John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): Do our political leaders understand what the rule of law is? Some of the comments made in the course of knee jerk reaction to the mild remarks made about Sharia law by Rowan Williams suggest that they do not. Perhaps they do not want to.
Like natural justice, the rule of law is a concept that is universal and the law it embraces is not necessarily that which any "parliament" says is to be applied in a particular state. Politicians who believe, like our present Minister of Justice, that it is for government to propose and parliament to dispose do not like that.
What the rule of law "is" was left largely undefined in our country until late in 2006 when Lord Bingham, our senior law lord, observed in a public lecture that, since the Westminster parliament had stated (in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) that the rule of law was an existing constitutional principle, it might be helpful if that principle enjoyed more precision. He pointed out that our courts were now - as a result of what parliament had done - obliged to interpret legislation, if possible, so that it was consistent with the rule of law. He then postulated eight "sub-principles" that he believed would help us on the road to that precision.
A year later, prompted perhaps by the remarks of leading academics, Lord Bingham said that if parliament passed laws that could not be interpreted by the courts as consistent with what the courts believed to be the rule of law there would be a serious constitutional problem. He was stating that the rule of law is not necessarily compatible with the sovereignty of parliament.
I do not know whether those parts of Sharia law that Rowan Williams has in mind are markedly inconsistent with Lord Bingham's eight sub-principles. If they are not we are left with what the argument is really about. The other side of what Rowan Williams is driving at is given voice by Downing Street, which has said that laws applied in Britain must reflect British "values." This is a political statement and reflects the drive for acceptance of Britishness.
For my part I am none too sure what Britishness is or that it is a "good thing." I have the same uncertainty about British "values" and whether they exclude the values of our immigrant communities. I can see that if, whatever they are, they are reflected in our laws in a way that is deeply repugnant to the Muslim community and its leaders, we have a problem. That problem is not solved by sweeping political assertions masquerading as rule of law arguments.
Rowan Williams has suggested a different and more sensitive approach. Although, over the centuries, we have successfully found ways of accommodating gradually different cultures and different opinions of what is socially acceptable, it may be more difficult in this case. But it is worth serious discussion.
To throw the book at the Archbishop, to say, as some public figure has, that he should keeps his opinions on matters deemed to be political to himself, is absurd. It suggests that our professional politicians - and this time from all parties - think that there are no-go areas in public life, areas reserved for them. That is a primrose path if ever there was one.
