Sharia law in Britain

His comments were stupid, there should be no form of sharia or any other religious laws put in place, another clash between church and state, all citizens of the country follow and respect British law, there should be a law for all citizens, not one type of law for a certain group of people and another for another group of people.

 

The Brits don't have a "separation of church and state" clause do they?

 

We don't have a constitution to put such a clause into.

As to the comments themselves, they are certainly naive, but are only rendered dangerous or stupid by other people's interpretation of them. What Williams is actually doing is putting forth an argument for religious edict in general to have a relevance in a society's legal structures. Using Islamic law (or rather, the subset of Islamic law that the Sharia code encapsulates) as your point in hand is ill-advised, but he's making the point on behalf of all religion.

Now, most people would disagree with that point irrespective of what examples he hangs it off - the rule of law must be based on rational, collective judgement, not codified superstition (which is all religion is, after all). But it's entirely appropriate for him to make the point he's making in any case, given his role.

 

The Archbishop has just confirmed his status as Britain's biggest troll.

 

FYI...

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575

During the course of the BBC interview...

The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law. Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that "as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" . When the question was put to him that: "the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable?", he indicated his assent.

So he didn't actually say the introduction of sharia law into Britain was unavoidable... he simply agreed with the statement, 'the application of sharia in certain circumstances... seems unavoidable'. Well, what does 'the application of sharia', mean, exactly? It rather sounds like Sharia is a type of ointment, (some kind of soothing balm perhaps), to be applied to a dodgy knee or elbow.

TBH Rowan Williams rather reminds me of my brother. David Aaronovitch mentioned on the BBC a phrase by George Orwell. He said something along the lines of 'Only someone absolutely brilliant could say something that stupid'.

It's also worth saying that orthodox Jews have the Beth Din courts which they can go to for arbitration. The Muslims also have the sharia courts which function in the same way. The important thing is they have no legal force and their decisions then have to be ratified by a court.

 

Majority of major banks here will happily give you a Sharia bank account if you ask for one.

 

The position as Archbishop of Canterbury is almost as much political as religious. Almost. And while Williams is an above average, well above average, theologian, he is a lousy politician.

I do think he had in mind the courts of which Andy Bennett was speaking at the end of his post, but he needed to find a better way and perhaps a different time to express such sentiments. There is a vocal minority clamoring for the introduction of Sharia Law to deal with all matters Muslim in Britain and in Europe. Their objectives are decidedly different from what Williams is speaking about. But lacking somewhat in political nous he has allowed himself to become intertwined with these fundamentalist idiots.

There are a few 'courts' which operate supposedly parallel to the law, like the Orthodox Jewish ones and some courts of arbitration and the like, but what all of them have in common is that none of them can unilaterally rewrite the law of the land and decide, for instance, that taking a 2nd wife is legal or that executing someone for contravening dietary laws is acceptable. And that's where Williams fell down.

 

You have a consitution, it is just not written in one document. Rather it is written out in a long series of documents begining with the Magna Carta and also takes into account 1000 of tradition and precedent.

Your parliament could easily pass a "Statute of Rights" and that would take its place in your constitution.

I think what the UK needs is a new Bill of Rights. Also, religious as I am, I think it is time the the Church of England was disestablished. But as a Yank, I have no vote on those matters.

 

Uff. OK, we don't have a written constitution. Pedant.

I'm not bothered what they do with the Church of England, it's an irrelevance in daily life for most of us. As to a Bill of Rights, I think the European Union screeds on Human Rights that we've signed up to do that job sufficiently well. National views of such matters are sooooo last century.

 

Hey, I am a lawyer after all!

Considering the fact that more people attend churches (amd mosques and temples and synagogues) other than the established churches on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, I think that speaks to the need to disestablish the C of E. Further, I find it ironic that Tony Blair, who was preparing to become a Catholic, technically named the C of E bishops.

With respect to national rights, personally, given the differing history of rights in Britain compared to the continent, as a British subject I would much rather look to British law than European law. So I would rather have my rights set forth in a document that emenates from Parliament rather than Brussels.

But then again, as a Yank, I have no vote.

 

Well, for people who go to Church maybe. But like I said ... hardly relevant to most of us. It's like will we ever get round to repealing that famous law that makes it legal to shoot a Scotsman with a crossbow after midnight within the city limits of York? I doubt anyone's got the time to seriously do something about it.

Well, it was ironic with his God-botherer hat on, yes. But remember that Bishops get to sit in the House of Lords, so as PM he had a clear party-political imperative to consider with this duty, so in that sense it was important.

If nothing of either existed here, today, I'd agree. But as we have perfectly workable directives, adopted as British Law by the British parliament, in place already, I don't see the point in effectively repeating the process. We're covered.

 

Bloody good job too... have you been to York late on a Saturday night?

 

AIn't that the truth!

 

Well, even the Independent and the Guardian seem quite excited about it. You guys strike me as Independent readers.

And remember

 

Smart-arse!

I heard it slightly different back in the 70's.

The Times is read by the people who run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."

"Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big *&*$."

There's no new jokes, eh!

 

The one I posted was from the old tv series "Yes Prime Minister," probably the funniest political show ever.

And yes, there are no new jokes. Here is the American version:

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by people who run the country.

2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.

3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country and who are very good at crossword puzzles.

4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but really don't understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.

5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country - if they could find the time- - and if they didn't have to leave southern California to do it.

6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.

7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.

8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.

9. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country but need the baseball scores.

10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country...or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feminist atheist dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy, provided, of course, that they are not Republicans.

11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.

 

Yeah, those handicapped, minority, feminist, atheist, dwarf illegal alien republicans... what a bunch of arseholes, eh!

 

Awww. Sorry marek. Did we ruin your knee-jerking thread with considered opinion? We're rotters, we really are. Mind you, that was a terrific week's work on your part, that socialist party link. Attaboy!

 

You don't seem to be taking take this threat as seriously as you should. I can't believe you are using comedy on a thread of such significance. This is nothing to joke about!!

When the Great British Empire is ruled in the near future by a handicapped, minority, feminist, atheist, dwarf, illegal alien (and possibly even illegal AND alien), republican, Islamic, French fundamentalist, you will regret mocking Wise Marek's words