shuggy's blog
I agree with all of your points. I would like to add some of my own.
The AB of C specifically attacked, in very simple terms, the application of the common law across all of society. No impenetrable language there. He either means that or he doesn't, and no amount of squirming will free him from those ill chosen words. He very simply, and deliberately, trashed a tradition which is widely treasured in this country.
It has been mentioned in some quarters that sharia courts have been dispensing rough justice, and severe penalties, in muslim enclaves for some considerable time. That's irrelevant. (If I steal the milk from your doorstep every day for 30 years, that doesn't mean it won't still be an offence when I do it again in the morning.) Everyone involved with such proceedings should have been prosecuted.
Finally, why weren't they prosecuted? It seems to me that a similarly outrageous assault on the law, is coming from the Police and CPS. Their abuse of the law is more covert, and rests on their extreme selectiveness when it comes to enforcement among communities who might respond with violent disorder. Great, so now the rest of us know what to do......
Excellent and well argued points all.
I would add that speaking obscurely and using jargon, when not addressing an expert audience, is often the sign of someone who wishes to appear intellectual or trumpet how ‘clever’ and ‘to be respected’ they are when they are deliberately obfuscating what they are saying to avoid anyone calling them on it.
Or the sign of a poor communicator.
The Arch Bishop should be neither…
"But from my own experience I would suggest educationalists often outmatch even sociologists with their impressive ability to talk jargon-laden bullshit than signifies very little. "
You should dip into the sociology of education some time. You'll dip back out pretty martish.
Excellent, lucid post this. It's a pity that the communitarian tendency at Crooked Timber will most likely ignore it and continue to smear all opponents of sharia and the AB of C as crypto-racist, anti-intellectual demagogues.
Superb post - one of the best I've read on the subject.
Excellent summary, Shuggy.
I am convinced that dropping the words 'sharia' and 'inevitable' into a speech which was clearly focussed on embedding the idea that theistic conviction should be priviliged in law was a considered move.
The unintelligent but brief media hysteria that precipitated allowed him to seem brave, liberal, reasonable and misunderstood. Had clearly said what he meant it would have evoked nothing more than a dismissive shrug.
He is a daft old bugger, isn't he? Mystic Merlin, I calls him. But "which controls around a third of the schools in England" - really? I am astonished, but if you say so....
which controls around a third of the schools in England" - really?
Between a quarter and a third. Actually, now you mention it, I think it's around 35% that are 'faith schools', not just C of E schools.
Re faith schools. The state approves: “The Government remains committed to a diverse range of schools for parents to choose from, including schools with a religious character or "faith schools" as they are commonly known.”
Probably because they do keep up the Government Targets: “Faith schools have an excellent record in providing high-quality education and serving disadvantaged communities and are some of the most ethnically and socially diverse in the country.”
And there is that newspeak term ‘diverse’ twice no less. A bit like ‘community’.
I'll be blunt - I totally oppose the Archbishop's ideas because I totally oppose religious involvement in affairs of state.
On the other hand, the ABC has been repeatedly attacked by a bunch of mendacious fucks who try to turn what he said into some foreign affront.
I'm capable of pissing over the right wing press and the ABC without actively shitting my Dockers - a skill, I think, that many people should learn.
Incidentally, Shuggy - you have always struck me as the only member of the Decent Left that was actually decent in the Oxford Dictionary sense. I've got a quite nasty post up about the 15th Feb marches right now, and I would be genuinely interested to hear what you have to say about it.
I'm afraid this mis-represents many of the arguments made by people including myself in support of the ABC, even though I don't agree with all off what he says. In response:
1) "why is it being assumed that critics of the Archbishop support the status quo?"
Because most of the idiots writing in the press or politicians making statements condemning him, or commenters on blogs, keep parroting the line that there should be one law for all citizens. The politicians and newspapers columnists are the stupidest because they KNOW that the beth din courts exist and have for over 50 years in this country.
Our law allows for civil arbitrations and there has been no criticism towards the Beth Din or advocating getting rid of all such civil arbitration. Given there has been no debate on their place in Britain, one can only assume that Muslims should be afforded the same rights. Except, 90% of the criticism didn't focus on this.
"If you think the only reason one can have for taking such a view is 'Islamophobia' then quite frankly you're something of an asshole."
I agree there should be further separation between church and state but that doesn't mean civil arbitration will automatically be disallowed. Jews and Muslims can have their religious courts despite not being the official state religion. So des-establish the CoE if you want but the ABC's point about such civil arbitration, and what to do when it conflicts with law of the land, still stands.
2) "This is, in case anyone hadn't noticed, the background that Williams comes from and the idea that it is 'anti-intellectual' to point out the opaque nature of his speech is absurd."
Actually, I thought his speech was quite straightforward. I understood it fine. I still think the response was anti-intellectual for two reasons. Firstly, it was vastly simplified and even twisted around in the media. The ABC mentions forced marriages THREE TIMES. He mentions that popular perceptions of sharia conjure up images of hand-chopping. And yet there were idiots in the Times saying that ABC ignores those issues. Its fucking unreal how stupid these people are.
Not only that, the response was anti-intellectual because they're basically criticising for raising the issue. We had people saying he should have been more media savvy and knew his words were going to be twisted around by the media. That is not an argument, that is making excuses for a stupid media.
3) Fine, criticise him, as people have done that his speech was an attack on secularism (see Marton O'Neill in the Statesman). But the vast majority of criticism was baseless and rested on people not even reading the fucking speech. That's why it was a witch-hunt. We had idiots claiming left right and centre that there should be one law of the land and sharia was not inevitable despite knowing it alrerady exists in this country (and has for decades) and knowing civil law allows the space for them to exist, and knowing fully wel
"Our law allows for civil arbitrations and there has been no criticism towards the Beth Din or advocating getting rid of all such civil arbitration. Given there has been no debate on their place in Britain, one can only assume that Muslims should be afforded the same rights."
They DO have the same right, to any form of arbitration or mediation they want. They can agree to ask for a sharia arbitration, phone a friend, or even toss a blimmin coin. So what is it you are really asking for?
I suspect you want judicial power to enforce the judgements of these sharia courts on dissenting litigants, and that is not on.
I suspect you want judicial power to enforce the judgements of these sharia courts on dissenting litigants, and that is not on.
Yeah construct a stupid straw-man argument to make yourself feel better. Won't get you anywhere though. No, I don't like sharia as its interpreted against women. I'm defending ABC's right to ask what lawmakers (it was a speech to lawyers after all) do when such civil arbitration conflicts with the law of the land. It would help if you actually declared in advance if you read the speech before shooting off.
You are all stupid or racist, so there.
Oh look, it's tourette's syndrome boy again.
No, I don't like sharia as its interpreted against women. I'm defending ABC's right to ask what lawmakers (it was a speech to lawyers after all) do when such civil arbitration conflicts with the law of the land.
Go on Sunny, what is your conclusion?
Do you agree with the ABC that:
an approach to law which simply said, 'There is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or your allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts'. I think that's a bit of a danger.
Or do you not?
You should also defend the rights of others to point out how stupid the ABC is.
I grew up Jewish in Glasgow, so perhaps I can give you just a little idea of what the Beth Din meant to me.
The items handled by the BD were usually what I would call "peripheral" items: how to handle births, deaths, marriages, kosher food, etc. Some people took the BD much more seriously than (most) others, but there was never any type of "enforcement."
And there was never any question as to which law was ultimately to be obeyed. The law of the land was our law, and respect for this law and the people around us was always drummed into us by various Jewish community leaders.
A little example: We used to play fitba (3-and-in) outside the hebrew school we attended (outside of secular school), but we were expressly forbidden by our teacher (Rabbi) from playing on a Sunday, because it was deemed to be disrespectful, if not offensive, to the people around us, for whom Sunday was a day of worship.
You could say that the laws (perhaps better to call them "rules") laid down by the BD were *supplementary* to British law, rather than replacing it. If I can compare it to, say Catholic or Presbyterian traditions, that may be reasonable way of looking at it.
I guess it's not surprising that "Jewish Law" is more or less in tune with British Law, because British law is based on Christian teachings, and Christian teachings are fundamentally based on Mosaic Law...
Go on Sunny, what is your conclusion?
My conclusion to what? Defending someone from being criticised on the wrong basis is different to agreeing with them. Is it not?
Or do you not?
No I don't think there should be separate legal systems in place. But there aren't.... there is flexibility. That flexibility should not compromise basic human rights of course but if people want the option to do things that also satisfies their religious obligations, then I have no grounds to object to that as long as it doesn't infringe on me.
You should also defend the rights of others to point out how stupid the ABC is.
I don't need to, the criticism has been overwhelming. Most if though, very misinformed and rubbish. Hence my annoyance. No one has actually tried to censor criticism of the ABC.
"Yeah construct a stupid straw-man argument to make yourself feel better. --
I'm defending ABC's right to ask what lawmakers -- do when such civil arbitration conflicts with the law of the land."
Well either the secular law, which guarrantees the equality of us all, should prevail or it shouldn't. As soon as you defend his "right" to question that, you undermine the civil rights and equal status of every muslim in this land.
Oh and your references to supposed paranoia about hand chopping are risible. As if that was all that mattered. As if the traditional provisions of sharia on rules and admissability of evidence weren't vested in prejudice. As if things like matrimony, divorce, child custody, inheritance, the right to education, employment, family planning, religious freedom, and financial independance were somehow peripheral, instead of fundamental aspects of our lives.
And you are letting him question all that? OK, good luck with that.
I don't need to, the criticism has been overwhelming. Most if though, very misinformed and rubbish.
Well, stop adding to it man!
"very misinformed and rubbish. Hence my annoyance."
You missed out "working class" there I think.
Goodness, what a lot of activity since I've been away...
Sunny -
Because most of the idiots writing in the press or politicians making statements condemning him, or commenters on blogs, keep parroting the line that there should be one law for all citizens.
I don't think commentators who have taken issue with Bish have been taking one line but the existence of Ben Dith courts are part of the wider issue that has to do with how to treat anomalies with regards to religions. I was unaware of these, as I said, but one that is closer to my experience is schools and I think a parallel can be drawn here: the Bishop's solution to the privileges that the Christians have here - in Scotland, the RC; in England, the C of E - is to extend these to under-represented groups. Mine, and those of us who favour a stricter separation of religion from the state, think that the solution is to remove the privileges enjoyed by the Christian churches, that's all.
Actually, I thought his speech was quite straightforward. I understood it fine. I still think the response was anti-intellectual for two reasons. Firstly, it was vastly simplified and even twisted around in the media...
I think I understood it too - which is why I criticised it. But I can only disagree that it was straightforward: it reminded me of one of these murky texts one gets on the reading list at university - an essay written by some academic who has long since lost any sense of what it's like to communicate with 'regular' folk. My father was an academic so I think I recognise this phenomenon when I see it. You may find something Freudian in this if you must... And the 'over-simplification', let's remember, was the Archbishop's own.
But the vast majority of criticism was baseless and rested on people not even reading the fucking speech. That's why it was a witch-hunt.
My answer to this refers back to the second point. Since it was Bish himself who summarised, I really don't think people have any obligation to read 'the fucking speech'. I read the fucking speech myself and rather wish I hadn't fucking bothered - this representing time in my fucking life that I won't get back. I'd also like to reiterate the point I made in the post: 'tis light and momentary troubles that constitute a witch-hunt these days. I mean, apart from some ephemeral media storm, Bish hasn't suffered much, has he? He certainly won't lose his job over it.
Another thing
Missed this:
I'm defending ABC's right to ask what lawmakers (it was a speech to lawyers after all) do when such civil arbitration conflicts with the law of the land.
I don't think anyone's saying he doesn't have a right to do this, exactly - it's more a question of a) whether he raised the issue in an appropriate manner? b) is 'raising issues' appropriate to his role at all? b) whether he reached the right conclusion? I have, along with a number of others, suggested that the answer to all three of these is no.
You could do worse than to take on board some of my comrade's observations here. There is something fundamentally illiberal about the way you assume those who disagree with you are merely stupid because behind it, one detects something akin to a claim to cognitive infallibility. Striking a pose of intellectual superiority is not only a rather unattractive trait - in your case, I'm at a loss to see any justification for it.
I've got a quite nasty post up about the 15th Feb marches right now, and I would be genuinely interested to hear what you have to say about it.
It's not really that nasty... Couple of comments under way at your place. Mebbe give it more detailed attention at a later date.
"There is something fundamentally illiberal about the way you assume those who disagree with you are merely stupid because behind it, one detects something akin to a claim to cognitive infallibility."
Shuggy, you are the best. Really.
but the existence of Ben Dith courts are part of the wider issue that has to do with how to treat anomalies with regards to religions.
See this comment piece by Simon Barrow:
http://ekklesia.co.uk/node/6726
To quote: But as I understand it, Beth Din ("house of judgment") rabbinical courts administer a system of older laws from which our law of equity also originates. Modern civil courts interpret them as private contracts which can and have been challenged and overruled. They operate within the tradition of Hassidic Judaism, not as a Jewish legal system operating parallel to or as part of common civil legal institutions. What this means is that Jews, Muslims and anyone else (religious or non-religious) may form contracts among themselves under whatever tradition they wish and have those contracts upheld by courts, so long as these contracts do not diverge from current UK contract law.
Now, within that context, I'd love to hear how you want to reform the law.
the Bishop's solution to the privileges that the Christians have here - in Scotland, the RC; in England, the C of E - is to extend these to under-represented groups
What 'privileges' are you talking about? The ability to set up these private contracts and have civil arbitration, or putting Bishops in the house of commons? Because I'd be happy to abolish the latter. The former doesn't necessarily conflict with secularism.
One could argue that if he wants to take things further, that would be a problem. I agree with that. But I'm afraid none of the internet warriors above or posting comment pieces in the Guardian/Times really explored this.
an essay written by some academic who has long since lost any sense of what it's like to communicate with 'regular' folk.
I'm sorry - are you aware who he was invited by and who the speech was meant to be given to? Who said it was for 'normal folk'. Does everyone now have to write and say everything for normal folk otherwise risk being pilloried?
whether he raised the issue in an appropriate manner?
What's the appropriate manner?
whether he reached the right conclusion?
HEre is where we agree. I don't think he did either. But hardly any of the debate was around whether such private civil contracts should be abolished or exploring how the Beth Din work and maybe if they should be abolished too, or whether the state should take more of an active role in ensuring these private contracts do not violate British law.
The arguments that can ALSO be made intelligently centre around whether sharia is actually ready to be implemented (see ali eteraz's blog), or whether even the ABC was using sharia as a way to further his own agenda:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/a...m/archives/
1715
Instead we had dimwits all over the place claiming there should be one law for everyone, and that the ABC wanted to leave Muslim women to the fate of bearded men with swords etc.
You c
You could do worse than to take on board some of my comrade's observations here
Right... so you've never called any reaction to an issue or some people stupid on the basis of what they say? Suddenly, Will and his crew are lecturing me on what should be good behaviour? That's quite amusing.
How precious can this man get? One can only hope that he is given his rightful place on Question Time and the Moral Maze. If not, it is only a matter of time before he launches another vanity project (Theoliberalism.org?).
As for this:
Who said it was for 'normal folk'. Does everyone now have to write and say everything for normal folk otherwise risk being pilloried?
It is pleasing, or perhaps worrying, that the fact I listened to the Williams' interview on Radio 4 means I am now part of the "intellectual" elite represented by his good self and the bishop. Or had the cleric deigned to speak to "normal folk" at that point?
Perhaps this visionary new media savant would like statements by the leader of the state church in the UK to be conducted in a password protected website. He could judge who was qualified to make comment, and could also assess such comments before publication. After all, we wouldn't want "stupid" comments being made by "normal folk" would we?
What 'privileges' are you talking about? The ability to set up these private contracts and have civil arbitration, or putting Bishops in the house of commons? Because I'd be happy to abolish the latter. The former doesn't necessarily conflict with secularism.
I was talking about education here... Look, if, as you argue, sharia courts have effectively the legal status of clubs - which is to say they are free associations that are allowed to arrange their affairs provided what they do doesn't conflict with the law then there isn't much of an issue here. But then again, it becomes more difficult to understand what the Bishop was going on about, since he clearly - insofar as he can be described as such - spoke about the sort of accommodation in law presently extended to - his example - doctors who don't want to perform abortions for reasons of conscience. Or to put in in a nutshell: Bish was talking about a situation where legal accommodation would have to be made - will be made, hence 'inevitable'; you're talking about one where this isn't necessary. Now you may say I'm wrong, in which case I must really insist that you produce the segment from his speech where he suggests explicitly, or even implies, that what he is advocating does not require a change in the present legal order.
I'm sorry - are you aware who he was invited by and who the speech was meant to be given to?
Yup, forgot about that - a bunch of spaced-out theologian types. Ever studied theology, Sunny? I have - and I can only reiterate: a more obfuscating crew of academics I have never seen. I have a theory about this but that'll have to wait... The point is, given the audience, what's the point of complaining that people didn't read the speech? If it wasn't for them, what he said on Radio 4 was - so he and his defenders can hardly complain if people react to that, can they? But I'm repeating myself.
Suddenly, Will and his crew are lecturing me on what should be good behaviour? That's quite amusing.
Will - who is perfectly capable of speaking for himself - has never, to my knowledge, lectured anyone about etiquette. As for myself, I don't recall calling anyone stupid on this blog simply because they have taken a contrary position to me. I may be mistaken, of course - but I am not mistaken, I think, in pointing out that you do this as a matter of routine.
then there isn't much of an issue here.
That, being my point.
spoke about the sort of accommodation in law presently extended to - his example - doctors who don't want to perform abortions for reasons of conscience
Which is the objection no one picked up on (apart from Martin O Neill in the NS I think and a few places here anf there, and one I also agree with you in opposing.
The law doesn't extend this accomodation yet, ABC wants it and THAT is what we should ignore his demands on. You may notice that much of the horror about sharia didn't really make note of this point.
I think, in pointing out that you do this as a matter of routine
A commenter accuses me wanting sharia despite no evidence to support that, what does he want? A Blue Peter badge? I'm not really fussed about what is said on DSTFW anyway. You raised a point about why people were defending ABC... I offered my two pence given I've been doing the same, and I thought you mis-represented the arguments his defenders were making.
There is a space where people can defend ABC from the idiotic criticism he received, and yet criticise him for the right things. You're on the right track in your last post. I'm afraid most of the criticism wasn't really based on knowledge of how the law currently stands or what ABC was saying.
"I'm not really fussed about what is said on DSTFW anyway."
yes you are -- liar.
That, being my point.
Which Shuggy has demonstrated is flawed due to the absence of those conditions required to make it coherent.
With friends like you, Williams certainly doesn't need enemas.
Regarding the Beth Din: under both British and American law, Jewish religious courts exist as private arbitrators with no legal authority beyond that contracted to by the parties. In other words, if you have a legal dispute with another party, under the law you can agree to submit to private arbitration (sometimes called "alternative dispute resolution"). The arbitrator and procedure is agreed to by the contracting parties. The Beth Din is such a private arbitrator which operates (with the consent and under contract to the parties) within a religious context. It has no authority under civil law beyond the contract of the parties.
Religious Muslims believing in Sharia also have the right to submit their disputes to Sharia authorities for arbitration just as any other person has the right to submit their disputes to private arbitration.
The issue currently at question (to my amazement) is whether the legal system itself should recognize elements of Sharia as binding under civil law. The AB of C asserts that it should because the idea of one legal system for everyone "presents a danger". He couldn't be more wrong. The danger is that the system of laws might forget the principle of equality under the law and adopt arbitrary exceptions. That would be intolerably unjust and would signal the end of law as we know it.
Adam - spot on!
Small point about a minor accuracy. One of the commenters above said that the Beth Din courts operate within the tradition of "Hassidic Judaism". No, they operate within the tradition of *Orthodox* Judaism. Hassidic (or Chassidic) Judaism is a sect within Orthodox Judaism. It started in the 18th century, and was originally regarded as rather heretical.
Commenting by HaloScan
