You are in:
- Contents » Heroes and Villains
Sharia Law "Unavoidable" For UK
It's hard to know where to start with the Archbishop of Canterbury's startling claims for the desirability of sharia law in Britain.
Dr Rowan Williams said yesterday that while he (clearly) opposes the dreadful crimes committed in the name of Islamic sharia law elsewhere in the world, he believes that Britons should get used to the idea of the system being used in Islamic communities for cases dealing with finances and weddings.
He added that Britain also needs to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens "do not relate" to the British legal system. He said Muslims are "Faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty" and that as a multicultural society, Britain's legal system needed to adapt to these new circumstances.
The head of the Anglican Communion told BBC Radio that a concept of law which demands "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".
"What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."
He said that it was important that Muslims weren't put in the position where they might have to choose between Islam and British law: But the case most people would argue is that they don't. No-one forces Muslims to feel more strongly about their Britishness than for their religion, any more than we expect British-born people of Irish descent to hoist the Union Flag on the Queen's birthday. We do, however, demand that everyone, no matter what their background, respects our laws.
Dr Williams padded his claim by saying that separate religious groups within Britain already enjoy a certain official understanding of their religious laws; he added that hoped conflicting loyalties did not drive sharia supporters to practise privately, thus "intensifying oppression."
However, for many outside observers, the basis of sharia law is all about intensifying oppression. The European Court of Human Rights found sharia incompatible with democracy in 2001 and it is certain that the European Convention on Human Rights would support claims against sharia's treatment of women and apostasy. The Guardian points out that a previous attempt to introduce sharia law in Canada failed partly because a court deemed that a woman's right to equal protection in the law was not guaranteed under sharia.
Moreover, British law is designed to provide a neutral ground where those facing injustice in their own communities can find solace.
Earlier this week, EURSOC reported on claims that entire Muslim communities, including police officers and taxi drivers, conspired to return errant women to the tender mercies of their families. Can sharia be trusted here? And then, there's another example of this terrifying phenomenon from Ruth Gledhill in The Times:
"A few weeks ago, I was chatting to a woman who works in an advocacy role for Muslim women in an area that, quite independently of the Bishop of Rochester, she described as a 'no-go area' for non-Muslims. Her clients were women in the process of being sectioned into mental health units in the NHS. This woman, who for obvious reasons begged not to be identified, told me: 'The men get tired of their wives. Or bored. Or maybe the wife objects to her daughter being forced into a marriage she doesn't want. Or maybe she starts wearing western clothes.There can be many reasons. The women are sent for asssessment to a hospital. The GP referring them is Muslim. The psychiatrist assessing them is Muslim and male. I have sat in these assessments where the psychiatrist will not look the woman patient in the eye because she is a woman. Can you imagine! A psychiatrist refusing to look his patient in the eye? The woman speaks little or no English. She is sectioned. She is divorced. There are lots of these women in there, locked up in these hospitals. Why don't you people write about this?'
"My interlocuter went very red and almost started to cry. Instead, she began shouting at me. I was a member of the press. 'You must write about this,' she begged.
"'I can't,' I said. 'Not unless you become a whistle-blower. Or give me some evidence. Or something.'
She shook her head. 'I can't be identified,' she said. 'I would be killed. And so would the women.'
EURSOC isn't suggesting Dr Williams condones this horror: But this is the community which demands separate laws.
While other faith communities have informal systems of discussion and redress, only Islam demands an exception - though we must qualify this by adding that many Muslims reacted angrily to the Archbishop's suggestions.
Why does Dr Williams single Muslims out for facing the "stark choice" of faith or law? Many devout Catholics oppose abortion laws: They rarely externalise this clash by demanding separate treatment. Only an anti-Semite would accuse Jews of having conflicted loyalties to Britain because of Israel. Why should Muslims alone feel that this conflict can only be resolved by their own courts?
"People of many faiths - Jews, Hindus, Sikhs - have settled happily in Britain without demanding a new set of laws for themselves", the Times' leader claims. Arguing that Dr Williams has made a "grave mistake", it adds,
"It would be more useful to ask how to help more Muslims to integrate successfully into what is a tolerant culture, than to urge a change in that culture to suit a notion that some parts of the Muslim community feel more comfortable with."
In some ways, Dr Williams is harming those he seeks to help. As he said himself, sharia in some forms is already practiced in the UK, though most Britons would take strong issue with the Archbishop's extraordinary claim that "It's not as if we're bringing in an alien and rival system."
Most of these affairs are for minor offences and local quarrels, though a stabbing case was held before elders in 2006. However, following Dr Williams' declaration, there will be strong pressure to bring these sharia courts under closer public scrutiny.
The Archbishop has been criticised from all sides following his claims: Government ministers, too, have distanced themselves from his call for sharia. Gordon Brown's spokesman said,
"Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes.
"If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the Government would look at.
"But the Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values."
However, one can't help but feel that Dr Williams is not going out too far on a limb: The government has allowed sharia law and no-go areas to thrive in Britain for more than a decade.
Gordon Brown's spokesman mentioned his commitment to "British values" - Dr Williams has noted that sharia is not alien to us, and therefore British. Here's Brendan O'Neill, editor of Spiked:
"The Archbishop of Canterbury (...) claims the adoption of some aspects of Sharia law in the UK is ‘inevitable’. This perfectly captures what underpins the alleged ‘rise of Islamism’ today – not a groundswell demand by Keffiyeh-wearing radicals for Britain to turn Islamic, but rather a deep discomfort within Britain itself about its own laws, values, faith. When even the head of (...) the Church of England talks up Sharia, you know the real problem is here, not ‘over there’."
The government has already abandoned enclaves dominated by radicals in south London and northern England, much as the security forces gave up on neighbourhoods in Belfast and Londonderry to the IRA in the 80s. Sharia is a reality in Britain: Is Dr Williams coming under fire for letting the cat out of the bag, or is the religious leader merely softening up public opinion before sharia is legally incorporated?
