In Defence of Dr Williams
I have been shocked at the backlash created by the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks about inevitablity of the incorporation of Sharia law into British law, both from politicians and from the views of the Great British Public as expressed on the infamous BBC Have Your Say message board.
I admit that as a concept, the idea of incorporation can seem quite shocking. But if you cut out the sensationalism and actually read Dr Williams' remarks (something I doubt many have bothered to do before weighing in), his suggestions are quite sensible.
The Archbishop makes it clear that:...nobody in their right mind...would want to see in this country a kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states [such as] the extreme punishments [and] the attitudes to women...
He foresees the application of Sharia law in only limited circumstances, and emphasises the importance of choice.
Of course, the general rule must be one law for all, and Dr Williams describes this as "an important pillar of our social identity as a Western liberal democracy". However, he argues quite convincingly that:...it's a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and the law needs to take some account of that.
Some areas (such as the criminal law) must always be controlled by the state. But if private parties agree to have a matter between them governed by a particular set of rules, we must take their request seriously, with appropriate safeguards.
Let's take marriage as an example. Is it really so implausible that, just as one can decide which law a contract should be governed by, the same should be true of marriage and divorce? Obviously, miniumum standards would have to be observed and we would have to be careful of duress, but a central aim of the law should be to give effect to autonomy. Moreover, religious courts already exist in this country, and are described in a presumably less-read BBC article. As Dr Williams points out, formal recognition of religious courts could ensure more scrutiny and protection than currently exists.
I'm not saying that the idea is a particularly practical or even desirable one, and I'm sure Dr Williams now regrets making the comments given the ridiculous furore they caused. But it is an issue that calls for informed debate if we are to have a genuinely pluralistic society, and I admire the Archbishop for raising it. Given the ill-informed and immature reactions of some, such a debate seems a long way off.
ETA: The full text of the Archbishop's lecture can be found here.
I admit that as a concept, the idea of incorporation can seem quite shocking. But if you cut out the sensationalism and actually read Dr Williams' remarks (something I doubt many have bothered to do before weighing in), his suggestions are quite sensible.
The Archbishop makes it clear that:...nobody in their right mind...would want to see in this country a kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states [such as] the extreme punishments [and] the attitudes to women...
He foresees the application of Sharia law in only limited circumstances, and emphasises the importance of choice.
Of course, the general rule must be one law for all, and Dr Williams describes this as "an important pillar of our social identity as a Western liberal democracy". However, he argues quite convincingly that:...it's a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and the law needs to take some account of that.
Some areas (such as the criminal law) must always be controlled by the state. But if private parties agree to have a matter between them governed by a particular set of rules, we must take their request seriously, with appropriate safeguards.
Let's take marriage as an example. Is it really so implausible that, just as one can decide which law a contract should be governed by, the same should be true of marriage and divorce? Obviously, miniumum standards would have to be observed and we would have to be careful of duress, but a central aim of the law should be to give effect to autonomy. Moreover, religious courts already exist in this country, and are described in a presumably less-read BBC article. As Dr Williams points out, formal recognition of religious courts could ensure more scrutiny and protection than currently exists.
I'm not saying that the idea is a particularly practical or even desirable one, and I'm sure Dr Williams now regrets making the comments given the ridiculous furore they caused. But it is an issue that calls for informed debate if we are to have a genuinely pluralistic society, and I admire the Archbishop for raising it. Given the ill-informed and immature reactions of some, such a debate seems a long way off.
ETA: The full text of the Archbishop's lecture can be found here.