Dom Post on UK and Sharia Law
The Dominion Post (very justifiably) takes Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to task for his comments that the UK should officially sanctions aspects of sharia law:
Apart from the fact that, when congregations in many mainstream churches are falling, Dr Williams’ comments were singularly wounding to the Anglican Church, they were also unacceptable. He might have been motivated by the best of intentions – he is, perhaps, understandably unsettled by the practical consequences of Britain’s open-door policy – but his sentiments were wrong-headed and unhelpful.
The message they sent is that it is okay for various communities within the British Isles to hope to be bound by different laws.
A democracy is predicated on one law for all. End of story. If some British citizens – maybe newer ones from non-Western nations – do not like the laws and mores of the country to which they have emigrated or that has given them sanctuary, they do not have to stay. They should not expect their new host to subjugate its own traditions to accommodate all the devotees of faith.
Expressed bluntly, but absolutely correctly.
Britain – like New Zealand – is a secular country. It would be unsurprising if immigrants from theistic regimes found it hard to appreciate what they might perceive as civic indifference to religion in a society ruled by laws, not their particular holy book.
Democracies ideally embrace freedom and tolerance in allowing individuals to practise their faith – or not. The obverse of that compact, however, is that minorities who cleave to one god or another do not expect the wider society in which they operate to alter its very foundations to adapt to what most regard as a private matter.
Indeed. People can be scientologists, or Buddhists or Destiny adherents – whatever they want. They can personally practice their beliefs within the law of the land. But the basis of a secular state is you do not change your laws just to reflect the beliefs of one particular version of God.
Would Britain allow polygamy to a, say, growing fundamentalist Mormon citizenry? Of course not. Neither should it.
Actually, the sad reality is they are supporting it for 1,000 or so families in the UK – the new social welfare guidelines state:
“Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate (£92.80).
“The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65.”
Income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband’s bank account, if the family so choose.
Back to the editorial:
Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the other inhabitants of Westminster, however, might find themselves in a difficult position here, despite their criticism of the archibishop’s misguided musings. Britain reportedly already allows Orthodox Jews to resolve disputes under traditional Jewish law. That might well make denying Muslims similar licence some time in the future much harder.
Equally unwelcome, if this means that this dispute resolution scheme has a special status in law. Any two or more people are welcome to voluntarily resolve a dispute through non legal means. But it can not take away their rights to the courts.
… New Zealand should be prepared should someone as clumsy as Dr Williams suggest a similar acceptance of parts of Sharia or other faith-based law here. Such advocacy is not inconceivable, given the number of Kiwis fleeing and that our population is being bolstered by migrants, often from non-Western traditions. If we will not agree, for good reason, to tinorangitiratanga for tangata whenua, whose claims to special treatment are greater than any other community’s, no government ought to countenance particular laws for anyone else.
Indeed. Bad enough we have a blasphemous libel law – let us not introduce any more laws that undermine our secular state.