My Archbishop was given the title Civil and Religious law in England: A Religious Perspective.
But my Archbishop did not say that ‘some aspects of Sharia law “seem unavoidable”‘, as is widely reported.
He said that
‘a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters, so that ‘power-holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents’ (Ayelet Shachar Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women’s Rights (2001) p. 122) – seems unavoidable.
and this introduces into our thinking about law what some would see as a ‘market’ element, a competition for loyalty.
But if what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of divers and overlapping affiliations work for a common good, and in which groups of serious and profound conviction are not systematically faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty, it seems unavoidable.
An element of competition between jurisdictions, or a ‘market’ of jurisdictions, for certain carefully specified matters – THIS ‘seems unavoidable’.
It seems unavoidable given that what we want is ‘a pattern of relations…in which overlapping affiliations work for a common good’.
It is only unavoidable if we want the common good, mind.
