Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

[[R_H]]

BBC

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".

'Sensational reporting'

In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London 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".

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

"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."

'Other loyalties'

Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences." "We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."

The issue of whether Catholic adoption agencies would be forced to accept gay parents under equality laws showed the potential for legal confusion, he said.

"That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a western democracy," he said.

"But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that."

'Custom and community'

Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.

People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.

The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.

Dr Williams' comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.

Last month, the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said some places in the UK were no-go areas for non-Muslims.

Dr Williams said it was "not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion".

[Rye]

Yeah, I just saw this on the news. The leader of the most liberal mainstream christian church is saying muslims should be allowed to self-govern with sharia fucking law. What a fucking moron. At least he's reminding us why even the CofE is a threat against reasoning and the safety of all the usual victims of Sharia.

[Androsphinx]

Leading politicians have distanced themselves from the Archbishop of Canterbury's belief that some Sharia law in the UK seems "unavoidable".

Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "believes that British laws should be based on British values".

The Tories called the archbishop's remarks "unhelpful" and the Lib Dems said all must abide by the rule of law.

Dr Rowan Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

He said adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law could help social cohesion.

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

'Changes'

But the prime minister's official spokesman said Sharia law could never be used as a justification for committing a breach of English law, nor could the principle of Sharia law be applied in a civil case.

He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who was perfectly entitled to express his views.

The spokesman also said: "There are instances where government has made changes - for example on stamp duty - but the general position is that Sharia cannot be used as justification for committing breaches of English law nor can its principles be used in civil courts."


All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts
Baroness Warsi
Conservatives

Sharia law in the UK
Religious courts already used

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: "To ask us to fundamentally change the rule of law and to adopt Sharia law, I think, is fundamentally wrong."

For the Conservatives, shadow community cohesion minister Baroness Warsi said: "The archbishop's comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities.

"Of course the important principle is one of equality and we must ensure that people of all backgrounds and religions are treated equally before the law. Freedom under the law allows respect for some religious practices.

"But let's be absolutely clear. All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said: "Whilst having an enormous amount of respect for Rowan Williams, I cannot agree with his conclusions on this issue.

"Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another.

"There is a huge difference between respecting people's right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law."

Beeb

[Darth Wong]

"There is a huge difference between respecting people's right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law."

Too bad the books are full of legal precedents stating exactly the opposite: religious people get special exemptions from the law all the time. I guess it's different when it's someone else's religion, eh?

[Eris]

This reminds me a lot of when John Locke, that great man of early British liberal thought, argued that toleration of religion should not count for Catholics because of their divided loyalty between their country and the Pope. The idea's certainly more or less the same, just with all the words muddled up. (He also didn't like atheists, because he thought that the lack of a morally just afterlife removed the incentive for the common person to be good in life, but that's not applicable here.)

[wjs7744]

Too bad the books are full of legal precedents stating exactly the opposite: religious people get special exemptions from the law all the time. I guess it's different when it's someone else's religion, eh?

Law is far from my field, but aren't legal precedents worth a bit more in the US than here? After all, our precedents go back much further, all the way to the dark ages in fact. So it isn't really suprising that they reflect more old-fashioned views. I mean, precedents aside, we still have a bunch of ancient laws on the books that nobody ever bothered removing.

[Androsphinx]

"There is a huge difference between respecting people's right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law."

Too bad the books are full of legal precedents stating exactly the opposite: religious people get special exemptions from the law all the time. I guess it's different when it's someone else's religion, eh?

Clegg is an atheist.

[Starglider]

I've seen this idiot say some fucking stupid things in the past but this takes the biscuit;

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

And that's somehow a lesser danger from allowing hardliners to dictate their own laws to their own cowed minorities, their authority reinforced by the air of legitimacy (further) state recognition gives them?

[Androsphinx]

This reminds me a lot of when John Locke, that great man of early British liberal thought, argued that toleration of religion should not count for Catholics because of their divided loyalty between their country and the Pope. The idea's certainly more or less the same, just with all the words muddled up. (He also didn't like atheists, because he thought that the lack of a morally just afterlife removed the incentive for the common person to be good in life, but that's not applicable here.)

Seeing how Locke wrote that a year after Britain deposed a Catholic absolutist, I think we can cut him some slack.

[Dartzap]

Can't Queen Liz just..you know...fire Williams? She is head of the Church, technically.

[Honorable Mention]

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

What a false dichotomy. It has nothing to do with "loyalty." It has everything to do with a state system preventing cultural oppressiveness.

[Darth Wong]

"There is a huge difference between respecting people's right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law."

Too bad the books are full of legal precedents stating exactly the opposite: religious people get special exemptions from the law all the time. I guess it's different when it's someone else's religion, eh?

Clegg is an atheist.

So? He's still a product of western culture, in which Christianity is somehow deemed a more "reasonable" religion than the others.

[Molyneux]

If one doesn't like the law, there are four options:

1. Fucking leave. No-one forced them to emigrate there.
2. Live with it.
3. Try to change it through legitimate means; you're in a representative democracy, you have the vote.
4. Civil disobedience; disobey the law and accept the legal consequences. Amazing how often people forget that important last bit.

Unless the Muslim community starts trying one of those four options, there's little reason to preemptively try to change the law for them. Fucking idiocy.

[Dartzap]

1. Fucking leave. No-one forced them to emigrate there.

Many of them were born here, which tends to be part of the problem, really.....

[Quadlok]

Um, maybe I'm an idiot, but I think its pretty clear that the Archbishop did not mean that the Muslim population should be able to set up there own complete legal system. The example given of the Orthodox Jewish courts suggests that they are only used for rather minor civil matters, and any violent crime or major infraction, including those resulting from enforcement of an ethnic or religious law, would still be illegal and subject to British Law. Not that this is a good idea, but it isn't the horrible slide back into the dark ages that you people are acting like it is.

[The Guid]

Too bad the books are full of legal precedents stating exactly the opposite: religious people get special exemptions from the law all the time. I guess it's different when it's someone else's religion, eh?

Clegg is an atheist.

So? He's still a product of western culture, in which Christianity is somehow deemed a more "reasonable" religion than the others.

Where did he state that that was his position? Where do you gain it from? Stop putting words in people's mouths.

[Darth Wong]

Clegg is an atheist.

So? He's still a product of western culture, in which Christianity is somehow deemed a more "reasonable" religion than the others.

Where did he state that that was his position? Where do you gain it from? Stop putting words in people's mouths.

I don't have to, moron. The guy proclaims that the law does not make exceptions for religion, even though it does. So he's either lying or he somehow thinks that these other exceptions are more reasonable.

[HemlockGrey]

I don't have to, moron. The guy proclaims that the law does not make exceptions for religion, even though it does. So he's either lying or he somehow thinks that these other exceptions are more reasonable.

I think Clegg is saying that the law shouldn't make any exceptions, not that it doesn't.

[Adrian Laguna]

The guy proclaims that the law does not make exceptions for religion, even though it does. So he's either lying or he somehow thinks that these other exceptions are more reasonable.

Or he's alluding to "the law" in an abstract sense and believes these exceptions shouldn't be there as they go against it. A fourth, though unlikely, possibility is that modern British law does not have the exceptions you allude to.

[Molyneux]

The guy proclaims that the law does not make exceptions for religion, even though it does. So he's either lying or he somehow thinks that these other exceptions are more reasonable.

Or he's alluding to "the law" in an abstract sense and believes these exceptions shouldn't be there as they go against it. A fourth, though unlikely, possibility is that modern British law does not have the exceptions you allude to.

Perhaps he thinks they're the equivalent of "blue laws" - on the books, but no longer enforced or taken seriously?

[Plekhanov]

Too bad the books are full of legal precedents stating exactly the opposite: religious people get special exemptions from the law all the time. I guess it's different when it's someone else's religion, eh?

Clegg is an atheist.

So? He's still a product of western culture, in which Christianity is somehow deemed a more "reasonable" religion than the others.

I personally know Nick Clegg and going off what I've heard him say in the past and what he's quoted as saying in the article I'm sure that he wasn't defending existing Anglican privileges.

He's by no means a hardcore anti-theist in the mould of Dawkins but he is a convinced secularist and for example took some hits from the Christians in the local party and lost some volunteers by opposing faith schools in the last election, and so far as I can tell is about as upfront in his atheism and secularism as the leader of a major party can viably be in the UK at the moment.

Back to what the arch bishop's said; like the push for more faith school these remarks seem to be part of the trend of theists seeing secularism as opposed to alternative faiths as their real opposition in the UK at the moment and consequently advocating special treatment for other religions in the hope that theirs will be given the same privileges.

If Anglicanism was strong in the UK I've no doubt that Williams would be every bit as hostile to Catholics and non-conformists never mind Muslims as the vast majority of his predecessors were.

Whilst it's nice to see the figurehead of the once dominant state religion reduced to this I just wish that instead of interpreting the Arch Bishop's Remarks as some kind of PC liberalism they'd see them for what they are; the foolhardy flailings of a church in decline desperate to hang on to the unjustified and unjustifiable privileges it still enjoys.

[Sidewinder]

Wouldn't adopting some characteristics of the US immigrant naturalization process, e.g., testing would-be citizens on their knowledge of the nation's legal codes and governmental systems, be a better idea? Besides, I doubt a Muslim woman would want to go to an Islamic court if she's getting a divorce, considering all the bad press we get about how Muslim men treat women.

[Plekhanov]

Wouldn't adopting some characteristics of the US immigrant naturalization process, e.g., testing would-be citizens on their knowledge of the nation's legal codes and governmental systems, be a better idea? Besides, I doubt a Muslim woman would want to go to an Islamic court if she's getting a divorce, considering all the bad press we get about how Muslim men treat women.

If they weren't so indoctrinated and/or scared of upsetting their family & peers no women would ever have anything to do with Islam. Sadly they are so they do and if that option was available I've no doubt distressing numbers of women would 'choose' to submit themselves to Sharia courts.

[Stuart Mackey]

Can't Queen Liz just..you know...fire Williams? She is head of the Church, technically.

Technically yes, technically she can do a huge amount of things, but the Monarch {I refer to the office, not it occupant) is bound by convention to accept the advice of the elected ministers of the day.
It is interesting to speculate of what she might do if sharia did begin to seriously undermine the functioning of the state without appropriate government action *thinks wistfully of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I*

[Stuart Mackey]

Um, maybe I'm an idiot, but I think its pretty clear that the Archbishop did not mean that the Muslim population should be able to set up there own complete legal system. The example given of the Orthodox Jewish courts suggests that they are only used for rather minor civil matters, and any violent crime or major infraction, including those resulting from enforcement of an ethnic or religious law, would still be illegal and subject to British Law. Not that this is a good idea, but it isn't the horrible slide back into the dark ages that you people are acting like it is.

I dont think you realize just what Sharia actually is. Sharia is the judicial interpretation of the Koran, it is not only a complete legal system but also dictates how a persons life shall be lived and it tolerates no others.