It is likely that people will look back at the last few days in Britain as a landmark in its debate about multiculturalism. Challenged to accept the supposed inevitability of Islamic law (or sharia), the public voice here has responded with a resounding "No".
The trigger came last Friday in a lecture delivered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. Williams called for the "constructive accommodation" of parts of sharia in Britain in the form of "plural jurisdiction". His idea was that Muslims should be free to choose whether they could bypass the English legal system in favour of Islamic courts to resolve disputes such as divorce.
Debates about multiculturalism, not least those about religion, Islam and the law, tend to divide opinion in liberal societies such as Britain, but not on this occasion. Rejection, even condemnation, of Williams's views has been close to unanimous among political leaders, commentators and community figures alike.
Downing Street affirmed Prime Minister Gordon Brown's view that "sharia cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law" and that sharia principles cannot "be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes".
The chairperson of the Equality and Human Rights Commission labelled the comments as "muddled and unhelpful" and as "the opposite of what modern multiculturalism should mean". The Muslim Council of Britain also joined the chorus, fearing that Williams's intervention would serve only to fuel Islamophobia and lend support to right-wing extremism.
The consensus is clear: the rule of law must be paramount in a liberal democracy. Any accommodation of cultural differences must take place firmly within the limits of a singular system of law. You don't get to choose which legal system you are under. Everyone, regardless of identity and belief, should be subject to the same body of laws.
Among the few defenders of Williams who have dared to raise their heads above the parapet, there has been the half-hearted suggestion that the episode has been no more than a sensationalist beat-up. It is pointed out that Williams was not suggesting that the most abhorrent aspects of sharia be upheld; he was not advocating stonings for adultery (to cite one notorious example of sharia-sanctioned punishment).
Williams, recognised as a deeply thoughtful man, is said to have had his scholarly lecture taken out of context. Madeleine Bunting, of The Guardian, says, "He was honouring his audience ... many of whom were lawyers and academics by engaging them in a complex exploratory argument." (Williams on Monday sought to atone for his remarks, pleading they were misunderstood because of some "unclarity".)
No reasonable person can deny that the question of how best to recognise cultural and religious differences is a complex matter. But it must start with the proposition that all citizens must have some shared values. In a liberal community, this must encompass a commitment to the equality of all persons and an acceptance of individual rights.
This is why Williams's suggestion of adopting sharia (even to a limited degree) is so troubling. It proposes that the common standing of citizens under the rule of secular law, enacted by elected representatives, interpreted by courts and limited by constitutional guarantees, can simply be side-stepped. And all in favour of an option whose guiding principles do not conform to the demanding standards of a liberal democracy.
We need not and must not be apologetic about liberal values. The sharia episode offers a salutary lesson, not merely for Britons but also for Australians still seeking some consensus about how to handle diversity.
The most persuasive view is that multiculturalism offers no convincing argument for recognising claims for differential treatment without also considering their justification and impact. It is right that we support multiculturalism where it means equal opportunity and fighting discrimination. This is less so when multiculturalism is appropriated to preserve cultural and religious practices merely for the sake of the continuity of tradition.
Even British supporters of cultural diversity have understood that respecting differences needn't mean capitulation to separatist urges. Most immigrants in Britain and Australia want integration and the chance to participate as equal citizens in the broader society. What must be avoided at all costs is what the Nobel Prize-winning philosopher and economist Amartya Sen has called "plural monoculturalism", in which communities live in isolation from one another.
Unfortunately this hasn't always been recognised. There has been a failure to distinguish two very different forms of multicultural accommodation. On the one hand there is a relativism that makes few demands on minorities and celebrates difference for no end other than itself. On the other there is a nation-building multiculturalism aimed at facilitating minorities to become full members of the political community on the basis of a shared civic culture. The danger is that some in our public conversation neglect that there are varieties of cultural diversity. One thing is certain. This last week has seen Britons making clear where it stands on the limits of diversity. And Australians, if challenged, must do the same.
Tim Soutphommasane is an Australian completing a doctorate in political theory at Oxford University.