Today England's parliament vote between islamofascist sharia and Human Rights - without even mentioning sharia. Shame on you England, to even have to vote about it!

While Theresa May tries to pave the way for islamofascist Saudi friendly sharia by trashing Human Rights, BBC fills its news with the suffering of Rohyngia muslims - without a word about the Saudi backed muslim terrorist attacks against Buddhists that preceded it.

Theresa May wants to strip the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the UK statue book when Britain leaves the EU.

Individual rights to privacy, equality, freedom of expression, fair working conditions, a fair trial, access to a lawyer and the protection of personal data are all in potential jeopardy. However, the most importantissue is that removing the charter means paving the way for islamofascist sharia.

Here some reasons Theresa May doesn't like Human Rights

Parliamentary questions
16 March 2012   
E-001065/2012

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

1. As the Commission has pointed out in its reply to Question E‑9450/2011(1), ‘sharia’ is a general concept that encompasses several legal aspects and is subject to varying interpretations both in the countries where it is applied and among specialists. The Commission is committed to ensuring that any EU legislation as well as the Member States, when implementing Union law, respect the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In areas beyond EC law, it is for Member States alone to safeguard the respect of fundamental rights, in accordance with their national laws and international obligations.

2. Private international law rules in force in the Member States, including those based on EC law, may lead to the application of a foreign law which is based on sharia law. However, these private international law rules in general provide for a possibility not to apply a provision of the designated foreign law which is manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the Member State concerned.

3. Freedom of association is a basic principle of EC law and national laws as well. The Commission does not have the power under the Treaties to prohibit that sharia court like organisations exercise cultural, social and other activities. Nevertheless, the ‘decisions’ of these organisations cannot be considered as arbitration awards, do not have a judicial character and can be recognised and enforced only on the basis of national laws.

4-5. There are safeguards in place in EC law (Rome I Regulation, Rome II Regulation and the draft Rome III Regulation). Consequently, those parts of sharia law which are not compatible with EU fundamental rights standards will not be applied, and those foreign judicial decisions, which are based on provisions of sharia law that are incompatible with these standards will not be recognised and enforced in the EU.

Luzius Wildhaber, President of the European Court of Human Rights:

Paradoxically, although most people profess their commitment to democracy, it is in many ways an imprecise notion with an apparent weakness that is capable of causing it to
buckle under pressure and even, as history shows, to do away with itself. The reason for this is that, by definition, democracy seeks to satisfy the aspirations of the greatest number. Such aspirations are, however, often changeable and even contradictory, a factor which in turn leads to a growing number of compromises and increasingly complex mediation,
whose impact on the system itself will not always be measurable. The former President of the German Constitutional Court recently noted in this connection that democracy is
subjected to constant pressure, as its divergent forces interact to create an unstable equilibrium. This, undoubtedly, is especially true at times of crisis, when democracy gives
the impression of struggling to meet the rush of challenges posed by globalisation,recession and terrorism.

It is in this domain that the Court, aided by the pan-European consensus provided by the Convention, has a role to play in identifying the constituent elements of democracy and in
reminding everyone of the minimum essential requirements of a political system if human rights within the meaning of the Convention are to be protected. It has in the past applied
itself to establishing the basic principles of the rule of law, the role of political parties, and the limits on freedom of political expression and parliamentary immunity. In Refah Partisi, it carried out a thorough examination of the relationship between the Convention, democracy, political parties and religion, and found that a sharia-based regime was
incompatible with the Convention, in particular, as regards the rules of criminal law and procedure, the place given to women in the legal order and its interference in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

That said, a truly democratic society can also be recognised by the attention it gives to the weakest and poorest of its members, as the preamble to the draft Constitution of the
European Union helpfully reminds us. It is in this context that the Court’s judgments dealing with the plight of ordinary people rather than universal principles come into their
own. The second of the cases mentioned above, that of Mr Jakupovic, provides a striking illustration of this type of judgment through its discreet testimony to the despair of the
victims of the war in the Balkans, a genuine collective tragedy in present-day Europe.

The case concerned a young national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who, when war broke out and at the age of 11, travelled with his brother to join their mother, who was living in
Austria. Once there, he became involved in petty crime for which he was given two suspended prison sentences and banned from Austria for ten years. At the age of 16, he was
deported alone to the war-torn country of his birth where he no longer had any close relatives, his father having been officially declared missing since the end of the armed
conflict. An all-too-common story when all is said and done, but one which the Court found by four votes to three amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

This review of the past year would not be complete, however, without a reference to the worrying increase in the Court’s backlog, which puts the survival of the entire Convention
system at risk. The figures, which are reproduced in the pages dealing with the Court’s statistics, could hardly be more eloquent. This well-known phenomenon has various causes,
arising as they do at all the stages through which each case passes, from recourse to domestic remedies to the execution of the Court’s judgments. For this reason, the draft
proposals for the reform of the system currently under review by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe contain recommendations for appropriate remedial
action at each stage.

Leaving aside the specifics of the proposed solutions, the important point, however, is that, as the Council of Ministers stated in May 2003, “the European Convention on Human
Rights [remains] the essential reference point for the protection of human rights in Europe”. Only the Convention offers a truly pan-European understanding, free of regionalism and particularism, of the fundamental rights of every human being. It is a priceless asset.