My blizzard of free copies of the Daily Mail (see previous post!) did not include the edition in which the Archbishop of Canterbury came out in favour of adopting sharia law in the UK. But it's not difficult to imagine what they made of it -- the same as just about everyone else, i.e., what is Rowan Williams thinking of? (For what it's worth, Dr. Williams was at my university college at about the same time I was).
Dr. Williams seems to be arguing that it would be appropriate to adopt certain elements of sharia law because not everyone in the UK accepts the current legal framework. True: criminals don't, for example. But the hugely adverse reaction to Dr. Williams's remarks shows that most people, conspicuously INCLUDING most Muslims, do accept it. And even if they didn't, the principle that the rule of law can be different for different groups of citizens would surely be one that should be resisted at all costs. (Then again, the shocked reaction of MPs when they are caught fiddling their expenses or accepting dodgy donations suggests that there is already at least one group of people who think the rules don't apply to them).
There is a place for "alternative dispute resolution" techniques, which are already used extensively in the business world. However, these are adopted so that the parties involved can avoid the delays and expense of using the regular courts, and not because they reject their jurisdiction. If Muslims want to use sharia like this, for example in family disputes, that's fine: but if they want the right to employ sharia-inspired punishments that are forbidden by UK law -- stonings, for example -- that's not fine. With his own church colleagues, politicians of all stripes and senior Muslims queuing to speak out against him, Dr. Williams needs to come back in off the ledge, fast.
No comments:
Post a Comment