More than enough has already been written about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ruminations on shariah and the problem of conscience in conflict with the state, so I’ll keep things brief. I haven’t waded through all the commentary systematically, but my views are close to those of Justin McKeating at Chicken Yoghurt and Tom at Blairwatch, who radically actually read Williams’ speech and noted its theoretical underpinnings in the work of Ayelet Shachar. Williams’ suggestions are arguable, but the level of debate has been an embarrassment.
The most discreditable commentary I’ve seen inevitably comes from the absurd Irene Lancaster:
Of course I’ve read the original speech, plus the amended material…I don’t care how erudite, numerous or conciliatory the audience was. To me it sounds like a Hitler rally, in which Hitler also received standing ovations from the learned academics, lawyers and clerics of the day…
Lancaster goes on to list her academic credentials as evidence as to why this assessment is true. Lancaster was responding to an email from Lambeth Palace – hopefully it will now finally dawn on the PR people there that this is not a person to be taken seriously, nor is it someone who can be dealt with in a rational manner.
I’ve blogged Lancaster a couple of times in the past (here and here), and it is only reluctantly that I return to the subject now. Lancaster is a fairly average UK academic now living in Israel; she emerged as a pundit on Jewish affairs a couple of years ago and became the inter-faith advisor for the organisation now known the Anglican Friends of Israel (run by individuals connected with the Libertarian Alliance and the 1980s “libertarian” Tory right). Lancaster used her new-found fame to denounce critics of Israel as anti-Semites and to demand that a pro-Palestinian public speech be banned, but as her rhetoric has become increasingly unhinged it seems that most journalists (Ruth Gledhill remains a true believer) have decided increasingly to give her a wide berth; just recently she was complaining that the BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen had found an excuse not to meet her. In a typically self-regarding email – which she posted online and then removed – she berates Bowen thus:
…as I recall you told me when you would be in Israel and asked me to contact you then. When I did, various excuses were given not to meet, including the faintly ridiculous one that you wouldn’t be coming to Haifa…I have managed to travel down to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to meet other members of the British media, and have always found such meetings mutually beneficial. Some of them even bought me lunch (and kosher at that!!)…You are regarded by the BBC as playing an objective role in getting the facts of the situation here across to the license payer. However, you are the only journalist from any organisation who has refused to meet me when asked even though, in the first instance it was you who suggested that I get in touch on a specific date…
Bowen had written to Lancaster, enigmatically, that
[you said] I had agreed to meet you in Israel but cancelled using a fatuous excuse. I think both you and I know that is not strictly accurate.
Given that Lancaster has lived in Israel for less than two years and is an expert in medieval Jewish manuscripts from Spain, one wonders why any journalist would feel the need to consult her on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And given her tendency to make weird insinuations against some journalists she has met (the case of Giles Fraser comes to mind) or seen (the head of BBC Radio religious broadcasting), there are good reasons to avoid her.
(Incidentally, Israel has shariah courts…)
Filed under: Uncategorized | 5 Comments »
