Death Comes For The Archbishop

Well, not Death, but Iain Dale is definitely coming for the Archbishop, paraphrasing Henry II's words which, if memory serves, actually lead to the murder of a previous noisesome incumbent of the Canterbury See.  Here at Blairwatch we adopt the wiser dictum of 'read the document, not the headlines' and naturally we find that the rush to condemn the bearded wonder is lead by people who haven't read or more probably haven't understood, a complex, layered, learned 5,500 word speech.

He thinks the introduction of some sort of Sharia Law is "unavoidable". - Iain Dale

The Archbishop of Canterbury faces widespread criticism after saying some Sharia law in the UK is "unavoidable". - BBC

Rowan Williams says introduction of Islamic justice system in the UK is 'unavoidable' - Guardian

I haven't dared look at the right-wing press.  Now, the first thing to note is that the Bish is badly misquoted on the word 'unavoidable'.  He uses it once, near the end of the speech (long after he's stopped talking about Sharia law) to refer to what he sees as the least worst option between two previously outlined future dystopias.  He defines these as:

Firstly total state control of civil matters, with no arbitration allowed outside state institutions (which he sees as repressive to religious believers).  Here he's not a fan, saying that this...

...occurs when secular government assumes a monopoly in terms of defining public and political identity. There is a position - not at all unfamiliar in contemporary discussion - which says that to be a citizen is essentially and simply to be under the rule of the uniform law of a sovereign state, in such a way that any other relations, commitments or protocols of behaviour belong exclusively to the realm of the private and of individual choice

[One has to say that this carries echoes of a lot of our criticisms of New Labour's homogenising quasi-Stalinist-neo-Thatcherite tendencies, where you're both a no-such-thing-as-society Thatcherite competitive consumer on the one hand and a regimented, trained, disciplined Worker Bee In The Age Of Change on the other].

Secondly, he discusses a system of communal isolation, with distinct communities setting up their own jurisdictions outside mainstream law.  He also views this negatively, as being open to, in a delightful phrase, 'vexatious appeals to religious scruple' or more importantly to the continuation of repressive or barbaric cultural customs, particularly around women's rights.  He says:

The problem here is that recognising the authority of a communal religious court to decide finally and authoritatively about such a question would in effect not merely allow an additional layer of legal routes for resolving conflicts and ordering behaviour but would actually deprive members of the minority community of rights and liberties that they were entitled to enjoy as citizens.

Hardly an extreme or controversial conclusion.  This isn't Nazer-Ali, after all.

This being the Church of England, he offers up a slightly half-baked middle way, which he's still not entirely convinced by.  This goes along the lines of people being able to choose jurisdictions in a sort of legal market, based on their personal and cultural preferences.  I'm not convinced it's a great idea (my preference would be for a strong and understood state legal system with a few adhoc delegations or carefully thought out liberalisations in specific areas, biased towards those which are as uncontroversial as possible), but that's what he's proposing and that's what people should be debating.  Instead, we'll doubtless get 'Loony Sandal Wearing PC Liberal Bearded Bishop Invites The Taliban To Take Over'.  I'll be watching for it, since even nominally liberal media outlets seems convinced that what he's saying that 'sharia in the UK is unavoidable', so God knows what the Mail, Sun and Express are lining up.  The British media, rushing into print with a story based on a misreading of a single line of a complex and detailed document?  I'm truly shocked.

Oh, and the idea of overlapping supplementary jurisdictions which people can pick and choose between depending on the (brand?) loyalty they feel?  It's from a Jewish, female, legal theorist called Ayelet Shachar.  It's hard to imagine someone whose ideas are more guaranteed to be at odds with those of the Taliban and co., really.  Let's see who else spots that one - it's a sign they've read the thing properly, and anyway, isn't the whole idea merely free-market economics applied to the legal system?

Elsewhere:

Obsolete, not a fan.

Blood & Treasure, who ties it back to internal C of E politics, since they'd be a key beneficiary of the 'liberalisation' of the jurisdictional market.

Pickled Politics has Sunny in action on this, but he needs to read the original speech.