(no subject)

[fpb]

After his astonishingly stupid remarks, a campaign has been started by The Sun newspaper (owner: Rupert Murdoch) to have the Archbishop of Canterbury sacked. (I am not even sure he can be sacked, but his position can certainly be made untenable.) Since he was essentially elected by heavy public pressure from The Times newspaper (owner: Rupert Murdoch), there is a sorry kind of irony here.

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

No. He was speaking, in the first instance, of social cohesion. He suggested that social cohesion might be advanced if we conceded some space to Sharia. Which, for the reasons I have already set out, is wrong. We are not talking about arbitration. We are talking about who makes the laws. I really do not see why you keep bringing in these red herrings. Surely you are aware that, across the world, the introduction or otherwise of Sharia is a most bloody political issue? Do you imagine that people are dying in West Africa, that people are fighting in Pakistan, that people turn out in the streets in their hundreds of thousands in Turkey, because they have strong opinions about ARBITRATION? Sharia is a cuckoo in the legal nest. It cannot, at the present state of things, coexist with any other legal system. And since you quote Canada, go see what happened, even in that ultra-liberal country, when someone in Ontario had the same bright idea as Dr.Williams.