![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldLet's start with Sheema Khan's recent Globe and Mail article, one that has probably gotten quite a bit of attention from the Canadian blogosphere. She observes is that while Canadian Muslims as a group tend to closely identify with Canada, a majority--not overwhelming, but a majority still--diverge notably from the Canadian norm in one notable way.
The sharia controversy Khan refers to relate to the controversy over faith-based arbitration in family law, a feature of Ontario family law since the mid-1990s that became controversial when a conservative Muslim group announced its plans to establish Muslim variants, with obvious implications for--most notably--gender equality. A grand cultural collision started, between liberals and conservatives and immigrants and natives and different factions of immigrants and/or natives against other factions of immigrants and/or natives, and the debate was ended in 2005 by the decision of the Ontario provincial government to do away with faith-based arbitration altogether. Muslims weren't the only group affected--some Jewish and Christian groups also partook--but the sharia publicized the issue internationally.
Later in the article, Khan suggests that the 2005 decision needs to be revisited, that the informal courts practising sharia need to be brought into the system, and that so doing would help heal rifts internal to Canadian society.
I disagree strongly with Khan on three grounds. Firstly, on the grounds enunciated here.
Secondly, as we've seen in such unhappy societies as Israel and Lebanon, giving religious authorities an actual stake in the legal system does only bad things, keeping the members of different denominations in line behind their religious-cum-political leaders who have a vested interest in preventing defections through intermarriage or internal dissent. In Canada, at least, the rule of law isn't subject to divine law. Canada has done well because--not despite--of this.
Thirdly, speaking directly to Khan's point about the alienation common to many Canadian Muslims, how can the solution to the question of Canadian Muslim isolation lie in the creation of separate, or at least parallel, legal systems? The public sphere should be open to everyone by default.
And yet. This Ottawa Citizen article quotes polls suggesting that Canadians as a rule are opposed to faith-based arbitration regardless of religion, this opposition being stronger in Ontario, Québec and Alberta, but remaining a majority sentiment throughout the country.
The only Canadian region that came close--49%--to a sentiment in favour was the North, where the First Nations and Inuit have their own conflict-resolution systems which have co-existed and/or conflicted frequently with the established Canadian legal system. Might an honest across-the-board opposition to faith-based arbitration in Ontario (and elsewhere) represent some sort of domestic cultural imperialism towards religious minorities? Does the public square requiring the shedding of faith in this circumstance, or in other circumstances? In the end, I suppose it relates to the question of how much common ground has to be shared for a pluralistic society to function meaningfully.
Your thoughts, as always, are most welcome.
44 per cent of Canadian Muslims believe Canada should accommodate their traditional beliefs, while 81 per cent of the general population thinks immigrants should adopt mainstream Canadian beliefs. In particular, 53 per cent of Muslims think sharia law should be recognized as a legal basis for settling family disputes, while an overwhelming majority of the general population disagrees. Of those surveyed, 55 per cent of Muslim women and 59 per cent of Muslims aged 18 to 29 indicated their preference for sharia law. Remember, this survey was conducted one year after the Ontario sharia controversy.
The sharia controversy Khan refers to relate to the controversy over faith-based arbitration in family law, a feature of Ontario family law since the mid-1990s that became controversial when a conservative Muslim group announced its plans to establish Muslim variants, with obvious implications for--most notably--gender equality. A grand cultural collision started, between liberals and conservatives and immigrants and natives and different factions of immigrants and/or natives against other factions of immigrants and/or natives, and the debate was ended in 2005 by the decision of the Ontario provincial government to do away with faith-based arbitration altogether. Muslims weren't the only group affected--some Jewish and Christian groups also partook--but the sharia publicized the issue internationally.
Later in the article, Khan suggests that the 2005 decision needs to be revisited, that the informal courts practising sharia need to be brought into the system, and that so doing would help heal rifts internal to Canadian society.
Since 9/11, Canadian Muslims have felt increased discrimination. This has a direct impact on identity and how a minority perceives its acceptance by the majority. With the raucous, sometimes racist, nature of the Ontario controversy, many Muslims were forced to focus on sharia as a component of identity, resulting in a plurality wishing to abide by Islamic principles in matters of family law.
I disagree strongly with Khan on three grounds. Firstly, on the grounds enunciated here.
Pam Cross, legal director of Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children and co-chair of the No Religious Arbitration Coalition, says there will always be people who will operate outside a regulated arbitration system. However, she says allowing faith-based arbitration in Ontario is not the solution.
"That is a concern and that would have happened no matter what the government did, because had the government decided to leave the Arbitration Act as it's presently written, there's little doubt in my mind that the government would have implemented the safeguards, or least some of the safeguards, proposed by Boyd in her report.
"So there would have still been people who wanted to operate outside even those safeguards. I don't think the threat of so-to-speak back-alley arbitrations should be used to say, 'Well, we should have regulated them.' Whatever system of regulation you come up with, there are always people who are capable of finding a way to get around that," Cross says.
[. . .]
Cross says while the premier's announcement is a victory for the coalition, much work needs to be done to ensure women have access to justice.
"I think one of the biggest jobs that we have--and by 'we' I mean those of us working with women but also the community, the government--a really big job that we have is to ensure that women have access to legal information so that they know what the law of Ontario, and what the law of Canada provides for them.
"So that when they are making decisions about how they want to handle their separation--do they want to go the route of private mediation or do they want to hire a lawyer and possibly end up in court--we'd like women to be making that decision based on access to full information, and that's a very important job that lies ahead of us right now," she says.
Secondly, as we've seen in such unhappy societies as Israel and Lebanon, giving religious authorities an actual stake in the legal system does only bad things, keeping the members of different denominations in line behind their religious-cum-political leaders who have a vested interest in preventing defections through intermarriage or internal dissent. In Canada, at least, the rule of law isn't subject to divine law. Canada has done well because--not despite--of this.
Thirdly, speaking directly to Khan's point about the alienation common to many Canadian Muslims, how can the solution to the question of Canadian Muslim isolation lie in the creation of separate, or at least parallel, legal systems? The public sphere should be open to everyone by default.
And yet. This Ottawa Citizen article quotes polls suggesting that Canadians as a rule are opposed to faith-based arbitration regardless of religion, this opposition being stronger in Ontario, Québec and Alberta, but remaining a majority sentiment throughout the country.
The only Canadian region that came close--49%--to a sentiment in favour was the North, where the First Nations and Inuit have their own conflict-resolution systems which have co-existed and/or conflicted frequently with the established Canadian legal system. Might an honest across-the-board opposition to faith-based arbitration in Ontario (and elsewhere) represent some sort of domestic cultural imperialism towards religious minorities? Does the public square requiring the shedding of faith in this circumstance, or in other circumstances? In the end, I suppose it relates to the question of how much common ground has to be shared for a pluralistic society to function meaningfully.
Your thoughts, as always, are most welcome.
