Englander, Please Support Dr.

Rowan
Williams
www.telegraph.co.uk

Archbishop says law 'must protect religions'

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."