A Growing Sense of Shame
For the first time in my life I’m ashamed to be British. It’s never happened before. It’s come as a bit of a shock. What’s it all about? The response to comments made by the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, that’s what.
When I started writing this blog, I hadn’t even read the transcripts of his speech or the interview on BBC Radio 4 that have sparked this controversy. Now I have and I’m livid. Not at the Archbishop, but at those who either through malice or incompetence are taking comments from a seemingly compassionate man and twisting them to make us more frightened of something we shouldn’t be frightened of at all.
I may not agree with every word the man says but I like to think I actually listen to what he has said before disagreeing with it. And I used to pride myself that at least some aspects of the British media would do the same, or at least provide a balanced view. But this time the media seems to have all jumped on the same bandwagon to condemn a man for something he hasn’t actually said. I’ve read his speech. I’ve read his interview transcript. And now I know how the reaction to them in the media makes me feel. It’s like the clever kid at school has said something profound and is now getting beaten up for it by the bullies who just don’t even want to understand what he’s going on about.
Even the BBC and the Guardian, once my two first choices of news, have jumped on the bandwagon. In a front page article, the Guardian focused on the controversy (ironic since the controversy was created by the media in the first place) and then only in the last sentence of the article stated that the Archbishop did not advocate the imposition of the inhumane aspects of Sharia Law.
The BBC news has been the same. Even the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2 left a lot to be desired. Jeremy was told that the Archbishop didn’t want all aspects of Sharia Law. It was more a case of integrating Civil, not Criminal Law. Not as a parallel system, but integrated into existing British Law. What did Jeremy Vine come back with? What about punishing homosexuals? Why should there be one law for Muslims and one law for the rest of us? Why is it so hard to understand that if an Archbishop suggests the inclusion of SOME aspects of Sharia Law we could assume with almost complete certainty 1) he wouldn’t want anything inhumane and 2) it would not be a parallel system but integrated into British Law? And did the Archbishop say it would be easy? NO HE BLOODY DIDN”T.
Maybe it’s a difference in interpretation. My understanding of what he said before I read the speech and interview was that we as a nation should look for the best every system has to offer and if appropriate integrate it into our own. Integrating some aspects of Sharia Law might help British Muslims feel more involved in the British Legal System. Some integration has already happened and it is seemingly inevitable that more will. While I don’t know much about Sharia Law I think it’s fairly safe to assume that in a system of laws that old there might be at least a few parts that are worthwhile. And that some aspects of Sharia Law are the same as British Law. The media’s interpretation seems to be that the Archbishop has asked that Muslims have the right to cut thieves hands off and stone women and homosexuals.
I’m not a Christian, despite being raised in a Christian environment. Yet while authority figures in Christianity are allowed to perform legally recognized marriages, authority figures in Islam are not. Would it really be a threat to British society to allow properly accredited Imams to conduct legally recognized marriages in this country? Especially since the law will recognize Islamic marriages performed outside this country. If your answer is “no – this is no threat” then you agree with what the Archbishop said.
What I don’t think the most vocal critics even realize they are doing is implying that there is absolutely nothing in Sharia Law that is at all worthwhile. What message does that send to British Muslims? That their culture and history is nothing compared to ‘British History’.
My biggest frustration, especially now that I have read what the Archbishop actually said (transcripts are available at his website – google for Lambeth Palace Website) is that people just don’t seem interested in what he actually said but just want to stoke the controversy.
Some have said that the Archbishop had been naïve. I think his only naiveté was thinking that he would be judged by reasonable people on what he actually said.
When I started writing this blog, I hadn’t even read the transcripts of his speech or the interview on BBC Radio 4 that have sparked this controversy. Now I have and I’m livid. Not at the Archbishop, but at those who either through malice or incompetence are taking comments from a seemingly compassionate man and twisting them to make us more frightened of something we shouldn’t be frightened of at all.
I may not agree with every word the man says but I like to think I actually listen to what he has said before disagreeing with it. And I used to pride myself that at least some aspects of the British media would do the same, or at least provide a balanced view. But this time the media seems to have all jumped on the same bandwagon to condemn a man for something he hasn’t actually said. I’ve read his speech. I’ve read his interview transcript. And now I know how the reaction to them in the media makes me feel. It’s like the clever kid at school has said something profound and is now getting beaten up for it by the bullies who just don’t even want to understand what he’s going on about.
Even the BBC and the Guardian, once my two first choices of news, have jumped on the bandwagon. In a front page article, the Guardian focused on the controversy (ironic since the controversy was created by the media in the first place) and then only in the last sentence of the article stated that the Archbishop did not advocate the imposition of the inhumane aspects of Sharia Law.
The BBC news has been the same. Even the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2 left a lot to be desired. Jeremy was told that the Archbishop didn’t want all aspects of Sharia Law. It was more a case of integrating Civil, not Criminal Law. Not as a parallel system, but integrated into existing British Law. What did Jeremy Vine come back with? What about punishing homosexuals? Why should there be one law for Muslims and one law for the rest of us? Why is it so hard to understand that if an Archbishop suggests the inclusion of SOME aspects of Sharia Law we could assume with almost complete certainty 1) he wouldn’t want anything inhumane and 2) it would not be a parallel system but integrated into British Law? And did the Archbishop say it would be easy? NO HE BLOODY DIDN”T.
Maybe it’s a difference in interpretation. My understanding of what he said before I read the speech and interview was that we as a nation should look for the best every system has to offer and if appropriate integrate it into our own. Integrating some aspects of Sharia Law might help British Muslims feel more involved in the British Legal System. Some integration has already happened and it is seemingly inevitable that more will. While I don’t know much about Sharia Law I think it’s fairly safe to assume that in a system of laws that old there might be at least a few parts that are worthwhile. And that some aspects of Sharia Law are the same as British Law. The media’s interpretation seems to be that the Archbishop has asked that Muslims have the right to cut thieves hands off and stone women and homosexuals.
I’m not a Christian, despite being raised in a Christian environment. Yet while authority figures in Christianity are allowed to perform legally recognized marriages, authority figures in Islam are not. Would it really be a threat to British society to allow properly accredited Imams to conduct legally recognized marriages in this country? Especially since the law will recognize Islamic marriages performed outside this country. If your answer is “no – this is no threat” then you agree with what the Archbishop said.
What I don’t think the most vocal critics even realize they are doing is implying that there is absolutely nothing in Sharia Law that is at all worthwhile. What message does that send to British Muslims? That their culture and history is nothing compared to ‘British History’.
My biggest frustration, especially now that I have read what the Archbishop actually said (transcripts are available at his website – google for Lambeth Palace Website) is that people just don’t seem interested in what he actually said but just want to stoke the controversy.
Some have said that the Archbishop had been naïve. I think his only naiveté was thinking that he would be judged by reasonable people on what he actually said.
posted by Rob Langley at 11:40 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home