This from the Wall Street Journal (Subscription may be required to view the complete article) earlier in the week. The archbishop is far off base to think that more than one legal system can exist in a democracy. England and the other countries with large Muslim populations should be clear and crisp on this issue. Only one legal system is possible in a democracy. Otherwise the democracy begins a slide down slippery slope to chaos or worse.
"The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, earned an unusual rebuke from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown last week for suggesting that some version of Islamic -- "Shariah" -- law would inevitably be introduced in Britain. Even in rejecting the idea, however, Mr. Brown noted that some aspects of Shariah could be accommodated on a "case-by-case" basis.
This exchange highlights an issue that is fast reaching a boiling point in Britain and other Western countries with increasingly assertive Muslim communities. Can a modern democracy house more than one legal system, even on a limited basis, and remain a democracy as we have come to understand that term over the past two centuries?.."
"...Permitting any portion of the body politic to have its legal rights defined by community, rather than citizenship, would be a giant step backward. It is by no means clear how Western societies could practice such accommodation, even on a limited basis, without undercutting their social compact."
(Messrs. Rivkin and Casey served in the U.S. Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.)
The Economist piece on the subject skillfully points out the fallacy of creating more than one legal system in a democracy. Acuiescence would play right into the hands of those who would detroy democracy...and the demographics are on the side of the Muslims. Thew archbishop had best keep his mouth shut on this subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment