Thursday, February 07, 2008
Rowan Williams’ Law
Prize for apparently barmiest idea of the day must go to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams for suggesting that some Sharia law in the UK is unavoidable and seeming fairly in favour of the idea (full pdf text of speech here). It seems that the media reaction describing amputation, flogging and stoning is not what Williams meant. He seems to have been talking about things like divorce and property law. However, this still seems completely contrary to the idea of all being equal under the law. Certainly the politicians have slapped the idea down pretty firmly. Whatever Dr. Williams thought he was trying to do and no matter how sensible he feels he is being; it still seems a pretty daft idea.
Turgon @ 06:53 PM
GF: Well, I find it illuminating that there was, apparently, no sectarian or religious element to our conflict!
The subtlety about Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries would, I think, be somewhat lost on a Muslim from central Africa in much the same way as the differences within Islam elude the typical man/woman on the Aughnacloy omnibus. :)
The point about identifying the entirety of Islam with those who would kill for naming a teddy bear kind of proves my point about needing to know more about the world’s major religion in all its diversity (including the fact that the majority of those believing in Sharia law are opposed to violent Jihad.)
As Michael Caine would say….Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 10:10 AMYeah people who want Sharia law are nice people. People who want to mutilate criminals by removong their hands, murder homosexuals and rape victims, and treat women like slaves. Oh yeah, did I mention that if Mohammad was arround today he’d be considered a peadophile, IIRC he took Fatima as his wife when she was a child. I’m sorry I’ve yet to see any possitive in Islam and Sharia law.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 10:20 AMI’m intrigued that nobody’s mentioned the London Beth Din, which has operated as a religious ‘court’ for centuries.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 10:52 AMNevin,
Perhaps Williams is trying indirectly to re-establish his Church’s role in the state and may have been emboldened by the actions of Cardinal Connell in the RoI.I don’t get the comparison. Connell is not trying to re-establish the Church’s role in the State.
He is running to the High Court to try and prevent discovery of documents on grounds of privilege.
He is presenting a legal argument within the parameters of the laws of the State, in particular the Constitution, and it will be the judges of the High Court who will pass judgment on the matter, balancing the rights of Connell against the need to administer justice.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 10:57 AMIt amounts to much the same thing, George. If I understand it might he’s claiming that the Commission is operating beyond its remit ie that it’s intruding in the Archbishop’s domain. Martin has taken a different view but he wasn’t in charge at the time the documents were filed.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 11:27 AMBritain recognized sharia for the muslim part of populations in most of its colonies up to independence - Kenya, Nigeria, India for example. This was part of Lord Lugard’s strategy of ‘indirect rule’ - basically getting the local chief to do the oppression and extract the hut taxes etc to pay the colonial government.
Same was tarted up as respecting difference and contrasted with the French system of assmiliation - with its categories of immatriculé and non-immatriculé natives.‘Indirect rule’ was often opposed by missionaries, because it hindered their progress and perpetuated (what they saw as oppressive and backward practices). They ran an ‘anti-circumcision’ campaign in Kenya in the 40s on these grounds - and were opposed by both headmen and colonial government.
Williams is buying into a system of patriarchal social control - which has come back post 911, ie. get the tribal leaders, heads of ‘faith groups’ etc in to Dowining street to tell us what’s going on in the kids heads in Bradford etc. and hopefully to control them in the old oriental style. New Labour have encouraged this which makes todays fury, from Blunkett et al, a little inconsistent.BTW ‘sharia’ means ‘law’ - no need to call it ‘sharia law’.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 11:27 AMI don’t want to get into the business of one little section of the community setting up its own courts and issuing its own punishments, because it disagrees with the mainstream
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 11:36 AMI don’t want to get into the business of one little section of the community setting up its own courts and issuing its own punishments, because it disagrees with the mainstream
Posted by Buggerhed on Feb 08, 2008 @ 12:36 PM
Why does that sound familiar?
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 11:46 AMStunning dhimmi attitudes in an area that will be the first to fall into the caliphate. Nuetrality at it’s worst. At least all the soccer stadiums won’t go to waste. In a short time all this will be sorted out. Glad I’m in a country who has drawn a line in the sand. Wait to see what happens when the 7th century murderers light up an atomic device or two… Not to worry, you’ve got good old Russia in the area to help you out.
Tsk, tsk.Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 12:40 PMmaca: Their beliefs may be different but calling them backward is essentially saying that our beliefs are superior.
What a strange thing to say. If you don’t think your beliefs are superior, then change them at once.
And calling someone’s beliefs ‘backward’ is simply saying that you belong to a culture that has discarded similar beliefs for something that you think is better. Which is what people do, of course.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 12:59 PMNevin
It amounts to much the same thing, George. If I understand it might he’s claiming that the Commission is operating beyond its remit ie that it’s intruding in the Archbishop’s domain. Martin has taken a different view but he wasn’t in charge at the time the documents were filed.
It has absolutely nothing to do with “intruding in the Archbishop’s domain”. He is arguing based on solicitor-client confidentiality; I believe they also have that in Britain.
It will be arbitrated by the courts and will fall under civil and not clerical power; any attempt to characterise it otherwise is either flat wrong, or flat dishonest. Which are you?
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 01:11 PMNevin,
If I understand it might he’s claiming that the Commission is operating beyond its remit ie that it’s intruding in the Archbishop’s domain.
My understanding is that he is claiming privilege on documents containing legal advice, which is generally permissible.
He has goine to the High Court to ascertain whether this legal advice privilege was his or the Archdiocese’s.As he sought legal advice on behalf of the Archdiocese and is now seeking legal privilege on behalf of himself, I would be confident that he will fail.
The Archdiocese has waived any rights to this legal privilege.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 01:25 PMJoe
And nobody has mentioned Kosher or Halal either.Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 02:14 PMRoman Catholics can be just as bad. Cormac O’Connor was recently twisting the arms of Catholic MP’s to try and get them to vote religion on the Embryology Bill. The Pope via his agents has been actively interfering in the Spanish election. So for me this isn’t simply a Muslim issue. Keep religion in the home, the Church and the local religious community where it belongs.
Posted by shaughnessy_and_me on Feb 08, 2008 @ 06:46 AM
Catholics believe that the embryo is a child. Whether you agree with this belief or not, they have every right to lobby for the protection of what they believe to be a human life. Should they keep quiet about all murder or just the murder of children? Is it just clergy you have a problem with having a voice in politics or any member of the church? If as a catholic, somebody is to believe life begins at conception, why should they accept murder as law? I refer to what catholics believe as i am not too sure of other religions believe in the matter of conception and when the human life begins.Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 04:22 PMRowan exit first door on your left please.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 06:18 PM‘Well, I find it illuminating that there was, apparently, no sectarian or religious element to our conflict! ‘
The conflict in NI was not essentially about ‘religion’ per se . It was about ‘money, power, equality of opportunity , voting rights, and the constitutional position of NI within the UK. It just so happened that the political division neatly fell along sectarian lines. I can’t recall any RC priest or Protestant Minister calling for Jihad?
‘including the fact that the majority of those believing in Sharia law are opposed to violent Jihad.’
Likewise I’m sure the vast majority of RC’s and Protestants both in NI and the Republic were opposed to the violence.
Having a law or a code of laws is not the same as having justice . We know from history that laws are often passed to impose ‘injustice’ or legalise ‘theft’ . Take the post 1690 Penal Laws in Ireland . Who now or even then could state that they were ‘just’?
This is an issue which all europeans are going to have to face sooner or later . Williams should resign . The vast majority of europeans in all western countries will not countenance any imposition of Sharia law across the continent. Sharia law belongs in the desert from whence it came !Posted by on Feb 11, 2008 @ 01:31 PM-
Posted by on Feb 13, 2008 @ 06:40 PM
