Expect a mass walkout from the Church of England. We all know that Church of England bishops sometimes have difficulty with the concept of actually believing in God, but I never thought I would see the day when the Archbishop of Canterbury would actually advocate the implementation of another religion's so-called 'laws' in what remains a predominantly Christian country. He thinks the introduction of some sort of Sharia Law is "unavoidable". According to the BBC report Dr Williams believes we should "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. "He argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".This is what Rowan Williams (for it is he) said on the World at One today...
There's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger...
There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some
aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious
law... What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares
up to people's religious consciences... We don't either want a situation where,
because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do
what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of
intensifying oppression inside a community.
So let's get this straight. The man who leads the Church of England doesn't believe we are all equal under the law. So what next: a different law for gay people, a different law for ethnic minorities? Where on earth would it end? I'll tell you where. Anarchy.
On several occasions in the past I have thought Rowan Williams unfit to lead the Church of England, but since I am not a member of it I kept quiet. But thse remarks take his weakness of mind to an altogether different level. I imagine Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's doors will be open to many refugees from what used to be a fine Church. It has latterly become little more than a joke in most people's eyes.
I look forward to hearing the Archbishop Cranmer's views.
123 comments:
Agree entirely, Iain.
Very well said, Iain! For those with a stomach for more trenchant views, may I commend The Devil's Kitchen (sorry, I don't know how to do click-through links) at http://devilskitchen.me.uk .
He really loathes Rowan Williams. It's his angriest post yet, and that is going it some. And it is terribly, terribly funny. I just cannot imagine that Rowan Williams can survive that post. Go there!
Right on. Totally agree. The guy's flipped. I'm thinking of going Orthodox.
Iain,
Rowan Williams has been a huge, huge disappointment. I was at a meeting addressed by the Bishop of Oxford recently, and he's equally limp where standing up for our beliefs is concerned.
It's sad to note that the only two prelates who seem to be prepared to stand up for the Church of England were both born outside of the UK (Pakistan and Uganda)
Surely to goodness one of the cast iron foundations of a civilised society is that there is one Law and that it applies to all without fear or favour. It is inconceivable that anyone could think that any group, however they are designated, could be above the law or beyond the law or that other laws could apply to them. The issue is not the vileness of Sharia (although IMHO it is vile) but the idea that a group, be they Muslims or anyone else, could be declared to be beyond English law. I really can't believe that anyone in some position of influence and power like Williams could spout such poppycock. Has he finally lost his marbles?
He must resign. This is treason. Anyone wishing to live in this country should abide by this county's laws. If the don't they can live elsewhere. End of story.
We do have another law for gay people and another law for ethnic minorities.
As a christian Conservative admirer of the Muslim world I can't dismiss what the Arch Wizard has to say out of hand.
Your argument for a totally secular legal framework is cogent; but the law as it stands is not a level playing field, some people have greater protections.
err yeah, this is a resigning matter imho. Couldn't agree more, he's an idiot.
Windsor Tripehound - Yes and they are both wonderful. I hope the CofE has the nous to appoint Dr Senamu as the next Canterbury. He is absolutely outstanding.
Yes, I take your point and Rowan Williams is a nincompoop and a bounder, but I don't see why common interest groups cannot resolve conflict at a local, more parochial level. After all, there are precedents for this in Family Law where arbitration and agreement is encouraged before recourse to the Law.
What cannot be countenanced is a parallel legal system to be set up, but I don't think he is advocating this.
I am sick to death of Muzzies and their disingenous cries of outrage over this and that and their refusal to sell Bible stories in M&S and their support of race hate and homophobia, but the principle of the fewer laws the better is a sound one and if they can come up with a credible alternative, then why not?
Moral authority in this country neither rests with the Church of England or the Muslim equivalent, or indeed the legislature.
In even discussing this issue we are acknowledging the supremacy of moral relativism and aetheistic nihilism - where there is no "right" answer. Strange though, that this vocal practitioner claims to lead the Church of England.
Why doesn't The Queen just handbag him? Margaret Thatcher would have.
I see interest rates have dropped; but you dont want to talk about that do you. Instead lets have a pop at a CoE priest who has made some comments about Muslims.
I can already see Davis "Migrants, Muslims, Imigrants" Davis on newsnight foaming at the mouth. DD only appears at times like these; he's like a bat at feeding time.
I'm afraid that the Qu'ran really does teach the repression of women:
From the Qu'ran:
4:34 "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other"
These are not isolated verse either. The Qu'ran in particular is very misogynistic and women are explicitly painted as second class citizens with men being "a degree" above women. It even states that a woman's word is only worth half that of a man. This is a case of the Qu'ran being oppressive, not just the people who follow it.
Men and women are not equal in Sharia and anyone who thinks otherwise is deranged. I have spent the last 15 years in various Middle Eastern countries and know what I'm talking about. Too much of the Islamic world today is mired in a regressive and misguided state of fundamentalism. We'd be ill advised to import a major component of that fundamentalism...
Rowan Atkinson should resign at once.
Agree entirely apart from:
"I imagine Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's doors will be open to many refugees from what used to be a fine Church."
Would this be the same Cardinal Murphy O'Connor who covered up child abuse? While Williams may be pretty ghastly, I don't quite see O'Connor as a positive alternative.
V @ 3:37
Once again Verity, well said!
"...So what next: a different law for gay people, a different law for ethnic minorities? Where on earth would it end?..."
Somewhere ridiculous, like a country with different laws for professional politicians and voters. I mean that's just preposterous...
Oh...no, wait....
Williams has completely lost his marbles - that is if he ever possessed any in the first place. He should resign. There's a chap in Rochester who might be a suitable replacement.
His comments are staggeringly irresponsible. They embolden those who are trying to set up a parallel state in the=is country.
Next there will need to be sharia religious police and prisons. Those who live in such areas, whatever their religion will be required to obey these laws.
I feel some sympathy for people born in a country whose laws they find objectionable - after all as a Christian I find the legal live vivisection of unborn children a horrific crime - but we must all live under a common law.
If England is so objectionable for Muslims why do so many want to live here ? Is there a mass exodus to countries with sharia law then I'd believe we had a problem. Because if it really was that important to religious Muslims then there would be.
They do not believe its necessary as is shown by their actions. Why should Rowan Williams be so gullible as to believe it is ?
Jewish communities in the UK have had a parallel legal system for years... not seen your outraged blog posts about that, Iain?
Under English law people can choose their own way to settle a dispute in front of a mutually agreed third party.
Any settlements that arise don't even have to be based on English law - the only requirement is that the outcome is reasonable and both parties agree to the process.
So as long as ...
1) individuals are not compelled to follow sharia law, and
2) the judgements do not break the overall law of the UK
... I can't see how this is a problem?
All Rowan Williams has said is that some people may choose to use Sharia Courts - in exactly the same way as Jews use the Beth Din - and that society should recognise and understand this.
(I also know of plenty of Christians who submit themselves to Church Councils to settle disputes between the Faithful, much as the Bible commands, rather than go to secular court).
Rowan Williams was Tony Blair's final gift to the C of E before he jumped ship, having, in appointing him, opened the seacocks.
Taken with the Electoral Commission's statement that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute the leader of the Scottish parliamentary Labour party for an admitted criminal offence of accepting illegal donations, there is indeed already law that applies to some but not to all. Politicians are another protected group.
Bizarre! I saw this on the Beeb and thought that a pre-scripted 1st April spoof had slipped through the embargo system.
Do we have to wait until the Call to Prayer is echoing across the cathedral close at Canterbury before someone rids us of this beardy-weirdy poncificator?
Isn't it also ironic that the silent majority of Muslims living here probably don't want Sharia Law or any form of it.
Would it be a win some, lose some situation for us WASPs? Cheap mortgages, win. Easy divorces, win. Theft win, (Unless you count paper clips and pencils.) Adultery oh dear! both me and Prince Charles (Among many others) have previous.
Where do traffic offences stand under shariah. Did you know who have anything to say on motoring?
All equal under one law as laid down by our elected government so lets chase out shariah and the EU.
Carey must go, thre really is no doubt.
We need to get all of these dangerous, deluded, ultra-pc muppets weeded out of the influential positions in British life.
He really has topped himself this time.
Jimbo - What is feeding time for bats? Is there a bat class system, where some bats have "tea" and other bats have "dinner"? Given his social background, I believe David Davis would be a "tea" bat.
Stan!! - and a woman's testimony in court is worth exactly half that of a man. Her inheritance can only, by law, be half that of her brothers or any other male. If she is raped, she requires four male witnesses to the rape (how surreal is that?) or she will be charged with adultery and stoned to death or hanged.
Wallenstein, that is not true. I seem to recall Stephen Pollard - or perhaps it was Melanie Phillips - explaining this system. It is most assuredly not a parallel legal system. I believe they adjudicate internal family matters for very Orthodox Jews who need rabinnical help.
On the other hand, in London and other big cities, as Archbishop Sentamu pointed out the Somalian muzzies have "gars", whereby the local "community" hand perps over to tribal elders for trial and punishment.
+York has specifically addressed this issue in somewhat more intelligent, much better informed and realistic terms - and with more urgency - than Archbishop Rowan Moonbat.
May I point out that the Beth Din is used for issues dealing with Jewish law, for instance:
Jews marrying in a synagogue have two marriage certificates - one civil, one Jewish.
When they divorce through the civil courts, they must also get a religious divorce via the Beth Din IF one or the other wishes to remarry in a synagogue. The couple cannot divorce using only the Beth Din.
So far, so relatively good (there are many problems with husbands refusing to give a religious divorce). However, I am not aware the Jewish community wish to use the Beth Din IN PLACE OF British law, which rather seemed to be suggested by Dr Williams in the case of Sharia.
The bloke is a mentalist! I'd say more but others have said all I want to say and very eloquently too under the circumstances
Rowan Williams has been a huge, huge disappointment. (Windsor Trip Hound 3.42
To whom has he been a disappointment exactly? One look at him, you can tell he's a total tit. What did you really expect?
Iain it's not about whether the country is "predominantly Christian" or not, in fact it has nothing to do with religion at all. What Mr Williams is suggesting is that groups of people who don't like the law should be able to design their own ones.
Who will join my "community"? In my "community" we don't like the speeding laws or the planning system so we will set up our own courts to dispense justice in these areas!
Why sensible folk (or indeed any folk come to that) should put up with any religion I've never been able to understand.
If I wanted to live in the Middle Ages I would join one of those odd re-enactment societies.
I prefer to live in the third millenium; that's why I joined the Brights.
I'm thrilled at the idea of Sharia Law for Muslims in the UK so long as they don't pick and choose which Laws they fancy in order to avoid the English Laws that they don't like. They have to have the whole packet if they're going to have it at all - hangings, floggings, hands cut off, imaginative torture techniques.
Come to think of it Sharia Law would be the ideal solution to hooliganism, graffiti artists, rapists, muggers, bicycle thieves, litter louts, drugpushers, purveyors of pornography, dishonest politicians, benefit cheats, binge drinkers, unmarried mothers, pimps.... Yes, yes, yes. Bring it on.
The Archbishop is referring to Shari'a as a means of resolving financial or marital disputes - not as a means of usurping any British law. Just as Christians may use the Bible to seek guidance when settling inter-community disputes, the Qur'an may be used to settle similar disputes for Muslims. So long as none of these faith groups perform actions which break any British law - and I don't think Dr Williams is advocating that - then I don't see a problem with his suggestion in principle.
A larger question is to ask whether such measures would lead to splintered cells of Islamic populations which do not engage with the outside world, nor even travel outside of their own little communities to see "British Britain".
A good day to bury some good news eh? For example that the lovely Wendy Alexander won't be being marched before the beak...
Last year they were giving the Catholic Adoption agencies a kicking commensurate with them being responsible for Herod's Massacre of the Innocents. And now we are seen to be capitulating to this nonsense.
Enough !!
And speaking of news worth burying, how's this from the Indy:
"The Conservative Party's lead over Labour has more than halved from nine to four points, according to the latest "poll of polls" compiled for The Independent."
The man is an idiot .
No doubt there is some sense in allowing parallel forms of arbitration if all parties agree.. but I see no reason why The Archbishop of Canterbury and Head of the C of E should say it. It's not in his remit for a start. He should stand up for his own.
Political suicide. He deserves what is coming.
Yep, he's go to go - I wrote pretty much the same a couple of hours ago.
I almost never post these days, but this got me SOOOO angry.
Rowan Williams should be asked to retire early. This latest comment is just the latest in a less than inspirational leadership of the Church of England
He has a more than suitable successor in the charismatic John Sentamu, Archbishop of York who also has that other quality usually lacking in a such as Dr Williams - common sense
Like wallenstein, I would very much like to know your views on Jewish Beth Din courts, Iain.
The judgement of these courts are legally binding under English law if both parties agree to have their case heard there. It looks very much as if this is exactly the same situation as Williams is proposing for Muslims who wish civil judgements to be made under Sharia.
"Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court."
As you are appalled when anyone suggests hypocrisy on your part, I presume you'll be entirely consistent in your view and be happy to express your outrage at these Jewish courts. Will you be leading the call for Beth Din courts in the UK to be closed down, perhaps?
Iain:
I never thought that I would say it, but it's statements like this that make me feel relieved to have been born a Scots Presbyterian.
Sharia law North of the border? When hell freezes over, perhaps.
Verity:
If you want to learn how to do click through links, cut and paste this into your browser:
http://www.htmlgoodies.com/primers/html/article.php/3478171
A triple-click will copy the whole line.
If you're feeling trusting, you can follow this link to get you to the same place.
Good luck!
In addition to adopting Sharia law (not all of it, mind, just a touch), we could entertain Catholics with a bit (let's not get carried away) of the Spanish Inquisition, crucify the odd Jew (just like Jesus!) and have special no-laws-at-all days for anarcho-syndicalists.
If it's good for judeo-catholic muslim anarchists, it's good for you , too.
QED
Iain, put up a petition we can sign to shame this arschbishop into resigning.
Off with his Mitre!
There won't be "a mass walkout from the Church of England" because they haven't got any masses.
The Church of Irrelevance will carry on dwindling to nothing.
Good riddance.
His Grace is pondering...
Those church people have never liked women. So some aspects of nasty sharia law probably appeal to them.
Jewish communities in the UK have had a parallel legal system for years... not seen your outraged blog posts about that, Iain?
Oh no - I knew we'd soon hear a load of rubbish about the Jews. One of the great sayings of the talmudic rabbis is "the law of the land is the law". Yes the Beth Din (Jewish court) has been in existence in England since Jews were readmitted in the 1650s - and yes it does deal with civil issues like marriage, divorce and the highly complex regulations about dietary law. BUT it is NOT a "parallel" legal system. It is internal to the Jewish community and does not over-rule British law. Jewish citizens are subject to British law just like everyone else. It is true that some meshuga strictly Orthodox Jews would like to be governed exclusively by halachah (Jewish law)just like mad mullahs would like to impose sharia on British Muslims. This kind of idiocy should on no account be encouraged. Rowan Williams should be shipped off to Saudi Arabia and never allowed back.
I'm all for Sharia law in the Uk.
Just think the first thing that will happen is the Church of England will be suppressed. of course the idiots at the Church will say they know best. But years of Christian oppression in Muslim lands tells me something that Williams hasn't yet grasped.
Is thing about people of the book being equal under Islam is a joke.
The trouble with the archbishop is that he is a socialist first and a Christian second. He once described himself as a 'hairy leftie'; he believes in the dogma of political correctness far more wholeheartedly than the bible.
This, alas, he shares with much or the rest of the bishopric, particularly the Bishops of Oxford and his sidekick of Reading (who both pastor to Windsor Tripehound). Both of these two are militant socialists. A shame that can't be said about their Christianity.
Remember 'faith in the city' from the 80s? An extremist socialist tome, outdoing even Benn and Scargil. Every week we have a bishop talking politics or economics but do you remember the last time a bishop made an unpopular remark about sexual morality or quoted the bible? No. It's about time they stuck to their brief.
In many ways the problems of the Anglcian church (and the Catholic church is little better) is that they are fundamentally conservative organisations that have somehow been taken over by liberals. This means that there is nobody to articulate their movements' core beliefs and they end up being incorrectly charicatured as 'nasty'.
One country,one law,bBritish law and anyone who does not wish to live under it should leave.Rowan Williamson is not fit to lead the C of E.The P.M.s spokesman said in comment on rowan williamsons views on sharia law "There are instances where government has made changes - for example on stamp duty " what changes is this an example of one law for Muslims and another for the rest of us.
Beth Din still has to agree with the UK legal system, does it not? It cannot override decisions, and it cannot bend the law. I do not fully understand if our joyous CoE leader meant that it should be allowed to 'bend' the law or not, but it damn well sounded like it.
Just proves that the CoE has taken being inclusive to the extreme, and doesn't seem to have a problem with internal secularisation.
The Devil's Kitchen article (mentioned above) was interesting, to say the least!
Wallenstein - the Beth Din is not a "parallel" legal system. It's a court that operates for internal Jewish affairs only that in no way over rules British law. It is also optional whether or not Jewish people choose to be guided by its rulings on for instance the endlessly complex dietary laws. None of that impinges on British law. The fact is there are also already Islamic courts in operation - just like the Beth Din - that rule on for instance, matters of halal. What Rowan Williams appeared to be suggesting (altho' as usual he was somewhat opaque) was that there should be a parallel legal system of Sharia law - that would be binding on Muslims as an alternative to British law. That is sheer madness and would only encourage the worst extremist Islamist elements (and no doubt encourage some meshuga Orthodox Jews from Stamford Hill to declare UDI). Absolute insanity. Rowan Williams should be shipped off to Saudi Arabia and never allowed back.
Damn right Ian. I listened to the whole interview and all the way through, all i could think of is how did this weak, inadequate man come to be Archbishop.His views are deeply insulting.
To take it one stage further ...could an Englishman in Pakistan say they want to be judged under English Jurisdiction rather than Pakistani?
The man`s an idiot.
Verity is right about the superb Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Rochester. The ABC is just a third-rate Gandalf impersonator.
On the matter of Sharia law, Scots and European law are just as alien to the English legal system yet their concepts have been foisted upon us.
Iain is absolutely right. I am also not a member of the CofE.
Wallenstein is off his trolley in his comments. Whatever internal arrangements the Church or the Beth Din may provide they are both modern institutions and religions. They accept that rule of law is that enacted by the King in Parliament assembled.
The response of the politicians and the public is as they are well aware that those forces arguing for unreconstructed Sharia in this country do not accept this principle and want it to have full force over British law to create mini statelets.
Rowan Williams, in this respect, is ably following that well trodden path of idiot gentlemen (Neville Chamberlain et al) who thing everyone is sophisticated and moderate as them and everything can be settled with reasonable chats over cucumber sandwiches over tea.
I'll give it a year before he is replaced by John Sentamu.
Rowan Williams is not in a position to give away the rights of muslim women. Nor is anyone else, including UK national or local government. Not even the women themselves, individually or collectively, can bind themselves to give their rights away on a permanent basis.
I think the comment from Wallenstein is hopelessly optimistic in thinking that what is being proposed is the power to enter into voluntary agreements that also conform to UK law. As the comment says, that exists already, and it is being exercised. Sharia law is being demanded as a way to prevent people from seeking their rights under UK law.
Go on, Iain, fess up ! Did you and a couple of dozen bloggers slip Rowan a couple of tenners each in the C.of.E collection plate to help drive your traffic figures through the roof ?
It certainly seems to have worked !!
Alarmingly, I even find myself agreeing with verity on this topic and the subject of the sellout to EU.
WELCOME HOME IAIN!
Uncle Bulgaria is a fool. He is supposed to be the spiritual leader of the Church of England.
He is no leader. He is no churchman. He seems to be more concerned with homosexual priests and women priests and ignoring the real threats to Christianity and the dangers to our society of Politicians who are on the take and ,seemingly, above the law!, Muslims who are demanding more and more and speaking above their weight! A lack of discipline, authority and respect in our society at all levels.
He dismisses what the sensible Archbishop of Rochester, I think, said about No Go area's.
We are lacking in courage and leadership in our politicians. Our Queen, sadly, has bottled it! The Church has now, through this idiot, lost it. Lets hope he resigns immediately.
But let us never forget who put him there! BLAIR.
Can we trust Brown to replace him with the best man for the job ...YORK.
Well said. I've always found Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor to be a much better religeous leader.
Rowan Williams not only has poor judgement and conviction, he lacks the one thing a church leader needs ... passion! And the ability to inspire it in his followers.
I suppose Williams has done his sums. He'll probably permanently alienate several thousand churchgoers but actually he's going for the big one - full amalgamation of the Church of England with Islam. That's the game plan.
Next it'll be the wholesale sell-off of Cathedrals and parish churches for conversion to mosques. Chestertons are finalising the portfolio at this very moment.
I'm telling you, this boy is really travelling....
He's bonkers and he hides behind the church's cloak of moral superiority.
The Lakelander - You read my mind! I was going to ask if anyone could tell me how to do links, then I thought that would be an abuse of Iain's hospitality.
I'll see if I can understand it and make it work. Thank you so much!
I,m all for it, there are no speed limits in the Saudi desert, so next time a speed camera catches me at 31mph in 30limit I will be able to claim sharia law and be let off!!
It's been a major struggle getting the Muslim swinging scene off the ground and now this! Do they not know that four witnesses = a stoning?
Anyone who wants to let the archdruid know what you think of his plan to set up a parellel state can use his web site here http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/102.
"It is internal to the Jewish community and does not over-rule British law"
The same would be the case here - sharia would apply only to muslims, and only to those who agree to fall under its jurisdiction, and could neither do anything to overturn UK law, nor implement anything that is illegal.
I have always thought myself a conservative. I am a daily reader of Iain Dale’s blog and have been since the beginning. It is, however, posts such as this one that makes me despair of Iain’s worse-than-the-yellowest-of-yellow tabloid-type reaction to issues of the day as well as those of Ian’s fellow-travelers commentators.
1. The notion of parallel universes of bodies of law within a single jurisdiction is common in federal common law jurisdictions such as the USA. Based on the set of facts (especially in financial and family matters, as noted by Rowan Williams) and the choice of parties, it is as common as apple pie for a set of facts/parties in New York State to be governed by the law of one of America’s other 51 jurisdictions, or indeed law from elsewhere, subject to certain public policy parameters, such as the fact that parties cannot enforce laws (for example permitting fraud) which are against the public policy of New York State, a caveat also drawn by Canterbury. None of this makes America a country without the rule of law
2. If people here knew their British history (which they should, given how much they rightly excoriate contemporary teaching fads), they would know that England as colonial power pioneered similar legal structures in their former colonies in Asia and Africa. The existence of parallel universes of statutory, common and customary laws is common in these countries. This does not necessarily make these countries without the rule of law.
3. The reaction here to Rowan William’s very sober, considered musings reminds me of the most despicable traits of political correctness, the notion that there are certain ideas that are simply beyond the pale, absolutely not raisable in any way, shape or manner. How different are you lot from the “feminazis’ who drove the brainy Professor Larry Summers from his position as president of Harvard University simply for raising the hypothesis that it is worth investigating whether there was something innate within women that explains their relatively poor performance in the sciences compared to their male counterparts?
It is stupidly knee-jerk reactions of “conservatives” to rather sensible musings of a public intellectual such as RW that justified one great 19th man (and continues to justify others) in calling the Conservative Party “the stupid party”. Put another way, is “Disgusted, Turnbridge Wells” alive and well on this blog? BTW, surely referring to the Archbishop of Canterbury as “idiotic” is a bridge too far, is it not?
vv
What else can you expect from a bearded, wet, wimpy, poor excuse for a man? He is a disgrace and should be booted out of the Church and the country immediately. I am absolutely livid that he can speak such shite. The only good thing to come of this is even though most placid souls are saying enough is enough - get rid!
He's the most ridiculous man in England, is Williams - that's what I said in my blog - so I think calling him idiotic is a bridge not too far, but which must now be crossed.
I'm glad Judith, Shofar and Oscar Miller have squashed the non-comparison with the Beth Din. Yes, its rulings govern Jewish law; and yes, its commercial arbitrations can be accepted by Jews, and enforced in England. But Islamic councils and commercial arbitrations are in precisely the same position.
Williams must mean something more than this: and he specifically mentioned marriage, and choosing to be dealt with under an alternative system. Mosques could already, if they wanted, register as civil places of marriage, so that as in a catholic church a wedding there created an official civil marriage. But many of them (perhaps all, I'm not sure) choose not to.
So I infer he meant that couples should be able to divorce under Islamic rules and have the result recognised and enforced in English law. Does he really imagine that, if this were possible, women in Bradford would be safe from pressure to agree to the Islamic option?
How would he make sure they had access to proper advice before choosing a legal system that would surely give them worse financial settlements, and less contact with their children, than the secular law?
And is he supporting the outrageous Somali kangaroo "gars", which risk unfair or suppressed confessions and allowing dangerous offenders to remain at large?
The man's a fool in a frock.
Quite clearly, the Druid Williams has no knowledge of his Bible. Numbers 15:15-16 quite clearly indicates that we are to have ONE law both for citizens AND for the strangers in our midst.
This surely can't be as daft as it appears. I doubt he is advocating the replacement of English (and Scottish) criminal and civil law with Sharia law, either in part or in whole. As pointed out, this must be a reference to Sharia courts for certain matters, such as marriage, religious observance and some community affairs. I believe Sharia law is a little more complex than chopping off hands and such like!
If he is advocating a selective opt-out from the legal system then he is barking mad! I think this may have been garbled in translation somewhat....I hope so!
Is there any way to get rid of this dangerous twit? Isn't the Queen the boss of the CoE? Not that she would do anything. If she didn't dismiss Tony Blair's wicked administration, she's not going to dismiss the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Hmmmmm ... I wonder what Thomas à Beckett would have done ...
I hope whoever has the power to sack Williams sacks him and appoints the outstanding Dr Sentamu Archbishop of Canterbury - a man the entire world would respect. People would start flocking back to the CoE.
Didn't T Blair appoint the Druid? Vicious little tick, isn't he?
hm stanley -> utter bilge.
islamofascism seeks to destroy everything we stand for from within. that is why this sharia idea is utter balls.
this deluded idiot is a traitor to his country.
I'm afraid he is precisely suggesting a selective opt-out, Jess. It is as daft as it appears.
I have just founded my own religion, (The Church of the Last Trumpet) founded on the principle that we all have an inalienable right to pinch ladies' bottoms.
Members of my faith find it difficult to relate to some aspects of the British Legal System, notably the Offences against the Person Act.
I think the government will have face up to this fact and allow us to deal with these matters in our own way, namely by giving any woman who complains a good spanking.
David at 7.03
I think you've misunderstood Rowan Williams (easily done) and me. Muslims already have their own courts in this country (just like Jews) - they rule on civil matters to do with marriage and divorce but these are not recognised under British law. Rowan Williams has explicitly said he wants to extend the power of the current Islamic courts so that they operate as an alternative and parallel system to British law. That is a simply insane idea - it will encourage the worst extremists in religious communities (Muslim and Jewish and others) - it will give rise to a legal situation where, for instance, women will be trapped in medieval legal rulings which the state will be powerless to intervene and overturn. Coercive methods in these communities are notorious. It will be a form of entrapment for many British Muslims locked in a nightmare of oppression that many of them have come to Britain to escape. Rowan Williams is certifiable.
Joking aside, full marks to all three of the main parties for promptly squashing the Archbishop.
Verity - a deeply silly and unfunny post, because it has no basis. If you want to lighten up someone's day, you'll have to try much harder than this.
If you actually read Rowan Williams' comments, he argues that there is already a de facto state of Sharia law in certain parts of the UK.
If people volunteer to enter that system, they will live according to its judgements, and under UK law they are entitled to do so (to a certain and specific extent).
Williams' argument is that it's better for this state of affairs to be recognised and conducted in the open, rather than behind the closed doors of Islamic communities. By keeping it in the twighlight, it allows abuses to take place, and actually increases the liklihood that people will be pressurised into it.
He also made the point that not all aspects nor interpretations of Sharia law are of the "stone homosexuals and chop people's hands off" nature, however much some commentators would like you to believe it.
Similar to Talmudic law, the majority of Sharia laws are boringly mundane - contract disputes, inter-family relationships, social obligations etc etc.
I can see no reason why Muslims should not be able to use Sharia courts to deal with this type of thing - as people have pointed out, this is exactly what Beth Din courts achieve without the total collapse of society.
But by refusing point-blank to recognise its potential, it also prevents sensible constraints being placed around the use of Sharia, which is exactly how abuses remain unchecked.
Williams was absolutely right when he said the commentariat would dive in with blind condemnation, and much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
You do yourselves no favours with that type of response... there may be plenty of reasons why such a system could/should not work, but invoking the image of bearded immans handing out speeding fines in Tunbridge Wells Magistrates Court might sell papers, but does nothing to move the debate forward.
This sort of crap is so demoralising.
There is no justification for a secondary system of justice, be it Christian, Jewish or Muslim.
There were few Anglicans left on
1st Jan 2008 and I imagine there are even less come 7th February - so I suppose some has good came of this lunatic brainstorm.
Next he'll be wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Iain, I will deal with this on my blog tomorrow ...
Have to say that listening to the full interview I did not see anything significant that would change what can already happen.
In essence, two people in a dispute can choose the sets of rules for an arbitration and the result of that arbitration can be binding on them. The fact that the arbitration is decied on Sharia principles or is adjudicated by a Beth Din is simply irrelevant, but it enables the parties to reflect their own cultural ideas in the manner in which the decision itself is reached.
It is also possible to acquire financial products that are consistent with Sharia principles of usury.
I did not understand the Archbishop to be advocated a parallel system of law at all - and in any event it could not override our criminal or even most of our family law in England & Wales, even where an agreement between the parties existed - as these are areas that the State has an interest and the State will not permit a separate legal system in criminal law or certain areas of family law to exist.
I agree with Verity (9.53). Williams is a Twit, graduating from the University of Twitford with a double First in Twittery and Arsholedom.
Sentamu is the Man.
The Archbishop is a lunatic. Has he converted to Islam in secret?
I sincerely hope he resigns or is pushed.
Whatever one thinks of Dr Williams and his comments, surely he is telling the truth?
Not all muslims in this country do recognise the legitimacy of the state - if they did why would some of them blow themselves up on tubes and others try to?!
And surely Dr Williams has made a more fundamental point, albeit unconsciously: the introduction of sharia law in this country is unavoidable because no one in our rotten political class has the guts to prevent the introduction.
It is not Dr Williams who is a joke but the country of which he is Primate.
Iain
You should know that we are not all equal under the law. You and I could both apply for a job in a church school and be turned down solely for being gay.
Jess The Dog - "reference to Sharia courts for certain matters, such as marriage, religious observance and some community affairs."
We already have thousand-years old laws to govern marriage and "community affairs", otherwise known as civil law. This is what we have courts for. What notional advantage Stone Age tribal mores can bring to the party is moot.
@ wallenstein [10.39 PM] You say, 'the majority of Sharia laws are boringly mundane.'
Sure. Like the law that a woman's evidence is only worth one half of a man's evidence.
If I was a woman I would find that a bit of a bore.
Evan Price and Wallenstein are trying to play down Rowan Williams comments and make them sound anodyne when they are not. I have no idea why they are acting as apologists for this insane idea. This country operates under the post enlightenment ideas of separation of church and state and long may it stay that way. The discussion on Question Time tonight at least made no excuses for the madness of the Archbishop. Most people are not fooled - this is the thin end of a very pernicious wedge.
Wallenstein, I'm not sure that I understand your interpretation of the Archbishop's musings, and I heard his interview.
We know that there already exist Sharia courts that operate on much the same basis as the Beth Din - advising/ruling on religious matters. Since the State has not banned them (and why should it), they are permissible - so why bring up the subject at all?
It certainly seemed to me that Williams was pushing for something more - that because some of the Muslim community found aspects of British law 'unacceptable', they should be permitted to opt for a legal system of their choice in certain competencies.
Now, there are some aspects of British law that I find 'unacceptable' nowadays, but I can't pick and choose, because that way lies anarchy.
Finally, as a convinced agnostic, I cannot begin to understand why the most senior Officer of the Established Church of England is recommending the transfer of some powers to the religious courts of another Faith that wishes to conquer the world, and in many cases has no qualms about doing that by the fire and the sword.
Of all the disastrous legacies of the Blair decade, Rowan Williams is by far the worst. This man spends far more time disucssing global politics then, I dunno, trying to proselytise in the UK to get people back into the increasingly empty churches of the Anglican communion???
@ shofar
"BUT it is NOT a "parallel" legal system. It is internal to the Jewish community and does not over-rule British law."
Did you actually listen to what Williams said? Did he say that Sharia should over-rule British law? (Out of interest, I wonder how many of those expressing their outrage here did listen? Iain?)
To help out those who've got a strong opinion on something they actually haven't heard, Williams said "it is very important, as you mentioned there, the word "choice". I think it would be quite wrong to say that we could ever licence, so to speak, a system of law for some community which gave people... no way of exercising the rights that people are due as citizens in general".
In short, he's suggesting an optional system of a very similar sort to those used by Jewish communities. Your statutory rights are not affected...
So Iain, you're against this in all cases? Or just when it applies to Muslims?
I'm very disappointed Iain. As many people have pointed out that mediation and advocacy have been in the British legal system for hundreds of years, the Beth Din is a fine example and I don't hear many calling for it to be banned. In divorce cases the Government encourage people to do to voluntary binding arbitration.
Did you listen to the interview or just jump on the Muslim bashing band wagon as it whizzed past?
In the interview he made it clear he was talking about mediation not a supplement legal method.
I thought you were more, well thoughtful than that.
Dozzy - No idea what you're talking about. If you want me to respond about a specific post of mine, you should point to it or quote from it.
Wallenstein - Iain doesn't like abuse of other posters, so I won't say anything.
My question, posed before, is who has the power to give Williams more time with his family?
I've asked before: is it the Queen? If so, it's hopeless. Prince Charles would be even worse, as he's the last person on our tiny planet who believes that islam is the Religion of Peace. I mean, this man hasn't even looked round for the Exit sign. Also, he likes the whole Florence of Arabia deal costumewise.
As an aside, for 10 years, I honestly looked forward to Tony Blair going to Saudi, or some other sandpit, dressed in the full Lawrence regalia, given his love of dressing up. I didn't expect him to run along the top of a train, but I was honestly awaiting the day when he would go to Jordan, let's say, in the full desert drag, and Sandhurst-educated King Abdul would greet him in a Western lounge suit, and the elegant Queen Rania would be in Chanel. It would have been a beautiful moment.
Anyway, can anyone answer my question, or has New Labour made it too opaque for the masses: who can dump Williams the Church?
A different law for homosexuals? Well bugger me! I thought sodomy was still illegal? As for the Catholic church taking refugees. They already do and most of them speak Polish apparently. Closest you'll get to a Latin Mass - well at least it's foreign!
Oh, Trumpeter 12:03 - Funny!
What Judith 12:19 said.
BYW, for the One Worlders out there reasoning that it would be no big deal for the Church of England and the Parliament to give up some of their authority, they floated a scheme in Canada to bring in shariah - I think it was Ontario, but it might have been Quebec.
Anyway, the people who got it shunted onto the buffers were islamic women. There was a well-organised determination not to let this seep into the laws of a Canadian province. These gals were more informed about shariah than any of us posting here, and thank heavens they were in a country with courts under English Common Law, and this little forray into islamic hegemony fell on its islamic arse - through their English Common Law courts. The islamic women prevailed and it was dumped (although these One Worlder things are never dumped, are they? They skitter in again in a couple of years, in different garb. Same mission. Control.)
Audio interview and transcript at link below.
I have the transcript of the lecture, but I'm not posting 6253 words without putting some headings in first.
So that will be Saturday afternoon.
Matt Wardman
The man's mad. Imagine if you were to go to Saudi and demand that Christian law were introduced.
I am Christian so let me drink alcohol, do not beat me if I break the laws, keep my limbs in tact when I steal. Allow my wife to be herself, sun bathe in topless, were her own clothes, not cover her face, etc etc. Would they, do they, say -no problem be our guest??
No, like hell, simple - you are in our country and do as we do or clear off back from whence you came.
That is the answer to all those who live here and don't like the laws, the culture and history.
We should have one law. That law must be based on the history and tradition of this country. Its background is christian and while we can allow religious tolerance we can't have one section of the populus wanting to obey some parts and observe alien laws.
Archbishop - go.
Can the Archibishop of Canterbury be sacked, or at least put on performance-related pay?
Of course Cardinal O'Connor's church runs a parallel system of law in the U.K. using a foreign language and controlled from a foreign country. Perhaps Ian should oppose that too.
FWIW The Archbishop of Canterbury was right to set out the inevitable outcome of the Government's current immigration policy.
With the number of muslim immigrants increasing each year, and the fact that their birthrate greatly outnumbers that of the settled population, it will not be long before Islam becomes the majority religion of the British people.
Let no-one forget that Islam teaches its adherents to eradicate all other systems of religious belief by deception where possible, using violence as necessary.
Thank God the Archbishop had the courage to warn us of the way our sociey is heading.
Judith makes the case very well - either Rowan Williams was saying nothing at all - advocating a system that already exists (as apologists for him on this site seem to be saying) or he was arguing for extending existing powers. From what I understood (and I admit for a supposedly "intelligent" man the Archbishop manages to make remarkably scrambled speeches) Williams was advocating - indeed saying it was "inevitable" that there should be an enlargement of powers of sharia law in this country that would operate as an alternative, parallel legal system. If he wasn't saying that - then why make the speech at all? And by the way the idea you can somehow introduce 'sharia lite' - taking out all the bits people don't like is naive in the extreme.
This man was appointed by a covert Catholic Blair to destroy the church of England world wide and he's doing it. Wake up everyone! By the way I'm going to form my own religious cult and if I get enough people interested I'm going to set up my own legal code anyone interested in joining? It's clearly one great big free for all!
The point is not whether Williams is advocating a separate civil law or a separate criminal law - the distinction is irrelevant. What he is advocating is a separate LAW. And that is completly unacceptable. Period.
"If he is advocating a selective opt-out from the legal system then he is barking mad!"
Rubbish! Wendy Alexander has benefited quite well from the Electoral Commission opting out of the legal system.
"One country, one law, British law"
No there's not.
"...and anyone who does not wish to live under it should leave."
Which would be everyone since there is Northern Ireland law, Scots law, the law of England and Wales and Military law.
Bye!
Having looked at this in some detail, I don't think that the Archbishop has said anything new. Yes, he was unclear and his ideas lack any detail; but the extent of what he said reflected, in my view, what can be done now (and what has been capable of being done for more than 10 years).
Yes, the Archbishop has been both foolish and lacking in the care and thought that one would have hoped he would taken over what would, inevitably, be considered controversial by some journalists who, as usual, don't appear to be able to discuss matters either sensibly or dispassionately.
What do you expect when Bish was appointed by the opposing religious force?!
Oh, that's Catholic Tony Blair as opposed to Satan. Thought I better make that clear.
Having thought about this overnight, and read Cranmer this morning, as well as penning my own thoughts, I think that Williams is just talking the bloody obvious!
Consider how our laws have already accommodated Sikh customs, and how Labour has now legitimised polygamy, it's only a matter of time before they allow more creeping legislation.
The bearded old goat is a self-loathing fifth columnist.
Do not think for a moment that the Brown government would distance themselves had there not been such an uproar. His lickspittles are trying to bend our systems to accommodate Sharia. Who is applying the pressure? Why bother? The MCB must have Brown's nuts in a mangle. That, or Jack "shit" Straw fears for his seat.
Both, I reckon.
High Priest of mumbo jumbo. I think it was Chesterton who coined this phrase which fits the man and his comments well.
“The law is created by society to protect itself against those who would do that society some harm. If we are now going to have or indeed already do have different sections of society where different laws apply or perhaps different methods of applying laws”
This comment on the CIF site. seems to get to the core issue and is, apparently (if I’ve interpreted it correctly), arguing from the principle that the law in this country not only should apply equally to all but that it actually does.
From this basic principle the argument then follows that separate laws should not exist for separate interests. From that position, of principle, it then follows that the system of law cannot and should not be undermined by having a different set of laws for either a particular group - religious or otherwise - or a specific context - religious or otherwise.
This is where we now hit problems.
The first problem is that as far as these principles go, assuming they are principled arguments, the pass has been sold long ago.
It has already been pointed out that some minority religious groups are allowed to practice their own laws in certain specific and restricted contexts. It is also a reality that the majority religious grouping in the UK, along with a number of other smaller religious groups, has separate privileges under law which allow them to run their own schools. Furthermore there are some religious groups who are allowed to teach creationism in the classroom and which are in receipt, through the PFI type schemes used to construct them, of public taxpayers money in which to practice this.
However, it is not only religious groups who are currently receiving special dispensation under law which undermines the principle being argued of equality under the law for all and no special law for one specific group.
Only this morning, in another item of news, an unelected Government Minister – a businessman by the name of Digby Jones - is effectively arguing to maintain separate tax laws for non-domestic domiciles (do they not have their streets swept, bins emptied and enjoy all the benefits paid for by our taxes? Why should they not make a contribution and be vociferously challenged for not doing so?) and no one screams from the rooftops about our way of life and our law being undermined by having separate laws applied to this specific group of people.
Again, the Government prevents the CPS from pursuing a bribery case involving a major corporation and no one dare speak the reality that this undermines the principle of the law applying equally to all or that one group is being given special treatment.
And, of course, the risk of being labelled "anti-american" stops any suggestion that the one way extradition treaty, in which British citizens, born and/or living in the UK, can be extradited at whim of a foreign government but that Government’s citizens are not subject to the same principles of equality under the law, undermines this principle.
So I have a question. I’d be obliged if any or all of those screaming blue murder over this issue would answer.
Why is it that vitriol is being spewed over this issue, which is after all theoretical at the moment, and people are hanging their hat on the principle of equality under the law over it, yet there is a deafening silence over the very real breaches of this principle which is claimed is important, some of which are outlined above?
Are rich people/businessmen who try to hold the country to ransom over paying their fair share of taxes more deserving of special treatment under the law then religious groups? Do corporations operating here who bribe their way to contracts with other Governments deserve no less attention than has been given here?
After all, these are real instances of the principles, which are suddenly held to be sacrosanct, being breached rather than theoretical ones.
Is not the two minute hate session over this hypothetical idea alongside the total silence over the very real occurrences of there being one law for one group of people and another law for the rest of us not evidence of gross hypocrisy?
I’d welcome some rational response to this apparent conundrum and contradiction.
This seems to be a convincing argument why Prime Ministers should not have the power to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury
Eccles, I appreciate the very valid points you make, BUT the difference with those points and the Archbishop's apparent suggestions is perhaps that we can discuss the bribery case, and taxation of non-doms, without the fear that Islamist fanaticism incites - for good reason.
I know some of the thoughts of moderate (and devout) Muslims, as they are welcome visitors to my home, and we have had interesting talks over many years about all faiths and their place in a Western democracy.
The problem is with the resurgence of Islam as the 'world-dominator' - I would be equally frightened if the Catholic Church were to suddenly give birth to modern-day Savonarolas and revisit the appalling excesses of the Inquisition.
I hope you do not consider my posts as being hate-filled, as such is not my intention.
Truth seems to be the first casualty of any well-whipped tabloid mob. Those interested in truth---instead of rank ignorant emotion--can look here---http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/canterbury_crown_appointments_commission_membership.html...to note the very limited power of a PM in appointing an ABC. PM effectively has only 2 names for choice from which he picks one. So if anybody is responsible for presence of Rowan on that short list, it is not TB but Crown Appointments Commission.
Secondly, it amazes me that people who are completely ignorant of all the intricacies and balancing going on in the worlwide Anglican communinion (of which ABC is fulcrum), as 10-year Lambenth Conference approaches in 1998, call for ditching of ABC at this most inopportune of times. This would be devastating for the Anglican Communion, one of England's best, and still-surviving legacies to the world. And all this from a crowd that claims to be proud of the legacies of empire, et al. Once again, ignorance of English history and heritage rears its head in this of all places!!!
@ judith and oscar
There are two issues here; the principle and the extent to which the principle applies.
On the principle, Shadow community cohesion minister Baroness Warsi told BBC News 24 that "Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that there should be two systems of law, running alongside each other, almost parallel, and for people to be offered the choice of opting into one or the other. That is unacceptable."
This is in line with Iain's stated view above and that of many commenters here. The fact is, however, that this principle already applies. Jewish Beth Din courts for civil disputes operate in exactly this way. To be consistent, those who take this view should be calling for this separate arrangement to be stopped. Somehow, however, I don't imagine that'll be happening.
Williams did suggest that the extent to which the already established principle applies might be extended in a very limited and careful way in relation to civil matters only. And, just as is the case currently with voluntary submission to the judgements of Beth Din courts, he stressed that the law of the land should be available to any Muslim who wanted it.
The widespread misrepresentation and anger this has caused is genuinely frightening.
@ Iain
I appreciate that you're under no obligation to answer questions left here but can I ask again whether you've had second thoughts about this post, particularly in light of some of the comments it has attracted? There's an obvious reason why I chose to mention Jewish courts. I've always thought that unthinking prejudice and stigmatisation of people because of their cultural and religious beliefs (and our poor understanding of them) is not something which should be encouraged. Judging by this post and the comments you are happy to leave unchallenged, it appears that you do not share this view.
Oh, God! (How appropriate ...) but I am sick to death of comparisons with the Beth Din. I'm not Jewish, but several Jews on various sites have explained Beth Din. Please, please, please stop confusing this with sharia. There are no points of similarity. You people are getting muddled. Please read what various Jews have written here and on DK to understand the limitations of Beth Din.
Have you read the Archbishop's speech, verity? I suspect not.
If you had, you might not be continuing to pedal the ridiculous notion that he called for a full implementation of Sharia as you seem to understand it. He suggested that Muslims could voluntarily agree to be bound by Sharia rulings on certain, carefully chosen civil matters. He did not claim that these ruling should overrule English law.
What he actually said, as opposed to what you seem to think he said, is very much comparable with the way Beth Din works.
Since verity has made several contributions to the other thread since I posed the question, I think it's safe to assume that she has not read the speech.
By golly but she's got strong opinion on it though.
Did you read the speech, Iain?
I didnt know he had made a speech until today. I heard his interview on the BBC and quoted from it in my original post.
Rowan Williams may be daft but Murphy O'Connor is straight out personally evil - those thinking about defecting should be aware of the nature of the man who leads that one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/paedophile_priests.shtml
I find it very strange that those who would defend the Archbishop keep referring to the speech made at the Temple Church and conveniently overlooking that the controversial remarks were actually made in the BBC Radio 4 World at One Interview.
Garry - Your level of miscomprehension is a real award-winner.
Have you read the Archbishop's speech, verity? I suspect not. If you had, you might not be continuing to pedal the ridiculous notion that he called for a full implementation of Sharia as you seem to understand it.
Absolutely nowhere did I indicate that I though Archbishop DooLally called for the full implementation of sharia. Your notion borders on lunacy. Clearly, that was not what this moonbat was saying. He was saying certain aspects could be available - which is ridiculous, but then so is he - and islamics could opt in or out as they wanted.
This is where this man's latent insanity comes in. He thinks an islamic can "opt out" of sharia if it's available. This is exactly why the muslim women in Ontario, to whom I referred earlier, fought with such tenacity against bringing in the availability of sharia. They triumphed because they put so much energy into fighting it.
I am indifferent about whether you read my posts or not, but if you comment on them, it would save everyone's time if you read and understood them first.
Your miscomprehension of what I posted is moonbattery of the highest order.
verity said "Stan!! - and a woman's testimony in court is worth exactly half that of a man. Her inheritance can only, by law, be half that of her brothers or any other male. If she is raped, she requires four male witnesses to the rape (how surreal is that?) or she will be charged with adultery and stoned to death or hanged."
verity said: "Absolutely nowhere did I indicate that I though Archbishop DooLally called for the full implementation of sharia.."
In reality, Williams made it clear that he was against the sort of punishments supported by "Islamic primitivists" and that there was absolutely no place for them in the UK. As such, your decision to bring up stoning in a thread about what Williams said was at best ignorant and at worst grossly misleading and deliberately inflammatory.
You position now appears to be that it's OK for Jewish people to have voluntary courts which can be legally binding in some circumstances but that Muslims cannot be trusted in a similar way. If you want to tar several million people with vastly different views with the same prejudiced brush, that's your right.
Your numerous angry comments on these threads merely confirm what you have already admitted: you're an Islamaphobe. While phobia comes from Greek, it is generally accepted that a phobia in modern usage is an irrational fear of something. Even a stopped clock tells the right time sometimes.
Goodbye.
On a general point to everyone else, in this thread, I have attempted to defend Williams right not to be wildly misrepresented. Funnily enough, that right seems to have been trampled mostly by people who claim to care a great deal about British rights.
Post a Comment