According to this morning's Daily Telegraph Gordon Brown at last is going to put a stop to the politically-motivated abuse of our court system. About time! How can Britain ever be taken seriously as a peace broker if every time an Israeli official or politician comes to Britain they're threatened with arrest because a campaign group seeking publicity approached a magistrate? As usual, it's one rule for Israel and another for everyone else.
This Blog's Topics
Anti-Semitism
(8)
Biblical Theology
(7)
Books
(24)
Censorship
(5)
Christmas
(3)
Church and Israel
(37)
Church and State
(16)
Climate Change
(9)
Cuba
(2)
Democracy and Elections
(10)
Eschatology
(4)
Ethics
(8)
Ethnicity
(9)
European Union
(2)
Evangelicalism
(11)
Frivolous
(5)
Hermeneutics
(7)
Ideology
(3)
Israel
(30)
Latin American Pentecostalism
(18)
Liberty
(11)
Media
(14)
Messianic Judaism
(4)
Miscellaneous
(12)
Money and Finance
(3)
Nicaragua
(3)
Palestinians
(8)
Pentecostal Studies
(19)
Persecution
(4)
Philosophy
(3)
Polls
(7)
Postmodernism
(2)
Social Services
(2)
Spain
(1)
Theology (other)
(9)
Travel
(15)
Turkey
(3)
United States
(13)
Yemen
(1)
Sites Worth a Visit (whether or not you agree with them)
- Allan Anderson (academic Pentecostal Studies resources)
- Archbishop Cranmer (witty religio-political blog)
- Barnabus Fund (watching out for the persecuted Church)
- BBC's Newsnight (institutionally liberal but excellent analysis)
- Beginning With Moses (useful biblical theology site)
- Caspari Center (Biblical and Messianic Studies)
- Chosen People Ministries (Jewish evangelism, est.1894)
- Chris Smith (my father - preaching resources)
- Christianity Today (Christian news and analysis)
- Christian Solidarity Worldwide (human rights organisation)
- Christian Today (news site)
- Daniel Pipes (Middle East expert)
- Darrell Bock (Bible & culture blog from the DTS NT scholar)
- Glopent (Pentecostal Studies academic network)
- Independent (if you must read a paper on the left, choose this)
- James Delingpole (Telegraph columnist out for Warmists)
- Jews for Jesus (Jewish evangelism organisation)
- Living Journey (thoughtful personal blog from Oz)
- Middle East Institute (also publishes MEJ)
- Pneuma: Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies
- PROLADES (Latin American Protestantism statistics)
- Rosh Pina Project (Messianic news and debate)
- Ruth Gledhill (religious correspondent for The Times)
- Saltshakers (Steve Maltz's blog)
- Seismic Shock (exploring anti-Semitism & Christian anti-Zionism)
- Supercessionism Information Page (by Mike Vlach)
- The Times (my favourite newspaper)
- The Ugley Vicar (blog of Rev John P. Richardson)
- Tyndale House, Cambridge (bible and theology)
Share it
6 comments:
Calvin, I must say I disagree. As things stand, the rules are the same for everyone. What the government proposes (and other sources say they have actually delayed this now) was to create a set of rules especially for Israeli officials. In other words, one rule for Israel, one for everyone else.
If Israeli politicians want to go to the UK without fear of arrest then it's quite simple what they should do. Firstly they should avoid doing things that could be thought of by a court as war crimes. And secondly, they can come on a diplomatic mission, and enjoy the resulting diplomatic immunity. Many foreign politicians and leaders have done this over the years.
According to Melanie Phillips our pleasure at this news might be a little premature.
Gordon Brown says that he will change the law to prevent the abuse of ‘universal jurisdiction’ through threats to arrest visiting Israeli dignatories for ‘war crimes’
Philip, we'll have to disagree on this one. My point is there have been various mass deaths of civilians as a result of Allied action in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but we've never dream of holding visiting officials from America on the basis of a politically-driven representation to a Magistrates' court. Indeed, we don't arrest some of the real "baddies" who visit the UK. Meanwhile, there'd be uproar if one of the Assads visiting the UK were held because of the massacre at Hama.
No, these representations to UK courts are quite simply politically-driven, and I'm rather surprised by your comment for one who seeks to be pragmatic. It is ridiculous Tzipi Livni, as official leader of the Israeli Opposition, couldn't come to the UK as she had no formal diplomatic status.
Hi Calvin. There are many who would like to hold certain leaders to account for Iraq especially, and would wish 'our' side would get out of Afghanistan. The claim that we need to train a country used to fighting how to form an army is weak.
Some would wish the leaders of Saudi Arabia etc. were to be detained for abuse of power. What about those Christians who challenged BAe for selling planes to another country for abusing power? Or the calls for recognition of the Armenian genocide? So I don't think the Israeli state is being singled out.
The government could have changed the law at the time of the Pinochet arrest, but the call to change British laws to suit one country does look like favouritism.
But we don't hear about politically-motivated campaigns to get them through the Magistrates' courts, do we?
No, it is not favouritism, it is correcting an abuse (though I agree with Stuart, looks like it won't happen anyway).
I'm not sure that you can hold a son responsible for what his father does...
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're arguing for. Are you saying that you oppose universal jurisdiction laws in general? Or simply when they are used against Israelis and not against others? That is, if this law were applied, in your words, without favouritism, would you support the arrest and trial of Israeli leaders for war crimes?
Post a Comment