SHARIA IN ONTARIO, CANADA:
Public reaction
Sponsored link.

Comments by the public:
The Toronto Star published some letters to the editor on this topic.
1 Some
excerpts:
 | Asim Hussain: |
"With the Premier's decision to end all religious-based arbitration,
a tremendous opportunity was lost to raise the bar for sharia in Canada
and in the West. In fact, by training imams, formalizing the process,
thus bringing more transparency and accountability to the process,
Ontario and its Muslim community could have been an example to much of
the Muslim world where the practice of sharia law is profoundly
corrupt." SEP-12.
 | Jason Shvili: |
"Ontario's Liberal government has once again proven how much contempt
it has for people of faith....What do the McGuinty Liberals have against
people who believe in something other than the secular values of today's
consumer-driven society? The irony is that the premier's decision to end
religious arbitration is based on the argument that it will prevent
discrimination and ensure people's rights are not violated. Obviously,
McGuinty forgot that freedom of religion is one of the rights that
Canadians cherish, since he has decided to pursue a policy that will
prevent faith groups from exercising an important aspect of their
religions, namely the application of religious laws as a means to settle
disputes. The even bigger irony, though, is that instead of promoting
the idea of one law for all Ontarians, the premier's decision is likely
to cause religious arbitration to move underground, where it will lack
supervision by the province's legal institutions. In this kind of
situation, it is much more likely that religious rulings that contravene
Canadian law will be handed down, as opposed to a scenario in which the
Canadian legal system manages and supervises religious arbitration so
that people's basic rights are not violated. To be blunt, McGuinty has
made a bad choice; one that will harm the rights and freedoms of
Ontarians much more than it will help to preserve them." SEP-12
 | Leonard Baak, President, Education Equality in Ontario |
"I agree that Premier Dalton McGuinty deserves credit for opting to
treat members of every faith group equally, but that is not true in
general. In Ontario's school system, equality continues to be elusive.
Roman Catholics remain the only faith group to enjoy full funding for
religious education. 2 It was the McGuinty government that reversed the less-than-equal level
of support for religious education received by members of other faiths.
Only Roman Catholics are guaranteed a choice between two publicly-funded
schools (public and/or separate) wherever they choose to live in
Ontario. Teaching positions in the publicly-funded separate school
system are effectively closed to non-Catholics.
Yes, McGuinty deserves some credit for demonstrating a commitment to
equality, but his actions this week can only be thought of as 'a good
start.' If he really wants to treat members of all faiths equitably, the
withdrawal of separate school funding should be the next step." SEP-12
 | Mordecai Drache:
"I found myself, as a Jew, siding with a Muslim colleague in a heated
debate with a secular colleague. Closer to the issues, more aware of how
Muslim and Jewish family law can hurt women in our communities, we
adamantly defended McGuinty. Jewish family law is a nightmare for abused
women in Israel — and sharia, we hear about the abuses all the time. Why
are liberal people so scared of being labelled racist that they'll
support legal structures that are unfair to women? Yes, I know the
proposal talked about "monitored" arbitration but in my view it's too
complicated, too expensive and too prone to ugly politics. Now
conservative Jewish and Muslim groups are joining together to fight
McGuinty's decision. With all the tension and anger between the two
groups over the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it is sadly ironic that
the only thing they can agree on is taking away women's rights."
SEP-13.
|

More comments:
The Globe and Mail published some letters to the editor on this topic.
3 Some
excerpts:
 | Anver Emon: |
By apparently succumbing to the polemics of anti-sharia groups
that confused cultural patriarchies, bad-faith husbands, and incompetent
imams with the totality of what arbitration under sharia could
offer, the Premier has missed a real opportunity to support Muslim women
in Canada and human-rights activists the world over.
Let's be clear: With the ban on sharia arbitration, there will
be no positive gain for Muslim women. They are in exactly the same
position they were in before the prospect of government-regulated
arbitration. Many Muslim women seeking an Islamic divorce will remain
vulnerable to the machinations of bad-faith husbands, uneducated imams,
and patriarchal traditions if they wish to remain a part of their
religious community.
The idea of sharia arbitration brought with it the possibility
of government regulation that could have ensured a measure of
transparency, accountability and competence in adjudication, none of
which currently exists in informal Islamic divorce procedures.
By banning religious arbitration in Ontario, a real opportunity has
been lost. With the contemporary breakdown in Islamic legal education, a
vacuum of authority prevails that could have been filled with fresh
analysis of the tradition, in the light of critical historical and legal
scholarship. A regulated regime of sharia arbitration could have
opened the door for Canadian Muslims to grapple with their tradition in
a way that reflects the spirit of Islamic law and the values they hold
as Canadians.
Would a regulated arbitration regime be perfect? Perhaps not. But it
would have been better than the informal, back-alley Islamic mediations
that are in place now. What is ironic is that if the opponents of
sharia had spent their time engaging the historical Islamic
tradition, creating novel arbitral principles, and forming their own
arbitral institutions, the result would be a victory for Muslim women
and human-rights advocates across Canada and around the world.
Unfortunately, the Ontario government has chosen to bow to the
political will of anti-sharia activists who reduced the discourse
to Islamophobic political sloganeering. The government's decision not
only denies a right already granted to religious groups that have relied
on it for years, but in the case of Muslim women, the decision does
nothing substantive to protect them. SEP-13
 | Kai Morgenstern:
"While Anver Emon raises a valid point about how the transformation
of sharia law might help integrate Muslims into our society, he has the
steps to achieve this mixed up. He suggests that imams with 'no
understanding of, or appreciation for, Canadian values' get the chance
to do legally binding arbitration so they can change sharia law to be
consistent with our legal system. That's like saying everyone who wants
to drive a car should be given a licence so they can learn the road's
rules. But imams don't have to embrace our values; they merely have to
let their followers exercise the rights granted to them under the
Charter. Dalton McGuinty's decision puts Muslims in the same position as
Catholics: If you want the Pope to dissolve your marriage, go ahead and
try; but your spouse is welcome to file for divorce in a court. If
Muslim women feel they don't have that option, then whether or not there
are sharia courts doing arbitration is not the real problem." SEP-14
|
 | Elizabeth MacSween: |
"Reading Sheema Khan caught me right in my self- righteous, feminist,
Christian-based indignation. While I resent being called Islamophobic, I
realize my views on sharia have been skewed by the reports of
corrupt interpretations of sharia in fundamentalist Islamic
countries. Ms. Khan opened my eyes to what could have, and should have,
happened: a proper debate and a opportunity to educate Ontarians in what
sharia is and how it can be properly interpreted to protect those
who seek the counsel of their faith." SEP-16
 | Don Leaver: |
"Sheema Khan (The Sharia Debate Deserves A Proper Hearing -- Sept.
15) says 'there is no college of imams in Canada . . . [and] no
institutes to train jurists in Muslim family law,' as there are for
rabbis and priests. Surely, this is why we reject it. We do not know
what we are getting. If it is what we see happening around the world,
with no Islamic court to hold any imam to account no matter how radical,
then Canadians are right to reject it." SEP-16

References used and footnote:
- The Toronto Star's web site is at: http://www.thestar.com/
- In Ontario, the provincial government funds both a public school system and a
Roman Catholic separate school system, from K through 12. But other religiously based school
systems -- including Jewish, Muslim, and conservative Christian private
schools -- are not funded. This system has been cited by an agency of the United
Nations as institutionalized religious discrimination.
- The Globe and Mail's web site is at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

Site navigation:

Copyright © 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Originally posted: 2005-SEP-18
Latest update: 2005-SEP-18
Author: B.A. Robinson

| |
|