Bashing the Bishop

As the Archbishop of Canterbury recently found out talking about Sharia law in Britain isn't so much a potential banana skin as a fully-fledged booby trap. You can imagine his PR people the next day smacking their heads on the desk as the right wing press went for the jugular.

Beneath the hysteria, however, Dr. Rowan Williams' point was a fair one: why shouldn't aspects of Sharia law be allowed in a civil capacity? He wasn't talking about introducing an Islamic penal code to Britain, nor was he suggesting that there should be a complete plurality – British law would still take precedent.

The fact is that there are already exemptions, on religious grounds, from certain aspects of the law. Sikhs can ride motorcycles without helmets. Halal meat is legal despite objections of potential cruelty. Why not, then, allow aspects of Sharia law in marriage and divorce proceedings – such as with the Jewish civil divorce courts based upon Beth Din?

But there is a line – a line which has been crossed by students at the University of Sheffield. It is not my business whether someone elects to not wear a helmet, or whether they choose to eat meat slaughtered in a particular way. These issues are internal for each community and – quite simply – don't affect me. When, however, the religious convictions of one person begins to impinge upon those outside of that community then it becomes a problem. The refusal of some Muslim medical students at Sheffield to roll-up their sleeves is a perfect example of this.

New hygiene regulations introduced at the start of this year state that when in contact with patients, staff must be bare beneath the elbows, to help stop the spread of hospital bugs. This demand, however, has met with opposition as some students have refused to do so on religious grounds. To do so, they point out, is forbidden in the Qu'ran. Hygiene, however, is not a matter of religious conscience and preference. Religion cannot be allowed to interfere with what is in the patient's best interests. Whether or not it is religiously permissible does not affect the spread of hospital bugs, such as MRSA.

I do not – let me be clear – want to live in a society where there is no sensitivity towards people's faiths, but nor do I want to live in a society which jeopardises people's health in the name of religion. It is a balancing act and there will always be an element of trading off when rules and religion clash.

The reaction to the Archbishop's comments show just how sensitive this issue is. Living by one's own faith is, of course, a fundamental human right. But an individual's health should not be risked due to another's personal conviction.