Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. He says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.
Just a guess, but this elephant thinks that most women would chose to have marital disputes arbitrated in a non-Sharia court. Probably rape disputes, too. Actually, probably any dispute, as the Western rules of evidence generally don’t discriminate based upon gender, and at least allow women to testify on their own behalf. Just a guess.
As for the ridiculous idea that one should not have to chose between cultural loyalty and state loyalty: those who immigrated to England have made a choice, namely, submission to English law. We do not allow people to chose both the country that they want and the laws that they will choose to submit to.* This is not the make-your-own-sundae version of the rule of law.
Perhaps Mr. Rowan is correct: Muslims who immigrate to Europe feel out of place. They likely leave countries ruled by Sharia law, however, because countries that are ruled by Sharia law, to put it bluntly, suck – for human rights, civil rights, and economics. Now, Britain is not exactly sitting upon a wealth of natural resources, but it still seems to offer its citizens a nice standard of living. That wouldn’t have anything to do with oppressive Western values, now would it?
Levity and humour, below the fold:
A Hillary nutcracker! (Sorry, Simon.)
*Excepting, of course, any jurisdiction which is bound to submit to the results of a Kennedy opinion.