Now that Smuggo has become a lapsed Catholic (given his views on abortion, civil partnerships, homosexual rights & co. he must be taken to have passed the intermediate stage of being a true adherent of the tenets of his faith without stopping), he must be chuckling at the poison pill that he left behind for the Church of England.

The said pill he planted a while back in the form of the appointment of Dr. Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury, who with every pronouncement seems to hasten the demise of the Church of England. If Catholics pray for ‘the conversion of England’, how hard must they pray for the long life and good health of this foolish cleric. If ever there was an argument for evicting the House of Bishops from the House of Lords, he is it.

I recently noted this Prelate having a moment of lucidity on the subject of controlling drunkenness in our society. Sadly, said Pious Prelate has slipped back into dotty Cantaur mode with a discourse on Al-Beeb on the inevitability of the mediaeval value that is Sharia ‘Law’ (I hesitate to ascribe the word ‘law’ to it in its fullest sense since that would impute the quality of justice to it, something to which, as we understand the word, it has little pretence) becoming part of the law of the United Kingdom, speaking of it as ‘unavoidable’.

He spoke of the people of this country having to ‘face up to the fact’ that some of its citizens do not relate to our legal system. Well, dear Archbishop, if they do not like the system of law which suits the disposition of our people, then perhaps they should go to another country where the law is more to their liking (that’ll be the one with a high proportion of one-handed people, then).

He spoke also of there being a place for finding a “constructive accommodation” in areas such as marriage between the law of the land and the ‘law’ as promulgated by a bunch of wacko nasties. The word ‘accommodation is, of course, a weasel word for ‘appeasement’ which is what this oaf has in mind.

I am puzzled by his wanting women in particular to have the advantage of resort to Sharia ‘Law’ in the area of family law. It is here that Sharia ‘Law’ finds itself particularly and singularly oppressive of women’s rights and treats them as creatures of little worth. I imagine homosexuals too will not exactly be overjoyed at the thought that our law might give its approbation to this lingering relic of the last but one millennium. Who, too, could deny, that so-called ‘honour killings’ are, in part, the sickening product of a mindset such as this?

We should not allow this foolish man’s dulcet tones to deceive us into any sort of accommodation whatsoever with this repressive, outdated, unjust malignancy. There can be little compromise with a value set that owes more to the age of barbarism than to the age of enlightenment.

Part of the deal of immigration into this country is that the immigrant supposedly admires us and the way in which we live so much that he wishes to come here and take advantage of our way of life. If then he wishes to integrate, so be it. But immigration is not a licence to establish a ‘state-within-a-state’ which is the message we should be sending out if we were to yield an inch to this potty proposal.

There could be nothing more divisive than allowing Sharia ‘Law’ to get a grip on a section of the population, establishing as it would one law for us and another law, wholly inimical to our law, for another section of the inhabitants of this country. That is not what the deal of immigration amounts to and it is vital that we not give one single inch to this alien system of values.