Anthony Barnett (London, OK): One of the themes and purposes of OurKingdom, see About, is to explore what we believe to be a profound constitutional impasse in our democracy. This has come about in part through the way the old British state and ruling culture treated every question empirically. No system problem here, chaps, we are in charge! Or as Robin Butler said when he was Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, our constitution is something "We make up as we go along". Then New Labour came in in 1997 and took over the first person plural, saying 'Thank you very much, we will be the 'we' now". This is obviously hopeless and will lead to trouble. the kind of trouble we have today.
One of the deep issues that lies behind the 'row' over Sharia law and Rowan Williams's remarks about the same is that he is the head of an established church. He has a political role by this very fact. When he speaks, he speaks, in part, for England. (When a new head of state is appointed he or she gives an oath of allegiance not to the people but to the bishops. And not to any old bishops just bishops of the established church). As Simon Barrow points out, the C 0f E should be dis-established. What we are witnessing is not just an argument about the the church, the law (see John Jackson), the integration of Muslims, or the nature of Sharia itself. It is about who rules and who we are, classic symptoms of an inter-connected crisis of the body politic.
There. Having got that of my chest I want to join the argument on one crucial point. Apostasy. Sharia courts are a threat to freedom if they become a vehicle for morally forcing people, especially women, to acknowledge an authority that over-rules their freedom of belief. I heard an interview with a young Muslim leader a few months ago who seemed very civilised and democratic. Asked about whether Muslims had the right to apostasy and to leave their religion, he said that yes they did here in Britain where such freedom is the law. In this neat fashion he allowed for the idea that in, say Saudi Arabia, it could be forbidden.
The law is a matter of obligation not belief. If two people wish to enter into an agreement (and provided they are free and equal in so doing) which is defined in terms of a non-legal code, that can be their choice. But they must also be free to leave it if they so wish. Without being alarmist about Sharia - which is not about chopping off peoples hands when discussed by the Archbishop of Canterbury - there is a fundamental issue of freedom of conscience and belief. It surely cannot be tolerated if it becomes a means of obliging people to believe, or believe in a certain way, against their will, because British society has officially sanctioned elderly religious officials to have such power over 'their' community.
