We seem to have been talking about extremists an awful lot lately. Some of it stems from projects: we are working on several highly contentious issues where some points of view slide off what one might call the spectrum of reasonable opinion. But extremism is in the news generally: even the Archbishop of Canterbury is being accused of it.
This piece was written in two parts: the first after the initial furore that followed the Archbishop's reflections on the role of religion in relation to the legal system, and the second a few days later when the dust had settled and the real meaning of the whole episode was beginning to become clearer.
Part 1
The Archbishop stands up in a formal setting and delivers a carefully judged lecture. He suggests, amidst a flurry of ifs and buts and conditions, that quite possibly it might not be such a bad idea to at least think about the possibility that at some point consider giving some thought to the option of just wondering if it might not be impossible.. (I am exaggerating slightly but not much) to allow British law to take into account one or two tenets of Sharia law in the same way as in certain circumstances Rabbinical law or Anglican ecclesiastical law is taken into account.
The next thing we know the poor chap is accused, more or less, of demanding public execution and ritual dismemberment. The extremism that interests me is how such a delicately nuanced proposition is turned into a tabloid sound bite so that any serious discussion is rendered immediately impossible.
It's not just the tabloid papers; before the Archbishop had even cleared his throat he was being condemned on the strength of a brief radio interview by all three main political parties and people who could have hardly had time to read what he was going to say, let alone think about it. These were not knee-jerk reactions: they were whole body spasms.
There is a certain irony in all this: the intolerant shouting down of something because it is perceived to be...intolerant.
How do we get away from this collective silliness? We must all become extremists in our abandonment of sound bites and trivialisation and their replacement with a commitment to serious reflection and proper dialogue.
The first question is not whether the Archbishop is right or wrong; it is how we give due consideration to a thoughtful contribution to public discourse.
Part 2
The more this curious episode has unfolded, the more fascinating it has become. The Archbishop has admitted that his handling of such a touchy subject was 'clumsy', but clumsiness alone would not have generated the scale and bitterness of the subsequent uproar.
It seems that what we are really seeing is an excuse to address an issue that has long festered: how a country such as the United Kingdom should absorb people of many and different cultures. The Archbishop unwittingly triggered the release of feelings that are notoriously difficult to express without causing offence. The Primate has turned into Aunt Sally: an easy target for the frustrated.
It is too soon to draw any final conclusions, but perhaps it may at least underline the importance of serious dialogue, and undermine the British tendency to shout from the sidelines because real engagement is too embarrassing.
Andrew Acland
Register below to
receive our newsletter View a
sample
