Over the past few months the term 'One Law For All' has arisen in news stature.

The label given by the proponents is unfortunate as it is not intentionally deceptive, but the effective result is very deceptive, in the best tradition of 'best intentions'.

Although I do sympathize with their sentiment, their choices of words and objectives deserve examination in the harsh light of what it is they are actually trying to achieve.

Who is driving 'One Law for All' [01]?

Maryam Namazie [02] seems to be at the center of this political storm as outlined on their site.

Ms Namazie is apparently very well informed and demonstrates a very real concern for the people she and the others in the movement are professing to speak out for.

Her sentiment and her efforts clearly merit consideration if not outright admiration.

And let it be known from the outset that this article is not in any way meant to disparage or otherwise discourage her efforts, but rather to examine some aspects which might best be revised before darker interests usurp her efforts.

What are the basic objectives of 'One Law for All' ?

The intent is nominally outlined as a

“… call on the UK government to bring an end to the use and institutionalisation of Sharia and all religious laws and to guarantee equal citizenship rights for all.”

Less noted is a somewhat more difficult declaration left to later in the leaflet which outlines their principles and intents as a declaration:

“We demand that the Arbitration Act 1996 be amended so that all religious tribunals are banned from operating within and outside of the legal system.”

It seems ok on first reading – what are the issues with all this?

1.

In the bit about asking a government to 'guarantee equal citizenship rights for all' the proponents of 'One Law for All' are asking the government to expand its enforcement activities to intervene in the religious affairs of its citizens. If you like government, you will simply adore what government does to people in the name of 'equal citizenship rights for all'. That religion is a personal choice is something many take for granted in this day and age, but the reality is that most people are born into a religion rather than converted. This means that religious authority is often regarded as being above and beyond the nominal government by virtue of its power over family and kin. When religious authorities take it upon themselves to enforce bestial legal principles upon their congregations, constituents can find their faith at odds with their own existence. When they accede to the requirements of religion they are, in essence, yielding their last shreds of sovereignty to their religious manipulators. The government stands aside in such cases since interfering with what is legally presumed to be individual choice quickly becomes religious persecution. It is this inactivity which 'One Law for All' proponents wish to end – they want the government to actively pre-empt any religious decrees from being enforced by the very people who accept these beliefs.

Charles Darwin would probably have a clue – let those who wish to submit themselves to the primitive forms of violence and subjugation espoused by their revered mind-benders go right ahead and do whatever they wish as long as they abide in public by whatever the government rules. If they end up shortchanged then they will have harvested what they have planted. Personal choice entails personal responsibility and those who submit their own selves to superstitious nonsense deserve their own fates whatever they may be.

Those with strong enough personalities to escape the clutches of such inanity have in a Darwinian fashion earned the right to survive.

In closing this point it is noted that it would be an improvement for this movement if they simply pushed for the government to enforce its existing laws appropriately rather than permitting injustices to be performed as an abettor to whatever crimes are being perpetrated.

2.

Banning “all religious tribunals” is yet another step in a bad direction.

The semantics of banning any form of a religious activity opens a whole Pandora's Box of loopholes to be exploited at the whim of political powers. The problem with banning anything is in the matter of interpretation, and everyone know (woops!) that laws are always interpreted in favor of whoever holds the most political clout.

What might be more palatable is making sure any such tribunal has no real power but is limited to an advisory capacity alone.

3.

In this universe there is but The One Law:

No Being shall Harm another Being.

If the people behind 'One Law for All' were truly serious about equal treatment they would acknowledge that in truth there is but The One Law and that all the other machinations of supertitious aborigines and control-freak governments are merely games played to fleece constituents.

[01] http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/

'One Law for All'

It is noted that although the site uses the label One Law for All, the full labelling is given as “One Law for All – Campaign against Sharia law in Britain”. This hints of a mild deception that they are actually more focused upon opposing Sharia than being secular as some might wish to believe. In effect, they are usurping the power of the term One law in what will eventually be yet another Matrix of many additional legal snares.

[02] http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/

'Maryam Namazie'

Google her – she has many more aspects than just this one, too many and too controversial to discuss here. Ultimately, she is not under discussion here – she is the spokesperson and as 'campaign organiser' [see http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0812/S00020.htm] is simply a personification of what is ultimately a large and diverse group of people participating in the movement.