Whose Law?
One of the difficulties of multiculturalism in respect to Islam is that the Koran is the codification of all aspects of society, not just a set of religious precepts. So while the Archbishop of Canterbury may say some integration of Sharia with English law is “unavoidable”, it isn’t that hard to see what he’s getting at, although it has nothing to do with, as opposition leader Brendan Nelson puts it, ”chang[ing] your basic values, culture and law” to suit some malcontents unwilling to integrate with society, British or Australian. In fact, we already make accommodations, recognizing the authority of tribal law among the Aborigines, for example, but also in granting priests and rabbis and imams etc. the authority to conduct marriages then recognized under civil law. Granting some limited jurisdiction over financial disputes, divorce, and so forth, doesn’t seem much of stretch, when you think about it, although there would have to be some standard of equal protection applied.

Nevertheless, I oppose such accommodations, at every level. Government should remain resolutely secular, and social transactions should be conducted within that framework. Church, or mosque, weddings should be a separate process, as should divorce. You want religious or tribal recognition in addition, fine, go for it, but it’s extra.

(It's interesting to me that Nelson's the one to come out in the news with this. I assume the Rudd government saw Rowan Williams' remarks and didn't think it worth bothering about. Nelson's probably just trying to stay visible, wedge Labor if he can, and perpetuate the LNP's politics of xenophobia.)