Irish Political News

Following on from Simon Barrow's column this morning, here's something lighter but still related to Simon's areas of free speech, religion, secularism and the public square.

The vocal lobbying of Catholic leaders in Scotland over the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has undoubtedly raised the hackles of many commentators concerning the place of organised religion in public life – specifically the political arena. As a result, the demanding task of creating a durable public discourse for discussing ethics and understanding science has been reduced to voter management and angry counter-assertion.

Which is why cricket is so great? It's one of the only games in the world where you have sufficient time to wander round a field thinking 'why am I doing this?'

Looking back through an old diary I was surprised to discover that my life sometimes runs more in sync with the cadences of the Church’s liturgical calendar than those around me might imagine. In particular, and without any great consciousness about it, I have ended up finishing off and contributing to two books on Easter-related themes in the months of March and April. Right now I’m tidying up an overdue manuscript for Darton Longman and Todd called Threatened with Resurrection, examining the true cost and vocation of peacemaking in the Christian tradition. A couple of years ago I co-edited Consuming Passion, which looked at the way in which the doctrine of the Cross can be abused to excuse or even institutionalise retributive theology and ideas of messianic violence. Neither of these books is exactly controversy free, but they are unlikely to get me drummed out of any ecclesiastical club (because I studiously avoid the gold-studded membership cards) and also because, well, not many people know or care what I think! You need to be someone like the former Anglican Bishop of Durham, Dr David Jenkins, to make those kinds of waves - and with the cultural climate around religion growing both more hostile and more disinterested all at the same time, even that’s getting a bit difficult. Every so often someone repeats the old canard that Dr Jenkins, now retired but never retiring, “doesn’t believe in the resurrection” (he most certainly does, though not in the simplistic way it is usually affirmed or dismissed) or that he “said it was a conjuring trick with bones” (his point was precisely the opposite - namely that the kind of life God offers is not reducible to magic but is about a thoroughgoing transformation in and beyond the material world as we think we know it.) The whole ‘Durham saga’ was over 20 years ago but won’t quite stay buried. Ironic. This year, Easter controversy is thin on the ground so far. There isn’t even a tacky Channel 4 documentary ‘proving’ that the bones of Jesus have been found underneath a pub in Walthamstow. What we have instead is some relatively polite jousting about historical details in the BBC’s dramatisation of The Passion, an altogether less blood-lusting rendition than Mel Gibson’s film noir. It began on 16 March and ends on Easter Sunday. (more…)

I’ve solved this problem. Let us make them follow the precedent of the Ministerial Code of Practice (pdf) introduced by the Blair-Brown government. And the ultimate authority for deciding whether the blogger broke the code should - following this Ministerial precedent - be the blogger themselves. And for any breach, an apology should suffice as remedy. Sorted. That’ll keep our Civil Service Ethical and Sleaze Free. Tags: gordon brown, tony blair, civil serf, ministerial code of ethics, guidelines for ministers, sleaze Previous in series

Yaaay! or Grooooccchhhh! depending on your attitude. Here. Here’s what it is about: Welcome to the Church Times blog. A ‘blog’, for those mystified by the term, is widely regarded as ‘a website where entries are commonly displayed in reverse chronological order’ (Wikipedia). The Church Times blog will be written and drawn by Dave Walker and will feature cartoons, commentary and links. The RSS feed is here. It should also (unless Dave Walker has lost his touch) be both engaging and amusing. I like the cups of coffee on the bloggeration machine. Worth tracking, as it may end up being used for breaking News Stories, as a complement to the website and reaching a different audience. Wordpress it ain’t - rather they are displaying creative use of their website-management system - but the only real problem I can see is that on individual article pages (example) the RSS icon you see in the header actually leads to the News RSS feed not the Blog RSS feed. That requires fixing or there will be some confused people out there. [Update 17:15 pm] Dave Walker confirms that this has now been worked around by adding an extra RSS icon in the blog header bar. A couple of hours since I mentioned it - not a bad response time. You do get a link to the RSS feed on summary pages, however. (Cartoon credit: Cartoonchurch.com) Tags: church times, blog, dave walker

Tom Watson has picked up on my proposed Guidelines for Civil Servants: Matt Wardman has a different take on the issue. Hes saying theres no need for any guidelines. For Matt, the civil service code will suffice. Id be interested to know if current blogging civil servants think that code provides the clarity you need to blog sensibly without fear that youre doing something wrong. I’m arguing for a strongly minimalist approach: 99.9% of Civil Servants are sensible and professional people of integrity. Civil Serf is an exception in not behaving professionally. Exception control for the 0.1% in this case should be by disciplinary action of the 0.1% under the Civil Service Code, not by creating guidelines for the 99.9%. Blogging guidelines are only an unnecessary result of a need to be seen to take dynamic action. A multiplication of guidelines like rabbits will only serve to generate more boundary quarrels, and waste more time in argument about whether the letter of the guidelines has been breached or not. And then there will have to be a review of the guidelines to identify the weak points. And a policy commission to evaluate the results. And then there will be even more guidelines. And they will have to be put under version control, and distributed to all the Intranets etc etc etc sod it go to 5 and continue in circles. In summary - Ockhams Razor just shredded the guidelines. Or the need for them. Just follow the Civil Service Code. And there is a further debate going on in the comments. Involving blogging Civil Servants themselves is an excellent - nay essential - idea. (more…) Previous in series

There are 7 ways I can think of to blog about your employer: Don’t Persuade them to let you. Be anonymous, but not anonymous enough. Ask, and risk a “no”. Be anonymous and notorious. Do it as part of your job. Employ yourself. In this article I describe each option, and my assessment of the pros and cons - where they occur. If you do blog about your employer, any option (except number one) should make your life more “interesting”, for a time at least. (more…) Previous in series Next in series

I reported yesterday that Gallup had just published a the results of a long-term detailed poll about attitudes and values in the Muslim World. Bearing in mind the paucity of reporting of this important survey, I have added a media log to the original article. Tags: who speaks for islam, gallup poll

Gallup has just published a the results of a long-term detailed poll about attitudes and values in the Muslim World, with some research about the recently fraught questions of Sharia Law. This is an interview looking on this morning’s Radio 4 Sunday Programme looking at a poll just done by the Gallup Organisation’s Centre for Muslim Studies. The interview is with Dalia Mogahed, the Centre’s Executive Director, and is about 4 minutes long. Download audio file (20080224-sunday-sharia-law-muslim-world-gallup-poll.mp3) The interview opens with Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali - correctly - refusing to be silenced in the public debate. All views deserve to be heard. The Poll - entitled “Who Speaks for Islam” - involved 50,000 interviews in 35 countries: The result is Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, based on six years of research and more than 50,000 interviews representing 1.3 billion Muslims who reside in more than 35 nations that are predominantly Muslim or have sizable Muslim populations. Representing more than 90% of the world’s Muslim community, it makes this poll the largest, most comprehensive study of its kind. … What the data reveal and the authors illuminate may surprise you: * Muslims and Americans are equally likely to reject attacks on civilians as morally unjustifiable. * Large majorities of Muslims would guarantee free speech if it were up to them to write a new constitution AND they say religious leaders should have no direct role in drafting that constitution. * Muslims around the world say that what they LEAST admire about the West is its perceived moral decay and breakdown of traditional values — the same answers that Americans themselves give when asked this question. * When asked about their dreams for the future, Muslims say they want better jobs and security, not conflict and violence. * Muslims say the most important thing Westerners can do to improve relations with their societies is to change their negative views toward Muslims and respect Islam. Lots of food for thought there for an intelligent and open debate, even if we disagree with some of the conclusions. Press Reports came there none? However, I may have gone blind, but I don’t think I have yet seen any reports on this huge polling exercise in the British Press - just a couple of blog reports and a couple of items in European papers. The British papers are, however, reporting on the Bishop’s assertion (Telegraph, BBC) - even the regional press (Peterborough Today). I find it quite painful that the only British outlet I have seen reporting this is the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (with a book review copied from Middle East Online) - who are hardly mainstream. I hope I’m wrong on this point. If anyone can help with finding British reports - or if you are a blogger and write one - I’ll include any reports you can point out in the article and link back to your blog from the Wardman Wire article. Tags: gallup, who speaks for islam, dilia mogahead, who speaks for islam

I have just spotted that the Egyptian Sandmonkey blog has been back for some time (since August - and may have gone again). Blogrolled, regardless. It was the Sandmonkey who provided a key piece of evidence that the “Motoons” controversy (which has just resurfaced) was - basically - a put up job, and the resulting demonstrations, deaths, embassy burnings and general outrage was essentially down to troublemaking. The Sandmonkey, whose blog is summarised like this: The writer of this blog is an extremely cynical, snarky, pro-US, secular, libertarian, disgruntled sandmonkey. If this is your cup of tea, please enjoy your stay here. If not, please sod off. Support the Neo-con American Right-wing Zionist Christian Imperialist Conspiracy in the Middle-east! provided photographs of seven of the Mohammed Cartoons appearing in an Egyptian Newspaper (El Fagr) fully six weeks before the first delegation of Danish Imams visited the Middle East to stir up protest - with very little reaction by comparison. It is notable that there was no campaign mounted to boycott Egypt at the time ! I have been wondering whether to take part in the move to republish the cartoon (of Mohammed with a Bomb in his turban) as a statement of solidarity with the cartoonist who had been the subject of a murder plot. Some may call that statement of solidarity provocative; in my opinion the best way to protect freedom of debate is to debate freely. And it struck me - the picture has been on this blog since last June, as part of an article which was my paean for the Sandmonkey blog when it closed down then. So, if you’re going to be offended by a photograph of a cartoon of Mohammed with a Bomb in his Turban (which I take to refer to the image of Islam projected by terror movements), appearing in a popular Arabic Newspaper in the largest Arab country in the world as an illustration for an article criticizing the cartoons which caused no widespread protests (before various people started fomenting trouble six weeks later) - then don’t click the link; otherwise do. This is the link to the article about the Sandmonkey blog. Tags: egyptian sandmonkey, el fagr, motoons, mohammed cartoons

This is an audio excerpt from an interview with Chris Davies (you need a blog, Chris), a Liberal Democrat MEP in the North-West. “Shocking” is something of an understatement. Download audio file (20080221-radio4-today-chris-davies-mep-fraud-expenses.mp3) Mr Davies suggests that to clean out this problem will require MEPs to be locked up, so fundamental is the abuse. From the Beeb: The call for a probe came from Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies who said there had been massive fraud and embezzlement. In one case an unnamed MEP reportedly took money but employed no-one, and another had just one member of staff. Mr Davies is one of a group of MEPs on the European Parliament’s Budget Control Committee who were allowed to look at the report under surveillance and without taking notes or copies. “This report is dynamite - and makes the Derek Conway affair at Westminster look like small change,” said Mr Davies. .. “Let’s be quite honest. I think the allegations within this report from our own auditors should lead to the imprisonment of a number of MEPs. I think it’s embezzlement and fraud on a massive, massive scale.” I am not very surprised, remembering the reports from a couple of years ago about MEPs “signing in” for others not present so that they could all claim expenses. One way of dealing with this would be recognise officially that 150m Euros is an overhead which goes to expenses, employees, travel and fraud. Another would be to - as he says - lock ‘em up. Let’s see what happens. I hope there are more good ‘uns than bad ‘uns. Score one for the Lib Dem. Leak the document, someone. NOW. [Update 21/2/2008:20:00 : Jon Worth makes some interesting comments from a viewpoint less sceptical of the European Parliament than mine: I reckon its dead certain that theres some fraud in how MEPs spend their expenses - after all Derek Conway is doing it in Westminster, so I reckon theres a high chance of it in Brussels and Strasbourg. On the other hand a quick search has found no other MEPs being as inflammatory in their language as Chris Davies - Gary Titley, leader of the UK Labour MEPs, welcomes the OLAF investigation. Plus Davies himself has form in talking in an over-the-top manner, having had to resign as leader of the UK Lib Dems in the EP in 2006 over comments that someone he was corresponding with saying he hoped she enjoyed wallowing in her own filth. The Budgetary Control Committee, the EP body looking into this issue, has decent form in stamping out fraud - they were part responsible for bringing down the Santer Commission. The Chair of the Committee is fearsome Austrian Socialist MEP Herbert Bsch - you dont really want to mess with him. Also in the Committee are prominent whistle blower Paul van Buitenen and Alexander Stubb, one of the Parliaments very best MEPs. ] Tags: mep, chris davies, liberal democrats, european parliament

How it used to be… When I started writing, thinking and commenting on religion 30 years ago the main problem was that people just didn’t care. Apart from those interested in that kind of thing, the landscape was marked out by an interest in what seemed spiritually exotic, the odd kerfuffle involving a vicar in a nightshirt, the dominance of the secularization thesis (which said that faith was on the way out), and moral philosopher Alasdair McIntyre s famous dictum: The religion of the English is that there is no God and it is wise to pray to him from time-to-time. If that era was once solid, it melted into air. What has changed? Let me mention just three things: Globalisation - the world has become one unevenly erupting economic and environmental entity. Mass Transit and cyber-Communication - the world has turned up your living room at the flick of a switch. and 9/11 - a bit of the world has been brutally woken up to the fact that the rest of the world wasnt at all like they thought it was; they are still getting it wrong. And where are we now? The upshot of all this seems to be a convoluted state of permanent we must do something panic " of which the brouhaha about the Archbishop of Canterburys mild and complex thoughts about civil and religious law is just the latest example. Except that what people are saying about that is either we must do nothing or “go away “. Anyway, everyone has now at least noticed religion, though very few have any clue as to what it is. This is partly because there is no single it that can be pointed to, yet we all behave as if there was. Religion, as philosopher and theologian Nicholas Lash points out, is a fiction . There are religions, for sure - but they are often incommensurate without and within; they arent one kind of thing. To say that the apocalyptically Christian Pat Robertson and a peaceful non-theistic Buddhist hermit are part of the same thing because they can both be labelled religious is numbingly illiterate. Yet Richard Dawkins’ books have earned a vast amount of money and attention by saying things barely more sensible. And so do a welter of commentators every hour of every day. But my point is not that religions are harmless - far from it. My point is that what makes them good or bad or indifferent can be internal factors, external factors or things that have little to do with religious stuff at all. This is what a little bit of scrutiny of the real world shows, once we have learned (whoever we are) to try to observe it without needing play an us and them game; scholar of ‘religion and secularism’ Charles Taylor calls this block thinking. So what am I “Thinking Aloud” about? In this column I hope to dissect some of the strange and interesting things that get reported, written, said or thought about religion. Not in order to prove that I am right (I know darned well that isnt always the case), but in order to try to encourage a mutual exercise in raising the level of discourse. Whether we are Christians, humanists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Jedi Knights or recruits to the growing legion of couldnt-carers and floating voters, we can only benefit from more light and less heat. Blaming all the planets ills uncomplicatedly on some beast called capitalism, communism, atheism, Islamism, green lizards or religion (now the most fashionable option) is basically a way of avoiding the complexity , ambiguity and plurality of the world. Tempting, but ultimately hopeless. There are real wrongs to be combated. But they do not all hide in one corner with a convenient label. And who is Simon Barrow? Simon Barrow is a writer, commentator and theologian. He is o-director of the think-tank Ekklesia, which is critical of ‘established religion’ and seeks to look at how Christianity may flourish creatively in an era where it is no longer ‘the norm’ and here it has forgotten how radical some of its ideas can be. Simon as worked both in current affairs journalism and in senior positions within the church. He is uneasy with ready stereotypes about left and right, liberal and conservative.Simon blogs at Faith in society. You can read more about the context for this column there. Tags: simon barrow, ekklesia, thinking aloud

What is Multiculturalism? I’m seeing a number of negative references in the current to “multiculturalism”, suggesting the using the word as: something which undermined our society something which has “failed” something for which the Archbishop was actually arguing in his lecture (because he considering the needs of different groups). a “Bad Thing” - in the Sellars and Yateman sense. That is, a scary big bad wolf concept that you are supposed to in fear of without finding out what it actually means - and can be used to make anything else in the same sentence sound good; really rather like “Sharia“, “Islam” or “Norman Tebbit“. And I want a real and agreed definition, so that there can be a meaningful argument. Attacks on “Multiculturalism” A couple of examples. Johan Hari: Rowan Williams has shown us why the doctrine of multiculturalism needs to abandoned. If you really believe that Britain is comprised of a smorgasbord of “cultures” that need to be preserved, promoted and respected as an end in itself, then this proposal is perfectly logical. Different cultures should have different courts, and rules, and schools. International Herald Tribune: However, the solution proposed by the archbishop repeats the errors of 1960s liberal multiculturalism. In conjuring up the idea of communities sharing the same space but leading separate lives, he unwittingly endorses a scenario that entrenches segregation and fractures any conception of a common good binding all citizens. Despite this, Williams at least recognizes that Britain is struggling to find a way of accommodating its increasingly ghettoized and radicalized Muslim population. In both cases I do not recognise “multiculturalism” as I understand it now, nor as I think I first met the word in political debate in the 1980s - used of the political need to give recognition to “groups” and “minorities”. Lots of Not Quite Definitions The BBC has a whole page of attempted definitions, which talk about “Multiculturalism is not dead,” (Karen Chouhan), “There are two ways in which people interpret multiculturalism” (Ruth Lea) or “I see no incompatibility between multiculturalism and Britishness” (Bernard Crick). No one really gets round to defining it. So we are left playing blind-man’s-buff with glove-puppets. This from The Free Dictionary multiculturalism - the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can coexist peacefully and equitably in a single country This definition (more…)

Those of us who are have stuck it out this far through Lent might have been struck by the flurry of apologies earlier this week. Trouble is, none of them seemed to be quite good enough for everyone. 1. Australian Humility? That Can’t be Right…. The apology made by the Australian PM, in a public event, to the Aboriginal peoples, was the strongest statement yet made to the native inhabitants of ‘Australia’ by the white colonisers. However, it’s been criticised as being talk but no action, in the absence of concrete actions to back it up. After years of calling for an official recognition of the wrongs done to them by settlers, many Aboriginal leaders and communities (the first Australians) were today rejoicing at the gesture. But they point out that concrete resources are needed to address the legacy of historical injustices. (from Ekklesia ) This is reminiscent of the debate over slavery in the UK around this time last year, and whether any form of compensation over and above an apology would be appropriate. It’s a fairly new Oz government, so Kevin Rudd probably needs more time. 2. The Lightening Conductor Speaks The apology made by the Archbishop of Canterbury I must of course take responsibility for any unclarity in either that text or in the radio interview, and for any misleading choice of words that has helped to cause distress or misunderstanding among the public at large and especially among my fellow Christians . It’s Lent, and one of the great penitential phrases of the Psalms will be in all our minds " ‘Who can tell how oft he offendeth? Cleanse thou me from my secret faults’. This seemed as far as he could go, since there are major questions over whether he has anything to apologise for, or whether wilful misinterpretation by the media is the prime culprit. The most pathetic sight of the start of the week was the BBC news trying to find somebody, anybody, in the CofE who wanted Rowan Williams to resign, in a desperate attempt to keep the story running. The round of applause at General Synod killed the resignation story, and the Beeb have since ignored the issue, Question Time excepted. 3. A Running Sore? Then there’s Dwain Chambers, who apologises, pays the penalty, changes his behaviour, and then is just too good on his return to the sport. There is a question about whether he’s sorry he did drugs, or sorry he got caught, but he’s certainly got guts to face his critics. Mind you: He can run away faster than they can chase him. By the sight of him, it’s not him who’d be running away. (more…)

A corker from David Keen. James Graham and Alex Wilcock will love it. Some on the other side may never forgive me. This could straight into the Oxford Book of Quotations. Think Dover Beach (”faith’s long, withdrawing, roar…”). Rephrased slightly: “Can the Church do a King Canute in reverse and stop the tide going out?” The original context: + Rowan is among those in the church who has accepted the end of Christendom in the UK, and that we now have to live in a new secular pluralist reality. Other bishops, like Michael Nazir-Ali, argue for Christendom laws and customs to stay in place. Some of the debate within the church is between two different views of what point in history we have reached, and whether it’s possible to do a Canute in reverse and stop the tide going out. Tags: david keen, quotes, humourous

John Richardson commented on my previous post, asking for more detail about what was actually broadcast on World at One: I did not hear the original BBC broadcast, and so I dont know how it was headlined at the time, but your quote, The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable, could be taken at first hearing simply to mean inevitable, like death and taxes are inevitable. It wouldnt necessarily have prejudiced me to hostility to what the Archbishop was about to say. Similarly, when I read the headline to the page you referenced, Sharia law in UK is unavoidable, I didnt initially take it to mean that the Archbishop would be in favour of a degree of accommodation to Shariah law (what the Archbishop would call in his speech, supplementary jurisdictions.) I just assumed it meant something like, something we cant stop. Was there more to the headline introduction than you quoted? For reference (both are referred to below), this is the full programme (just in case anyone is wondering, I think it is permitted to reproduce it under “fair dealing” for review, comment or critique). Download audio file (20080207-bbc-world-at-one-rowan-williams-sharia-edition.mp3) And this is the first sentence from the “News Summary” section of the programme: “The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable” Download audio file (20080207-bbc-world-at-one-rowan-williams-sharia-edition-headline-sharia-law-is-inevitable.mp3) The Running Order of World at One (WATO) WATO is in 4 sections as I understand it. The timings are my estimates based on this bulletin, and may vary slightly - but the emphasis is about right: 1 - Opening headlines. 1 minute roughly. 2 - News Summary. Rundown of stories. 4 minutes roughly. 3 - Features. The meat of the bulletin. 24 minutes roughly. 4 - Closing headlines. 1 - Opening headlines I do not have 1, because the Listen Again recording started at about 1:00:30 or so. The last bit of the headlines is a segment from the interview. 2 - News Summary My first audio segment is the first 10 seconds of 2. The exact words (quoted above) are these. This is the first complete sentence: The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable. The whole item within the summary is this (transcribed by me): The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable. In an interview with this programme Rowan Williams said that if Britain was to maintain social cohesion, Muslim communities should be able to choose whether issues like maritial or financial disputes should be dealt with in Sharia proceedings. Here is our Religious Affairs Correspondent Robert Pigott. (Robert Pigott) Sharia Law is drawn from the Koran and other Scared Texts. Its principles are already used in Muslim Communities in Britain, with Muslim couples having maritial, financial and inheritance issues heard by Sharia courts. Although Dr Williams stopped short of calling for the findings of these courts to be made legally binding, he does suggest that they should be incorporated formally into the British legal system - introducing what he calls a marketplace, in which Muslims could choose where to have cases heard, rather as British Jews do in some cases. Dr Williams warns that without this formal recognition, there are dangers of Muslims who feel a split loyalty between the secular law, and the dictates of their faith, being alienated from society, and even stepping outside the law. 3 - Features This is where the interview ran as the first feature. 4 - Closing Headlines (My comment) Considerably changed in emphasis from the headline in the News Summary - particularly a much more nuanced first sentence (under some circumstances) and a conditional (seems) rather than a bold assertion. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has said that the adoption of Sharia Law - under some circumstances - seems unavoidable if Britain is to maintain social cohesion. In an exclusive interview with this programme, Dr Williams said People shouldnt feel they had to choose between the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty.   Tags: archbishop of canterbury, rowan williams, barbecued bishop, sharia and english law, world at one, wato

John Richardson makes a point very well, with respect to the “Archbishop of Canterbury is a good man ” Facebook Group: We have now moved from the ad hominem argument - the kind of thing that says, “Well, if so-and-so has said that, then they must be wrong,” - to the ad hominem defence - “If so and so is attacked, I must agree with them.” Hammer. Nail. Bang. He also suggests: One person I very much doubt would be impressed by this is Dr Rowan Williams! He has asked us to think about some very serious issues. And after the initial confusion, and resulting furore at the end of last week - much of which Dr Williams admits was down to the way he expressed himself - a serious debate has emerged, not least in our media, where the debate is vastly better than the side-taking and personality-hyping going on in the Church. I can’t comment on the “side-taking in the church” (I’m not really in touch with it), but I think he’s right about a serious debate happening in the media after a few days of scrummage. However, there is an argument that runs “this is a show of support - a virtual demonstration, if you will”. I see the point, as a counterweight to the “Good God Go!” and “Who will rid us of this Turbulent Priest?” tendencies. The most important thing - in my view - is that a reasoned debate is now possible. The irony is that perhaps 90% of my writing so far on this topic has been about the need for a debate, and the process towards that debate - rather than actually taking part. Tags: john richardson, rowan williams, archbishop of canterbury

[Update: It appears that this article had a glitch or two in publication, and so there is some undisciplind pinging going on. My apologies.] There’s been a huge media firestorm after the Archbishop of Canterbury’s lecture to lawyers in London, as we all know - and it’s all been blamed on “Rowan’s naivity” or “Rowan’s bad press team” or “what did he expect, mentioning Sharia” or [insert random Rowan-bashing reason here]. After a bit of digging, it turns out that the Beeb was reporting inaccurate statements about “ABC says Sharia is inevitable” even before the interview was broadcast. Rowan (and a well-tempered debate) never had a chance - whether you agree with his line or not. This morning the BBC Editors blog is carrying an entry about learning “Lessons from the pulpit” by Peter Rippon, following up the interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) on World at One (WATO) last Thursday 7th February, giving their version of what happened. Peter Rippon is the editor of “World at One”. What Peter Rippon said Peter makes these points: There was a huge reaction to the Rowan Williams interview. The Archbishop is a good egg and has not criticised us or the media. Both Lambeth Palace and us knew the speech needed careful handling. Our knowledgeable reporter Christopher Landau (MA Theology, MPhil Elizabethan Church History) did a careful 9-minute interview, and we broadcast no criticism of it when it went out. The media have been criticised for misreporting, but that does not explain the huge reaction minutes after our interview - as newspapers had not gone to print. Perhaps it was the culture clash between an academic interview and the clumsy 24 hour media. And a sideswipe at the Archbishop: If the Archbishop insists on writing in sentences that are 146 words long he will not get many shifts on our Newsdesk. Most of this is a shoal of red herrings. What Peter Rippon didn’t say Peter competely forgets to mention (or completely misses) the following facts: The story was trailed at the top of the news programme with the headline: The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable. (No he didn’t, or not in the way that your headline was inevitably going to make people think.) The BBC was running an article before it broadcast the interview under the heading: Sharia law in UK is unavoidable, with the first paragraph: The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is “unavoidable”. (ditto) The BBC website is a key source of news for ALL the media, and has 13 million unique visitors per week. Reactions from bloggers to the headlines were coming in before the 9 minute interview had even finished . As far as I can tell, most of the initial abusive reaction and vitriol (from “idiotic” to “bonkers” through various less gentle insults) has been linked to this story on the BBC website. “Sharia” in this country is as much a “red-rag to a blood-blind-bull” as is “paedophile”. It excites similar extreme and irrational “shoot from the hip” reactions. Of course commentators were going to react to the headline, not the interview - especially as speed of response is such a differentiator. The reality is that the way the BBC handled this story guaranteed that the furore would happen. Or - to put it more pithily: The Archbishop’s interview (and his lecture) were completely irrelevant. Theheadlines put out by the BBC before the interview was broadcast guaranteed that a shitstorm was inevitable. Unfortunately for Peter, I am not an Archbishop and I am going to have a go at him. You may want a cup of tea, as this article is rather detailed and long, and includes relevant audio clips. We are seeing a more reasoned debate since, but WATO still need to explain themselves on this one. Peter Rippon’s Comments in detail I’ll take Peter’s whole article first (his text indented, my text not, or highlighted for quotes), as this is such an important debate, and point out where I think they have made some serious errors. Then I will look at what actually happened. Peter starts: The World at One interviewed the Archbishop of Canterbury last week. Yep. You may have heard about it (or you can listen to it here). Yep. I’m wasn’t on the moon. It’s common when an interview provokes such a huge reaction, most of it negative, for the messenger to get a bit of flak too. True. A couple of hours after the interview in my article “Before you Start another Archbishop of Canterbury Barbecue“, I referred to an article headed Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’ , and said (of the start of the BBC item): The BBC should be ashamed of itself. However, in this case the BBC (see below) deserves more than “a bit of flak”. Back to Peter: To his credit the Archbishop has not used this tactic (as his speech yesterday proved). Lambeth Palace was aware the speech needed to be handled carefully. That’s Rowan, for you. So were we. Hmmm. Someone (or several someones) in the BBC wasn’t careful. Our reporter, Christopher Landau (MA Theology, MPhil Elizabethan Church History) knows what he is talking about and framed the interview very carefully and precisely to make sure we accurately reflected the Archbishop’s view. The reporter who did the interview is not the problem. I am sure he is excellent and he did make sure that the interview reflected the ABC’s view. The problem is that you or your colleagues erected enough red flags before and around the interview to guarantee that all the reporters and commentators would completely ignore it. However, There has been some criticism of the ‘tabloids’ and media more widely for mangling the message. But guess where they got the (ready mangled) story? I am not convinced that goes very far in explaining the public reaction either. The public reaction is to explained by red flags like “Sharia” waved irresponsibly, and - in my opinion - to a culture of kicking the Archbishop no matter what. When the interview went out, nine minutes long, we broadcast no criticism of it. Within minutes we had a huge, overwhelmingly negative, e-mail and text response to what he said. Technically correct, in a “lawyer logic” sense. Shall we find out “not the considered, careful, precise, interview” bits that M’Learned Friend for the defence hasn’t mentioned? Exhibit 1: Sensational Headline at Start of News Bulletin You introduced the “News Summary” at the start of the bulletin with a headline that would do credit to the Fortean Times (never mind the Sun) for sensationalising and distorting what the Archbishop actually said to your reporter: “The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable” Download audio file (20080207-bbc-world-at-one-rowan-williams-sharia-edition-headline-sharia-law-is-inevitable.mp3) That’s not what he said. Your reporter knows that’s not what he said. You know that’s not what he said. So why was that in the script - before the interview was even broadcast? Exhibit 2: Sensational Headline and News Article on BBC Website Someone (and it may not have been you) put an article on the BBC Website under a similar - sensational and disorted - headline. This was how I reported it a couple of hours after it all broke loose): The BBC website is reporting the interview as (headline and first three paragraphs): Sharia law in UK is unavoidableThe Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is “unavoidable”. Dr Williams told BBC Radio 4s World at One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. Dr Williams argues that adopting some aspects of Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. Reading those three paragraphs, one can conclude that the ABC is proposing that Sharia Law as it operates in (for example) Saudi Arabia will trump British Law. He isnt. He is saying something closer to the fourth paragraph: For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. Now, we know this article was there before 1:17pm because James Graham had time to read it, write an article, and link to it. Let’s just remind ourselves that the interview didn’t start until 1:06 - according to the Listen Again facility: This is the entire Listen Again for the World at One on Thursday 7th February. You appear to have cut off the first 30 seconds, and the interview starts at about 5:15 in. Download audio file (20080207-bbc-world-at-one-rowan-williams-sharia-edition.mp3) Looking at the News Sniffer, it tells us that it first found this article on your site at 13:07, which presumably means it was there earlier than that as no scanner polls every page each second. Click for screenshot. So why was that on your website - before the interview. Exhibit 3: The Blog Response The quickest I can find is Lib Dem Blogger of the Year - James Graham - who posted an article at 1:17pm (click for source): Rowan Williams Calls for Sharia Words fail me. Maybe later. His headline and link indicates that the BBC is his source. He isn’t superman - he simply responded (and linked to) a sensationalist headline and article posted on your website before the interview was even broadcast. That would be before Archbishop Rowan has even had his preliminary say, so the prospect of commentators reading or hear his actual views doesn’t even arise. Back to Peter’s article: That’s hours before any newspapers had gone to print. In the electronic age - when the BBC News website gets 13 million unique visitors each week, and at least 5 national newspaper websites get more than 11 million unique visitors each month (Guardian - 17.5m, Mail - 14.4m, Telegraph - 12.8m, Times - 12.28m, Sun Online - 11.6m) - this statement is both irrelevant and egregious. Do you think we were born yesterday? And he continues: A lot of comment has rightly focused on the culture clash between the cloistered academic world of theological debate and the crass, clumsy demands of the 24-hour mass media. Yes - and who prevented any real communication for several days by putting out a cartoon level caricature before the poor bloke even had a chance to express himself? There’s an old adage in TV that the key to good storytelling is to simplify and exaggerate. I consider that one to be thoroughly achieved. And “storytelling” is the right word. In radio there is an apocryphal story about the seasoned old hack who when asked to cut a crafted minute long despatch to 40 seconds responded. “My dear chap, I can do the Second World War in 40 seconds if you like, but you might lose a bit of detail.” This looks to me like a leadin to the following sideswipe: However, it would be wrong to conclude it is only the media who can learn from this. As Martha Kearney points out in her World at One newsletter, the speech was very high fibre. If the Archbishop insists on writing in sentences that are 146 words long he will not get many shifts on our Newsdesk. My reply to this: 1 - He wasn’t writing, he was speaking - there is a difference : I often think that the difference between reading the text of Dr Williams speeches, and hearing him delivering the speech is like the difference between reading a music score and hearing the Berlin Philharmonic playing the piece: only the very gifted can “hear” the music from the score, but even the most flannel-eared can hear the beauty of the performance. 2 - Just what has a quote from a speech that you didn’t broadcast on Radio 4 (yes, I know News 24 has the video) got to do with your article justifying an interview which you had already traduced with Beano-level headlines on both your news programme AND your website before the damn thing was even on the air ? Exhibit 4: The News Response Let’s have a (very) quick look at the news response (more to come here): The Guardian reported at latest at 14:02, using the word “unavoidable”: “Archbishop backs Sharia law for British Muslims | The Guardian |” The Times Religion Correspondent reported at 5:00pm at length. Linking to the BBC article: “Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?” The BBC started reporting on the reaction from politicians apparently responding to your story (NOT to what he said) within a couple of hours. “Leading politicians have distanced themselves from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s belief that some Sharia law in the UK seems “unavoidable” “The prime minister’s official spokesman said Sharia law could never be used as a justification for committing a breach of English law, nor could the principle of Sharia be applied in a civil case. He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who was perfectly entitled to express his views. The PM’s official spokesman said: “There are instances where government has made changes for example on stamp duty but the general position is that Sharia cannot be used as justification for committing breaches of English law nor can its principles be used in civil courts.” Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said: “Whilst having an enormous amount of respect for Rowan Williams, I cannot agree with his conclusions on this issue. “Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another. “There is a huge difference between respecting peoples’ right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law.” and since then the concentration has been on: “Archbishop tries to deal with Sharia row he provoked”. with these sort of headlines: Archbishop sparks Sharia furore Sharia row persists for Williams Archbishop Guilty of Innocence Bishop backs under fire Williams PM extends support to Williams Sundays continue Archbishop Row Williams shocked at Archbishop Row Archbishop defends Sharia remarks Williams under fire in Sharia row Whereas, it should be: “Archbishop tries to deal with Sharia row created by inaccurate pre-emptive BBC reporting”. And so . . . The poor bloody Archbishop didn’t even get a chance to provoke any reaction. He was destined to be Barbecued - that was inevitable because you (or “someone in the BBC”) had already taken the actions to guarantee a firestorm before either your “careful, precise” interview (which is the main - irrelevant with respect to the response - exhibit in your defence), or his actual lecture (not a speech - a legal lecture to an audience of lawyers), was broadcast. Whoever it was should change their name to “John Calvin of the Beeb” by deed poll. Wrapping Up (Nearly at the end.) Political opponents and allies know that I am about as stout a defender of the BBC as you get among political bloggers, while being critical of “public sector bloat”. In this case - as I have (I think) demonstrated - they have an audit to perform, and some explaining to do. The guys over at Biased-BBC now have a dilemma as well. What do they dislike most: Sharia Law for existing, the Archbishop of Canterbury for daring to engage in thoughtful theological and legal reflection in public, or the BBC for misreporting the story from before it started before even broadcasting a word from the ABC. Cockup, or conspiracy? I’m really not sure. And how do we know it doesn’t happen with other stories? And how are you going to show us that it doesn’t? (Try one of these links for some thoughtful comment on this subject). Or this one if you want to be sworn at. Or a good Sharia Series at over at Our Kingdom - I don’t agree with all of it, but they comprehensively beat us to the draw on this one with a series of 8 Guest Posts so far.) Tags: bbc, bbc editors, wato, world at one, peter rippon, archbishop of canterbury, rowan williams, canterbury, wato blog, devils kitchen, biased bbc, iain dale, james graham

From Doug Chaplin, an article of many themes, including comparing Chris Dillow to a Libertarian Conservative: Chris Dillow has in my view the most significant criticism of Rowan Williams. In saying that the UKs adoption of part of Sharia law is inevitable, I suspect the Archbishop of Canterbury is making the same mistake he made in calling for laws against cruel speech. Hes failing to see that there should be a (big) space between individuals and the law, a space filled by civil society. In a free society, consenting adults should be able to settle disputes however they like; this might entail recourse to a coin toss, Sharia, Beth din or whatever. The job of UK law is merely to ensure that consent is free, informed and not too onerous. Despite his ostensible Marxism, this looks far more like a classic conservative libertarian argument. But it seems to me that in part, the space for aspects of Sharia that the Archbishop was talking about fits far more into this communal space of civil society, than into the realm of law. Im not sure whether Rowan Williams would agree: some aspects of his lecture make me think he would. Doug himself comments on maintaining that separation, once society no longer has a common (at least in theory) outlook: I think there is an ambiguous and confused relationship between the law and morality, and over recent decades there has first been a decoupling of many areas of specifically Christian morality from legislation, and subsequently, particularly in the last decade, a great many morally driven pieces of legislation, whose morality is rather ad hoc and du jour and whose purpose is social engineering: fox-hunting, homosexual law reform, anti-smoking legislation and more. Moral Judgements in Technocratic Uniforms The angle that fascinates me is the number of people who will go to considerable lengths in 2008 to justify their value judgements in technocratic (or sociological) language, having conducted their campaign in a high-pitched screech of moral indignation in order to - in my view - short-circuit a rational debate. Examples? Moral indignation in ostensibly rational clothing seems to run across the spectrum: Sometimes it’s groups (from MPs to policemen to bus drivers) demanding inflation linked pay increases “as my right” (in a world when Greens are arguing for the end of growth - really?) The recent demands for a heavy prison sentence for the driver of a car using a mobile phone in an accident where a cyclist was killed after running a red light to “deter others from using mobile phones whilst driving”. (Not a sausage about deterring cyclists from going through red lights. It seems to me patently obvious that the cyclist was half to blame by going through a red-light.) Groups such as PITA (moral judgement there) virtually dribble moral indignation, as the rest of us naturally produce saliva. The argument for a reasoned small-government Libertarianism has never been clearer or more necessary. Wrapping-Up Welcome to the new witch-hunt generation. Check your job-title for dangerous misspellings before you choose your career. Or, alternatively, don’t live next door to Sun-readers. And - since I started this article with him - let me make it clear that I think Rowan Williams is the “still, small voice” of reason, suggesting that we should actually talk about things rather than demonise groups and individuals in our society. Tags: doug caplin, metacatholic, rowan williams, islamophobia  

An online video of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s “Islam in English Law” lecture has appeared, and an annotated transcript. Online Video of Lecture BBC Parliament has made a video of the lecture available. Annotated Transcript of Archbishop Rowan’s Lecture I had been planning to post an annotated transcript of Archbishop Rowan’s lecture, but I’m pleased to see that Justin Lewis-Anthony has already published one on his 3 Minute Theologian Blog, under the title “The Archbishop and those who will not hear“. That has saved me about 3 or 4 hours: Riazat Butt, the religious affairs correspondent of The Guardian leapt in: Ive read the speech and re-read it. I dont understand a word of it and unfortunately for us hacks he doesnt replicate his BBC words in the bloody text. If anyone can tell me what hes saying Ill buy them a beer… …in hope of getting a beer from Riazat Butt (though not expecting it, as the news cycle will have spun on), here is my paragraph by paragraph commentary on what the Archbishop said. (By the way, Im not doing this for the purpose of satirising the Archbishop. I dont think he needs translating into English. The only reason Im doing this is to show that a moderately bright middle-aged man, with no expertise in jurisprudence, can get the gist of what an expert philosopher and theologian is saying, if prepared to put in a little bit of effort). It’s a useful commentary, even if you don’t agree with it. Also a good comments thread. Wrapping Up I’m doing the Britblog Roundup today. I have a fair selection - obviously AB Rowan is going to be a very big element - but I’d welcome a few more non-political posts (travel, bicycles, cooking, hamsters, dry stone walling ?). Anything that gets to me before 4pm will go in, unless illegal. Tags: archbishop rowan williams, sharia and british law, community cohesion, religion

A Solution by Scapegoat? [Update 15:40. A couple of people have emailed me commenting that critics of the ABC have now come into the open. However, I have commented on the “anonymous Cleric”, not on lay members of the Synod. So I do not need to update my piece.] Laying aside for a moment my usual mantle of restraint. From the Times yesterday: A senior Church of England clergyman called today for the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, over his remarks supporting Sharia in England. Bollocks. The senior Synod member, who insisted on remaining anonymous, told The Times: “A lot of people will now have lost confidence in him. I am just so shocked, and cannot believe a man of his intelligence could be so gullible. I can only assume that all the Muslims he meets are senior leaders of the community who tell him what a wonderful book the Koran is. I don’t have a problem with people calling for senior figures to stand down. I do have a problem when it is done anonymously. The Senior Cleric knows as well as I do that it is hugely difficult to sack almost anyone - especially Senior Clerics - in the Church of England, without the sort of process that would make a protagonist from I’m Alright Jack tremble in his Branch Meeting. Their position is safe. If he (or she) hasn’t got the balls (and the integrity) to come out in public to put a proper argument and stab the Archbishop in the front, and rather relies on stabbing ++Rowan in the back - then I rather wish it was easier for Senior Clerics to be sacked. One thing I’ll say for bloggers is that they are usually open about their opinions, their identities, and their affiliations. On the same subject, David Keen comments: No he shouldn’t resign. That’s a job for whoever was responsible for the Two Minutes Hate that was yesterdays Sun. If this is what happens whenever someone tries to start a debate on a serious subject, it’s no wonder we get politicians who are more concerned with lining their pockets than thinking through the issues our society faces. After this, who will dare to open up a debate on the place of Islam in modern Britain? Knowing how contentious the subject is, RW should, in hindsight, have run his ideas past a few people first. But hey, that’s what mistakes are for - learning from. We also have a culture which doesn’t allow people to make mistakes in public. It’s the culture of the gladiator - as soon as you put yourself on the floor of the arena, its you vs the wild animals, and the population bays for blood from the stands. Quite. Scratch the Surface… The Archbishop has opened up an important debate. He has also highlighted up just how incapable we are of having serious debates on important issues without resorting to hair-trigger prejudice. This question of whether British society is capable of serious reflection is perhaps more important that the particular debate about Sharia. I’ll return to this in more detail later, but Bishop Alan writes cogently on the issue. (more…)

Introduction As the Wardman Wire contribution to efforts to move forward the current debate about MPs and their expenses, terms and conditions, and the transparency and reputation of politics in general, we are running an article series from a wide range of viewpoints on the whole topic. If there is a single aim, it is to bring some light in alongside the heat. We want to generate a lot of ideas for ways ahead from a lot of different viewpoints and political positions. You can find the introduction to the series, and brief for the authors, here. I’m happy to keep it running while there are people wanting to express a substantive view. Tim Ireland: Audits and Timekeeping - an example This contribution is by Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads, who suggests that MPs draw on experience from the world outside the Westminster bubble. Random audits Rather than subjecting all MPs who employ friends/family to stringent audits, why not have a random audit system in place in addition to a complaint-triggered system? After all, a lot is at stake and no sensible person is likely to risk the odds, even if they’re as long as 646-1. This same audit team can also respond to complaints/suspicions reported to the relevant overseeing authority. Hopefully, the result will be warier MPs, time/capacity for more thorough audits, and less burden on the taxpayer. Timesheets Sure, timesheets could be on bits of paper, but in several jobs over the past decade I’ve been compelled to account for my time via electronic timesheets. The cleverest system allowed you to log on and simply click a button each time you started on one task or another, and then ‘clock off’ when you had finished that task. This could be applied to research in the follow manner: When the researcher is about to read one paper/book/website or another, he/she simply enters the relevant title/URL, ‘clocks on’ and begins reading. When they’re done, they clock off. This would generate not only a reliable guide to the amount of time spent (that would be considerably difficult to retro-moderate convincingly) and also generate a bibliography for the resulting report. (There is going to be one, right?) The system can allow for a ‘general’ option if, for example, the research material is made of many short items. It can also have a facility that allows for time reporting after-the-fact on research done off-site (at the British Newspaper Library, for example) or when the system is down. By now you also have a system that - in theory - can issue alerts to the relevant overseeing authority if, just for example, there are enough ‘general’ and ‘after-the-fact’ entries to arouse suspicion. I have written a hypothetical example of how such records could help in practice below. (more…) Previous in series

[Update: wondering if the whole things is an attempt to help us meet our Kyoto targets?] I wasn’t planning to revisit Archbishop Rowan until tomorrow, however Mr Sticky Carrot (aka Garry Smith) comments: If you felt a slight tremor sometime yesterday afternoon, itll have been caused by an enormous number of knees all jerking at the same time. Bearing in mind that a story this morning is about a Knee-Powered Dynamo: US and Canadian scientists have built a novel device that effortlessly harvests energy from human movements. Are the green people combining the two? Also - I just realised that I’m doing the Britblog this weekend. How the hell (oops!) am I going to summarise this little lot? Latest Thoughts There’s a lot of humbuggery going on in political circles, bearing in mind that this was in the briefing documents for Mr Gordon Brown’s 2005 Budget Speech: New measures increase fairness for Muslim banking products Sharia compliant financial products were given a boost by two new measures announced in yesterdays Budget: * Corporation Tax, Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax rules will be changed. This will allow the Islamic equivalents of loans and deposit accounts - based on Murabaha and Mudaraba contracts - to receive the same tax treatment as equivalent banking products. * The removal of multiple payments of Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) will be made more accessible in Scotland and will cover a newly available Sharia compliant product, known as Diminishing Musharaka. This will help house-buyers who want to finance their purchase without taking an interest-bearing mortgage. The new measures " designed to increase the choices available to consumers " follow a number of prominent developments in the UK Islamic finance, including a significant increase in the number of providers and the range of available Sharia compliant products. Changes to UK Law to accommodate Sharia are already in, gents. “OMG Go-away Go-away Go-away” won’t drive Sharia law away. We have to be a lot more subtle and a lot tougher-minded than that if we want to have a proper debate with a resolution at the end. If this explosion (?) is going to clear the air and move us beyond (caricaturing) “all Muslims are the same and they are all aiming to turn our society into a Western Saudi Arabia”, then there will be some benefit forthcoming. Wrapping Up I wonder if he was expecting such a reaction to the Radio interview. On the other hand, I wonder if it would be possible for him to say this in the privacy of the loo at Lambeth Palace without a newspaper getting hold of it. More tomorrow. Tags: archbishop of canterbury, rowan williams, sharia law