A Bit of a Danger

An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger.

Yes, it's the Archbishop of Canterbury speaking. Well, who else?

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London later on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

He continued:

"As it happens I am not in my right mind: that's why I come out with this rubbish. Ha ha! Sorry about that. Do you like my new cassock? It's embroidered silk, you know. I had it made especially. No one else can wear one of these. Certainly not the Archbishop of York. When I chant very loudly, God makes it light up to show how much He loves me. Shall I show you?"

At this point the interview was terminated, and the Archbishop was led away, singing "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam".

Comments

[Dom]

"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

I'm scratching my head here. Has the state accomodated Christian, or Jeewish, or Buddhist law?

American laws generally allow no accomodations with religion. We can't say the Pledge in public schools because of the words "under God", and I assume we can't recite the Gettysburg Address for the same reason.

I suppose American "Blue Laws" might fit -- some cities won't allow selling alcohol on Sunday, but these laws generally don't stand up when challenged.

[DaninVan]

Dom; up here in Canada, Ontario actually, efforts by Islamic groups to have Sharia recognized backfired when ALL religion-based 'court'/mediation authority was disallowed. This in spite of the fact that these (non-sharia)courts had operated without conflict for a very long time.
Seems like the muzzies win even when they lose.http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/09/09/sharia-protests-20050909.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3599264.stm

[DaninVan]

"...that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system."

WTF?!! How did this guy get to be an Archbishop?...nevermind, don't answer that. The CofE will be the death of England yet.

[JohnM]

Speaking as a recidivist burglar, I have to say that the Bishop is quite right. It is absurd that the same law should apply to everyone equally. I demand the right to be judged by people who share my own cultural values.

[Jim Miller]

I hope you will excuse me for making this suggestion -- I am an American and not a member of the Episcopalian church -- but have you considered replacing Rowan Williams with a Christian? (Assuming, of course, that change wouldn't violate your laws.)

Even the most secular should be able to see advantages in this solution. Imagine, for example, a BBC interviewer faced with an Archbishop of Canterbury who said that he planned to preach the Gospel to Muslims. (You might want to keep emergency services standing by, just in case the interviewer could not cope with such an outlandish idea.)