Big Sticks and Small Carrots

Yes, it’s another post about the Archbishop. This is instead of the update I had intended to make to my previous post.

I should say that I don’t have particularly strong opinions as to what Williams said; that’s not what motivates this atheist to post about this. Williams’ view, a carefully considered examination of the relationship between law in a secular society and religious conviction, is complex, interesting and worthy of debate. If you like that sort of thing. I can’t say I know the answers to the questions he raised.

I do, however, have strong opinions on the reaction the Acrchbishop’s comments have provoked. As Jim Bliss comments on an excellent post by Justin, it “smacks of anti-intellectualism”. You could argue, as some have, that Williams is a fool for not anticipating the reaction and misrepresentations his comments would provoke. It is true that he isn’t what you’d call a great communicator. Greater clarity might have helped avoid some of the worst hysterical misrepresentations of what was said but British society at large is not well equipped to deal with nuance, especially when in comes to issues like this. Politicians and the media have to take a large share of the the blame for this state of affairs.

So, given that reality, should the Archbishop have kept quiet? No. The logic behind that suggestion, the idea that those in the public eye can’t make a nuanced argument because that argument is likely to be misrepresented, leads down a dark and stupid path. Reactionary hysteria, ignorant conviction and unthinking condemnation should not be accepted and accomodated in our society but challenged whenever possible. That is what Williams has tried to do and I’ll not be joining those laying into him for it. He would benefit from communicating with greater clarity, yes, but he absolutely should not be condemned for speaking about the issues he did.

For those reasons, I have made some attempts to defend Williams from knee jerk criticisms levelled at him. Specifically, I have done so on a couple of posts over at Iain Dale’s. I won’t do a “long and boring” analysis of the conversation because there is no need. (Also, despite knowing it to be futile, I found myself drawn into a conversation with “verity”. Not recommended.)

I wanted to establish a couple of things. Importantly I wanted to know whether Iain had actually taken the time to try to understand what the Archbishop actually said before launching into his condemnation of the man. Here’s the answer.

I asked Iain if he’d read Williams’ speech. He replied:

I didnt know he had made a speech until today [the day after the speech was delivered]. I heard his interview on the BBC and quoted from it in my original post.

That’ll be the interview about the speech then?  The interview in which he said “I noted in the lecture…”. (Transcript from the Wardman Wire.) Iain listened to an interview about a speech but didn’t actually notice that the interview was about a speech.  I think that’s useful guide as to the level of understanding Iain achieved before he started laying into Williams. This, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the UK’s top political bloggers.

The other thing I wanted to establish was whether Iain applied his principles consistently. Williams made it clear in his speech and interview that he was talking about already established principles. It was in this context that he used the word “unavoidable”. From the interview:

Interviewer: To begin with you’ve given this vision of if as a nation Britain wants to achieve social cohesion, that challenge is how to accommodate those of religious faith in relation to the law; and you’re words are that the application of Sharia in certain circumstances if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples’ religion seems unavoidable?

Archbishop: It seem unavoidable and indeed as a matter of fact certain provision of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law; so it’s not as if we’re bringing in an alien and rival system; we already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justified conscientious objections in certain circumstances in providing certain kinds of social relations, so I think we need to look at this with a clearer eye and not imagine either we know exactly what we mean by Sharia and not just associate it with what we read about Saudi Arabia or wherever.

I tried asking Iain about the fact that “we already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land”. I asked specifically with regard to Jewish customs as Williams himself made several references to the Jewish situation in his speech and made it clear that he was talking about similar proposals for Muslim communities.

His response:

Garry, I disagree with so much of what you said. I have seen Dr William’s comments as reported on the World at One and they do not match your interpretation.

I also do not accept your analogy with what you reckon is a Jewish equivalent. While not being an expert in this, my jewish friends tell me there is no similarity at all.

What you say about Sharia Law having supremacy over English law is, I think, exactly what Williams was aluding to - maybe not immediately but it would be a slippery slope.

I am sure there are parts of Sharia Law which are fine, but there are also parts which are not, and fundemantally at odds with British values.

So there you are then. The Archbishop’s careful thoughts and comparisons are not accepted by Iain because his Jewish friend told him so. I tried asking for clarification but that’s all I got. This, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the UK’s top political bloggers.

Does he even know that the Archbishop specifically pointed out that there are some parts of Sharia law as interpreted in some countries which are fundamentally at odds with British values and explicitly said that these could never be adopted in this country? I doubt it.

In a sense, it’s not fair to single out Iain because he is just one of many who’ve condemned Williams without bothering to try to understand what he said. This is, however, a good illustration of the way in which Iain is able to isolate his opinions from proper debate and scrutiny on his blog while presenting the fiction that it is possible. Oh, and did I mention that I got a fair amount of idiocy thrown my way from some of Iain’s regulars and from anonymous commenters? It wasn’t unexpected but does make any attempt to question Iain’s opinions just that little bit more difficult. This sort of thing is, of course, common in parts of the US blogosphere and Iain and friends seem determined to build similar unchallengeable edifices in this country too. It only damages our ability to have reasoned and rational debate on issues which affect us all.

I don’t intend to press Iain further as we should all be aware by now that my attempting to do so will only lead to him calling me obsessive, a stalker, or a figment of Tim Ireland’s imagination.

To conclude, I just want to say something about the wider implications of the reaction we have seen over the last few days. Democracy, although far from perfect, is clearly the best system of government ever devised by human beings. In order for it to work effectively, citizens need to be able to make informed judgements on the issues of the day. In the modern world there are, sadly, an increasing number of barriers to this process.

The reaction to the Archbishop’s remarks have been a perfect case in point. We’ve had politicians and their supporters making misleading statements for their own ends and media outlets using misrepresentation to generate outrage as a means to boost sales, all, ironically enough, in supposed defence of “British values”. They do not seem to be aware of, or perhaps do not care about, the extent to which they are actually damaging the best of our values.