Why is the article about accepting a role for Sharia in UK law given more prominence (with picture) on the BBC World News page than on the BBC UK page (where there is no picture, and it appears in the “other top stories” section. Oh, and the main story is something or other about a badger cull)?
Update: Great link here from George R for those who wish to explore further. Looks like one to bookmark.
The BBC loves Sharia. But I really do wonder if the BBC would like the bit where they string up homosexuals from crane jobs?
This is the context of the BBC’s bland reporting:
“Shariah – the future for Britain – No comment necessary”
http://shariahfinancewatch.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/shariah-the-future-for-britain-no-comments-necessary/
The Today programme devoted two segments to this between 7 and 8 this morning. First up was Dr Prakash Shah from Queen Mary University of London, who supported Lord Phillips’ views on sharia. Later we heard from the ubiquitous Inayat Bunglawala representing the Muslim Council of Britain, and Liberal Democrat peer Lord Lester, founder of the pro-multiculti Runnymede Trust. So, three guests all supporting Phillips’ views on sharia law and NOBODY with an opposing view. Just for good measure the programme finished with one of those ‘nothing to fear from Islam’ items the BBC loves about a Muslim country and western singer.
thanks al beeb – the news story gives us quotes and comments from archdhimmi williams, lord phillips of medina and inayat bunglawala who are essentially all calling from the same minaret.
not one quote from someone who thinks it’s a very bad idea and shouldn’t be allowed.
this is how they frame their “debates”
@ DB:
//’nothing to fear from Islam’
I thought the BBC campaign of “product placement” had run out of steam a few months ago. Possibly prompted by Mark Thompson (the big cheese) telling them to put a sock in it. But then again …
Dave,
You need to set your pages up so that when you click on a link to an external page, the browser will open up a seperate browser page.
At the moment you have it set so that clicking on any external link will take you to that page without opening a new browser session.
The problem with this approach is it takes people away from this site, and possibly never to return if they are first time visitors and if they have also followed other links from the other external pages they are looking at.
Mailman
Bloody hell, a Judge telling us we should accept sharia law, he’ll be telling us to accept EU law next. What is the man on? He is supposed to use the Common Law according to the oath I presume he took to our Sovereign, and do no person wrong. Our courts seem to get more weird by the day.
Of course badgery-wadgeries are more important than the relentless creeping of Islam.
Let’s not forget that we have a vegetarian farm minister, that the Labour party is gererously sponsored by the animal ‘rights’ movement ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Political_Animal_Lobby ), and that the BBC is fundamentally anti-meat.
BBC’s Radio 5’s Ms. Derbyshire gave over her programme entirely to Muslims for part of this morning, (many of whom intend to impose Islamic Sharia law in Britain*), to act out their invented victimhood role as the ‘Jews of Europe’ (avoiding mention of how some Muslims in Europe treat Jews).
In contrast, here are the views of an American male homosexual, living in Norway, about sharia law and its impact on the non-Muslim majority in society:
“First They Came for the Gays”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/first_they_came_for_the_gays/
* “Poll reveals 40 pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010299.php
DB | 04.07.08 – 10:12 am
“So, three guests all supporting Phillips’ views on sharia law and NOBODY with an opposing view.”
Exactly, and then they had to, on cue, mention the Beth Din and orthodox Jewish men ‘abusing’ divorce laws.
But we were reassured that Sharia courts would not introduce limb amputations or lashing, only trivial things like marital disputes. So that’s O.K. then.
Just a little harmless polygamy, female subjugation, family honour, mysterious trips abroad, girls off school, stuff like that. So no worries.
“Just for good measure the programme finished with one of those ‘nothing to fear from Islam’ items the BBC loves about a Muslim country and western singer.”
Crap though. He sho’ needed somethin’ other than the singin’ to git on the radio.
Mailman
Depending on your browser type and version you could right-click on the link and select “Open in a new Tab/Window”
Summary information on SHARIA LAW, from ‘Jihadwatch’s “Islam 101”:
“Unlike many religions, Islam includes a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for society called Sharia (pronounced ‘sha-rïe-uh’), which translates approximately as ‘way’ or ‘path.’ The precepts of Sharia are derived from the commandments of the Quran and the Sunnah (the teachings and precedents of Muhammad as found in the reliable hadiths and the Sira). Together, the Quran and the Sunnah establish the dictates of Sharia, which is the blueprint for the good Islamic society. Because Sharia originates with the Quran and the Sunnah, it is not optional. Sharia is the legal code ordained by Allah for all mankind. To violate Sharia or not to accept its authority is to commit rebellion against Allah, which Allah’s faithful are required to combat.
“There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms — an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. — whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah.
“The precepts of Sharia may be divided into two parts:
“1. Acts of worship (al-ibadat), which includes:
Ritual Purification (Wudu)
Prayers (Salah)
Fasts (Sawm and Ramadan)
Charity (Zakat)
Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj)
“2. Human interaction (al-muamalat), which includes:
Financial transactions
Endowments
Laws of inheritance
Marriage, divorce, and child care
Food and drink (including ritual slaughtering and hunting)
Penal punishments
War and peace
Judicial matters (including witnesses and forms of evidence)
“As one may see, there are few aspects of life that Sharia does not specifically govern. Everything from washing one’s hands to child-rearing to taxation to military policy fall under its dictates. Because Sharia is derivate of the Quran and the Sunnah, it affords some room for interpretation. But upon examination of the Islamic sources (see above), it is apparent that any meaningful application of Sharia is going to look very different from anything resembling a free or open society in the Western sense. The stoning of adulterers, execution of apostates and blasphemers, repression of other religions, and a mandatory hostility toward non-Islamic nations punctuated by regular warfare will be the norm. It seems fair then to classify Islam and its Sharia code as a form of totalitarianism.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/
The link DV posted takes me straight to the UK page.
The article is not on the World page, as far as I can see.
nbc,
I shouldnt have to right click on a link…but my comment was more aimed at the casual viewer who might stumble upon the site, only to disappear never to return again if they click on an external link.
Its all about retention of traffic people! 🙂
Mailman
Sorry bout the change of topic, but we could do with a new General comments thread…
It seems Mugabe wasn’t such a bad old stick after all. This is the impression given here anyway:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7489472.stm
When i lived in Spain i use to watch BBC World and noticed how their whole editorial agenda was very different than that on BBC24, the internal UK service.
BBC World likes to portray the UK as some multi-culti global icon. Its really no wonder that Hamas, Hezbullah, AQ, and various states such as Iran believe they are making huge progress in the propaganda war because BBC World reinforces that view.
In fact the BBC really is a propaganda arm for these terorists, whether it means to be or not.
Wow that was quick. That headline has changed from (something like) ‘Mugabe welcomed home by thousands’ to ‘Opposition must accept Mugabe’
Pheeeeew!
Yup, that was quick – almost exactly 50 minutes according to newsniffer.
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/135462/diff/1/2
I heard VD spouting on this morning as well. I notice she didn’t read out any negative comments.
However, I’m getting pissed off with his term “Moderate Muslim”. What is that exactly? Why don’t we have moderate Jews or moderate Christians?
Anyone care to define what a moderate Muslim is?
I have relatives who are moonbats and occasionally we have debates until my head hurts and they would follow the Al BBC line that Sharia law in UK would be a GOOD THING because, well its racist to think otherwise (completely ignoring the fact that Islam is not a race).
When I point out that under Sharia law it is a crime to educate a woman, her testimony would not be allowed in a court as women are regarded as unreliable witness and that if she got raped it would be her fault and she would be punished, plus that the correct punishment for homosexual acts under Sharia is to have a pole hammered up your arse and to be hoist on it so that you slowly dissemble yourself, they all put their fingers in their ears and chant LA LA LA LA until the nasty man goes away.
Liberals and Islam the political alliance that defies all logic.
BBC in full anti Bush mode
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7488159.stm
Martin,
I can do no better than to quote Fat Trevor himself.
‘Behind closed doors there are no extreme or moderate muslims, only muslims.’
Even the politically ‘left of centre’ site, ‘Harry’s Place’ criticises Lord Phillips’ comment on Sharia Law:
“Sharia again” (by David T)
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/07/04/sharia-again/
‘Harry’s Place’ is under legal threat from Hamas:
“Legal threat from Hamas/British Muslim Initiative” (by David T)
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/07/04/legal-threats-from-hamasbritish-muslim-initiative/
Deep down, the BBC are cowards. They are scared of Islam, but they can’t admit it to themselves. Islam’s the Religion of Peace, innit? What’s to be scared of? Certainly not this modest little proposal.
But the real reason they soft-soap Islam is cos they don’t want to end up like this:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DianaWest/2008/07/03/geert_wilders_prisoner_of_islam?page=full&comments=true
‘Now, however, with a growing Muslim minority — and it’s politically incorrect to notice this, too — political debate sometimes meets with Islam-inspired political assassination. At least it has, traumatically, twice in recent years: once, with the 2002 murder of the anti-Islamic-immigration politician Pim Fortuyn by an animal rights activist who claimed Fortuyn was scapegoating Muslims; and the following year with the ritualistic Islamic murder of Van Gogh, director of “Submission,” a short video made with Hirsi Ali about Islamic mistreatment of women. In all, such Islam-inspired violence has been enough to chill Islam-inspired debate.’
Besides, they’ve got their careers to think of. Kilroy-Silk spoke out and look what happened to him. They’ve got to get Josh and Emma through school – and have you seen how much a decent school costs these days? And the kids gotta come first, right?
So they come up with more and more ludicrous logical contortions to convince themselves – it’s all our fault, it’s a tiny minority of extremists, it’s poverty, it’s oppression, it’s “Islamophobia”, it’s our lax infidel morals, it’s George Bush, it’s colonialism, it’s our foreign policy, it’s da Jews etc etc.
In other words, it’s all our fault. Nothing to do with Islam.
And since it’s all our fault, it’s up to us to be nice to them. This sharia business is merely a common sense, pragmatic response to legitimate Muslim aspirations. What’s all the fuss about? They only want ‘equality.’ Besides, it’ll make them love us and we can all live happily ever after.
It won’t, of course. This would merely elbolden Muslims, making them even more strident and demanding.
Hugh Fitzgerald knows best:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019878.php
‘The pretense, that the uninformed and terminally naive Archbishop of Canterbury has fallen for, that Muslims “only” want this little concession, should be seen in light of the steady and inevitable Muslim desire to remove everything that stands in the way of the spread of Islam. Shari’a imposed on Muslims — many of whom do not want it (see the example of Canada, where female Muslims led the fight against it) because their legal position under the Shari’a-supplied family law is far inferior to what it would be under the laws of any Infidel land — in the supposedly limited area of family law may, and indeed does, contradict the law of the land in Great Britain. That is quite another matter. And so too is the fact that this is not a final demand, but merely an opening one. If granted, it will lead to more and more such demands — demands that swell with each new victory, as a sense of triumphalism is at the heart of the matter. That sense must never be encouraged. It must always be discouraged and disappointed.’
30 years from now, when Britain is 20/30/40% Muslim, our grandchildren ask why nothing was done to stop the Islamic menace while they still could, the BBC will be spoken of with the same contempt as a Quisling or a Lord Haw Haw.
A moderate Muslim is dead one.
Er, okay.
1) Despite their leftie leanings I seriously doubt ANYONE at the BBC actually WANTS Sharia law in the UK. I expect the tone is intentionally neutral because of their “commitment to social cohesion” and didn’t want to be accused of rubbishing Sharia law. I know every time someone of prominence even mentions it the right wing newspapers go ape-shit and blow it out of proportion and scare the crap out of their readership, while the left look at their shoes and whistle.
2) So what if someone says there’s room for Sharia law? This judge, some trumped-up vicar, or Derek down the pub. Their opinion is just as irrelevant. Until Monsieur Brun starts suggesting it we don’t need to get our knickers in a twist, do we?
The future, as never discussed on the BBC:
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1964
“As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country it will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone….”
United States: 1.0 Australia: 1.5 Canada: 1.9 China: 1.0-2.0 Italy: 1.5 Norway: 1.8
“At 2% and 3% they [Muslims] begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.”
Denmark: 2.0 Germany: 3.7 United Kingdom: 2.7 Spain: 4.0 Italy: 4.6
“From 5% on they [Muslims] exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (“clean” by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves – along with threats for failure to comply (United States).”
France: 8.0 Philippines: 5.0 Sweden: 5.0 Switzerland: 4.3 The Netherlands: 5.5 Trinidad & Tobago: 5.8
“At this point, they [Muslims] will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, or Islamic law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
“When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris – car burning). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam, Denmark – Mohammed cartoons, murder of Theo van Gogh).”
Guyana: 10.0 India: 13.4 Israel: 16.0 Kenya: 10.0 Russia: 10.0-15.0 The one anomaly in this set of statistics is Israel, which has not experienced uprisings and threats of violence. Its Arab or Muslim population enjoys equal political rights with Jewish Israelis. The suicide bombings and rocket attacks that have killed hundreds have been perpetrated by outsiders.
“After reaching 20% [of a population] expect hair-trigger rioting, Jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning: Ethiopia: 32.8
“After 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:”
Bosnia: 40.0 Chad: 53.1 Lebanon: 59.7
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and jizya, the tax placed on [conquered] infidels:”
Albania: 70.0 Malaysia: 60.4 Qatar: 77.5 Sudan: 70.0
“After 80%, expect state-run ethnic cleansing and genocide:”
Bangladesh: 83.0 Egypt: 90.0 Gaza: 98.7 Indonesia: 86.1 Iran: 98.0 Iraq: 97.0 Jordan: 92.0 Morocco: 98.7 Pakistan: 97.0 Palestine: 99.0 Syria: 90.0 Tajikistan: 90.0 Turkey: 99.8 United Arab Emirates: 96.0 I question the inclusion of “Palestine” in this set. “Palestine” simply means space occupied by stateless “Palestinians” in Gaza and the West Bank, and is the name of the state which Islamists wish to replace Israel, once it is destroyed. Turkey, after decades of having a secular, non-religious government, is beginning to turn “religious,” and seems to be yearning for the kind of Muslim government that cleansed the country in 1915 of non-Muslim Armenians in a genocide that predates the Holocaust.
“100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ – the Islamic House of Peace’ [more correctly, dar-al-Islam, or Land of Islam]. There is supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim.”
Afghanistan: 100.0 Saudi Arabia: 100.0 Somalia: 100.0 Yemen: 99.9 “Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
“‘Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel.’ Leon Uris, The Haj. “It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average[s] would indicate.
The comment “if she got raped it would be her fault and she would be punished” is not 100% true.
If she has a number of male witnesses to support her side of the story (seven non-relatives I think) she doesn’t get flogged for adultery.
Which is fine. Right?
“Just for good measure the programme finished with one of those ‘nothing to fear from Islam’ items the BBC loves about a Muslim country and western singer.”
Was this the guy I just woke up to on the World Service? I was a little bleary so I didn’t catch all of what was going on, but I woke up to the announcer saying something like “Well, it’s July 4th in the United States….”, and I was expecting something about, you know…American history….but the next thing I know I’m hearing the words “American born Muslim” and then there’s some guy blandly strumming a guitar and singing in conveyor-belt fashion.
How typical. The World Service’s segment on July 4th, American Independence Day, was about a Muslim.
End the BBC. Now.
Greancoat: So long as they have their 72 virgins, right?
Until Monsieur Brun starts suggesting it we don’t need to get our knickers in a twist, do we?
Barry | 04.07.08 – 2:58 pm |
By the time M Brun suggests it he is doing so because he is forced to by popular opinion, or thinks it will win votes. Popular opinion is formed by a whispering campaign that starts just like this and ratchets up the pressure every time there is a concession. The BBC would be an accomplice in this whispering which tries to convince us that it’s all quite harmless.
So now would be as good a time as any to get our knickers in a twist and strangle any thought of Sharia law in the UK at birth.
Barry I am ashamed of you.
Under Sharia law its not seven male non-relatives that need to testify that the woman was raped for her to avoid being stoned to death for adultury, its only four.
What were you thnking of?
That’s OK with you Al Beeb feminists reading this right?
Agreed. The lefties won’t put their foot down. Sharia courts already operate in the UK. Why do we also have a Muslim Parliament? Can we have a white English Parliament as well please?
As with all these ideas, if you repeat them often enough the outcry reduces each time.
If McBean and Nu Labour thought Sharia law would shore up their votes in Muslim areas, they go for it tomorrow.
They know the white majority are like thick sheep who might bleat a bit, but if you threaten to lock them up or tax them more, they will shut up and comply.
We are a nation of eunuchs. I’m no fan of the BNP, but in all honesty, the only way to frighten the establishment would be to elect 50 or 60 BNP members of Parliament. I don’t think it will ever happen, people just don’t bother to vote.
That’s one reason I think James Whale was sacked from Talksport. The Government didn’t like the idea that he wanted people to go out and simply vote out the sitting MP regardless of which party they were. It was simply to be a mass protest. Could you imagine the chaos if that happened? It won’t so the sheep will go on bleating. THe fewer people who vote, the easier it is for politicians to ignore the people.
Jason | 04.07.08 – 3:21 pm |
“How typical. The World Service’s segment on July 4th, American Independence Day, was about a Muslim.”
Didn’t you know that Columbus was a muslim, Jason? (irony off)
Why the capital letters shouting POLITICAL CORRECTNESS?
Anonymous’ post 2.59pm sent shivers down my spine…
Last one out turn off the light.
Under the present system the liberal elite don’t think they have to live under the same laws as the rest of us.
Do they think that if we get sharia law they would get an exemption from the less liberal bits?
Gordon Brown has already opened door with Muslim banking (bank hands ove goods or services of a certain value some time later bank gets paid back goods or services of a greater value might not call it interest but I cannot see moral difference)
The next stages in the slow creep will be:–
stage one volentary arbitration for civil disputes between Muslims.
stage two if one of the parties is female the male disputant decides if he wants sharia law used or not.
Stage three compulsary for all muslims living in Muslim areas. For civil disputes.
Stage four All Muslims where ever they live.
Stage five. To be used in criminal cases for Muslims in Muslim areas but with limit on type of punishments used.
Stage six full sharia law in Muslim areas. And since only applies to Muslims any area they claim as muslim will have to be cleared of non muslims. With all non muslim religious buildings destroyed.
Well that would be the plan, we would have a revolution before it got that far.
I can’t find this topical Islam linked story on the BBC.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2247388/Schoolboys-disciplined-for-%27refusing-to-pray-to-Allah%27.html
Barry – I don’t know if you were being ironic when you wrote, “until Monsieur Brun starts suggesting it we don’t need to get our knickers in a twist, do we?”
Well, apart from all the concessions granted to our Muslim friends through ‘Operation Contest’ – we do have some cause for concern.
If you get one of our so-called “religious leaders” advocating the formal introduction of Shariah and then this is supported by one of our most senior jurists, we should be worried.
This shows that our political class, not just al-Beeb and the Labour Party, is in favour of conciliating Islamism.
Lord Justice Phillips gave that speech at an annexe of the East London Mosque in Whitechapel.
This place just so happens to be a recruiting base for Muslim radicals and future terrorists.
Read “The Islamist”, by Ed Husain. Husain was recruited there by the Muslim Youth organisation – still present in that mosque – and a nasty little crew they are!
Now, either Phillips is astonishingly ill-informed or this is another cack-handed attempt of our poliitical class to appease these people.
Either way, we have got some trouble coming our way…
Albert the Cat:
I agree with the gist of your post.
Just a couple of points:
‘This shows that our political class, not just al-Beeb and the Labour Party, is in favour of conciliating Islamism.’
1. Why the ‘ism’ after Islam? The deranged and unhinged ideology of Islam is the enemy, not Islamism, Islamic terrorists, Wahabbism, extremists, fundamentalsts or anything else.
2. I wouldn’t trust Ed Hussain or any of his ilk:
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/018968.php
‘I suspect that Ed Husain is on to a good thing, a gravy-train, as a professional “moderate” who offers “hope.” It is a false hope, and a dangerous hope. Those who are subsidizing him, possibly believing in the old theory that “he’s the best till the best comes round,” should stop. There are those who tell the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth, about Islam. They are both ex-Muslims, and non-Muslims. Support them.’
Hi,
I feel that recently i have begun to read articles on racial matters that discuss the black and muslim people in society.
No longer Asian.
Am I imagining this? How do Asians whose beliefs are Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Bahai, Christian and others feel about this? if I am not mistaken? Is there any one who fits this profile reading the comments?
And Hindu, sorry!
Anonymous,
I hold no particular brief for Husain and I do take your points about him
and Islam as an ideology.
This wouldn’t matter so much if our political class(politicians, senior civil servants, broadcast journalists, most of academe)weren’t so eager to surrender to these people.
Of course, Arch-prickup Williams and Lord Phillips regard themselves as having sophisticated minds – much cleverer than the rest of us. They wouldn’t regard what they are doing as a presage to surrender.
They follow in the British tradition of pragmatic appeasement. Not a bad tradition in itself, as it’s the main reason why we haven’t had major civil conflict in this country since the eighteenth century.
But it does have some disadvantages. We saw this in the 1930s when it was thought that the Nazis were just another bunch of politicians with whom a deal could be struck. And now we’re seeing it in regard to the present problems.
My belief is that al-Beeb is not so much a cause of problems; rather it’s more a symptom of a deeper malaise that’s affecting our country. Al-Beeb is only the mouth of the political class so it’s not surprising when we hear and read it talking pure bullshit.
By the way,
is Sue there?
I get the feeling that Sue is a professional writer. Writes wittily and nice sentence structure.
Sue, am I right?
I can’t see anything on the BBC about Pete’s link to the Stoke school children given detention because they refused to pray to (the moon-god) allah. Can anybody assist?
allan – not on bbc – yet, i expect the only place it may show up is the stoke news subsection
they have another story to run right now…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7489983.stm
Jimbob | 04.07.08 – 8.11 pm
From the piece you’re referencing:
“The two men say they are not hiding anything”
Police: “Well, that’s good. We’ll let you be then. Don’t let us disturb you.”
“If you get one of our so-called “religious leaders” advocating the formal introduction of Shariah and then this is supported by one of our most senior jurists, we should be worried.”
A rather important correction,”the” most senior cleric and jurist.This is surrender from the top down.
Peter, sorry to split hairs but Williams is only our top religious leader if one is CofE. And Phillips is just one of the Law Lords – Primus inter pares.
But yes, it is certainly surrender from the top down.
As usual, Melanie Phillips nails it:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/816511/what-part-of-theocracy-does-this-man-not-understand.thtml
Forget Stephen Fry and Dawn French, our Mel really is a national treasure.