A legally divided society?

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, has made a curious statement about Sharia Law, echoing one made by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I should mention that Worth Matravers is a village on the south coast of England with what used to be one of the finest pubs in the country. Probably not relevant: he looks like a dry, sober man, as the LCJ should.

Less so in his pronouncements, though. He is reported as saying that it is not very radical for Dr Williams to argue that Sharia law can be used to help govern issues like family disputes and the sale of financial products. "It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by law other than English law....there is no reason why principles of Sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution."

Phillips used to be a maritime lawyer and it is indeed common for maritime matters to be settled according to a preselected legal system – Panamanian Law, for example, even if the dispute occurs in English waters. However what he speaks of now is the social fabric of Britain, which is quite different from a piece of average adjustment.

Take the treatment of women, for example. Just as it is not possible in England for someone to agree to be a slave – the contract would be invalid, however freely entered into – so it is not possible for a number of practices permitted under Sharia (the role of the father, forced marriage, second rate education of girls) to be enforced. He mentions the Beth Din courts for Jews (they always do, don’t they?) but these are to decide what is Jewish, not what is legal in England.

The Muslims in England are already permitted to hold meetings – ‘courts’, if you like – to decide on matters muslim, a simple example being whether meat from a butcher is halal. But it can only be a mistake to offer imams an opportunity to encourage law breaking and to present a lay Muslim with a dichotomy between church and state. Even countries with well developed constitutional divides between Church and State are having difficulty with this: for Britain, with its fragile uncodified constitution, it would be disastrous. And that is not to mention the confused resentment among other Britons with no access to these 'courts'; a breeding ground for the BNP.

Phillips has dipped the judicial toe in the murky waters of politics, where it doesn’t belong. He should go back and breathe the unsullied sea air of Worth Matravers, which can clear a man’s head.