Egypt's Least Bad Option: Military Coup

As of right now, the Egyptian military has launched a coup to remove the Muslim Brotherhood party and President Mohammed Morsi from power.

Military leader General Al Sisi held meetings with national leaders, including the Coptic Christian pope, to secure support for removing the radicals from power.  Meanwhile, BBC reports portray a rabidly angry Muslim Brotherhood equally willing to take to the streets "with martyrdom on their minds."

Tanks have taken to the streets of Cairo and, according to Reuters, hundreds of soldiers are ostentatiously marching on parade near the Presidential Palace.  Some have claimed that the president now lives under house arrest. Armored vehicles defend national broadcasting outlets.  The opposing sides even took to Facebook to launch rhetorical attacks.

Since Morsi ascended to office, the international community has watched his regime with concern.  Relations with Israel and the United States cooled.  Unprovoked and unpunished attacks on women and Christians rose.  Morsi also unconstitutionally centralized power into the executive branch and attacked the independent judiciary.  These almost always preface the evolution of a quasi democracy into a dictatorship.

Their goal was the implementation of Islamic religious Sharia Law.  This is the code that mandates punishments for raped women, for educating girls, and oppresses millions across the Eastern Hemisphere.  Egyptians have rallied against the imposition of religious totalitarianism, to their credit.

A coup would be the least bad option for Egypt.  Its strategic location means that any increasingly radical state could play a very destabilizing role in the next few years.  Military seizure of the government is the best chance of returning moderation to the country's foreign affairs.

It would also restore order, although in the short term any upending of a constitution disrupts rule of law. 

Rarely is the case that a nation should go to such extremes to ensure order, even over law.  But some cases beg for this step.  Wouldn't history have taken a better course if the German Army's aristocratic officers overturned the elected Hitler government that they despised?  Waiting would only entrench Morsi more securely.  We can't wait for the Islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood to grow confident enough to attack Israel or even U. S. interests in the area.

Fortunately the Egyptian Army obviously feels the same.  Thus the reason for launching the least bad option.

It's Not A Cultural Issue, It Is Domestic Violence

There is a famous and rich young woman in Great Britain who is frightened for her life.

She is 22 year old Afshan Azad. Azad played Padma Patil in the "Harry Potter" movie series. Azad is not frightened of maniac fans, but of her own family. Azad dates a man of Hindu faith. Her father and brother would rather that she marry someone of their choosing. Her refusal earned her a beating and threats of death. Azad's fear of the radical Moslem community of Great Britain is so pervasive that she does not even want to risk appearing in court. She had to escape through a bedroom window and now risks death by "honor killing."

America law enforcement and judges must be prepared for cases such as these. Cultural arguments must be ignored because lawyers will try to use them to get reduced sentences or exoneration. Domestic violence is domestic violence, regardless of culture, nationality, or religion. If they do not like our laws and how we enforce them, they should not come here in the first place.

Britain has tried to be accomodating, multicultural, and embracing of diversity. That is fine to an extent. However, one cannot undermine the basic principles of justice to accomodate, or even appear to accomodate, barbarous practices from other lands. Azad does not believe that the British justice system will zealously protect her.

We can take steps to reaffirm our basic principles. These include the positive rejection of any form of Sharia law. Any personal practice of this law must conform with American justice and law. Period.

Britain Losing Its Traditions

Recently the British Government caved to demands that its court system recognize Islamic religious court decisions as binding upon Muslims. The legal system, known as Sharia, will now stand alongside that country's ancient common law as the law of the land.

This is frightening if you are British. Common law comes from a tradition that recognizes individual rights. It tore itself away from religious paternalism in the 1200s and made the English people the freest in the world at one point. Sharia comes from a tradition of social control for the benefit of the religion. Centuries ago, Roman Catholic canon law was abandoned because it was seen as incompatible with the "natural rights of Englishmen." Now the British have adopted an even more alien set of laws.

Britain will not stand for this. Most likely this move will push Britain towards a Conservative Party led government that will specifically strike this down. That being said, court decisions will be made and Sharia incorporated as precedents within the common law. Sharia has no place in the law codes of Western democratic nations that have centuries of tradition respecting individual rights.

Could this happen here? Likely not. The First Amendment so deftly used against Christian expression in public places would never allow the adoption Islamic law as a guide for our court system. America is a place where people come to escape oppression, not to recreate it. One wonders what will happen with Muslims that would rather take their chances with British law rather than religious law. Certainly many Christians would rather not be judged legally by the moral standards set by their religion. Britain, in an effort to tolerate a religion, has adopted one of the most intolerant systems of law on earth. They need to step up and get it removed before people's lives get ruined.