Nowhere in the lecture does Williams call for the implementation of sharia law - thoughthis has become the default assumption underlying the febrile controversy the talk and its accompanying media coverage almost instantly generated. Rather, heasks how it might be possible for the civil law to accommodate some of the legal procedures by which Muslim communities in Britain have traditionally regulatedtheir relationships and financial affairs, while safeguarding the equality and human rights afforded by modern law for vulnerable individuals (particularly women) within those communities. He reiterates several times that it would be important to ensure that "no `supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights." He also points out that there is already provision in English law for Jewish and Christian communities to have some autonomy over the governance of their religious affairs, without thereby putting themselves outside the law

the furious response to the archbishop's comments reveals a great deal about the hostility and ignorance with regard to Islam which forms a potent undercurrent in Britain's ostensibly multi-cultural society. It is also a reminder - if such reminders are needed - that this is a woefully anti-intellectual society, fed on a daily diet of the tabloid press and reality television, and apparently incapable of engaging in intelligent public debate about significant issues. Serious journalists who ought to know better have derided Williams for being too scholarly; the widespread belief seems to be that he has only himself to blame if people failed to grasp the subtleties of his argument. The logic of this message is that public figures must "dumbdown" or be damned.

What exactly are your objections to Williams' proposal?