I have lost all respect for Dr. Rowan Williams

[ajva]

What?

What? What? WHAT?

Let's see:

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

What?

But Dr Williams says the argument that "there's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger".

SPLUTTER!!!!!! WTF? One law for all is a danger? A DANGER? What sort of idiocy is this? One law for all is the only way to do it. One law for all - as an ideological aim - defines the better traditions of this country: not one law for the rich, one law for the poor; not one law for men, one law for women etc. It is an ideal not always reached in practice, but held dear as an ideal. And three cheers for that.

Dr Williams adds: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

Nonsense. The law of the land should not be subject to influence by religious forces, directly or indirectly. If there be a stand-off in the mind of a religious person, then it is up to that person to live according to their own conscience, and to accept the legal consequences should there be any. It is not acceptable to alter the law to accommodate their religious prejudices.

"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."

Exceptionally muddle-headed thinking, tantamount to advocating fundamentalist appeasement in my view. We should not officially accommodate separate religious law in this country. Both philosophically and practically it would be very dangerous indeed.

I have thought for some time that Dr. Williams might be a little cowardly in some respects, but I'd given him the benefit of the doubt over the homosexuality in the C of E issue, since I could see that he is in a difficult position politically if he wishes to prevent schism. However, this is the last straw. The man is totally undeserving of the respect of the secular community in this country IMV.

Comments

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

FWIW, the ellipsis does change the sense of what he was saying considerably. The danger he's talking about is alienating people with a knee-jerk dismissal of alternative views of what the law should be. Full text of the interview is at http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

I think we're doing a press release on this at the moment. It's pretty horrifying.

It's interesting that the term 'faith communities' (or even, in the case above, just 'communities') has become a euphemism for 'British Muslims'.

Update: BHA press release: http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2414

[ajva.livejournal.com]

...a lot of what's been written whether it was about the Catholic church adoptions agencies last year, sometimes what's written about Jewish or Muslim communities; a lot of what's written suggests that the ideal situation is one in which there is one law and only one law for everybody; now that principle that there's one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a Western liberal democracy, but I think 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, so an approach to law which simply said, 'There is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or your allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts'. I think that's a bit of a danger.

No, I'm sorry, Elise, but this is just as bad. The law should not take any account of this at all.

CL: And that is why Sharia should have its place?

ABC: That is why there is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other religious law.

Utter utter dangerous nonsense. Utterly horrifying. I cannot bear this; this man is immensely dangerous precisely because he seems so nice, gentle, academic and harmless, but talks such a dangerous talk and has considerable influence on our society. This view of his must be vociferously opposed by secularists and their sympathisers everywhere, IMO.

sharia

[thekumquat.livejournal.com]

I *hope* what he's actually talking about is what is already done with Jewish law - the main example being divorce courts working to ensure Orthodox Jews seeking civil divorce also grant a Jewish divorce, avoiding the situation where a woman would be divorced but unable to remarry because her ex-husband refused a 'get' or Jewish divorce.

Taking views from Islamic law into account in a mediation-style process, while still keeping the letter of UK law, could be a sensible idea for family courts. Or being willing to set up bank accounts for benefits payments that meet sharia principles.

But of course that doesn't make nearly as good a headline as 'Bring sharia to Britain!!!', with its instant mental images of hand-chopping and stonings.

Re: sharia

[ajva.livejournal.com]

I don't get the impression, even from reading the full press release, that those kind of practical measures are primarily what he's talking about.

Re: sharia

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

I don't think that is what he's talking about - he mentions people having a 'choice' between settling some matters under British or what I suppose we must refer to as 'Sharia-British' law.

I agree with his point that Sharia's an emotive word, of course, and I wouldn't be surprised (saddened, but not surprised) to see British law making allowances for certain Sharia-sanctioned financial processes such as Islamic mortgages. But I'm not sure that's what's being talked about here.

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

But the law takes account of an awful lot of things - circumstances, background, motivations &c, either in the text of the law itself, or in the interpretation by the court. That's why we have lawyers.

I know very little about Sharia law, but it strikes me as very unlikely that there aren't aspects of where finding a constructive accommodations wouldn't be dangerous.

I do think there's a danger, which he was bloody daft not to have foreseen, that this interview will be used for dangerous ends. I don't like it at all, but I don't think the appeasement is a stark as you're making out.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

The law takes account of many things, but it cannot afford to take account of religious beliefs per se, since (quite apart from anything else) religious beliefs by their very nature are ill-defined: even those who ostensibly follow the same religion, or indeed the same sect within the same religion, or indeed are members of the same community fellowship within the same sect within the same religion, can and often do differ in their beliefs - often in some rather startling ways.

Even Sharia Law itself is ill-defined. There are dozens of different shades of Sharia Law, varying by culture. A British-Sharia law would vary again, but its official acceptance as an alternative within our legal system would still create a legally sanctioned two-tier justice system, which is unacceptable in my view.

Dr. Williams' psychology tends towards reaching out to meet people halfway; that is why he has risen to the position he now holds, and that is why can talk like this. Sometimes, such a tendency can be healthy, but here it has led to his being very misguided over this one particular issue IMV.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

And of course you know that this will stir up an awful lot of fear ("Soon we'll be just like Iran, people getting their hands chopped off and stoned to death!") and anti-Muslim sentiment ("Ooo do they fink they sare, comin' over here, changin' our laws...!").

Which, come to think of it, may have been the point. The insidious horror of 'the other' is one way to get people rushing back to embrace the Church.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

If Rowan Williams turns out to be quite that deviously clever, I'll eat my own clitoris with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

[thekumquat.livejournal.com]

[splorfle]

Somehow, I think your genitalia are safe. :)

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

So, when he resigns (or 'retires') in, oooh, shall we say four or five days' time, and his successor turns out to be some gung-ho evangelist, I should look forward to dinner at your place?

I'm willing to admit I may be being rather cynical - but I'm not willing to stake even one shiny penny on it, let alone a favourite bodypart.

[adjectivegail]

This is. Disturbing. Do any of us know of any examples where British law has a "constructive accommodation" with the religious laws of an ethnic minority group?

There should be one law for everybody and that should be all there is to be said.

And gods, can you imagine the slippery slope? We reach a constructive accommodation on this thing, and then that thing, and then we're in this horrible grey area where there are no absolutes and some people want to carry things to their logical conclusions! Just don't start!

[djm4]

But, as it points out on the BBC web site:

"Under English law, people may 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."

To my mind, that's still 'one law for everybody', because everybody has that option.

[jhg.livejournal.com]

So it's one law for them, and another law for the rest of us?

I for one am outraged. In the good old days that sort of special treatment was reserved for the wealthy and/or those who are 'one of the chaps'.

[jhg.livejournal.com]

Well it makes a change from placenta I suppose.

[meico.livejournal.com]

Your analysis is spot on. Fuck that shit.

Re: sharia

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

Having read the full text of his lecture, which is on the BBC news site, I think that's exactly the sort of thing he's talking about. He suggests that people should be able to opt into Sharia or Jewish law for issues of personal status, financial transactions, mediation and dispute resolution. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be aware that all of these things are already available via the Beth Din and Sharia Council and various forms of trusts and other financial instruments that already exist and are enforced by English law. He expressly says that nothing should be allowed that denies members of the relevant communities access to their rights under secular law if they want to exercise them. He also says that religious motivations should be taken seriously by the courts when people are explaining their behaviour - not to exempt them from the law, but when the courts have to make judgments as to whether someone was acting in good faith, which can be relevant to sentencing and to offences/civil wrongs where one of the ingredients that has to be proved is malice. Apart from the odd ignorance about the Beth Din and Sharia, I actually think it's a very good lecture. A lot of it is about preventing the state from becoming too powerful, which is a good liberal principle. It doesn't say anything new, though - just pulls together some of the existing arguments into one place, like your typical undergraduate lecture, even if it is a very good one. We really need to disestablish the Church of England as quickly as possible so that people stop paying quite so much attention to what Archbishops say. I can't imagine it causing quite such a furore if this lecture had been given by, say, the President of the Methodist Conference.

[reddragdiva]

He's providing the best possible arguments in favour of the secularisation of British government, including the disestablishment of the Church of England.

Re: sharia

[ajva.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine it causing quite such a furore if this lecture had been given by, say, the President of the Methodist Conference.

*laughs* Quite so; well said. :o)

I admit my initial vitriolic reaction was based on the media reports rather than a reading of the original speech. However, I still disagree strongly with the idea - that I *think* he seems to be putting forward - that formalising a deeper accommodation with some Sharia law would help towards greater social cohesion. I also think there is a certain naivety in his belief that resorting to secular law will be an option in practice for all; it seems to me that, for example, women who receive what we might consider to be less just divorce judgements from a Sharia court will often never have the option, in practice, to resort to a secular process of English/Scottish law instead. Greater formal accommodation within the British legal systems of such a thing would surely reduce the existing opportunities for justice rather than increase them.