The Sharia debate: we can't all be equal under different laws

[Batgirl]

Allowing British Muslims recourse to Islamic law would be a charter for male dominance and peer-group bullying

by Matthew Parris

Sneakily, Britain's first Muslim Minister, Shahid Malik, has ducked the critics that he will enrage in an interview to be broadcast on Channel 4's Dispatches programme on Monday.

Knowing that the phrase he uses to describe the situation of British Muslims - “the Jews of Europe” - will make the headlines, he has put it in the mouths of others. “If you ask Muslims today what do they feel like,” he says, “they feel like the Jews of Europe.” He does not say if he thinks that they are right.

I'll respond in the Malik method. If you asked most non-Muslims what they feel about the suggestion, they would say that it was disgraceful, outrageous and insulting.

Mr Malik's assessment of how some British Muslims feel may be accurate; but they are wrong. Race is not the issue. Unless we face up honestly to the incompatibilities between aspects of the ways of life of some (not all) Muslim groups in Britain, and the British mainstream culture, we shall find ourselves babbling about racism when the issue has less to do with race than with culture.

The fine line between tolerance and political correctness.
That is why I thought the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, in a careful speech at the East London Muslim Centre on Thursday, slid too quickly over the trickiest parts of his argument. He was discussing the application of Sharia in England and Wales.

The speech has been variously reported as anything from a gentle warning to cultural separatists within Islam, to a craven endorsement of the compromising speech about Sharia made by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, last year. Lord Phillips took as his theme and title Equality Before the Law. This was shrewder than it was brave.

“Equality” is a dummy concept in the philosophy of law. Here it allowed both speaker and audience to overlook real differences between them, because everyone is in favour of equality. But Lord Phillips was wrong to say that only recently has English law developed a respect for equality. Common Law and Statute have always regarded everyone as “equal before the law”, but depending on who and what you are and what you've done, your rights may differ. A cat burglar and a householder are not equal before the law. An under-age teenager and an adult, a British citizen and an illegal immigrant, are not equal. An in-catchment-area and out-of-catchment-area parent are not (in their children's access to a local school) equal. It's all a question of category; the categories of citizen that our laws create do and must create differences - inequalities - in the rights of individuals.

The only interesting question is whether these inequalities are fair and in the public interest. This must depend on moral and cultural standpoints, which change over time. The argument about “equality” for (say) women who wanted the right to vote, gays who want the right to marry, slaves who wanted to be free, or convicted paedophiles who want the right to be considered for employment in children's homes, has only and always been about the suitability of these categories to enjoy the rights urged for them; not whether the law should be “equal”.

No more than English law does even the most brutal Sharia advocate “inequality”. It simply reflects a cultural belief that women are different. Lord Phillips ducked that by taking equality as his theme.

He ducked again by denying that Dr Williams had said anything surprising. He reminded his audience (as Dr Williams had) that it is possible under English law for groups to agree on whatever rulebook (or adjudicator) they like, and that Sharia cannot be excluded from the available range of rulebooks.

That apparently bland reminder steers round some serious difficulties about jurisdictions-within-a-jurisdiction. The key paragraph in Lord Phillips's speech is this: “A point that the Archbishop was making was that it was possible for individuals voluntarily to conduct their lives in accordance with Sharia principles without this being in conflict with the rights guaranteed by our law. To quote him again ‘the refusal of a religious believer to act upon the legal recognition of a right is not, given the plural character of society, a denial to anyone inside or outside the community of access to that right'.”

There are two statements here, both doubtful. It is by no means certain that a group of individuals may voluntarily conduct themselves according to Sharia without breaking English law. It depends what Sharia says. We are not free under English law to agree (however willingly) to break English law. We may not agree to discriminate on racial or (usually) on religious grounds against third parties or even each other. A woman may not agree to accept diminished employment rights. We may not agree to punish each other (as elsewhere Phillips acknowledges) unlawfully. Without a clear account of what Sharia demands, Lord Phillips cannot know.

But the second claim that Lord Phillips endorses is more dangerous. Decoded, Dr Williams is saying that in a multicultural society it is fine for people within a culture to agree not to exercise certain rights, even if English law would allow them to.

This is a charter for male dominance. It's a charter for cultural bullying; for peer-group pressurising; for self-oppression. It's a charter against women and teenagers who cannot make wholly free choices because they have nowhere else to go; a charter against individuals whose circumstances have made it difficult to think outside the cultural box; a charter for discreet duress. I am sorry to hear the Lord Chief Justice endorsing it.

Public policy in Britain, however cloudy a thing, goes wider than law but informs the law and lawmaking. Make no bones about what 21st-century British public policy thinks of arranged marriage, the subjection and seclusion of women, unequal divorce and property arrangements within marriage, preaching hatred against apostasy, or the ostracising of homosexuals.

Public policy dislikes these things. Sometimes the State legislates to discourage them. Sometimes the State stands back.

Whether or when to intervene will in the end depend on no clear doctrine, but on a general understanding that things must not be allowed to get out of hand. How widespread, how deep, how harmful and how infectious are bad cultural attitudes, will ultimately be the decider.

Neither the Archbishop nor Lord Phillips do any service to public policy by seeming to encourage a recourse to religious rulebooks that runs against the modern British grain.

It made me sad to note that Lord Phillips began his speech by describing his maternal grandparents' arrival in Britain in 1903, Sephardic Jews who eloped from Alexandria and their families' attitudes “because they understood that England was a country in which they would enjoy freedom”. How fortunate that the attitudes they were escaping did not pursue them here with “voluntary” codes pushed forward by a “shared” culture whose compelling nature is more insidious in reality than it seems in law.

London Times Online

[KARL THE GRUNT]

What next required parking for camels?

First the Archbishop and now the Chief Judge!!!!

Richard the Lionhearted must be turning in his grave.

Gad.

Join the BNP and clean up the place while you still can.

Those people hate you and us and our leaders are too dumb or too paid off by the Arabs to see it.

Karl

[Batgirl]

My immediate (rant mode) reaction to those who propose introducing sharia law in Britain is that they can p**s off on out of here, both muslims and non muslims alike. If you live in this country, then you live by our set of laws or you leave. This issue shouldn't even be up for debate. From a purely legal perspective, there cannot be equality under the law unless we are all held accountable to the same standards and laws. British law should be based on British values which are determined by our Parliament. It's deeply disturbing that our most senior judge and no less the Archbishop of Canterbury, advocate the use of sharia law in our country. On a separate point, those proponents of sharia aren't listening to the muslims who emigrated to Britain to escape this most primitive set of principles either. To them (overwhelmingly women), sharia is on par with the most brutal form of authoritarianism.

Join the BNP and clean up the place while you still can.

I would never support the BNP (too extreme), however it is understandable why they are gaining popularity amongst those fed up with this insidious culture of political correctness imposed on us and the disappearing British identity and values that once made us great. Today's Britain would be unrecognisable to my Grandparents' generation. Sadly my two surviving Grandparents are witnessing the demise of our country at the hands of the Left.

[Brad]

Ok, so what's the solution? I grow increasingly doubtful that the "elites" in any country are going to do the right thing - including here in the US. In 50 years, or less, if current demographic trends continue non-Muslim Europeans will be outnumbered by Muslim immigrants. The US and Canada are only a half step behind, and Canada shares the same view regarding the implementation of sharia in their country. By the time the bureaucrats and politicians acknowledge a problem (if they ever do) it will be too late.

[Batgirl]

I believe there are solutions but like you I have little faith in our supposed leaders to step up and do what is required. Whether they are blind to the failings of their policies or they simply lack the courage, something needs to happen urgently as we are facing a serious crisis in this country brought on both by rapid demographic changes and the failure of our immigrant population to integrate. The greater British public must also accept part of the blame for being so complacent and allowing subsequent governments to implement these flawed policies. We as a nation need to get our collective heads out of the sand and not only demand action from our politicians but also be proactive in doing more to safeguard our country's future for subsequent generations. First off we need to address the policies that have done the most damage starting with multiculturalism. Immigrants settling in this country must integrate and respect the British way of life. I read a good quote recently that said "multiculturalism was conceived by the Western elites not to celebrate all cultures but to deny their own." How true is that. Since the first big wave of immigration 50 years ago, the emphasis has been on encouraging diversity at the cost of our values and identity. We need to show greater pride in our Christian traditions and celebrate our heritage and not allow ourselves to be bullied by the Left which continues to stifle any debate on the issue and believes it is okay for minorities to opt out of integration. If muslim immigrants (or any immigrant group for that matter) don't make the effort to assimilate into our culture and reject the values and principles upon which this country was created, then they should be excluded. With low native birth rates and increasing muslim immigration both in the UK and across Europe, it's creating a dangerous scenario which will see the landscape in the UK and across the continent change greatly within our lifetimes. We need our own baby boom to prevent further shrinkage with each new generation. People may laugh at that but if our birth rate remains well below the required replacement level, then it won't be us having the last laugh. Having to finance the hugely expensive welfare state means we've had to admit more immigrants to help pay for it but we're doing this at our peril as many of those people we've admitted are the ones seeking to destroy our way of life. On that point, the obvious needs to happen with greater attention paid to the granting of citizenship, tighter border controls and an overhaul of the asylum process to deter the abusers. Cases like that of Abu Qatada (one of Bin Laden's henchmen) who arrived in Britain in the early 90s on a forged UAE passport, claiming asylum on the grounds that he would be tortured if he returned to Jordan is just one example of many. That he and his family have been allowed to remain in Britain on benefits is unimaginable and also that he was freed on bail last week beggars belief. Many of these poor decisions are a result of seriously flawed legislation like the Human Rights Act which was introduced by Labour in 2000. Far from protecting law abiding citizens, it has been exploited by the very people who intend us the most harm. We should repeal that Act and also withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights because its interpretation by the courts is only encouraging terrorists to come to Britain.

But as Brad says by the time the powers that be even acknowledge there is a problem, let alone come up with any plausible solutions to reverse the crisis, it may be too late.

Reading back what I've written, I may come across to some as being prejudiced against immigration which isn't the case. I'm all in favour of controlled immigration providing that those arriving embrace their host country's values and make every effort to integrate.

I could go on but fortunately for the rest of you I'm on duty in a bit!