One Law for All revisited
Late last year in One law for all I explained why I thought it would be better for a whole host of reasons, including improved community relations, if it were made clear that Sharia law could not and would not ever be introduced into the United Kingdom.
I expected that this would soon come into the public arena for discussion, but little suspected the precise timing, still less the source. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not the person most people would expect as the source of the suggestion that in some respects Sharia law could be introduced, or indeed that its introduction in some ways or to some extent was almost inevitable. I had thought that when the Archbishop, on his appointment to the post at Canterbury, had appeared at a Welsh ceremony dressed as a Druid (apparently a traditional Welsh society, although the phrase "you couldn't make it up" springs to mind) this was likely to be the most bizarre episode of his office. That pales into insignificance with his latest offering. The Archbishop is a good man and I have no doubt that his intervention was well meant. Sadly it was ill thought out and positively dangerous. Indeed as a way of fomenting division it would take some beating.
There is no reason why in any particular instance parties cannot submit a dispute to an arbitration of their choice. That could be under any law they choose (including sharia law). In the same way commercial transactions (save for basic statutory rights) can be framed in the way parties want, thus the offering of sharia compliant bonds for Muslim investors. All of this is or should be uncontroversial. However essential rights and obligations can only be governed by one Law. The law of the land. English law (or Scottish law north of the border).
Albeit that that was not his intention, the Archbishop seems to have achieved the aim I suggested, namely that all sides politically should make it clear that Sharia law could and should not ever be introduced in this country.
He has also illustrated the fundamental truth that being well-meaning so far from preventing catastrophic legal policy choices can be the cause of them. Various members of the House of Lords (not I hasten to add law lords) have recently proposed that save in the most exceptional circumstances custodial sentences should never be imposed on people under 18. I am sure they are also well-meaning people. However this would be a recipe for a bloodbath.
There is already far too much knife carrying, let alone gun carrying, amongst those under 18. Two things are needed to stop this. A realisation that those who carry weapons have a good chance of being caught, and suitable penalties once they are. The temptation for young people to carry weapons, for self-defence because others are carrying them, will be strong enough as it is. A general realisation that they would not be at risk of custody if caught would make the temptation overwhelming. One problem with weapons is even if they are initially carried for other than offensive purposes, once they are there if a quarrel breaks out they can be used.
At least we can be confident that neither the Archbishop (nor the Lords) will be proposing a sharia law solution to violent crime. Thank Heaven for small mercies.