Uh oh . . . we can now expect the perpetually aggrieved to be really, really aggrieved.

Lock up the fertilizer and stay off the buses before they get any baby boom ideas.

At what point do average brits start going Guy Falkes on the "elites"?

A recent article stated that Canada is fast-tracking British immigrants. Yet another example of why that's a baaaaaad idea.

Well, so much for Seperation of Church and State.

And, with that, time to crank the grill, and pop a top. Happy July 4th Comrades !!!!
,

You can often have contracts settled under different jurisdictions...commercial contracts always state what law will be used.

It is an interesting question that if both parties agree to be bound by certain rules in the contract, say to be adjudicated by a witch doctor, that this is binding. However you can always dispute the terms you agreed to in the first place, but end up in a proper court.

So if the the Law Lord is saying that civil contracts can state that the contract is to be resolved according to sharia....whatever that means because it is a many coloured thing...and it can be ultimately disputed in an UK court because the contract was improperly settled, coerced interpreted etc I have less of an issue.

I think sharia advocates believe that sharia will be the final arbiter and I am hoping, it isnt clear in the article, that sharia courts would be only terms that parties are agreeing to try to meet and the sharia court is at best a dispute settlement mechanism BUT that the real courts will rule.

I dont know how much the immans really want to have their decisions overturned and trimmed and ignored when it hits a real court.

Danger of course is that it starts to become embedded. I would prefer it not be there at all, but if real law and real courts retain primacy then I have less concern......the article is a little muddy. It doesnt sound like it goes as far as what was being proposed in Ontario

So wait - in order to absolve yourself of being bound to the rule of law in England, you can opt for a different rule of law. Heck, not bad.

BUT - how do you get into this esteemed exclusive set of people who can be governed by this non-English rule of law? Do you simply claim to be Muslim? Do you have to prove that you are? How? Do you have to accept all Sharia rules? Or only some?

Isn't this discriminatory? What if I, a non-practicing Muslim, or a Christian, or even, yikes, an atheist, want to treat my wife as only worth half-a-man? Are you saying that I can only do this if I'm a member of that exclusive set?

And, can I switch at whim and will, from using one set of laws to another? Can I, under Sharia law, be absolved of killing my neighbour because, of whatever reason, and yet, file a lawsuit under British civil law against his family who want to 'tit for tat'...kill me?

Islamic legal principles could be employed

And so could Ouija boards or paper, rock, scissors. Any number of methods could have been employed but wiser people than M'Lord decided that British common law legal principles were the way to go and for Phillips to think otherwise means it's time he retired.

BTW, does anyone else get the giggles when they read "Islamic legal principles"?

I'm no Mohhamedan apologist however I believe this thing would only apply to contract law and minor civil disputes. In Ontario Jewish people could settle disputes via their particular set of
traditional laws. Once McGuinty was forced to reject sharia, he also outlawed other forms as well (Jewish), so now that is gone.
Apologies if I didn't explain the Jewish law item properly but I'm unsure of what it's called.
Perhaps someone Jewish could explain it to us.

It's the result of continuous agitation from the Islamists. They now have a wedge in and will be agitating further to open the door wider. And why not? Obviously the British government is too cowardly and ignorant to say no.

Shariah is a complete legal system, governing everything Muslims do. It can seem benign when applied on a limited basis to less important issues. However, in time, as the Muslim population grows, all of the rest will apply, including legalized wife beating, death for apostacy, dhimmitude, etc., etc.

All one needs to do to check the stages is look at progressively Islamized countries based on Muslim populations. The facts are there.

Gosh, I wish the Brits had something else they could do with their dim-witted products of inbreeding, besides put them in positions of power. The Archbishop and their chief judge speaking up in favor of Shariah no less. Is the fix in or are they demented? When we came within an ace of having Shariah sneak into Ontario (thanks to Marion Boyd former NDP Atty Gen)it was the Muslim Women's groups who mounted up the strongest protests. What female would voluntarily submit herself to a law system where a woman counts as "half a man"? Yet these "old boys" would suggest women from such repressive cultures would have the opportunity to choose the system of law they would operate under? I wish rats would gnaw away their dangly bits. Fools and buffoons.

Shariah is already being enforced in England. On the English children:

"Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah"
(DAILY MAIL)

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.

Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.

They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.

I swear the Daily Mail must bribe bureaucrats, judges, and other jobsworths daily to do something goofy that is headline worthy; no nation can possibly be as ridiculous and suicidal as the one portrayed by the UK media, it has to be some sort of Nielsen ratings scheme.

irwin daisy is right on; sharia is the wedge with which to force the door open wider.

Land of my forefathers, I never knew ye.

So what's the problem? They wanna practise a 7th century law,fine. Just make they sure they practise it in Iran!

"...So wait - in order to absolve yourself of being bound to the rule of law in England, you can opt for a different rule of law. Heck, not bad."

No, these comments have nothing to do with that, and while Lord Phillips is a pompous elitist twat (like most judges), the Daily Mail has blown what he said completely out of proportion. This has to do with choice of law in civil matters, which has been around for centuries. It has nothing to do with public law, i.e., criminal, administrative or constitutional law.

"A recent article stated that Canada is fast-tracking British immigrants. Yet another example of why that's a baaaaaad idea.

Posted by: Mississauga Matt at July 4, 2008 11:19 AM"

Maybe so Matt but there's also another way of looking at it. Both America and Canada were founded mainly by emigrants from the British Isles who wanted for themselves and their families something much better than what "home" had to offer. Whether in the 18th, 19th centuries or today, it takes a certain amount of character-courage and perseverance-for these people to pick up sticks and move themselves to Canada (or America, the other choice of large numbers).

Churchill spoke to the Canadian Parliament in January 1942, In referring to the English-speaking peoples who emigrated to and built both Canada and the US, he said(hope I got the quote right), "What sort of people do they [the Germans] think we are? We didn't cross the oceans, the prairies and mountains because we're made of sugar candy!"

These immigrants might be the very best sort, the ones who reject Dhimmitude, reject the collectivist nanny state, reject appeasement of encroaching Islamofascism. They may very well be the sort who see "citizen" as an active noun, not a passive one.

IMO, it's far more likely you'll find the bulk of those Brits who come to Canada or America to be good Conservative or Republican voters, not NDP'ers or Democrats.

Don't get me wrong, Dave - my wife was born in England. But I've seen and heard enough about those still in Blighty to know that they are the worst sort of loony left socialists and dhimmis. There's no way they'll be cons or GOPers; they'll be trade unionists and "poverty activists."

Remember, remember the 5th of .... July? Doesn't quite have the same ring as "November".

Refusing to "pray to Allah" results in detentions for two UK schoolboys during a lesson on religious tolerance. How fitting...

"'Educating children in the beliefs of different faith is part of the diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is essential to understanding.

"'We accept that such teaching is to be conducted with some sense of sensitivity.'"

Only an educational bureaucrat could state "some sense of sensitivity" with a straight face.

I swear the Daily Mail must bribe bureaucrats, judges, and other jobsworths daily
I too have been wondering about this. More likely some of these stories are exaggerated somewhat. One such exaggeration, still making the rounds, is that the Holocuast was removed from the UK school curriculum. Not quite true: from a single school it turns out. Not that this is not alarming in and of itself.

That said, I certainly don't want to give the impression that I'm anything less than gobsmacked at elitist lunancy in the UK and most other western nations INCLUDING the US.

Just as we laugh out loud at the bogus notion of separate "military" and "social services" wings of certain terrorist operations, we should also put paid to any notion of allowing religious groups to engage in "voluntary" arbitration in civil matters. We wisely ended this in Canada, even removing the very long-established, and evidently non-preoblemtic, Jewish arbitration to be consistent in our denial of shari'a law in Ontario.

Dave: wife beating, honour killing. Would this fall under the purview of arbitration which you seem to find acceptable, or did I misread you?

At least one media watch site seems to think the entire Express story is a fake.

http://www.football365.com/mediawatch/0,17033,8749_3746057,00.html

Nowt To Do With Football But...
We wondered exactly where The Daily Express would go after their 'White Men Face Jobs Ban' front-page headline yesterday, but they excel themselves today with the news that 'Sniffer Dogs Offend Muslims'.

However, we don't really think even the cold hearts of the Express are in this one.

'Police sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at railway stations may no longer come into contact with Muslim passengers - after complaints that it is against the suspects' religion' splurts the opening paragraph.

However, five paragraphs in....

'British Transport Police last night insisted it would still use sniffer dogs - which are trained to detect explosives - with any passengers regardless of faith, but handlers would remain aware of "cultural sensitivities".'

Not the loudest outcry we've ever heard.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

How long is that going to last before it morphs into full fledged Saudi style Sharia Law? It's Sharia family law where the worst abuses are inflicted by macho Muslim males. This damn fool of a judge, a Blair appointments for sure, has set up a parallel legal universe in Britain, one democratic that protects women and one that is abusive and restrictive. Amazing.

Sorry, Malcolm, there is no moral equivalency with Orthodox Jews settling marriage disputes and Sharia Law. Polygamy, arranged marriages, stoning, burqas, honor killings, etc aren't part of the Jewish religion.

The Brits are at the terminal end of a once proud culture. I'm torn between pity and revulsion. If there are pockets of resistence on that sorry island they sure are keeping it to themselves. As we celebrate our independence today here, all I can say is thank God George III got greedy and pissed off the colonies.

Some of these judges must be getting rich off all of the Muslim/Arab oil, etc.

Follow the money and you get to the bottom of a lot of skulduggery FAST.

"Dave: wife beating, honour killing. Would this fall under the purview of arbitration which you seem to find acceptable, or did I misread you?"

Yes, you did misread me. Choice of law is something for the civil sphere, for private law (i.e., contracts, torts, property, probate). It is never applicable to public law (criminal law, administrative law, constitutional law), because public law involves third parties and the whole of society. Wife beating = domestic-violence battery; honour killing = murder (at least where I live and work prosecuting such things). Those are crimes, and not subject to negotiation.

While I read and laugh (since the alternative is weeping) at this series of posts, aren't we forgetting that Maximum Tone did a runner over a year ago now, leaving the Gobblin' King to catch the flak. And if the posts are to refer to our current head of government, rebooting the series as "José Manuel Barroso's Britain" would be closer to the truth.

Oh, Christ. Bloody hopeless country.

Not a fan of sharia, or for that matter, of Islamic teachings of any description, but there is nothing new or radical in this justice's pronouncement. Keep in mind that a court can counteract choice of law clauses (at least in Canada, not sure about UK) for public policy reasons. Freedom of contract is the fundamental principle in play here. If some idiot wants to subject themselves to such medieval nonsense, they have that right, provided the remedies involved do not involve criminal conduct. Mitigating principles such as undue influence, coercion, inequality of bargaining power, unconscionable transactions, still apply.

Dave in Pa.: "IMO, it's far more likely you'll find the bulk of those Brits who come to Canada or America to be good Conservative or Republican voters, not NDP'ers or Democrats."

Interesting that, in your books, 'good' is synonymous with toeing a particularly ideological line.

Me No Dhimmi: "More likely some of these stories are exaggerated somewhat."

And in other news, the White House is white, hard things are harder than soft things, and water is wet.

ET: “So wait - in order to absolve yourself of being bound to the rule of law in England, you can opt for a different rule of law.”

Not really. What Lord Phillips is saying is that for certain purely civil matters, third-party arbitration can proceed along whatever rulebook the two parties want, as long as both sides agree. But one isn’t opting “out” of the rule of law – the Law of England and Wales still takes precedence and holds ultimate legal authority over these proceedings. It limits the types of remedies that may be ordered by the arbitrator(s), and if either party doesn’t like the decision, they have leave to appeal to the secular courts.

“BUT - how do you get into this esteemed exclusive set of people who can be governed by this non-English rule of law? Do you simply claim to be Muslim?”

You can also be Jewish. Google “beth din.” Whether you like it or not, Lord Phillips’ argument is about ensuring equal access/treatment under the law.

Personally, I prefer Ontario’s solution – no religious third-party arbitration of any kind. That would also ensure equal treatment under the law.

But allowing arbitration for some religious groups but not others? That’s clearly not kosher.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips

stoning, flogging or amputating hands - is 'out of the question';

For now! I am sure by the time most of this savage legal system will be in place you will have changed your mind in submission to Islams superiority. Just another Intelligensia Dhimmi who thinks they can tame this beast. Slippery slop??? This is halfway to China.

Personally, I prefer Ontario’s solution – no religious third-party arbitration of any kind. That would also ensure equal treatment under the law.

Agree 100%. And while we're at it, we should get rid of criminalizing Holocaust denial for the same reason.

However, your argument vis a vis "the parties agreeing" is naive in the extreme and reveals total ignorance of how Islam works in practice. It was western Islamic women's groups who were most responsible for preventing sharia law in Ontario. If you're threatened with assault or even murder for not "volunteering", so much for "the parties agreeing".

stoning, flogging or amputating hands - is 'out of the question';
For now!

EXACTLY. Tariq Ramadan, the putative progressive, adored and feted by lunatic western liberal appeasers, has, for example, repeatedly refused to condemn stoning for adultery. He suggested a moratorium!

For now, indeed!

Me No Dhimmi: "However, your argument vis a vis "the parties agreeing" is naive in the extreme and reveals total ignorance of how Islam works in practice."

Well, claiming that against Islam writ large is overstating the matter. In practise, particularly in the West, the vast majority of Muslims in fact do not threaten violence on one another.

But your point is taken, insofar as we can agree that all religions--Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, etc.--contain minorities who carry their beliefs to violent extremes, and exploit these civil mediation venues to further their oppressive practises. Hence my preference for Ontario's approach.

As a son of a British born immigrant, I gotta get my 2 cents worth in here. After WW2 the bulk of Brits emigrating to Canada were Left-Wing Socialist Trade Unionists.
Remember that A-Hole in the 70's that was head of the Postal Worker's Union? A plethora of them headed here to advance the cause of Socialism at the expense of the Canadian economy. Check out the accents of all the major union leaders in Canada. Brit Scots and Irish, all.
My grandfather didn't emigrate in 1912, work at the Sydney Steel Works, join the Canadian Expeditionary Forces in 1915,and serve under Lt. Col. John MacCrae, so that these A-Holes could come here and help ruin a once proud country.
Britain has been heading downhill a longer than we care to admit.

Britain is selling her soul, well, maybe not selling, just giving it away,ceding to all comers.

Islamists/Muslims can practice their faith freely in our democratic states so why do they need special permission to adhere to it? Looks like it's all about control and forcing followers to obey it's doctrine as interpreted by the various Imams. It's mainly to control their women, treat them as second class people and strict obedience.

Like any religion, they still must obey British Law beyond their religious tenets so why in hell do they need permission to practice their faith?
Sharia belongs to them, it has nothing to do with British Laws. Same as here, it doesn't belong anywhere beyond the practitioners and their Mosques, we are NOT Theocracies. We have no responsibility to enforce their rules.

"As a son of a British born immigrant, I gotta get my 2 cents worth in here. After WW2 the bulk of Brits emigrating to Canada were Left-Wing Socialist Trade Unionists."

I wonder if Malcolm Cross would include T.C. Douglas and Robert Strachan in his list of socialist undesirables from the UK?

A muslim man divorce his wife and based on Canadina law is divorce based on thier original country is still are married couple and woman not able to marry again and based on origna if men plan to divorce should pay some money or what every in their origian contract marrige was tehre to pay the wife in most Mslim put some money or gold or land saying if we divorce men need to pay certain of his amount said in original contract breach by men to pay wife but most men are deny these origianal Muslim sharie contract

there is so many sharie law taht cause complicated with Canada law since so many peopole came as immigrant in Canda has certain left in past based on their origina country that immigrantion to canada should not take civil or family law to get advantage in most cases
muslim men are winner and muslim woman are loose in divorce case

but I know sharie law is not understood fully by judes may need to teach in law school to know most of it not harmful they are only different way to may get some same result but more protect woman right in divorce or pay bills to children in compare with Canadian laws

if some one do not l ike pork or alchol then USA go to their country to change the law is not acceptable

being king and act criminl and break criminal law as most arab countries or even prince willima did can be bring isseue can
Duabi trust theri king who behind all selling pork and alchol enter to their countries for agaisnt muslim l aws

if country say we are Muslim and some is banned and agaisnt law of Islam should allow christian to bring pork to coutnries I bleive NO
christian can be survive eating other animla tehre is not necessaty to break Muslim law to please hospitaly of touristn to dubai and Iraq

again this is proof export Canada and food pork group are behind this and kings are break laws to have fun with those new toureist woamn enter to arab countires

I met a chritian man and he explained for me he has 17 years daughet who got accpeted for dance college in England and he is proud of him I asked do you send money to her he said No he work in all resturant there i said such simle this english men are send young daughter and ask to work any wehre and go to dance with boys young age means let her daugher in erlay age in spread of so many boys can toudh her or may do wortse this is not accptable culture to me to use as woman freedom here

all troust arab like english woman to come to havefun witht hem in beach party and give them all food and pork while this is against Law in Islam to eat port or have dance club open in Islamic country or drink alchol

do not listne to police said
do not drink or drive
listen to Muslim who are saying
' do not drink at all in any way'
stop druges by put who grow drugs and distribution and check all celbrities and rich people and check all police to ban druges

At stupid word #3, I skip the comments of a certain poster who uses a lot of different names. What a waste of space here.

Re the two boys punished for not taking part in a Muslim religious exercise in a state school: Aboriginal smudge ceremonies and making dream catchers happen regularly in Canada's state schools and the idiots who perpetrate this lack of separation of religion and state aren't even aware of what they're doing. What dolts. (And also disrespectful of Aboriginals--the last thing the PC idiots would want--who practise their ancient rituals, as well as of observant followers of other religions.)

Yup, we're living in crazy, menacing times.

this is easy
America identify all good Muslim scholar
change Islam law by enter pork to country
if any body under freedom of speach want to talk anything they will get arrested under name of terrorist

now USA enter in Muslim land and force jewish and christina law tehre evenwhat Muslim to eat is in future pork and alcohol

religion and politic are not seperated form each other except oppourtuniste in Canada like to mix these two laws

or price William who use druge free for him and not arrest while other black Canadian easy got arrested having 1 gr of druges

that is sepreation of money maker from law
that is not sepration of relgion from law
in benefit of people who corrupt people and do conpiracy using law as today police in newmarket arrest two polic involve growth of drugs in Canada

now are you telling Muslim what sharia law we must take it go and take your kids from street and fix your law before fix Muslimm laws and open your mouth to critize us

Sharia law tell Muslim what to eat right adn what is wrong
if you destroy all source of real halal food
then all food in canada is mix halal and nonHalal and porky materials
who care?
they intentionally bring wrong people up to play with shairia laws

The products which are not halal ( fruad halal) is selling in Canada and Middle East as follows:

Crescent halal is selling in Loblaw and Nofrills and Alsafa halal is selling in Wal-mart, Food Basic and Nofrill and ISNA ( Islamic society North America) and IFANCA( Islamic Food and nutrition Counsel America) , Maple lodge halal chicken and weiners are selling wal-mart, food basic and Nofrill are fruad halal food are not halal food , they are Haram ( Haram is opposite with halal food )

New, res, whomever, get a couple points straight:

If you don't like what loblaws, No-Frills, Walmart etc sells, shop somewhere else, or make your own. That's the wonder of a democratic state - you have the choice to not buy there. Enjoy.

Non-muslims don't give a crap about any of your religious perversities. You're entitled to your opinion and to live your life in any bizarre way you see fit. That's your burka to wear. The rest of us don't care as long as you keep it to yourself. That too, is the wonder of a democratic state. If you're unhappy about that, you're free to go enjoy yourself somewhere else. That too, is the wonder of a democratic state.

The problem with most all religious law codes is that they are highly misogynist (including Christian), and while arbitration is the western "escape" route against selective oppression within the codes, in practice, it doesn't work. The individuals involved, if they actively practice the principles of a particular religious code, are living in that subculture regardless of the supposed protection of the state. The 16 year old girl murdered by her family over a hajib is but a flagrant example of the inherent danger of adherent to repressive religious law.

The western legal system balances (imperfectly, I agree) David/Goliath legal weight of the contractors in civil matters. There is little apparent evidence that this is consistently true in religious law. Based on the examples I'm familiar with, most religious codes attempt to bend one of the parties to the view of the stronger, not balance them out.

Booting Sharia was the only good thing to come out of McGuinty ( that and the Green space concept in S. Ont), but he, of course, wasn't aiming it just at Sharia.

As an English ex-pat, I was greatly enraged, blood rushing to MY HEAD. GOT TO BREATH - DEEPLY. CANNOT STOP> EXPLODE!!!!

Ratt, one minor point. There is no separation of church and state in the UK. It is all the Monarch's familly business. Her church, her state, and only C of E can be monarch, and you better not be married to a divorcee.

At some point this small constitutional fact my become a problem for muslims. Then the fan will hit the shits.

Stephen @11.35 You cannot sign away your legal rigths in a contract; otherwise endentured slavery would be back.

Muslim sharia is reduce so much time wasting in Canada court
if person marriage in day one muslim has writen contract if marrige broke what men to pay woman and here in Canada take for ever while in Islam take 3 month for divorce in Canda 1 yeare and always has argue over money pay to woman more abuse woman in divorce in candain law and their chilren

too much brocrosy cause too much time waste in court not bodylike to go to court in Mulsim coutriies al law is formula if your father died how much you will get inhertiate unless the person put speifice will

muslim sharis is more make sense in so many thing in compariosn to Candain law

Muslim halal food in not crap nonMuslim in Nofrill and food basic and wal-mart are selling crapsss and if not know halal food who force thme to put sign ofhalal section in Nofrill while can not deliver and suply halal food tehymust bakk off ofMuslim feets these nonMuslim Nofrill and food basic and wal-mart
they are feed their porkt to Muslim like us army force Muslim eat pork in Iraq
why should they stay in this busienss tehy only can sell rice not halal food in nonMuslim can not make it
why peopel in Nofrill and Mapoel ldoge are not charge for fraud food lable in Canda whiel Jewish Kosher food are like Ezra are charge tehir k osher to court within a day

july 5, 2008 is pary in Wonderland called muslim day so ridiculs are this nonMuslim begging Muslim business and custoerm by feeding them fraud halal food

If Muslim alllow nonMuslim they feed us all pork and alchol soon in Canada

halal description in supermarke is nto what Muslim belive or said in their law like koshere food halal food in Nofril, Foodbasic and wal-mart is what Jewish owned company alsafa halal and irish owend company Maple lodge halal and german halal food owned Pillers sell in Nofrill under name of crescent all are fraud they feed Muslim what is easy to makde and type H-A-L-A-L

and they they laugh to Muslim said
"You must eat the crapsss we made and we lable you to eat.. no law to arrest them yet..."

we need shaira law to arrest this bigg asss Mr. May of Maple lodge and Mr. Huber of Piller sausage and Mr. Muller of Alsafa halal jewish owend company

the good recomanadition we can tell Piller sausage is good to hire Kathy Sheidle who is grman too and Mr. Alsafa can be supported by jewish Ezra Levant and Mr. May Maple ldoge we can call Mark Styen to help them out

by let them to sell wrong meat and say
who need shaia law in nonMuslim country called Canada

wonderland Muslim day using all wrong halal food
such as Maple lodge Haram ( not halal) chicken
and crescent food and alsafa halal and ISNA all halal named sold in Wonderland as Muslim day is wrong halal meat

Do not trust Maple lodge
Mr. May is full of fruad for a years

as Prine William never got arrested for drug posession
so as Mr. May owner of Maple lodge continue fraud by using Zabidheh lable in his products for years while all is machine kill chicken

Mr. May and head of Nofrills Mohammad Ibrahim work in Nofrill is full of fraud and Food basic
Mr. Willams and Wal-mart Mr. Rob Richardson need to get arrested for fraud lable for selling wrong halal food to Muslim

do not support nonMuslim owned Wonderland for supporting nonMuslim owned halal like Maple ldoge and nonMuslim owned supermarktes Nofrill, Food basic and Wal-mart all are fraud

big billionar are behind this busienss for profit nto for service for Muslim to be honest with them

follow Sharia Muslim halal food do not follow nonMuslim owned to feed Muslim wrong fraud lable

"There is no separation of church and state in the UK."

There is in Wales (since disestablishment in 1920).

"It is all the Monarch's familly business. Her church, her state,"

In Scotland, the church of which the monarch is an adherent, the Episcopal Church in Scotland, the church in Scotland that is a jurisdiction of the Anglican communion, is NOT the official church. That's the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland.

"and only C of E can be monarch,"

Legally, that's incorrect. Despite being Supreme Governor of the Church of England, no law requires the monarch to be a member of that church. The Act of Settlement of 1701 excludes only Roman Catholics from the throne, not adherents of any other faith or sect.

The Coronation Oath requires the monarch "to the utmost of [her] power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law ... [and] maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England" but that does NOT require that the person doing so actually belong to the Church they are exercising secular authority to protect.