What’s Next?

Everyone’s favorite Archbishop thinks that Sharia Law in an inevitability in Britain. Not only that, he wants to help it along. I really couldn’t ask for these stories.

But Dr Williams says the argument that “there’s one law for everybody… I think that’s a bit of a danger”.

Ohhh boy, this isn’t going to be fun. I’ll accept there’s a whole lot more to Sharia law than what we commonly associate it with it, but even if it were the fairest legal system ever created, it shouldn’t be able to bypass the democratic process our laws rely on just because some people like it better. If there are good parts of Sharia law, let’s hear about them! Let them be debated in the House of Commons and MPs pass them into law for everyone to live by. It is very concerning when someone who sits in the House of Lords doesn’t seem to understand why the rule of law backed by the democratic process is preferable to self-appointed courts.

Dr Williams argues that adopting some aspects of Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

Yes, “One law for them, one law for us” has always been fantastic for social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

I’m fairly certain if both sides want to a third party to mediate discussions they can ask whoever they like to do it, the only difference here would be making it officially binding. Once it exists officially there’d be much more incentive to use it rather than the rather nice court system the rest of us have to put up with, making it harder for people in these communities who don’t want to use Sharia to opt-out.

“There’s a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law.”

Question One: Does the religious law in question violate existing law?

Question Two: Is it a bad law that should apply to no citizens and should be repelled?

Question Three: If ‘yes’ to the first and ‘no’ to the second, why does this group deserve special treatment?

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.”

You’re allowed to disagree with laws, you’re allowed to campaign to change them, you can even break them and accept the consequences. What you don’t get is special dispensation from the law because your religion says otherwise.

“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.”

I can’t be reading this right, is he really saying the best way to stop unofficial oppression under Sharia is to officalise it, because then at least we know it’s going on?? See, I’d have thought the best way of intensifying oppression inside a community would be to legitimize it into public law. But then I’m not Archbishop, what would I know?

To sum up: Having different laws for different people is a very bad idea.

Having just finished the book version of Taking Liberties (which made me so angry I think I have to go see the film), this part of an NYTimes article leaped out at me:

Part of the problem is that, in response to the shameful abuses at Abu Ghraib, the American military instituted vastly excessive civil rights protections for detainees. In our experience, it has worked this way: After an arrest, two soldiers must file affidavits, together with physical evidence and digital pictures, and then an American lawyer decides if the package is strong enough to withstand further review. About half of all detainees are released within 18 hours; the others are sent from battalion level to brigade level, where the evidence is re-examined, resulting in more releases.

Those detainees remaining are sent to a detention center where a combined board reviews the evidence again, and releases still more. After that, every six months a United States board must re-review the evidence in each case. Lastly, the detainee appears before an Iraqi judge, who in turn dismisses about half of the cases.

I agree, needing evidence in order to lock people up is dangerously excessive. Next they’ll be asking for a jury of peers or other claptrap. Just because it didn’t look like the evidence was going to hold up is no reason to release them! Chances are they were an insurgent anyway and if they weren’t, well, they might have become insurgents at some point in the future. It’s best to be safe than sorry.