The Archbishop of Canterbury got himself into all kinds of trouble earlier this week when he was quoted as saying it might be a good idea to introduce Sharia law in Britain.
I'm generally sceptical whenever anyone representing any church so much as draws breath, let alone engages in the discussion of contentious social issues. The chances of someone who represents an institution so out of touch with modern values and concerns as the Anglican church is, at best, unlikely to bring anything meaningful to the table and at worst... well, look where poor old Rowan has ended up.
But the coverage and subsequent treatment of Williams is not only entirely out of proportion to his alleged crime but also willingly misguided, not to mention dangerously reactionary.
For the record, what Williams actually said was that he thought it was inevitable that some aspects of Sharia law would be incorporated into British culture. This is an opinion - nothing more, and is very distinct from "I think Sharia law should be incorporated..."
At no point did he call for a change to British law, as has been trumpeted across the mainstream press. The point he was making - a valid one - was that, where aspects of Sharia law and UK laws coincide, we should explore whether the link can help repair some of Britain's ethnic divides. Discussing the acknowledgment of an important cultural facet of Britain's biggest ethnic minority is hardly controversial. Whether what Williams is saying is practically applicable is debatable - but it's no reason to release the lynch mob.
Of course, the vast majority of those condemning him knew this full well. Why, then, the backlash?
It is difficult to ignore the undertones of racism - that Sharia law, and by extension those who practice it, is a brutal system, the very discussion of which would instil horror in God-fearing citizens. Thanks to Sharia's connotations of stoning, severed hands and general unpleasantry, it is one of the few areas of Islam that can be openly criticised. Whether the brutal interpretation is correct is, like many areas of Islam, a point of contention. However, we would be well served to remember that much of the British legal system has a Biblical basis - but whoever compiled our laws judiciously omitted the more brutal teachings therein, and one would assume the same approach would be applied were any aspects of Sharia ever to be adopted in Britain.
The second, equally pernicious reason for the negative coverage leads back to the Archbishop himself. The institution he represents is, fundamentally, a conservative one - yet Williams has often spoken sympathetically on issues such as homosexuality and abortion (imagine!). Basically, he has a lot of enemies - many members of the church he represents see him as a weak libertarian, someone allowing their precious church to enter the modern arena of social decadence and decay. But, obviously, you can't actually point this out - the media would eat you for breakfast. Better to wait until you're on firmer ground to stick the knife in. Better to wait until last Thursday.
For the record, I disagree with Williams - it seems self-defeating to assume that what amounts to strengthening cultural boundaries will lead to greater social cohesion. But what I will always agree with is his right to raise the discussion without the vindictive criticism he's received.
The episode is similar to the disgusting treatment of University of Glasgow academic Dr Jeanette Findlay, who dared to raise alternative views on sectarianism. The rogue academic had the audacity to suggest there may be an historical basis for some Irish rebel songs, and that there may be a distinction between the historical and the recent IRA. She was savaged for the remarks, made not in a column in the Sun but on a panel discussion on Radio 4, and fired from her position on the Celtic FC board.
In both cases, airing their opinions in the mainstream media was perhaps misguided - but the views themselves were at least worthy of discussion.
To maul anyone who crosses the party line on sensitive issues only impedes progress. Williams isn't setting back cultural development - those who mindlessly lash out against debate are. When someone says something truly abhorrent, okay, open season declared, and woe betide you if you don't duck (you can take the boy out of the tabloid...). But we in the media should applaud the attempts of a clunking, outdated institution to come crashing into modernity. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Bookmark with:
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|