Those Who Died For the Druid
The Sunday Times - Archbishop, you’ve committed treason, by Minette Marrin
Stuff like this is bad for the blood pressure, but I listened on. “An approach to law which simply said there is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said . . . I think that’s a bit of a danger.”
What danger? And to whom? The danger, surely, is rather the archbishop and those who think like him, who seem unwilling to hold fast that which is good. What is good and best and essential about our society — it isn’t merely a matter of “social identity” — is the principle of equality before the law. That principle and its practice have made this country the outstandingly just and tolerant state it is; it is one of the last remaining forces for unity as well.
What is also good and essential to this country is the law itself. It has evolved over centuries from medieval barbarities into something, for all its faults, that is civilised. Our law expresses and maintains the best virtues of our society. Anybody who does not accept it does not belong here.
When other legal systems or other customs clash with ours, we prefer ours, to put it mildly. At least we should; what has troubled me for years is the way that exceptions and excuses tend to be made, in the name of multiculturalism, for practices of which we do not approve. Victoria Climbié’s terrible bruises were ignored because of assumptions about the cultural norms of African discipline. Last week it emerged that someone in government has sold the moral pass on polygamy: husbands with multiple wives in this country are now to get benefit payments for each wife.
In the midst of all this moral confusion and relativism, is the premier prelate in the land holding fast that which is good? Far from it. He is recommending multiculti legal cherry-picking, in which individuals would be free to choose the jurisdiction they preferred for certain matters. He even admits that his proposal introduces, “uncomfortably”, the idea of a market in the law, “a competition for loyalty”.
One encouraging sign is the almost universal fury that our foolish archbishop has aroused: he has miraculously united the irreconcilable in opposition to himself, from Christian extremists to mainstream Muslims, from Anglican vicars to godless Hampstead liberals, from Gordon Brown to backwoods Tories.
I thought that a mighty good rant.
Williams’s behaviour looks like vainglorious attention-seeking, but it is also something much worse. To seek to undermine our legal system and the values on which it rests, in a spirit of unnecessary appeasement to an alien set of values, is a kind of treason. It is a betrayal of all those who struggled and died here, over the centuries, for freedom and equality under the rule of law and of their courage in the face of injustice and unreason. Theirs is the good that we should hold fast and so of all people should the Archbishop of Canterbury. Otherwise, what is he for?
Indeed.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
George Weigel said he found The Druid to be a very intelligent man, provided the topic was ancient history. Perhaps The Druid is protesting the destruction of village-based justice by the The Royal Courts of England?
The Times could have turned up the rant mode and gone on - Mark Steyn like - about the benefits that a common law provided to peoples of the British Empire all around the globe. Furthermore, if a law has to be one and the same for such a diversity of people, races, cultures, religions, as was found in the British Empire, you can bet your boots it is going to have to be based on bedrock essentials and no more. It cannot concern itself with social engineering on the one hand (leftism) and micro-managing on the other (some religions we could mention). It would put too many people off side to do so.
Keeping one set of laws common to a diversity of people is a way of inhibiting judicial over-reach. We discovered this here in Australia when “Family Courts” started exploding - literally.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Your family courts literally exploded? Do tell.
I was in Belfast in 2000 and a chap there explained that, now that the IRA had stopped bombing places, the Belfast restaurant scene was “literally exploding”. I remember I said I hoped it wasn’t.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Yes, some of the more robust/excitable immigrant groups didn’t take well to the innovative type of justice found in the new “family courts”.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:27 am
You can’t just leave it there, Brett! Who were the excitable immigrants? Who set up the courts? And did they actually explode? I hate only to get a sniff of an interesting story!
Any news of when you come to Blighty to sort out our trains?
February 12th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I haven’t heard anything about exploding Family Courts. I don’t suppose it was the foster parents of abused and neglected aboriginal children snatched away from them who were protesting being left out of this apology for stealing generations, eh?
February 12th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Ima betting on radical Saxons. Lutherans should be taxed and made to work.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:33 am
[...] here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. Date: Jun 9th, 2008 · Comments RSS · Tags: [...]