Rowan Williams: Sharia law question "still pertinent"

The former Archbishop of Canterbury revisits his 2008 speech.

In 2008 Rowan Williams gave a lecture to lawyers at the Royal Courts of Justice about the relationship between Islam and British law. His comments – or a distorted version of them – provoked outrage in the right-wing press. The assertion that the use of certain aspects of Sharia law "seem[ed] unavoidable" led to wild accusations, even after the incumbent Lord Chief Justice Nicholas Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, asserted that there was "no reason why Sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution", highlighting that this did not constitute a "parallel legal system" and would never "override English common law".

Speaking on Monday at the launch of a book of academic essays inspired by his 2008 lecture, the former Archbishop of Canterbury said:

I believe that the question I attempted to raise in 2008 is still a pertinent one. A question not simply about how we deal with the very specific issue of Islam and British law, but a series of questions about law itself.

Dr Williams, now Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, told the audience at Fleet Street’s Temple Church:

Behind what I was saying in 2008 lay an inchoate but quite a strong belief that partnership between the state and the associations in a society is not in fact rocket science.  

He cited the partnership between the state and the Church of England in providing education, "one in which both parties have accommodated one another", adding: "in any such model there needs to be statutory resources, statutory checks invoked to make associational life and standards more obviously accountable and professional."

The debate over statutory regulations which would help guarantee "intelligence, coherence and transparency" among organisations with self-governing rules (trade unions, universities and churches were cited, along with Sharia councils, as examples) rolled on throughout the evening. Mohammed Amin, Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum – a group within the Conservative Party – questioned whether Baroness Cox's Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill restricted too heavily the capacity for Sharia courts to make judgements according to their faith. Baroness Cox (seated four rows back) stood up to defend her bill as necessary for the protection of Muslim women. Two women from Sharia councils in London and Birmingham argued that adequate protection was already given within their respective jurisdictions. They wanted to clarify that in many cases – the custody of children or domestic violence, for example – the council would refuse to arbitrate and refer the parties either to the civil courts or where necessary to the police.

Williams also addressed the subject of women's rights, saying:

The state will always be asking – are there aspects of this practice which generate avoidable inequalities, are there aspects of this practice which (to use my own terminology in the original lecture) 'block access' for certain sorts of people. This is of course most acute in relation to the position of women in many Sharia courts and in many of the practices that we see around us.

He continued:

One of the more constructive things that was said to me in 2008 after the original lecture was said by a concerned Muslim lawyer who said: 'Sharia practice in this country needs to be exposed to the light' – that is, it needs to be made accountable and professional in ways which the legal establishment and statutory authority is best placed to take forward.

As became clear during the evening's discussion, judges and legal professionals have been grappling with the question of how to work with Sharia councils, long before Williams raised the subject. The only indication he fostered any regrets at having done so came when he said:

I recognise that in some of what I wrote in 2008 I had perhaps veered towards a slightly more ‘partnership of equals’ model than is realistic.

He also recounted a children’s story:

There’s an episode in Winnie the Pooh when Owl’s house is destroyed by a strong wind. As Pooh picks himself up from the wreckage he looks around and says, 'Did I do that?' I think the audience may perhaps understand that I have a certain fellow feeling with Winnie the Pooh in this respect.

Rowan Williams outside Church House in 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

Philip Maughan is Assistant Editor at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

How should Labour's disgruntled moderates behave?

The price for loyalty looks like being long-term opposition. Sometimes exiting can be brave.

When Albert O. Hirschman was writing Exit, Voice, Loyalty: Responses to decline in Firms, Organizations, and States he wasn’t thinking of the British Labour Party.  That doesn’t mean, though, that one of the world’s seminal applications of economics to politics can’t help us clarify the options open to the 80 to 90 per cent of Labour MPs who, after another week of utter chaos, are in total despair at what’s happening under Jeremy Corbyn.

According to Hirschman, people in their situation have essentially three choices – all of which stand some chance, although there are no guarantees, of turning things around sooner or later.

The first option is simply to get the hell out: exit, after all, can send a pretty powerful, market-style signal to those at the top that things are going wrong and that something has to change.

The second option is to speak up and shout out: if the leadership’s not listening then complaining loudly might mean they get the message.

The third option is to sit tight and shut up, believing that if the boat isn’t rocked it will somehow eventually make it safely to port.

Most Labour MPs have so far plumped for the third course of action.  They’ve battened down the hatches and are waiting for the storm to pass.  In some ways, that makes sense.  For one thing, Labour’s rules and Corbyn’s famous ‘mandate’ make him difficult to dislodge, and anyone seen to move against him risks deselection by angry activists.

For another, there will be a reckoning – a general election defeat so bad that it will be difficult even for diehards to deny there’s a problem: maybe Labour has to do ‘déjà vu all over again’ and lose like it did in 1983 in order to come to its senses. The problem, however, is that this scenario could still see it stuck in opposition for at least a decade. And that’s presuming that the left hasn’t so effectively consolidated its grip on the party that it can’t get out from under.

That’s presumably why a handful of Labour MPs have gone for option two – voice.  Michael Dugher, John Woodcock, Kevan Jones, Wes Streeting and, of course, John Mann have made it pretty clear they think the whole thing’s a mess and that something – ideally Jeremy Corbyn and those around him – has to give.  They’re joined by others – most recently Stephen Kinnock, who’s talked about the party having to take ‘remedial action’ if its performance in local elections turns out to be as woeful as some are suggesting.  And then of course there are potential leadership challengers making none-too-coded keynote speeches and public appearances (both virtual and real), as well as a whole host of back and frontbenchers prepared to criticise Corbyn and those around him, but only off the record.

So far, however, we’ve seen no-one prepared to take the exit option – or at least to go the whole hog. Admittedly, some, like Emma Reynolds, Chuka Umunna, Dan Jarvis, Yvette Cooper, and Rachel Reeves, have gone halfway by pointedly refusing to serve in Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet.  But nobody has so far declared their intention to leave politics altogether or to quit the party, either to become an independent or to try to set up something else.

The latter is easily dismissed as a pipe-dream, especially in the light of what happened when Labour moderates tried to do it with the SDP in the eighties.  But maybe it’s time to think again.  After all, in order to refuse even to contemplate it you have to believe that the pendulum will naturally swing back to Labour at a time when, all over Europe, the centre-left looks like being left behind by the march of time and when, in the UK, there seems precious little chance of a now shrunken, predominantly public-sector union movement urging the party back to the centre ground in the same way that its more powerful predecessors did back in the fifties and the late-eighties and nineties. 

Maybe it’s also worth wondering whether those Labour MPs who left for the SDP could and should have done things differently.  Instead of simply jumping ship in relatively small numbers and then staying in parliament, something much bolder and much more dramatic is needed.  What if over one hundred current Labour MPs simultaneously declared they were setting up ‘Real Labour’?  What if they simultaneously resigned from the Commons and then simultaneously fought scores of by-elections under that banner?

To many, even to ask the question is to answer it. The obstacles – political, procedural, and financial – are formidable and forbidding.  The risks are huge and the pay-off massively uncertain.  Indeed, the whole idea can be swiftly written off as a thought-experiment explicitly designed to demonstrate that nothing like it will ever come to pass.

On the other hand, Labour MPs, whether we use Hirschman’s three-way schema or not, are fast running out of options.  The price for loyalty looks like being long-term opposition.  Voice can only do so much when those you’re complaining about seem – in both senses of the word – immovable.  Exit, of course, can easily be made to seem like the coward’s way out. Sometimes, however, it really is the bravest and the best thing to do.

Tim Bale is professor of politics at QMUL. His latest book, Five Year Mission, chronicles Ed Miliband's leadership of the Labour party.