On the subject of the Lord Chief and his speech to the East London Muslim’s yesterday, while the text of his speech will not be on the Judiciary Website for a few days, Frances Gibb The Times Legal Editor has more details of his speech and her report gives a different emphasis. Which I feel may be nearer what Lord Philips actually said, proves that I am right to want to see a transcript before commenting fully.
Miss Gibb (who who knows her stuff, was probably either there in person or was given an advance draft) says
Britain's most senior judge declared last night that there was no place for Sharia courts in this country and insisted that all residents were governed by the laws of England and Wales.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, told an audience of several hundred at the London Muslim Centre in Whitechapel that those who chose to live in England and Wales had to accept the laws as they found them.
“There is no question of such [Sharia] courts sitting in this country or such sanctions being applied here.
“So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts,” he said.
His (defence of Sharia principles was to this extent) A Muslim was free to practise his or her own faith and live his or her life in accordance with those principles, yet not be in conflict with the law.
sanctions imposed in some Muslim countries - such as flogging, stoning, cutting off hands, or killing - that would conflict with our laws. “There can be no question of such sanctions being applied to or by any Muslim who lives within this jurisdiction,” he said.
Muslim men and women were entitled to be treated the same way as all others, but there was another side to that coin.
“Those who come to live in this country and benefit from the rights enjoyed by all who live here also necessarily come under the same obligations that the law imposes on all who live here.”
The comments (of the Archbishop of Canterbury on the accomodation of Sharia law) were made at a lecture that Lord Phillips had chaired. He said that the Archbishop's lecture had been profound and “one not readily understood on a single listening”. He had certainly not suggested that Muslims might be governed by their own system of Sharia. Rather the Archbishop had suggested that it might be possible for individuals to opt to resolve certain disputes under their own choice of jurisdiction.
People were free to choose a system of mediation or arbitration for the resolution of their disputes - whether Sharia or any other religious code.
Any sanctions or failure to comply with the agreed terms of any mediation would, however, be drawn from the laws of England and Wales. Divorce could therefore be effected only in accordance with the civil law of this country.
I made the analogy yesterday with the governance of football in the country by the Football Association.
Last night the Lord Chief Justice had the perfect opportunity and location to offer his own contribution to the debate - and nail what he saw as some of the misunderstandings about Dr Williams's comments into the bargain.
He did so with some vigour: the Archbishop had not suggested that Muslims could be governed by their own system of Sharia, he said, but that they could choose to live their lives in accordance with Sharia principles - and not be in conflict with the law.
Crucially, though, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers made clear where the line was drawn: first, any such adherence did not mean Muslims were outside the law. “Those who live in this country are governed by English law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts.” Secondly, neither the behaviour of violent extremists who perversely invoked Sharia, nor severe physical sanctions imposed in some Muslim countries, such as flogging, stoning or cutting off of hands, could ever be applied to or by any Muslim within this jurisdiction.
The Lord Chief Justice's speech went far wider, though, than the issue of Sharia within British society. He looked at other contentious issues: does the law discriminate against people - and if not the law, what about the judges themselves?
The law, he noted, had developed to stamp out discrimination in all its forms and now offered freedomand equality: landladies could no longer hang up a sign saying: “Bed and breakfast. No blacks or Irish.” People living here would receive equal treatment before the law and were free to practise their religion of choice, he said.
However, he made clear that such freedoms and rights bring obligations. Those, he said, who live in Britain “must take our laws as they find them”. Lord Phillips noted that although the law was secular, it was founded on one ethical principle that the Christian religion shared with most, if not all, others: “that one should love one's neighbour”. So the law here set out to prevent behaviour that harmed others. By contrast, behaviour that was contrary to religious principles and harmful only to those who commit it was not generally against the law.
If there was a gap, it was one the Archbishop also left open: can there be fair settlement of private disputes under Sharia between parties who may be unequal; where, for instance, women's rights are not equivalent to those of men? Sharia in the provision of financial services is one thing; in the family arena another.
Yet his final message was clear. It is not enough to say that everyone is entitled to equality before the law; people who enforce the law or apply it have a duty to ensure that all citizens receive it.
In this his views accord, to some extend, with those I heard the Bishop of Rochester expound in his lecture to Civil Servants in April when he said that
. . . in his view the question the question of Sharica should be raised in the context of religious conscience. Lawmaking can take into consideration that believers have to follow their conscience. Beyond that, in the way that Sharica law is constituted it can go no further without tremendous conflicts. We cannot have bigamy as a crime for one, but not for another. Likewise law about divorce, children, inheritance and evidence are in conflict. Believers may bring the moral code behind their faith but this is not the same as accommodation in another legal system.
Had the Frances Gibb articles been the first on-line yesterday, and with the headlines she gives I think the ensuing debate would have taken a different turn. Lord Philips seems to have been quite definite that Muslims are under English law and that Sharia law is for personal consumption only.
I will however continue to look out for the full transcript.
