There must be one law for everyone

There is only room in any country for one system of criminal justice. And everyone, regardless of their status, sex, race or religion, must be equal before it.

British law must apply to everyone in Britain. It is, of course, open to anyone who considers that current UK law does not include things which they believe to be right to campaign for an act of parliament to add to, amend, or repeal existing laws. That new law will then apply to anyone in the UK.

The recent comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury about Islamic law have touched off a furore because they have been interpreted as meaning that there might be one law for some citizens and another law for others. If that was what Dr Rowan Williams meant, I would have to fundamentally disagree with him. But I am not absolutely convinced that this is what he was meant to say.

I have not yet been able to find a full text of Dr Williams' remarks. He certainly does not appear to have been supporting the more extreme forms of Sharia law such as stoning people to death or cutting off limbs - in fact he said that nobody in their right mind would want the introduction of such a regime.

Dr Williams has however been quoted as saying that it is unavoidable that aspects of the Sharia system would become the norm in this country.

One Muslim speaker commenting on his remarks said that an aspect of the Sharia system is that Muslims should repect the local laws of a country where they are living. I would hope that this aspect of the Sharia system is already the norm.

So far as the criminal justice system is concerned there is no room for flexibility or for multiple legal systems. We must all be bound by the same criminal laws, subject to the same courts, and the same penalties on conviction.

However, so far as civil obligations is concerned, there is absolutely nothing incompatible with having one legal system in also allowing any group of two or more parties to a binding agreement to choose what system of rules will be used to resolve any disputes concerning that agreement.

Commercial contracts routinely specify which legal system will be used to deal with any disagreement. Any international contract between companies operating in more than one country will state under which legal system the contract will be interpreted and where any court action will be brought. And it is not at all unusual for such a contract to provide before litigation for a form of arbitration under one of a number of sets of rules - including model rules of arbitration laid down by various United Nations bodies such as UNCITRAL and various private bodies such as the International Chamber of Commerce. Effectively the parties are agreeing that these codes will be used to supplement the law - and this does not conflict either with the law or the principle that we are all equal before the law.

Provided that the same terms of arbitration are available on equal terms to everyone who wants them, and that one of those terms is that all parties to an agreement or dispute have freely agreed to such an arrangement, there is no insuperable problem with recognising that Sharia principles might be acceptable as part of the basis of arbitration in a civil dispute.

There must be one law for everyone. British law must apply to everyone in Britain. That law can, should, and in many cases already does contain the option, available to everyone on an equal basis, for the parties to a civil agreement to decide what additional principles they will be bound by. Accepting that these may include principles of Sharia need not undermine the primacy of British Law.

Two other examples have been suggested of possible changes to the law in respect of Sharia. One concerns stamp duty, the other marriage and divorce.

If it is correct that a change to tax law concerning stamp duty might remove an effective disadvantage from those who use Sharia rules to buy and sell property, this should be looked at. The law should be as fair as possible to all citizens and should take account in an even-handed way of the needs of as many as possible of our citizens.

Marriage, however, is a much more complex issue. Where a couple have married in a religious ceremony, this represents both an agreement under the rules of that faith AND a public contract under the law. Almost all faith denominations including the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the reform and traditional Jewish Synagogues, and just about every other faith group of which I am aware have special rules for marriage over and above those of civil society. All these religions already have the right to ask their own members to comply with those rules in addition to the laws of society, provided there is no conflict with British law. That includes Islam.

However, we need to be very careful about any suggestion that religious courts of any kind should be given the power to exempt people from their obligations under the law.

I agree with Baroness Warsi's comments. The Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action explained the important principle was that of "equality", with people of all backgrounds and religions being treated equally before the law.

She said freedom under the law allows respect for some religious practices, but stressed:

"Let's be absolutely clear - all British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."