Does this give the game away?

We could say that he is simply wrong, which would be to miss the point as we roundly agree that he is well intentioned, or we can point out that his good intentions have been so badly put across that it smacks of a naive political sensibility to have failed to recognise the furore that would inevitably be sparked by his comments.

I cannot convince myself that a man in his position, who used the full power of his office to promote the Westminster Hall lecture through the state licensed media corporation was acting of his sole volition. I do not believe any ‘lone gunman’ theory that he contrived his argument in solitude in the private sanctuary of his palatial offices, then hand-picked and invited the thousand-or-so guests out of some sort of personal mission. At the very least he would have discussed his intentions with his inner circle of advisors and recieved some secretarial assistance in order to set this thing up.

No, the Archbish is responding to a political challenge of our society and contributing to the cultural and legal debate in a way prescribed by his role. The established Church of England has pressed the buttons of its own and its opposing constituency and acted consciously as a tool of state.

If a majority of the population disagrees with the content, manner or tone of the contribution then it highlights two significant facts, namely: 1)the politicisation of a nominally secular branch of the state 2)how out of touch the establishment is from social reality.

I think we must ask why he chose to play this card and why now. The machiavellian in me cannot escape the pretence that the levers of power are being manipulated in some way or form, so we must look at who is the puppetmaster in this shadow game – who has their hands on these levers of power?

In coincidental contrast, and by way of analogy, a similar furore has broken out among football fans over the floated idea by the FA to play some league matches abroad. Some top figures in the game have tentatively responded with a dead bat to the idea from Richard Scudamore that the idea was inevitable and desirable, while the longest tenured of all has criticised the lack of consultation involved. The fans have resoundingly condemned the proposal on a variety of grounds. (is this starting to have a familiar ring to it yet?) The result of which has been a decisive intervention from our PM, to widespread popular approval as a voice of reason, that the fans concerns should be taken into consideration.

I could ask what Gordon Brown is doing with his time to be so quick off the ball on what is in effect a side-issue to the main topics of the day, especially in comparison to the Williams controversy, but in a week when policy kite-flying has been all the rage, my suspicions have been roused to consider there is some sort of a trend here, which only a true master of the game would be able to disassociate his personal fortune from involvement in, in order to cash in on.

The proof of a trend will come to light in the more serious debate re: Shari’a law if Brown responds in a similarly and sufficiently considered manner, at the appropriate moment to create a second wave of publicity positioning himself as the ‘voice of reason’. It is striking that these two areas correspond so closely to what we know of Gordon Brown’s personality.

Whether either Rowan Williams or Richard Scudamore’s ideas actually come to pass is irrelevant to the stir caused from which it is “inevitable” that a figure will rise. If it is that the initiator ultimately sees this benefit and thereby shows his leadership calibre, who should question how “desirable” this example of classical political machination is for all of the rest of us.

To quote Clegg:

Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another. There is a huge difference between respecting people’s right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law.

Both I and Nick Clegg support their right to equality before the law. Neither I nor Nick Clegg have stated an opposition to the idea of opening up civil law, subject to human rights and certain practicalities. What we both assert, and what Williams messily waffles about (one paragraph supporting, the next paragraph opposing) is the importance of the rule of law itself.

If respecting the rule of law is fundamentally contrary to the viability of sharia courts, then it is sharia courts that will have to be the losers. I don’t hold that extreme view, in fact I’ve said the opposite, but clearly you feel it is as black and white as that.

Nick Clegg’s response was moderate and respectful and a whole lot less knee jerk than making some vague, ill informed attack on MPs just because of a few individuals who take the piss.