dom.blog

I don’t think Rowan Williams should resign as Archbishop of Canterbury. He is certainly a thoughtful, intelligent man who is a far better Christian leader than many we could imagine. I don’t even think he should apologise, because why force someone to apologise for opening a debate? Having said all that, I do think people should feel justifiably angry with what he’s done.

Let’s start with what he actually meant: that civil Sharia law courts (notwithstanding the complexity about what ‘Sharia’ actually means) should receive some sort of official recognition within the British legal system. Naturally, this doesn’t mean a lot of the nonsense which has been talked about in the juvenile press. But it is still fundamentally and absolutely unacceptable. The law must apply to everyone, equally, end of. To the extent that people can unofficially and voluntarily agree to be bound by separate codes, as long as it doesn’t involve a breach of the law, this is already the case. If two Muslims who are divorcing wish to abide by Islamic custom, they already can. To suggest that this needs to be integrated into the national law is just utterly wrong. Not surprisingly, the majority of British Muslims agree.

The real problem, of course, is that through wilful misinterpretation Rowan Williams has now unleashed a tremendous backlash against Islam which will be felt hardest by the British Muslims he was attempting to help. That may not be his fault, but it’s breathtaking that he doesn’t even seem to have considered the possibility.

But the underlying cause of all this nonsense is that the Archbishop – for all his intelligence – is simply incapable of understanding what a secular state means in the 21st century. He doesn’t get that religion does not belong as an arm of government, or the legal system, or anything else that isn’t entirely a private, voluntary association, with no special favours from the law. I suggest the following remedy to help him learn: strip the Archbishop of his legacy role within the secular state, kick his bishops out from the Lords and put the Church of England on an equal footing with everyone else.

Oh, Sudan!

What kind of society places so much importance on the name of a teddy bear at a school? I mean, honestly! They clearly just need to get a grip. There are more important things in life, surely? I’m so glad to live in a more advanced society…

A 15-year-old rock music fan suspended from school for refusing to cut his long hair says he will not back down. (BBC News)

Surely silly, pointless rules undermine the serious questions of discipline and respect in schools? If you’re going to have rules, they have to be rules for a purpose which people have confidence in. So relax, guys… it’s just hair.

Oh, and I’m back home

I have to say I think I felt justifiably proud of being at the Cambridge Union Society tonight, attending a recording of The Doha Debates. The motion was ‘This House believes Britain’s role in the Middle East is in terminal decline’, to which – to my surprise – I ended up voting against. This was partly because the speakers in favour seemed to utterly misread the question as having the word ‘positive’ inserted – arguing endlessly that Britain had played a negative role – but of course, missing the point. The speakers against (including, oh shame of shames, Malcolm Rifkind) were not there to argue that Britain’s role hadn’t declined, or that America wasn’t by far and away the most important power. However, do we still have ‘a role’? I believe so.

Anyway, the reason I felt proud of being in Cambridge was, of course, because at the very same moment the Oxford Union was trying to conduct a debate on ‘free speech’ with Nick Griffin and David Irving as invited guests, in the face of some considerable protest. I’ve thought about the two sides to this debate a great deal. It’s surely common currency that these are two repugnant men with repugnant views. But should they be given a platform to be ‘crushed in debate’, as the President of the Union has insisted, or not?

In the end, I am opposed. Speaking at the Oxford Union is not some ordinary right of free speech – it is a privilege extended to those judged worthy to make a useful contribution. David Irving is liar: a man who falsifies evidence to further his anti-semitic views, and not an academic. Nick Griffin is simply a leader of a bunch of thugs with some limited media skills. They aren’t intelligent, thoughtful voices to bring to a debate on the important issue of free speech. It would have actually been better to debate them on their very policies, rather than elevate them into authorities on a subject they are not qualified to speak on.

Furthermore, we live in an age where both David Irving and Nick Griffin are perfectly able to publish their message – via the Internet, for one – in a legal manner which is open to all to access, if they wish to do so. Inviting them to the Oxford Union simply seems a publicity stunt which was ill-considered, and for which those responsible are now genuinely obliged to press ahead with rather than make martyrs out of these men. Perhaps this is true: perhaps to row back at a late stage would have only made a bad situation worse. But they should never have been invited in the first place.

I was very struck by Nick Robinson’s post on the ‘English votes for English matters’ debate, and also by Robert Kirton’s comment (#4) on the problem that faces the Labour Party in the event of English or effective English independence.

If we make two assumptions:

1) That Scottish independence is a real possibility, with the rise of the SNP and possibly a Conservative shift given that:

2) The Conservatives stand to benefit electorally from an English Parliament, under First Past the Post

then those of us who desperately want to avoid Conservative hegemony have several options, it seems to me:

1) Embrace PR, and do it as quickly as possible whilst Brown still has his eye on constitutional reform. With the progressive votes of Labour and Lib Dem MPs, the Conservatives can actually be reduced in power.

2) Try and avoid Scottish independence, or ‘English votes for English MPs’, on the basis that the issue will go away. But it seems to be popular and there’s a certain logic which is undeniable.

3) Put faith in the conversion of the Conservatives to New Labourish principles: just as New Labour followed Thatcher on economic reform, so the Tories can follow Blair and Brown on welfare. The problem here is obvious: even if this did occur in the leadership, there’s still a large core backing in the country for conservative principles.

4) Accept the situation and look elsewhere for progressive politics: at the EU level, or at a local, devolved level of cities, mayors etc. Let the conservative areas of the country follow conservative principles, and we’ll go our own way thanks. But the EU is unpopular, slow and too far removed, whilst even if local politics had a revival it would require significant power and money, and yet be unable to deal with central national and international policies.

5) Keep First Past The Post but re-align the parties – a broad coalition of the centre, and then a party of the right and a party of the left. Good luck trying to get that to happen.

6) Reject the premise – Labour can win in England by mobilising its broad base of support and winning over floating voters.

I’ve no idea what will happen, but it seems like an important question for the long-term future of the political system.

I just wanted to give a quick demonstration of the utterly facile nature of the Conservatives at the moment:

What’s gone wrong? Again if we don’t understand why Labour are failing we won’t succeed. I think it’s because the reform has been topped down. Targets imposed from above, endless re-organisation…

…we’ve got to scrap those top down targets and trust our professionals in the NHS…

…we’ve got to replace those process targets with measures of outcomes that’s what people care about…

…we will reform the police. We will cut out that paperwork, we will get rid of the performance assessments, get rid of the targets…

(Source: Cameron’s 2007 conference speech, BBC News – my emphasis)

Please ignore, for the moment, the idiocy of talking about how ‘measures of outcomes’ are completely different from targets to consider two news articles from the past week:

The government has denied a Tory charge that it has dropped targets for reducing truancy in England’s schools.

(Source: ‘Pupil absences reopen controversy’, BBC News)

The Conservatives have attacked the government over plans to “deep clean” English hospitals after ministers said it would not be centrally monitored.

(Source: ‘Hospital deep clean ‘a gimmick”, BBC News)

Which is it then Dave?

(Edit – oh, and in this article on Jack Straw: “in a speech to Cambridge University’s law faculty” – I was there! )