Thursday, February 07, 2008

Don't Offend the FSM

Oh dear. I see that the Archbishop of Canterbury has weighed in to the debate on Sharia law, and is suggesting that adopting parts of Sharia law, such as dealing with marital disputes, could 'help social cohesion'. He states that it's "a bit of a danger" to say that "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". Sorry, but this is an absurd statement. Its logical conclusion would mean that you should be able to pick and choose what decisions of the court to respect, based upon your 'loyalty or allegiance' and, ultimately, that all 'loyalties and allegiances' must be adopted by the legal system. After all, we can't discriminate against some belief systems but not others - if we did, what would the Pastafarians have to say about it?[For another view of Rowan Williams and his ideas, see this post at Head of Legal.]


  1. We agree on this again, John. Amazing!

    Listening to Williams (just imagine how I spit his name) in his WaTO interview on Radio 4, what got me was his talk of "choice". If divorce Islamic-style were an option, does Williams really think every woman in Blackburn would have an informed choice about which jurisdiction to "choose"? How would he guarantee these women impartial prior advice about the potential risks of consenting to Islamic divorce?

    The man's simply a fool.

  2. Now he has pronounced on his interpretation of Numbers 15 vv 15 - 16, I wonder what the consequence will be for Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali who had the courage to stick his head up above the parapet and got death threats for the privilege.

    The sooner the Druid Williams finds something else to do, the better it will be for this nation.


Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.