One Law for All campaign is organising a rally on Saturday 21 November 2009 at 1200pm in London’s Hyde Park. The rally aims to oppose religious laws in Britain and elsewhere, show solidarity with people living under and resisting Sharia, and to defend universal rights and secularism.
Simultaneous acts of solidarity and support for the rally and its aims will take place in countries across the world including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Nigeria, Serbia and Montenegro and Sweden.
Moreover, winners of the campaign’s art competition exposing the discriminatory nature of religious law and promoting freedom and equal rights will be announced at the event.
One Law for All Spokesperson, Maryam Namazie, commented, ‘Sharia law is becoming a key battleground, particularly because it is an extension and representation of the rising threat of Islamism. Sharia matters to people everywhere because it adversely affects the rights, lives and freedoms of countless human beings across the world. Opposing Sharia law is a crucial step in defending universal and equal rights and secularism and showing real solidarity with people living under and resisting it everywhere. November 21 is yet another important day for further strengthening the mass movement needed that can and will put a stop to Sharia once and for all.’
Notes
1. The One Law for All campaign rally marks Universal Children’s Day and the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women:
Date: November 21, 2009
Time: 1200hrs – 1400hrs
Place: North Carriage Drive, in-between Stanhope Place Gate and Albion Gate, Hyde Park (closest underground Marble Arch).
2. Speakers at the rally include: Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain’s Asad Abbas; Poet ‘AK47;’ One Law for All’s Yasmin Atasheen; Musician Fari B; International Humanist and Ethical Union’s Roy Brown; Secularist Ismail
Einashe; Singer/Songwriter David Fisher; Philosopher AC Grayling; Southall Black Sisters’ Rahila Gupta; Journalist Johann Hari; Poet ‘Lilith;’ Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq’s Houzan Mahmoud, Lawyer Cris
Mccurley; Lawyer Rony Miah; Campaigner Maryam Namazie; Writer Taslima Nasrin; British Humanist Association’s Naomi Phillips; European Humanist Federation’s David Pollock; Iranian Secular Society’s Fariborz Pooya; National Secular Society’s Terry Sanderson; Poet Selina aka ‘Jus1Jam;’ Activist Muriel Seltman; Equal Rights Now’s Sohaila Sharifi; Organisation for the Defence of Secularism and Civil Rights in Iraq’s Issam Shukri; Iran Solidarity’s Bahram Soroush; Human Rights Campaigner Peter Tatchell and National Secular Society’s Keith Porteous Wood.
3. Art competition judges are Philosopher AC Grayling; Singer Deeyah; Journalist Johann Hari; and Columnist Polly Toynbee.
4. Responses to Frequently Asked Questions including the affinity between the far right and the Islamists, the issue of secularism, whether Islamic states are a threat to humankind and the need to defend the right to asylum for those who have fled Sharia law can be found on
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/about/faq.
5. One Law for All campaign was launched on 10 December 2008 – International Human Rights Day. It has since received the support of over 20,000 groups and individuals.
6. For further comment or information, please contact Maryam Namazie on +44 (0) 7719166731 or onelawforall@gmail.com or visit www.onelawforall.org.uk.
15 Comments
Other than ALM, are there any Muslim group calling for Shariah law to be imposed on Britain’s 60million + population?
Also, who decides what “universal rights” are? Are they the same as the UNs deceleration of Human Rights?
“Other than ALM, are there any Muslim group calling for Shariah law to be imposed on Britain’s 60million + population?”
Not a Muslim Group, but how about the the ministry of Communities and Local Government under John Denham?
OK, that was a joke (partially), but following Denham’s latest pronouncement, I think it’s more important than ever to go the “One Law For All” rally this Saturday.
This demo is not opposing the AM style mass imposition of Sharia but the existence of Shariah courts.
Is it the Shari’a which is the problem; or is it the Islamist interpretation of Shari’a as something impersonal, centrally imposed and immutable – as “law” – which is the problem?
For example is this interpretation objectionable?
from: Ziauddin Sardar, Rethinking Islam
http://www.islamfortoday.com/sardar01.htm
I think he is spot on.
So do I, Mr Fombo!
Funny these groups never utter a squeak while Beth Din courts were operating, isnt it ? There hasnt been “one law for all ” in the UK for decades.
Yes that is exactly right.
Until Shariah can be formulated into one codified corpus that *ALL MUSLIMS IN BRITAIN* agree to comply with, Shariah courts should not be allowed to practice.
Beth Din courts and Jewish religious law in general make no claim to universal social applicability in the way in which the Islamist proponents of Shari’a want of Shar’ia courts.
Furthermore, many Muslims object to the twisted, totalitarian interpretation of Shari’a that is being aggressively pushed by Islamists.
Abu Faris,
As far as I am aware – and please correct me if I am wrong – most Muslim groups in the UK are merely calling for Islamic marriage/divorce rituals to be incorporated into British law. This would mean that the Nikkah ceremony would suffice for Muslim couples wishing to get married – ie, they wouldn’t have to pop down to the local town hall afterwards to get a civil ceremony done.
I reject the incorporation of any religious law into legislation in the UK.
I am a secularist and I do not support the right of any religious group to special favour under law (save in terms of their reasonable protection as Believers to worship freely and without let or hindrance).
I would actually make all legal marriages a matter of “popping down the local town hall.” Equally, the same secular character of divorce should legally prevail. If one wants to affirm one’s faith with a religious marriage or divorce, that is one’s own private affair. It should not be of interest to the state in general.
Such is the case in France, for Christians, Jews, Muslims, tree-huggers and worshippers of earth, wind, fire, or water. It does not seem to concern unduly the faith of Believers of any stripe in France – why should it be of such concern in the United Kingdom – almost uniquely, in fact?
Religion is best a private matter – it is not a concern of the state; save its duties to preserve the peace and protect the citizenry from persecution or oppression on the bases of their reasonable and held beliefs, practices or origins.
Where I write of reasonable and held beliefs, practices or origins – I mean, loosely, those items that do not harm others in their activities or service. Others may reject (or even find objectionable on moral or other grounds) one’s beliefs, practices or (even) origins – but toleration demands that unless these items can be shown to effectively harm others that these items must be allowed. Of course, this cuts both ways: opposition to such items must not be allowed to veer into persecution, oppression or the preaching of hatred of the Other.
“Identity” would be a better word than “origin” in the above, I think.
in which case, i cannot support it. to try and abolish them is an infringement of civil liberties insofar as they relate to private, consenting alternative arbitration, just as jewish batei din, relate and ACAS do. furthermore, it would be impossible to ban them, they would just go underground, just as batei din would if they were outlawed – in fact i would suggest that outlawing batei din woul probably mean i and a lot of other jews would have to leave the country if there was nobody that could be trusted to ensure, for example that meat was kosher, which is no more controversial than the ISO being able to certify whether an organisation is compliant with its 9000 standard, for example.
i would oppose their marriages being incorporated into civil law, this has not been done for jewish marriages, we all have to sign a civil register, but there should be no problem registering a mosque for marriages any more than there should be at a hotel or stately home. there is no legal issue with this, everyone still has to go through the civil registration and administration process the same way. the issue with divorce, however, is that if the object of divorce is to free the partners from each other, that *cannot* be accomplished in practice without a *religious* divorce. a civil divorce should not be granted without a viable religious divorce, because that would lead and has led to compulsion on the part of one because they are not actually free in reality despite the state’s interest in it being over.
in france, everyone, including christians, have to have two ceremonies. if that were the case here, then fair enough, but it isn’t. the fact that christians can sign their register in church with a civilly registered official present is a matter of convenience to all (not that that has ever mattered to the french state) and if others are to be prevented from doing so on spurious grounds (which would also mean the inability to hold civil wedding ceremonies in hotels, for example) that is an unacceptable intrusion of the state into what we all agree is a private affair.
it is, perhaps, something i should consider blogging about myself.
b’shalom
bananabrain
I take your points, bananabrain. This part is particularly strongly made:
I am still working this all out for myself; and I would look forward to a blog from you on this issue.