Archbishop says law 'must protect religions'

source: www.telegraph.co.uk

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent

New legislation may be needed to protect religious believers from "thoughtless and cruel" attacks if Britain's ancient blasphemy laws are scrapped, the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.

Dr Rowan Williams conceded that the blasphemy offences were flawed and no longer served any purpose, but he questioned whether recently introduced laws banning incitement to religious hatred were an adequate substitute.

The Archbishop said that public debate had become coarsened by powerful people who arrogantly assumed the rightness of their own position and ignored the hurt they caused others, including Muslims and Jews.

"The law cannot and should not prohibit argument, which involves criticism, and even angry criticism at times," said Dr Williams.

"But it can in some settings send a signal about what is generally proper in a viable society by stigmatising and punishing extreme behaviours that have the effect of silencing argument."

He added that the law should "keep before our eyes the general risk of debasing public controversy by thoughtlessness and (even if unintentionally) cruel styles of speaking and action."

The Archbishop was speaking after the Government announced plans to axe the much criticised blasphemy laws after a consultation with the Church of England.

In the James Callaghan Memorial lecture, Dr Williams challenged the argument that free speech must always prevail, saying that society had to protect the sensibilities of people who were not in a position to defend themselves.

"It is one thing to deny a sacred point of reference for one's own moral or social policies; it is another to refuse to entertain - or imagine - what it might be for someone else to experience the world differently," he said.

"And behind this is the nagging problem of what happens to a culture in which, systematically, nothing is sacred."

He said that since the blasphemy laws no longer provided religious believers with sufficient protection, there was "no real case for its retention".

But he added: "How adequately the new laws will meet the case remains to be seen; I should only want to suggest that the relative power and political access of a group or person laying charges under this legislation might well be a factor in determining what is rightly actionable."

His speech was, however, dismissed by the National Secular Society as "self-serving and dangerous".

Terry Sanderson, the president of the Society, said it was "a blatant pitch" for new legislation to replace the blasphemy laws that would be "even worse than the ones we are about to ditch".

Church leaders accept that the blasphemy laws were severely undermined when a High Court ruling last month rejected an attempt by an evangelical Christian group to prosecute the director general of the BBC over the musical Jerry Springer - The Opera.


Is sharia law in Britain "unavoidable"?

Dr Rowan Williams
Has Dr Rowan Williams got it wrong?

The adoption of some aspects of Islamic sharia law in Britain "seems unavoidable", the Archbishop of Canterbury has claimed in an interview with the BBC.

Dr Rowan Williams, symbolic head of the world's 70 million Anglicans, argued that other religions enjoyed tolerance of their own laws and called for "constructive accommodation" with Islamic practice in areas such as marital disputes. He stressed that such practice should not take precedence over an individual’s rights as a citizen.

Asked if the adoption of sharia law was necessary for community cohesion, Dr Williams told the BBC: "It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system."

Do you agree with Dr Williams that Britain will inevitably adopt certain aspects of sharia law? Should every religion have the right to establish certain legal frameworks providing they do not contradict British law?

Are Dr William’s views compatible with his role as the head of the Church of England? Do you agree with our blogger, Damian Thompson, that he should be removed from the post?


Dr Williams said it "seems inevitable" that elements of Islamic law, such as divorce proceedings, would be incorporated into British law.

Dr Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" that some citizens do not relate to the British legal system, and argued that officially sanctioning Sharia law would improve community relations.

"Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states," he told the BBC's World at One programme.

"But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them."

But his intervention put him at odds with Gordon Brown, who has repeatedly encouraged ethnic communities to integrate.

The Prime Minister's spokesman said that while certain allowances had been made for Muslims, British law would be based on British values and Sharia law was no justification for acting against national law.

Religious groups and secularists also attacked the Archbishop, saying that his comments were "baffling and bewildering" and would undermine social cohesion.

Stephen Green, the national director of Christian Voice, said: "This is a Christian country with Christian laws. If Muslims want to live under Sharia law then they are free to emigrate to a country where Sharia law is already in operation.

"Any accommodation with Sharia law does nothing to help social cohesion. Christian law has been eroded by secularism and this country was founded on Christian values."


Adopt sharia law in Britain, says the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams


By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent, and Andrew Porter, Political Editor
Last Updated: 2:26AM GMT 09 Feb 2008
Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury
Dr Williams has made a habit of 'pro-Islamic' comments

The Archbishop of Canterbury was embroiled in a fierce political and religious row last night after he called for aspects of Islamic sharia law to be adopted in Britain.

* Your View: Is Sharia law in Britain unavoidable?
* Damian Thompson: Williams' authority is in tatters
* Leader: The archbishop's inept intervention

Dr Rowan Williams said that it "seems inevitable" that elements of the Muslim law, such as divorce proceedings, would be incorporated into British legislation.

His comments were immediately attacked by Downing Street, religious groups and MPs from all sides. The head of the equality watchdog denounced his claims while several high-profile Muslims also criticised Dr Williams.

"The Archbishop's thinking here is muddled and unhelpful," said Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

"Raising this idea in this way will give fuel to anti-Muslim extremism and dismay everyone working towards a more integrated society."

Baroness Warsi, the shadow minister for community cohesion and social action, said: "The Archbishop's comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities.

"All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said: "I think there is one law in this country and it's the democratically determined law.

"That's the law that I will uphold and that's the law that is at the heart actually of the values that we share across all communities in this country."

Sharia is the body of Islamic law implemented in some Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Libya and Sudan. In some, it is associated with draconian punishments for crimes such as theft, adultery or blasphemy, such as amputation of limbs, death by stoning or use of the lash.

In Afganistan, a student who downloaded a report on women's rights from the internet is facing the death penalty.

Women's rights are curtailed in many countries. Some interpretations of the law mean women have to cover themselves from head to toe in burkhas when they go out.

The Archbishop provoked the row by saying Britain had to "face up to the fact" that some citizens did not relate to this country's legal system and argued that officially sanctioning sharia law would improve community relations.

He said there was an argument that aspects of sharia law, such as those involving divorce, financial transactions and the settling of disputes, could be accommodated with British legislation.

Speaking before a speech on the issue - delivered last night - Dr Williams said: "Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states.

"But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to divorce courts as we understand them."

Dr Williams's intervention puts him at odds with Gordon Brown, whose spokesman was quick to distance him from the Archbishop's comments.

"The Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values," he said.

Khalid Mahmood, the Muslim Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, said: "This is very misguided. There is no half-way house with this.

"What part of sharia law does he want? The sort that is practised in Saudi Arabia, which they are struggling to get away from?

"Muslims do not need special treatment or to be specially singled out. This would not contribute to community cohesion."

Some senior Muslim clerics are pressing for the introduction of Islamic penal law with its often brutal punishments.

However, religious groups and secularists attacked the Archbishop, saying that his comments were "baffling and bewildering" and would undermine social cohesion. Stephen Green, the director of Christian Voice, said: "This is a Christian country with Christian laws. If Muslims want to live under sharia law then they are free to emigrate to a country where sharia law is already in operation."

But Dr Williams said the argument that "there's one law for everybody" was "a bit of a danger" and called for "a constructive accommodation" with aspects of Muslim law.

The Church of England was allowed to operate its own courts, as were Orthodox Jews, and the anti-abortion views of Roman Catholics and other Christians were taken account of within the law. "I do not think we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights just because it doesn't immediately fit with how we understand it."

It was "not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion. We do have a lot of social suspicion, a lot of distance and we just have to go on working at how that shared citizenship comes through".

The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said last month that non-Muslims faced a hostile reception in places dominated by the ideology of Islamic radicals. He has since faced death threats.

Dr Williams appeared to suggest that sharia law should be recognised as an officially sanctioned alternative to British law in areas such as marriage, divorce and inheritance.

Legal experts said that it was already possible for Muslim couples contemplating a divorce to seek mediation from an imam and, if both consent, his ruling on their settlement can have a binding effect.

But they said Dr Williams seemed to be proposing that the British courts may also recognise sharia law on divorce, in which the husband can end a marriage by saying to his wife three times "I divorce you". Such reforms could also legalise polygamy for Muslims in the country.

Dr Rowan Williams was urged to quit by angry members of the General Synod, the Church's "parliament", who claimed he was undermining the Christian faith.

Lord Carey, his predecessor, and the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, also challenged his view that aspects of Islamic law could be incorporated into the English legal system.

The row erupted on Thursday when Dr Williams suggested that the introduction of Muslim laws into the UK was "unavoidable".

The strength of the backlash represents one of the most serious blows to the Archbishop's authority since his appointment five years ago. He faces more pressure when the Synod convenes for a five-day meeting in London on Monday.

Lord Carey said that Dr Williams was wrong to believe that sharia could be accommodated into the English system because there were so many conflicting versions of it, many of which discriminated against women.

Bishop Nazir-Ali said sharia would be "in tension" with fundamental aspects of our current legal system, such as the rights of women.

Even the Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Rev Tom Butler, said that he would need to be convinced by Dr Williams's arguments.

One of those calling for the Archbishop's resignation, Colonel Edward Armitstead, a Synod member from the diocese of Bath and Wells, said: "I don't think he is the man for the job. One wants to be charitable, but I sense that he would be far happier in a university where he can kick around these sorts of ideas."

Alison Ruoff, a Synod member from London, said: "He is a disaster for the Church of England. He vacillates, he is a weak leader and he does not stand up for the Church."


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.