Sunday, February 10, 2008

Archbishop furore: Time for us to grow up?

The Observer today provides some mature reflection on What-a-Burkhagate.

On Page One they report that the Court of Appeal is about to rule on a case involving an arranged marriage conducted in the UK under sharia law. This is a "live" example of how British law already relates, one way or another, with sharia law, indicating that the Archbishop's lecture was not exactly irrelevant.

There's a Focus spread including a large piece entitled "How law and faith war broke out".

The article lists a long series of examples where British law already makes some sort of accomodation to religious sensitivities: Sikhs' turbans on motorbikes, sharia mortgages legalised by Gordon Brown last year, the Church of England Consistory courts which have wide powers over planning applications, the legalisation of Halal meat, the recognition of Islamic marriages and divorces conducted overseas, multiple wives allowed spouse benefits, Jewish civil divorce courts, the Beth Din etc etc

The article also notes that Williams made it clear that he was talking only about the role of sharia law within the civil - not the criminal - system, and that he was talking about a voluntary system:

'The archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system,' said Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain. 'He sought to explore the possibilities of an accommodation between English law and some aspects of Islamic personal law. British Muslims would wish for parity with other faiths, for their personal relationships to be governed by a sharia code.'

There is a profile of Rowan Williams which seems to have started with the working title "Man of the cloth or clot of a man ?" (it is iconised on page 28 as such) but which ended up with the slightly more moderate title of "A quiet man who said too much".

Finally, there is a very level-headed leader entitled: "Wrong, Dr Williams, but the debate is right". This is a leader which is less censorious of Dr Williams than its title would suggest.

One might ask, why has there been such a ludicrously disproportionate outcry over a relatively dry academic lecture which described as "unavoidable" something which, arguably, already exists anyway? In many cases, outrage has its roots in insecurity on the part of the outraged. This is a theme which the Observer leader touches on:

The sad truth that has emerged in recent days is that, while Britain needs this debate, it appears to lack the discipline to conduct it in a civilised way. The scale of the backlash, some of the language used and the haste with which some opponents of the archbishop have reached for crude stereotypes of Islam is dispiriting. It is unedifying to see the majority culture turn with near unanimous scorn on a minority. It suggests that secular Britain is deeply insecure about the durability of its own culture.

I mentioned that I thought the leader was less censorious in tone than its title would suggest. This is mainly because of the concluding paragraph, which is quite laudatory towards Dr Williams:

But a competition has emerged in recent days quite separate from the theoretical rivalry between sharia and parliamentary law that Dr Williams wanted to debate. It is a contest that reveals just as much about modern Britain as any treatise on faith. It is the contrast between reasonable, sensible exposition of an idea, whatever its merits, and unthinking, poisonous, prejudiced reaction. From that competition, for all his wrong-headedness and naivety, Dr Williams emerges on the moral high ground.

While I am at it, can this be the last time that, when starting a piece on sharia law, the BBC News show clips of stonings, amputations and shootings? It's ignorant, incendiary, unnecessary and downright irresponsible. In fact, I can feel an email to Newswatch coming on...

No comments:

Post a Comment