Poor old Rowan. In an interview
characterised, in a very real sense, by his habitual turgid sesquipedalianism, someone managed to find the statement that Sharia law "is unavoidable" in the UK. If you think my ability to provoke religious flamewars is impressive, you should see the BBC's Have Your Say
forums (or, you know, don't
), or the Graun
's Comment is Free
, right now.
Unexpectedly, the same bunch who voted in favour of the religious hatred
legislation a few years ago suddenly found something wonderful
, and opined
that they weren't sure public beheadings were such a good idea (though I'm not sure that position is a vote winner: Daily Mail
readers would probably be in favour, as long as it wasn't the Muslims doing the chopping).
All of which is beside the point, really, because ++Rowan (that's "1 more than your current Rowan", geeks) wasn't advocating any of that stuff. After struggling through all 8 pages of his grey prose, I can tell you that Rowan's a sci-fi libertarian of the sort you sometimes get in Ken Macleod's books
, or maybe Heinlein's, or Neal Stephenson
's. What he wants is for people to be able to voluntarily affiliate with a court system for the resolution of some disputes. In an attempt to preserve his right-on lefty image, Rowan claims he's a little nervous about the unpleasant whiff of the free market about this, but I think we all know he's secretly itching to set up ++Rowan's Greater Anglican Communion
franchulates all over the world (er, hang on a minute...), strap on a katana and set out on his motorbike for a showdown with Dawkins.
What's less clear is what he wants for Muslims which isn't already available. In an article about Jewish courts in the UK
, the BBC says that "English law states that any third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute". Does anyone know whether there's anything stopping Muslim courts doing something similar to the Jewish ones?