obsession with Islam.

 

 

Nigel Farage decided to announce his decision on the “Farage Show” on LBC today.

 

The former leader of UKIP, Farage aired his disappointment with what he claims is an “obsession” with Tommy Robinson and Islam whilst Gerrard Batten has been the leader of UKIP, Batten recently employed Tommy Robinson as an advisor on Sexual Grooming Gangs & Prison Reform.

 

 

Nigel Farage has been the leader of UKIP on three separate occasions, and arguably caused the referendum on Britain’s membership of he European Union. He said: “Over the course of the last few months, he seems to be pretty obsessed with Islam. UKIP wasn’t founded to be a party based on fighting a religious crusade.”

 

 

UKIP has evolved and Farage unfortunately has not evolved with the party. His political views are undeniably libertarian in principle and UKIP has moved towards a more populist-conservative philosophy.

 

Where will Farage go? Libertarian Party? Conservative Party? Maybe even attempt to form his own party?

 

More to follow.

 

 

TO HELP US ACHIEVE OUR AIMS AND OBJECTIVES YOU CAN DONATE TO BNN NEWS VIA OUR PAYPAL PAGE; PAYPAL.ME/PPPM

 

© 2018 BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ARTICLES PRINTED HERE DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE EDITORS OR OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. NO PART OF THE BRITISH NEWS NETWORK OR ANY OF ITS CONTENTS MAY BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR MODIFIED, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK.

 

Avi Yemini leads vigil in Melbourne, Australia in honour of the victims of Islamic Terror and confidently cries: “We didn’t ask for this war, this war was called upon us 1400 years ago!”

Controversial political commentator and activist Avi Yemini led a vigil in honour of the victims of Islamic terrorism in light of the attack in Melbourne, Australia and confidently said: “We didn’t ask for this war, this war was called upon us 1400 years ago!”

 

Avi, used a live feed from Facebook to share the event around the world.

 

 

Below is another video of the same event posted on Youtube. 

 

 

 

 

The vigil opened with the Australian national anthem being played aloud, followed by Avi Yemini speaking regarding the Islamic terror attack and then Avi handed the microphone to Debbie Robinson the President of the Australian Liberty Alliance then other figures from within the ALA took to the mic.

 

 

Avi Yemini was born in Melbourne, Australia in a very large orthodox Jewish family, he served for the IDF in Israel, he is now a prominent Australian political commentator and activist, and also is an active member of the Australia Liberty Alliance.

 

 

Before Avi Yemini passed the microphone to Debbie Robinson, he blasted: “We need people who are willing to stand up and fight because we are at war! We didn’t ask for this war, this war was called upon us 1400 years ago!” 

 

 

One thing for certain is we definitely did not ask for innocent civilians and unarmed soldiers to be murdered in the name of militant Islam on our streets using Western government foreign policy as premise for their barbarism.   

 

 

It is time to get tough on radical Islamic terror and educate people on the dangers on the literalistic interpretation of the Quranic scripture. 

 

 

TO HELP US ACHIEVE OUR AIMS AND OBJECTIVES YOU CAN DONATE TO BNN NEWS VIA OUR PAYPAL PAGE; PAYPAL.ME/PPPM

 

 

 

 © 2018 BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ARTICLES PRINTED HERE DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE EDITORS OR OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. NO PART OF THE BRITISH NEWS NETWORK OR ANY OF ITS CONTENTS MAY BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR MODIFIED, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK.

Tommy Robinson blasts mainstream media establishment for portraying his views as “far right” without any evidence to substantiate their claims

Tommy Robinson has claimed that mainstream media outlets are branding him “far-right” without any evidence and has claimed if the “silver spoon” journalists studied and researched Islamic scripture and about their prophet they would agree with him.   

 

Recently Sky News reportedly took down an interview over claims they were “spreading false headlines across the world” in the words of Tommy Robinson. 

 

The journalist and political activist Tommy Robinson also said: “Islam is not a race and it is more than a religion, it is a political ideology.” Is there merit to Mr. Robinson’s words? Across the globe many hard-line Islamic states use the literal interpenetration of Islam and Shariah Law to institute the total domination of Islam. 

 

Is Islam compatible with Western-style democracy?

 

Islam was developed in the Middle and Dark ages, the political philosophy generally imitates tremendously authoritarian regimes.   

 

Theologically, the structure is usually based on hierarchy with absolute authority to god, there is no separation between mosque and state. Religion undeniably plays a pivotal role in politics in Islamic countries.    

 

Undeniably, Islam is not structurally, politically or even culturally compatible with any kind of democracy. Never mind Western-style democracy.    

 

Tommy Robinson’s official Facebook account: 

 

“There is a coordinated effort by all the fake news media outlets to somehow brand my views as far right without supplying any evidence for their claim. The Army issued statement about not aligning with far-right ideology again implying I am far right.”

“Islam is not a race and it is more than a religion, it is a political ideology. I have issues with elements within that ideology that are homophobic, misogynist, violent and impose restrictions on freedom of choice and freedom of speech. There is no other scripture in Britain in 2018 where people follow the scripture literally and commit terrorism or mass murder.”

“I have fairly central views, have not mentioned race in any form in over 10 years of activism. You can criticise any other religion or political ideology in the world freely but if you rightly call out issues within Islam there is this establishment campaign to call you ‘far right’. Its as though because this particular ideology originates in the middle east then you are not allowed to criticise it??”

“If any of you Fake news silver spoon journalists actually studied and researched Islamic scripture and the life of Mohammed you would end up agreeing with me instead of being so ignorant and virtue signalling at every opportunity.”

“People see through this establishment ploy. Together we are stronger.”

 

Whether you love or loathe Tommy Robinson his right to free-speech should not be diminished for simply having views on a religion/ideology that is not even compatible with the the law of the land or the Western-style democracy we are governed by.   

 

 

TO HELP US ACHIEVE OUR AIMS AND OBJECTIVES YOU CAN DONATE TO BNN NEWS VIA OUR PAYPAL PAGE; PAYPAL.ME/PPPM

 

 

 © 2018 BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ARTICLES PRINTED HERE DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE EDITORS OR OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. NO PART OF THE BRITISH NEWS NETWORK OR ANY OF ITS CONTENTS MAY BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR MODIFIED, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK.

BREAKING: Algerian man cries “Allahu Akbar” as he attempts a knife frenzy at a police station in Barcelona

A knife-man which has been reported to be of Algerian descent has attempted to stab a police officer whilst screaming “Allahu Akbar” in Barcelona, Spain before being shot dead. 

 

The all to familiar type of terror attack took place at 6am this morning, with the have-a-go terrorist entering the police station with a knife. 

 

The media in Spain have named him as Abdelouahab Taib, 29.

 

The station has been closed down for the time being. 

 

 

The police in Catlonia known as Mossos, took to Twitter to explain;  “A man armed with a gun has accessed this morning to the Cornellà police station in order to attack the officers. The aggressor has been shot down.”

 

 

Reportedly a neighbour went on to explain that the terror suspects girlfriend hastily converted to Islam not long after they became a couple, they said; “Right away we saw her with a veil and the truth is that she surprised us”. 

 

More to follow. 

 

 

© 2018 BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ARTICLES PRINTED HERE DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE EDITORS OR OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. NO PART OF THE BRITISH NEWS NETWORK OR ANY OF ITS CONTENTS MAY BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR MODIFIED, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK.

59% of Brits support a ban on the burka, according to a Sky Data poll

A poll was conduced by Sky Data which revealed that 59% of the British public support a complete ban on the burka in public places in the United Kingdom. 

 

Only 26% would not support this ban. 

There was another poll back in 2016 conducted by YouGov that showed 57% of the British public would like to see a ban on the burka and only 25% were not in favour. 

How can anyone deny that this reveals that the mainstream media narrative and the establishments political correctness is not supported by the public. Even mainstream polls show us that people in this country do not generally find Bojo’s comments racist and it goes further to reveal that Brits generally want a ban on the burka.

What did Boris Johnson say about the Burka?

Boris wrote a piece in the Daily Telegraph, he wrote; ‘If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. ‘If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree – and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran.

‘I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes.’

But he is seemingly against a total ban on the burkha claiming it would cause a clash of civilisations between the West and Islam. 

Boris Johnson’s comments have sparked nationwide debate around the burka and political correctness which can only be a good thing considering the likes of Austria, Denmark, Belgium and France have laws regarding bans on the burka. Who knows? Maybe all this controversy and charm from Boris could lead to the leadership challenge the Tory Party so desperately needs? 

 

 

© 2018 BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ARTICLES PRINTED HERE DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE EDITORS OR OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. NO PART OF THE BRITISH NEWS NETWORK OR ANY OF ITS CONTENTS MAY BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR MODIFIED, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK.

 

 

Poll: 88% of French would like to see Salafist Islam banned

A brand new poll which was released today reveals that 88% of the French public would like to see radical Salafist Islam completely banned.

Muslims that adhere to Salafist teachings and practises are followers of an extremely conservative branch of Islam. The ultra-conservative branch has been touted as the “the fastest-growing Islamic movement in Europe” And to no ones surprise they are one of the biggest backers of Shariah Law.

The poll was conducted by Odoxo company in the aftermath of a cowardly attack from Radical Islamic terrorists which sadly caused the tragic death of four people and even went as far as to injure another fifteen people and obviously this has led to the silent majority in France wanting French President Emmanuel Macron to stamp out terrorism.

The people in France have simply had enough of Islamic terror on their streets and it showed in the poll where 87% would like to see suspects of religious radicalisation placed in detention centres to prevent terror, and  88% of French want the ultra-conservative branch of Islam banned altogether.

In another poll conducted by Elabe 80% claimed they would like to see the deportation of any foreign nationals who were radical extremists.

The poll also revealed other things like half of the French electorate thinking French President Macron isn’t properly tackling the terror his country faces.

Marine Le Pen the former French Presidential candidate, and  Laurent Wauquiez a prominent conservative leader have in the past demanded anybody on the French  terror watch list called the ‘S-list’ for suspected be immediately thrown out of France.

Reportedly their are well over 20,000 people on the “S-list” in France.

There is absolutely no social cohesion, just segregation and forced integration which causes immeasurably ruination to Western and European society and culture. The ordinary people all around the Western world have become tired and frustrated of near constant Radical Islamic terrorist attacks, grooming gangs and the creeping Islamization in places like France.

 

© 2018 BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ARTICLES PRINTED HERE DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE EDITORS OR OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. NO PART OF THE BRITISH NEWS NETWORK OR ANY OF ITS CONTENTS MAY BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR MODIFIED, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK.

 

WATCH: UKIP’s Lord Pearson interviewed by Tommy Robinson

Malcolm Pearson, Baron Pearson of Rannoch, is one of several UKIP peers that holds a seat in the House of Lords and is even led UKIP for a short time, he spoke out against the Telford grooming gang crisis. He demanded the government respond to his question of if they would push Muslim leaders to answer whether or not  this behaviour is sanctioned in Quran, the Islamic holy book. And also asked whether or not they would ask Muslim leaders to put out a fatwa against the vile abuse of children.

He also questioned the government on a proposal of discussing the many forms of Islam and if it was still possible to  “without being accused of hate crime?”.

 

Not long after, Lord Pearson was interviewed by Tommy Robinson. While being interviewed he attacked the House of Lords as being “Europhile” and “Islamophile” and also went to to claim that peers are completely disconnected from normal people.

Lord Pearon also went to say “Racism is idiotic in this context, because Islam is in every race on the planet so, it isn’t racism whatever else it is.”

It’s always refreshing to know there is a one or two peers that are prepared to represent the voices of millions of disenfranchised working class British people, that live in constant fear of being labelled a racist for pointing out failings within a barbaric third-world ideology when it’s taken in it’s literal interpretation.

© Patriotic People’s Populist Media 2018.

Afghani Asylum-Seeker who promised to ‘drive a car into a crowd of white people’ spared prison

A radical Islamist man promised to carry out a terror attack by ramming a car into a large group of white people before subsequently going on a knife-attack was spared from a custodial sentence yesterday.

Ruzykhan Sayadi, from Southfield Park, Bartlemas Close, Oxford, denied the count of racially aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

During Sayadi’s trial, which was held at Oxford Crown Court between the dates of January 24th and January 26th, the beginning of this year.reportedly the jury took seven hours and one minute to find the radical extremist guilty by a majority.

As the vile extremist was sentenced, in the court they were told how the 23-year old Afghani asylum seeker was burdened with a long-standing debt.

Ruzykhan Sayadi grew very frustrated with the immigration services, who has been dealing with his asylum claim for many years.

August the previous year, it was heard in court, his anger and frustration had got to immeasurably level when he visited Citizens Advice Bureau in Oxford for financial advice about his ‘considerable debt’ he found himself in.

The Afghani wannabe terrorist was present for a 2pm appointment at CA, who was named in court as Hasan Malik, before too long Sayadi became very angry and starting blasting threats and racial violence.

During his sentencing, Judge Ian Pringle QC stated:

“You became more and more frustrated about the situation you were in, the lack of asylum status you had.

“You began to express to Mr Malik that you had been patient for a long time and started to talk about carrying out a violent attack.

“Maybe with a knife, maybe with a car that you would drive into a crowd, and concentrating on white people.

“Mr Malik said that you had sworn in a mosque that you would do that.”

It was reported in the courtroom that specialist police were contacted about the threats to commit terror acts, but not really a lot come of it, the Afghani was later charged with a count of harassment.

Sayadi’s lawyer,  Peter Du Feu claimed that the Afghani had become very frustrated with his asylum status but was committed to a life in the UK.

Peter Du Feu stated: “He is in a pretty low state at the moment.

“He is really at a low point because of his determination to achieve asylum status in this country.”

During sentencing the judge,  Judge Ian Pringle QC stated:  “You do need some assistance and some change if you are going to establish yourself as a lawful citizen of this country in due course.”

The potential terrorist was handed a lenient community order for eighteen months and it includes a rehabilitation activity requirement for 20 days and he must attend a Resolve programme. He also must stick to a daily curfew staying at his house between 7pm and 7am also he must pay a fine.

Imagine if the Afghani potential terrorist was a working class British lad in the job centre kicking off and screaming about running over people from another faith or attacking innocent immigrants with knives?

 

Non-Indigenous, UK-Born Radical Islamic, Islamic State Terrorists ‘THE BEATLES’ Are Captured In Syria, By US-Backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)

They were reportedly involved in beheading over 27 hostages. The last couple of ‘THE BEATLES’ radical Islamic terrorists have been captured by US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Non-Indigenous British-born jihad’s El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Amon Kotey who were reportedly connected to ‘Jihadi John’ were captured in eastern Syria.

The cowardly Islamic State terrorists have reportedly handed over vital information about the Islamic State leadership but they could still end up being thrown into Guantanamo Bay for many years to come.

Gavin Williamson the Secretary of State for Defence said:  “These are people who have done absolutely vile and despicable crimes and brought absolutely so much misery. It is good that they have been hunted down and caught.”

We can’t underestimate the threat we face from the radical fifth-column living among us conspiring to commit vile acts of terror on our shores and to our people, we must not allow our compassion imperil our security as a nation.

Shock & Awe: British Government Investigation Into Sharia Law Admits Methodical Discrimination Against Women, Untold Number Of ‘Councils’, Victim Of Forced Marriage Made To Appear With Abusers

An independent review into the application and sorry state of Sharia law in the UK lets us know that the British government don’t even know how many Sharia law councils are in existence in England & Wales, finally they admit to the methodical Qur’an endorsed discrimination of women, one victim of forced marriage being asked to sit with her family, “inappropriate” appropriation of civil legal terms used.

 

The review  which is called ‘The independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales’ – Some were critical of the religious outlook on the problem. Born in Pakistan and Professor of Islamic and Inter-religious Studies at the University of Edinburgh Mona Siddiqui,  Imam Qari Muhammad Asim MBE and Imam Sayed Ali Abbas Razawi were placed in the panel and on the board of advisor’s. Some of the other members included Sam Momtaz QC, Anne-Marie Hutchinson OBE QC (Hon), and Sir Mark Hedley DL.

Women’s rights groups describe the review as a “inappropriate theological approach”, the review goes on to advocate Islamic marriage into civil law, and the other way round, this is so that vulnerable Muslim women don’t feel like they can only start divorce proceedings through Sharia law and councils. The review almost exclusively focuses on divorce.

The report shockingly makes the admission:

 “The exact number of sharia councils operating in England and Wales is unknown. Academic and anecdotal estimates vary from 30 to 85. The review has identified 10 councils operating with an online presence. The sharia councils identified by the review were mostly in urban centres with significant Muslim populations, such as London, Birmingham, Bradford and Dewsbury.”

The review investigators make another admission they did not witness any Sharia council legal work or process:

 “The review panel did not observe first hand either the councils’ process for obtaining information from the individuals seeking their assistance or the decision-making process used by the councils.”

Arguably, the prime focus of the review was to float the idea of “linking Islamic marriage to civil marriage” to make sure “that a greater number of women will have the full protection afforded to them in family law and they will face less discriminatory practices. This will be a positive move aimed at giving women maximum rights should the marriage end in divorce”.

This would mean we would need to alter the Marriage Act 1949 and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, “to ensure that civil marriages are conducted before or at the same time as the Islamic marriage ceremony, bringing Islamic marriage in line with Christian and Jewish marriage in the eyes of the law”.

Even though they admitted men are regarded and treated better in Sharia councils, the review said that system should remain the same but be ‘self-regulated’ by Imams.

  1. It could invite, encourage or even urge sharia councils to adopt a system of uniform self-regulation.
  2. The state could provide a system of regulation for sharia councils to adopt and then to self-regulate.
  3. It could impose such a system and provide an enforcement agency similar to OFSTED. However, proportionality is not the only issue. Just as the state does not confer legitimacy on the Beth Din or on Catholic tribunals by seeking to regulate them, the state may be reluctant to regulate sharia councils. That raises a dilemma: either the state withholds further intervention or it risks intervention being perceived as conferring legitimacy upon sharia councils and thereby creating a parallel legal system.

Despite the difficulties, we have concluded that intervention/regulation carries more advantage than no intervention.

It is a great advantage to be a man in a Sharia council because of how easily they can obtain divorce compared to women, the review talks about slowing down this problem not destroying it, British law should rule superior over Islamic law and a man should not simply be allowed to shout ‘Talaq’ several times in his wives face to secure a Sharia council backed divorce.

Men seeking an Islamic divorce have the option of ‘talaq’, a form of unilateral divorce that they can issue themselves. Women do not have this option, unless inserted as a term in the marriage contract (which varies from school to school) and therefore have to seek a ‘khula’ or ‘faskh’ from a sharia council.

The report went on to state: “that in some instances, during khula divorces, women were asked to make some financial concessions to their husband in order to secure the divorce”. So women are literally being forced into financially blackmailing their husbands for a divorce, how disgusting!

types-of-divorce.jpg

The review should of heavily criticised these vile practises, but instead it will seek to create “a body by the state with a code of practice for sharia councils to accept and implement. This body would include both sharia council panel members and specialist family lawyers. This body could go on to monitor and audit compliance of the code of practice.”

It also contains a very sinister message that the left-wing politicians and political activists have always denied and called nonsense. that “[t]he primary and underlying principle of sharia councils is the application of sharia law”, the government seems to be either complicit or blissfully unaware of the spread and seriousness of Sharia law in this country and the dangers it brings to communities like those affected by Islamic No-Go zones in particular.

The most well established sharia councils in England and Wales have been in existence since the 1980s. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the numbers of sharia councils in England and Wales has increased in the last 10 years.

The report also scarily floats the idea of effectively handing quasi-legal status to Sharia councils and law:

Such regulation will indeed endorse and add legitimacy to the perception of the existence of a parallel legal system whilst the outcomes of the sharia council processes in terms of religious divorces have no standing in civil law.

The problem with advocating this is the review showed us a misinterpretation of British law:

The sharia councils that were visited all had a very loose definition of mediation. In all cases there appeared to be confusion between mediation and what is in effect reconciliation counselling. All councils visited within the context of the review made provision for reconciliation counselling at the commencement of the process. The reconciliation was invariably described as ‘mediation’ when it is clearly not.

Save for one individual, the review found that those conducting the mediation at sharia councils have not received mainstream training from the recognised mediation organisations, nor was there any evidence of accreditation. The sharia councils appear to use the term mediation in a much looser sense than that of the highly trained and accredited mediators practicing in family law.

The author added:

The creation of state endorsed regulation sends the message that certain groups have separate and distinct needs and further that sharia councils are an appropriate forum for resolution of their family law disputes. In short it would perpetuate the myth of separateness of certain groups. The acceptance of the premise that sharia councils only deal with, engage in or touch upon the dissolution of the religious marriage aspect of the dispute is naïve and unrealistic. In any family law or relationship dispute the issues are multi-faceted. Ancillary outcomes which arise out of the ‘mediation and other functions’ that sharia councils undoubtedly perform may be given legitimacy. Those functions where they deal with dowry forfeiture (or return) financial remedies, arrangements for children and issues regarding future behaviour and conduct will impact on the civil rights of those to whom they relate.

The review did mention a few “good practices” in the Sharia councils, but they were sadly made to feel less special by the “bad practices” that take place.

Some of the example of “good practices” that the author noted:

  • reporting of family violence and child protection issues to the police;
  • women unable to pay fees have them lowered/no payment taken;
  • religious divorce granted as formality upon civil divorce;
  • councils’ signposting to civil remedies, such as civil courts for child arrangements;
  • little evidence of women being asked to reconcile relationships rather than obtain divorce;
  • councils declining to deal with any ancillary issues and referring users to civil courts;
  • in practically every case where a woman was seeking divorce, a divorce was granted;
  • some councils had women panel members;
  • some councils said they have safeguarding policies in relation to children and domestic violence.

Some of the evidence of  “bad practices” are listed below:

  • inappropriate and unnecessary questioning in regards to personal relationship matters;
  • a forced marriage victim was asked to attend the sharia council at the same time as her family;
  • insistence on any form of mediation as a necessary preliminary;
  • women being invited to make concessions to their husbands in order to secure a divorce (men are never asked to make these concessions). For example in khula agreements, husbands may demand excessive financial concessions from the wife;
  • lengthy process so that while divorces are very rarely refused they can be drawn out;
  • inconsistency across council decisions and processes;
  • no safeguarding policies and/or the recognition for the need of safeguarding policies;
  • no clear signposting to the legal options available for civil divorce;
  • even with a decree absolute a religious divorce is not always a straightforward process and the council will consider all the evidence again;
  • adopting civil legal terms inappropriately, leading to confusion for applicants over the legality of council decisions;
  • very few women as panel members;
  • panel members sitting on sharia councils who have only recently moved to the UK, and who do not have the required language skills and/or wider understanding of UK society;
  • varying and conflicting interpretations of Islamic law which may lead to inconsistencies.

 

There is a funny list of people that support the review: Iman Abou Atta a director of discredited TellMAMA group that wants to shut down criticism of Islam, also Labour councillor Neghat Khan, the terrorist-linked East London mosque’s manager Sufia Alam, and Alia Waheed a journalist for the Guardian.

 

Sharia law & councils are incompatible with Western culture, customs, law and people and as such we should remove it from our society before it causes unforeseen damage to our liberty and democracy we all cherish so much. Women should not be subject to submission to their husbands or some Imam, she is a free person with the right to make her own choices in life and religious law should not dictate that or force her into a marriage or financial blackmail to get out of one.

Sharia law and councils should be banned effective immediately…