With a general election on the horizon there is much media comment on how a divided political party is a turn off for voters. But what has faded into the political background is that His Majesty`s Loyal Opposition; the Labour Party, is itself still divided over an apparent acceptance of antisemitism in its ranks depending on who are labelled as such and those who at heart are still Remainers. Although the issues are not as stark or as many as in USA this country is exhibiting bitter divisions over weekly marches by groups using Palestinian sympathises as a cloak for hatred of all Jews not just the 7 million residing in Israel.
The history of nations where there is unreconciled division is ominous. The French Revolution of 1789 was followed by a disastrous European war until the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. Subsequent to the American Revolution in 1776 those who were on the side of Great Britain and remained unreconciled to being subjects of the new United States fled to Canada the first use of which as an official name came in 1791 when the Province of Quebec was divided into the colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada. In 1841 the two colonies were united under one name; the Province of Canada. The American Civil War literally almost divided the new nation until the Union success of 1865. Millions were killed in post 1917 Russia following revolutions and the subsequent civil war. Post the Great War Ireland had its own civil war between unreconciled political parties and unremitting antagonism between fascists and communists was played out in the Spanish Civil War.
Whilst 2024 is not exhibiting the first symptoms of violent disorder in the UK the history of these islands has demonstrated all the signs that have preceded our current state: civil war in the 1400s AKA the Wars of the Roses, actual civil war 1642-51 and the final defeat of the Jacobites and the threat of a Catholic monarch in 1746.
The social divide over Brexit in 2016 subsequent to the ouvert division in Scotland from the 2014 referendum, the opposition to the Covid 19 shutdown and the increasing threat from Islamist extremists shouting very loudly over the silence of many of their co-religionists is provoking verbal, literal and political opposition verging on violent threats in some quarters. The failure, apparent or otherwise, of political and police authorities to contain current examples of an unholy trinity of Palestinian sympathisers, marxists and fascists on the streets of London and other cities weekly since October 7th should be provoking anxiety in 10 Downing Street. The influence on events of the Secretary of State for Justice is an unknown factor. However when activities of those who seek to force their opinions on others by tactics of obstruction in some way or other the dirty washing on the clothes line of justice is there for all to see.
One cannot complete a form for many occasions or applications of one sort or another some voluntarily, some essential without it seems ticking boxes to describe all or some of one`s ethnicity, sexuality, gender, skin description, heritage, education etc etc etc. France, officially a Catholic nation, on the other hand has been deaf, dumb and blind to such intrusions on privacy since 1972. Since 2004 there has been a ban in public schools of wearing religious symbols; hijabs, kippa and crucifixes. There is an estimated Muslim population of 7%-9% mainly from 1950s and 60s immigration from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. This Muslim minority, increasing annually, is likely to be a large factor in the next French presidential election.
In the Uk over the last 30 years we have had our own share of Islamist violence. We also have our own share of Islamist judges and magistrates in our courts, numbers unknown, sitting in judgement on those whose views they might share when it comes to public disorder. Indeed despite the authorities knowing almost how many hairs are on the heads of magistrates the number of Muslim magistrates is unknown. According to the Office of Judicial Statistics they do not currently publish these figures in their annual Judicial Diversity report. The Judicial Office who are the data owners have offered the following statement:-
Magistrates can provide information on their religious affiliations. However, disclosure of this information is optional and therefore Magistrates may choose not to disclose this information. As a result, the information held on the religious affiliations of Magistrates at this time is not of suitable robustness (i.e. the declaration rate is too low) to be published publicly, as doing so may lead to inaccurate and misleading interpretations being made.
And so to last week when Heba Alhayek, 29; Pauline Ankunda, 26; and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27; were found guilty of a terror offence in the wake of the incident at a pro-Palestinian march in central London a week after Hamas militants entered Israel. Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said he had decided their lesson had been “well learned” and he did not intend to punish them sentencing them to effectively a slap on the wrist; a conditional discharge. This blogger and many legal bigwigs have indicated their outrage and demanded appropriate intervention to make the punishment fit the crime. My point today, belatedly perhaps, is how many sentences on similar offending are being conditioned by magistrates whose public profiles are by far and away below the horizon of public and media scrutiny? When the scrutiny of Advisory Committees who select magistrates is deep enough to view the proverbial angel on the proverbial pinhead why is religious or non religious affiliation not a compulsory feature for every aspiring Justice of the Peace? My own opinion is that it`s a case of the three monkeys; the MOJ doesn`t want to hear, see or speak the answers or the numbers for the simple reason they would, perhaps by pressure, have to publish those very numbers and they`re fearful of what these numbers would reveal especially in areas where Muslims constitute a quarter or more of the population.
Our nation has a history of peaceful protest protected by law. The political convolutions over the last decade have proved that existing law is strained to breaking point. Almost daily institutions and private and company premises are being invaded with criminal damage caused, lives are being seriously disrupted by obstructive tactics, weekly demonstrations have led to under policed and under contained public disorder and Jewish citizens have undergone record numbers of occasions of direct antisemitism including children at school.
There comes a time when a democracy must consider apparent undemocratic actions to preserve that very democracy. Such an occasion is described as the Democratic Paradox. Recognising the situation unchanged an early question for the next government is firstly to admit its reality and secondly when or if to apply a remedy and finally to justify and select an appropriate redress. Failure will be a catastrophe.
No comments:
Post a Comment