I’ve never had much time for Rowan Williams: touted and hyped as a man of liberal progressive principle, and the highest posisble intelligence, he has in fact shown himself as prepared to bow to hatred of homosexuality rather than stand up for fairness and as showing a lack of moral focus on abortion. I see no principle in him whatever, except that he will be vicar of Lambeth, and I agree completely with Polly Toynbee’s characterisation of his as a pathetic weather-vane windbag. He fully deserves this kind of public ridicule in my view.
No surprise, then, that such a great liberal thinker should come up with the suggestion that Sharia law is in some sense “unavoidable” in the UK. We must, he says, “face up to the fact” that some British citizens do not relate” to the British legal system. In typical ringing (should that be wringing?) Williams style he says the idea that there is one law for all, surely one of the fundamental ideas essential to a liberal democracy, is
“… a bit of a danger.”
What he wants is a “constructive accommodation” with Islamic law.
Now, I’ve no problem with Islamic law governing Islam: who’s married to whom in Islamic terms, for example. I’ve no problem with Muslim traders choosing to arbitrate commercial disputes using Islamic law arbitration systems. But I think he must be arguing for more than that: for the secular law of the land somehow to recognise an Islamic jurisdiction separate from its own, as in the frightening example of the “criminal trial” mentioned in this article, or for instance by Islamic rules on divorce to be recognised here.
I’m with John Bolch of Family Lore on this: integrating sharia law into the fabric of our legal system in that kind of way would be unfair to the women it would undoubtedly oppress, and would be the real bit of a danger to our society. But then, it should come as no surprise by now that Williams want to constructive accomodate unfairness and wrong.
Actually I think his use of the word “unavoidable” gives a real insight into the psychology of moral compromise: it seems unavoidable; therefore one should accomodate it.
I think he’s the most ridiculous man in England.
***DO NOT***** get me started!!!!!!
( Otherwise I will Spontaneously Combust, or something, and I don’t want to be an intresting stain on a chair during my Civil Lit Exam Mock this W/E!!)
Hi Carl. I’ve just posted about this myself, but I think you got in first!
I concur, but without your endorsement of La Toynbee who herself has been shown to be a weathervane. Frankly her views are largely ill-considered and entirely opportunistic.
Williams is a remarkably stupid man. He may be well-intentioned, but he is incredibly short-sighted.
The Druid Williams also appears to have more of a Left leaning intellectual about him than a man of God.
Not only is he incredibly short sighted, but he clearly does not know his scripture, which in former times would have been a bit of a show stopper. However, in Blair’s legacy it is clearly nothing of the kind. Numbers 15 vv 15 – 16 (where the Lord says that we shall have ONE law both for ourselves and any strangers in our midst) does seem to put the damper on each multicultural “community” importing its own laws to suit.
I’d be okay with him if he really were left-leaning, Yokel. He’s no more left-wing than the Pope or Ann Widdecombe, and worse than them, he wouldn’t know a principle if it revealed itself to him with gaping stigmata.
Take Jeffrey John: Williams made sickeningly hypocritical noises after the fact about the need for christians to search their hearts, love gays etc., but it must have been him who strong-armed John into withdrawing from the Bishop of Reading job.
He didn’t have the principle to stand by the Lambeth declaration (is that what it was called?) under which as I understand it John was perfectly properly appointed a bishop; and he didn’t have the balls to sack him, because that would have meant openly siding with the Nigerian ultra-conservatives.
He backs them in all his practice; I’ve no idea what principle, if any, his convoluted theoretical utterances support.
A point being ovelooked here is that the Lord Chief Justice chaired this event! Does he also endorse this appalling vista?
Here is the link:
http://www.middletemple.org.uk/content.asp?PageID=437
Sorry to use “anonymous” but I am having problems with passwords! I am actually “law-watcher”
Listening to the interview yesterday lunchtime and skim reading the extracts of his speech that I have been able to get hold of, I believe that the Archbishop has simply failed to recognise what has been available to Muslims in this country for years.
Have a look at my entry and tell me what you think – http://evanprice.blogspot.com
@ Anonymous/Law-watcher 9:15 pm
Let’s not confuse Chairmanship of a panel or a debate with agreement, eh?