There was a small but good crop of interesting stories in today’s Brit papers, including this extraordinary one headlined straight from “the last days”.  The content doesn’t actually live up to the drama of that headline - yet - but the contrary dynamics are there.  They bring into prospect a deepening of cultural division which no government, however desperate for assimilation, will be able to resolve.  I get a clear picture of the good ship MultiCult, released from her great wooden slipway blocks and even now nosing ungainly into the dirty grey waters as the Minister and his lady wife frantically search for the broken shards of the magnum.

Sharia law as authority wanes

Islamic sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in parts of Britain, a report claims.

... the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali “court” sitting in Woolwich, south-east London.

... Dr Prakash Shah, a senior lecturer in law at Queen Mary University of London, said such tribunals “could be more effective than the formal legal system”.

In his book Islam in Britain, Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, says there is an “alternative parallel unofficial legal system” that operates in the Muslim community on a voluntary basis.

“Sharia courts now operate in most larger cities, with different sectarian and ethnic groups operating their own courts that cater to their specific needs according to their traditions,” he says. These are based on sharia councils, set up in Britain to help Muslims solve family and personal problems.

Sharia councils may grant divorces under religious law to a woman whose husband refuses to complete a civil divorce by declaring his marriage over. There is evidence that these councils are evolving into courts of arbitration.

Faizul Aqtab Siddiqi, a barrister and principal of Hijaz College Islamic University, near Nuneaton, Warwicks, said this type of court had advantages for Muslims. “It operates on a low budget, it operates on very small timescales and the process and the laws of evidence are far more lenient and it’s less awesome an environment than the English courts,” he said.

Mr Siddiqi predicted that there would be a formal network of Muslim courts within a decade.

Then, from the home side, there was this:-

One in three backs total ban on wearing veil in public

One in three people would support a ban on Muslim women wearing veils which cover their faces in public places, according to a new survey.

... Thirty-three per cent of respondents said they would approve the introduction of such a ban, while 56 per cent said they would not and just under one in 10 said they did not know.

Asked if they would support prohibition in specific circumstances, 61 per cent said they would approve a ban in airports and at passport control, 53 per cent in courtrooms and 53 per cent in schools.

Forty-one per cent said they would support a workplace ban, but 56 per cent said they would oppose a ban on Muslim women wearing veils while travelling on public transport.

Why is it I never get asked to participate in these opinion surveys?  I would have encouraged the government to ban knicker elastic if I thought it would aid the Muslims to retire to their tents.

One survey in which I am incapable of participating was this:-

Muggers commit crimes ‘for kicks’

Street robbers often carry out their crimes for the thrill as much as for the financial gain, a report has said.

The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) study interviewed 120 offenders in England and Wales.

The report said previous attempts to explain violent street crime put too much focus on the desire for gain, and not enough on the aspect of “pleasure”.

The study comes a day after the fiancee of murdered lawyer Tom ap Rhys Pryce criticised his killers’ “bravado”.

... The report by Professor Trevor Bennett, director of the University of Glamorgan’s Centre for Criminology, and Dr Fiona Brookman, said both the amount and the severity of gratuitous violence used in street robbery was increasing in the UK.

It was a “worrying social problem” that was poorly documented and understood, it said.

Further on in the article a number of “experts” protect their intellectual property.  Mean racial differences in criminality and IQ are not among the causalities they favour, and nor are the fruits of social liberalism.

Naturally, because the important questions cannot be asked the “expert” is always called upon to manage these “worrying social problems” in his own inimitable style:-

Reid in crisis talks as prison population hits 80,000

Home Secretary John Reid is holding a summit with leading experts today in a bid to find a solution to the prisons crisis. The number of prisoners in England and Wales topped 80,000 for the first time in history today, prison sources said.

The number of inmates in England and Wales is running at a record high and Mr Reid has been forced to bring in emergency measures to hold prisoners in police stations.

Changing tack completely, I was drawn to the following report of a debate on globalisation at the CBI Conference:-

CBI members vote big ‘no’ to foreign owners

The leadership of the Confederation of British Industry appeared out of step with its members over the foreign takeover of UK plc after an overwhelming majority voted that “ownership does matter”.

... CBI members in the auditorium were able to vote electronically on the question: “Does company ownership matter?” Seven out of 10 voted that it did.

... After the vote, the CBI said it believed the majority of its members recognised the huge benefits of the influx of foreign capital and expertise into the UK.

When asked if there was a level playing field for international M&A, 90pc of the conference said no. When asked if there was such a thing as national champions of strategic assets, 84pc agreed.

The CBI has been a rod and staff to the Labour immigration programme.  As an organisation it sets out to benefit the multinationals for the sole reason that they are the point of intersection with power.  British business is just there to fund the organisation and vote obediently.  If it doesn’t it just gets told how the “CBI believes that the majority of its members recognised the huge benefits of the influx of foreign capital and expertise into the UK.”  So there.

The article finishes with the visit to Conference of Gordon Brown and US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson:-

Earlier in the day, Chancellor Gordon Brown, called for a “worldwide campaign” in support of globalisation and its benefits. He said the anti-globalisation and protectionist forces “fail to recognise the great truth that free trade, open markets and flexibility are the pre-conditions of modern economic success”.

Mr Brown was accompanied at the conference by the US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, making his first public visit to Britain since taking the job in July.

Mr Paulson told the conference: “Closer economic ties between nations promote peace and prosperity by creating common interests and raising the costs of conflict.

“The greatest threat today is not from conflict between states, but from instability within states and from those states like North Korea and Iran which are not prepared to abide by international standards of conduct.”

Does anybody outside of the Power People really believe that sort of talk anymore?  It is beginning to sound awfully stale to me.