The Archbishop and the Sharia

I thought that I'd go back to first principles when looking at exactly what Dr. Rowan Williams has said with regard to the possibility of sharia law existing within the body of British Law.

The integral speech is available here, and I guess that he is due some credit for raising the issue of Sharia law, and the large numbers of British Muslims. But is the Archbishop straying from his brief if making comment on this? Surely very few in his flock are also Muslims: so why is he advocating on their behalf? The splashes across UK papers, including one headline "What a burkha" have universally panned the speech, reporting and editorialising that the speech was divisive rather than uniting of Britons.

A couple of quotes:

'In The West', writes Tariq Ramadan in his groundbreaking Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, 'the idea of Sharia calls up all the darkest images of Islam...It has reached the extent that many Muslim intellectuals do not dare even to refer to the concept for fear of frightening people or arousing suspicion of all their work by the mere mention of the word'.

So if Muslims don't raise it for that very reason, why did the Archbishop wish to inject himself into this debate?

There is a risk of assuming that 'mainstreram' (sic) jurisprudence should routinely and unquestioningly bypass the variety of ways in which actions are as a matter of fact understood by agents in the light of the diverse sorts of communal belonging they are involved in.

This is where the ire would probably have begun to be raised. Williams posits that a separate body of law, or procedure, should be put together to judge those based on those very communal belongings. It smells of tokenism, and pandering to minorities. Looking specifically at an Islamic example, this can be taken to mean that certain actions would be excusable purely because of a person's identification with the Muslim religion.

Certainly there is a place for leniency, and taking into account all the relevant factors before a judgment is rendered by a judge. They're called pre-sentencing reports, and are compiled after a verdict has been given. These do not defer the progress of a trial from the application of transparent and consistent justice. This is not to mention that many Muslims have immigrated quite legally to the UK in search of a better life. There are sacrifices and benefits from that, and one is to faithfully obey British law.

There needs to be access to recognised authority acting for a religious group: there is already, of course, an Islamic Shari'a Council, much in demand for rulings on marital questions in the UK; and if we were to see more latitude given in law to rights and scruples rooted in religious identity, we should need a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resource and a high degree of community recognition, so that 'vexatious' claims could be summarily dealt with.

So what the Archbishop is asking for is a devolution of decision making away from appointed judges, and into the hands of religious advisory bodies, who would (apparently) be able to make better decisions with regards to questions with regard to religious contexts. I don't suggest the bodies should be banned, far from it. Many seek answers on matters of religion from their own clerics, elders and priests and that right should extend to Imams (and others). I would just as much object that the Synod of the Church of England have to deal with any 'vexatious' issue, with legally binding results. Not surprisingly, the decisions of the Islamic Shari'a Council relating to marriage are not recognised by UK courts.

The problem here is that recognising the authority of a communal religious court [...] would in effect not merely allow an additional layer of legal routes for resolving conflicts and ordering behaviour but would actually deprive members of the minority community of rights and liberties that they were entitled to enjoy as citizens.

So here's the rub. Where would the establishment of these courts be recognised within the court hierarchy? Are they at the very bottom, along with the magistrates' courts, or do they become an alternate court of last appeal, if the subject matter is dealing with Muslim business. My firm belief is that the current system is able to deal with all sorts of different instances. The precedents established are conservative enough to be understood, and argued, but flexible enough to change with the times, and the influx of a Muslim population is just another event to be adapted to. This should not be done through the introduction of a two religion system in the country. The Catholics of the United Kingdom, the Orthodox Jewish population and the Hindu population would all be entitled then to their own 'special' courts, that would only tear further at the social fabric.

I could go on quoting Williams, his speech runs for quite some length. He does not have the same faith I have in the transparency and supremacy of law in this country. I am going to give the final word to Peter Costello, a former Treasurer of Australia, who in 2006 had some advice for those asking for Sharia law to be incorporated alongside Australian law.

The radical Muslim Cleric Ben Brika was asked in an interview in August 2005:-
But don't you think Australian Muslims living in Australia also have a responsibility to adhere to Australian law?

To which he answered:- This is a big problem.
There are two laws there is an Australian law and there is an Islamic law.

No this is not a big problem. There is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution. If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.

Our State is a secular State. As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship. Religion instructs its adherents on faith, morals and conscience. But there is not a separate stream of law derived from religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian law in governing our civil society.

The source of our law is the democratically elected legislature. There are countries that apply religious or sharia law Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person wants to live under sharia law these are countries where they might feel at ease. But not Australia.

And the citizenship pledge should be a big flashing warning sign to those who want to
live under sharia law. A person who does not acknowledge the supremacy of civil law laid down by democratic processes cannot truthfully take the pledge of allegiance. As such they do not meet the pre-condition for citizenship.

Before entering a mosque visitors are asked to take off their shoes. This is a sign of respect. If you have a strong objection to walking in your socks don't enter the mosque. Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values don't come to Australia.

Which UK bank will reveal a Rogue Trader?

UK Banks, their shareholders and the tri-partied supervisory regime will be bracing for the possibility that a financial institution within the UK has its own Rogue Trader problem.

The ripple effect of SocGen's problem will be for the risk management teams to get together with the auditors, and ensure that each of the trades made have a genuine closeout. That is, for every buy order closed, there is a genuine seller and vice versa. I think the key to Jérôme Kerviel's deception is that he knew exactly how to bypass the existing systems (he'd worked in the back office after all), or that the 'error' account was getting a workout. Nick Leeson, knocked one spot further down on the Rogue Hall of Fame, was famous for using account number 8888 to bundle his mis-trades into.

That same ripple effect will be onto the size of these accounts, and checking that there has been no collusion between institutions and their clients. One of the favourite methods goes as follows.

Share trading at $5
Trader sells shares to client at $4.50
Client sells shares at $5 for 50c profit.
The profit is split between the two parties, the insider getting it paid into an offshore account.

This can easily be written off as mistakes, oversights, or 'fat-button' trading. As banks start to account and assess their books and the risks that accompany it, who will be the first to write off?

With the UK being home to several multinational banking companies, who operated in much the same markets as SocGen. But if this can happen to SocGen, the undisputed market leader in derivatives trading, it can happen to anyone. Who in the UK will put up their hand first?

To prevent such further occurences, you need only look at the Chinese Walls regulations that prevent information from flowing from its advisory divisions to its proprietary trading desks. Ie, in advising a company that is making a takeover, information should not be passed to the traders.

In this case a new Chinese Wall, perhaps call it a Jérôme Wall in honour of the man of the hour, should be applied by market supervisors and legislators to ensure greater independence between the trading and backroom/settlement. This should assuage the minds of those who are afraid of Trading Loss Risk, by reducing it.

Update: Fat Button Trade
Financial News online has a countdown of some very funny "fat finger" trades. Genuine mistakes, but rather costly. My favourite is rugby related:

Heads up at Bank of America, September 2006
Not so much wrong-fingered as wrong-balled.

A Bank of America trader’s keyboard was set up to execute an order when the senior trader gave the signal – he just had to press enter. However, he failed to notice an errant rugby ball thrown in his direction, which landed on his keyboard and executed the $50m trade ahead of schedule. The ball thrower, a graduate trainee, was given a severe reprimand but no further action was taken.

Another trader said: “Rugby balls are a regular danger on any trading floor so the victim trader ought to have hedged against this possibility.”

Can Gordon Hack the PMQs bear pit?

via Mike Smithson at PB.com

According to a report in the Independent yesterday Gordon Brown is telling friends that the public is being increasingly repelled by PMQs and that the Commons exchanges are now of little use in discussing the issues of the day. He’s reported as saying that “nothing prepares you” for the ferocity of a packed chamber in full cry” and that the weekly event is worse than it has ever been.

Tony Blair was a PMQ master, complete with his 'plastic fantastic' tabulated folder. If the answer didn't happen to be there, he just batted it off or made reference to the Tories' time in London. Brown's eyesight makes it difficult for him to use the same folder system, and maybe he isn't completely comfortable with the opposition benches vocally baying for his blood on a weekly basis.

However, if Westminster is the Mother of all parliaments, and the UK the greatest democracy, then the least that can be expected is vocal opposition in a healthy debate over the country. PMQ is also one of the few times that the Lib Dems and Tories can get traction on issues, such as the consistent Northern Rock question from David Cameron in the last couple of weeks. It can backfire though, as a PM on fire can really give heart to his MPs before they go home to their constituenties.

Although with the polls giving him a landslide loss, you could be forgiven for not wishing to front.

Update:
Here's a snippet of the "packed chamber at full cry".

Hain and Osborne seperate cases, but both wrong on donations

For perspective, let's take the word of Learn Direct, and say the base salary for Westminster MP is £60,675. This is corroberated by Tim Loughton, member for East Worthing and Shoreham, who despite being a lovely chap I'm sure, could use some help with the photo on his website; his eyebrows are positively haunting. As I'm assuming that both MPs are not fiddling their own expenses, the total income should remain the same.

Now to the two cases. In Peter Hain's, he has been accused of failing to declare £103,000, towards his tilt at the deputy leadership of the party. Now, being slightly ignorant, I hadn't realised that leadership positions in the UK Labour Party were not just the premise of its parliamentary wing (PLP), but of the wider party, including trade unions.
Quoth wikipedia:

The election took place using Alternative Vote in an electoral college, with a third of the votes allocated to MPs and MEPs, a third to individual members of the Labour Party, and a third to individual members of affiliated organisations, mainly trade unions.

So there is lobbying to be done, rather than hitting the phones over the weekend. Publicity needs money and the need for it is now clear. However, Hain's donations are approaching double his base salary, not to mention that his own funding was twice that of the eventual winner; something to be said for a lack of effective, "grassroots" campaigning on his part.

Half the donations flowed from a think tank called Progressive Policies Forum, which as far as I can tell, is an empty tank. I haven’t found anything published from searches of academic and other journals, and the only web hits come from the recent scandal itself. The conclusion to draw is that his bid was funded through a front think-tank, because front companies just don’t cut it anymore.

Hain has slightly obfuscated when he emerged and read a statement :

“I reasonably believed that the arrangements in place for my deputy leader campaign would be sufficient to ensure compliance with reporting requirements, but as it transpired, due to administrative failings this was not the case after early May.”

The Times seems to disagree with Hain's explanation, asking him to resign in their leading article:

The departure of a Cabinet minister from office for his failure to treat the rules with the honour they deserve would send a strong if belated signal that they will not be treated with disregard in future. [...] The search for legal loopholes would be discouraged. In different circumstances, Mr Hain might have ended up as deputy prime minister last summer. He should not remain as the Work and Pensions Secretary this winter.

David Cameron was naturally eager to bring the blowtorch to bear on Hain, but had forgotten to check whether his own party was in order. It emerged that his shadow chancellor had himself received £500,000 from the Conservative Party Central office, but had not registered it in his House of Commons personal register. Seven times his base salary. Emails have now been released, that show George Osborne’s attempts to have the matter clarified, and in an administrative sense, he appears to have done the right thing. However, such a large donation should be declared as a matter of course in a Members’ Register, so that his transparency and accountability is untarnished. The motivation to seek clarification seems to only to have occurred after the funding scandals that had rocked the Labor party (Lord Levy & Co).

So, as is often the case in politics, the lesser of two evils principle must be applied. Is it worse to be less than honest when accepting and then clarifying a donation that was made with specific conditions beneficial to Osborne? Or is accepting money from a think tank whose reasonable sole purpose is the provision of deputy leadership contest money?
The worst is Hain, but not far behind is Osborne. The minister of the crown, particularly with as large a portfolio as work and pensions, must consider his position. Osborne, should lodge the donation immediately in his register.

Nice work, if you can get it....

News reports are splashing that Tony Blair will take up a part time position with New York based JP Morgan Chase, on a salary of US$987,000. For ten to fifteen days a year, no doubt to impress clients, or get the inside track on Middle Eastern politics, it works out very nicely. It'll go some way to paying off the mortgage on the house he purchased in Connaught Square, late in his premiership.

"We operate our business all over the world, and Tony Blair will bring our
leaders and clients a unique and invaluable global perspective that is
especially critical in turbulent times like these," said Jamie Dimon, chairman
and CEO of the company.

Good on him for making the most of life after 10 Downing Street. For those politicians who claim they are underpaid, this should be stark motivation to make it to the very top, so that opportunities such as this open up. Either that or make sure that your safe seat, stays safe and that you keep it.

Is David Cameron tacking right?

Tory leader David Cameron has announced tougher restrictions on the award of the dole, introducing what is in effect, a Work For The Dole scheme. It has had success in Australia and the United States, in establishing a system of mutual obligation. If a government provides money to you, you must be either looking for work or be doing something of benefit to the community.

In taking a wider perspective, does this mean that the popularity of Cameron and his Tories, being built around a brand of 'compassionate conservatism', is being packed away? This suggests the preparation of a wider attack on those considered shirkers or bludgers within Britain. It makes perfect sense when putting together a manifesto, to pick off easy targets, such as benefit frauds to score easy votes. Let's see if there are more announcements to come along those lines.

Boris, Ken and some other guy dude get on the tube

The London Mayoral election set for May 1 promises to be interesting, if only for the clash of personalities of major candidates. 'Red' Ken Livingstone is back for a third bite of the cherry. His first win was as an independent candidate, his second after he was welcome back to the Labour fold. Boris Johnson, former editor of The Spectator, and current MP for Henley, is hoping to draw on his self deprecating manner, as well as leveraging appearances on HIGNFY and Top Gear among others, to become a populist mayor. With a salary that is commensurate with that of a UK Cabinet minister (£135k-ish), it's not to be sniffed at. The Liberal Democrat candidate will also feature, but the barbs will be flowing between the two major candidates, and the poor fellow (Brian Haddick) will have to jump in where he can. For a start, he has at least received the backing of Sir Elton John.

The voting system for the London Mayor position is the Supplementary Vote, where voters number their first preference, and their second if they so wish. If no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round of counting, then the second preferences are distributed, so that one of the candidates can claim a majority in the second round. It makes the materials put out by smaller candidates important, as they would be able to indicate to whom the second preference should be awarded to. Smaller parties include The Greens, UKIP, BNP, One London, Stop Congestion Charging, and Timeout: who want to act as a balance and shy votes away from the BNP.

The broadcast of the live debate will be at 11pm on Thursday, ITV1.