Tuesday, September 13, 2005
no sharia law for ontario
The Premier of our Province has been under huge pressure, both locally and internationally, to close the door on Sharia law being part of our legal system in Ontario. Thank goodness he made the right decision. This article was published in today's Toronto Star....
Editorial: McGuinty's sharia call
Premier Dalton McGuinty may have rid himself of a nasty political controversy by deciding to ban faith-based arbitration in Ontario, rather than introduce Islamic traditions into a process already used by Christians, Jews and others. But by signalling his move in a hurried weekend phone call to the Canadian Press news service, without consulting those affected, McGuinty looks more like a firefighter than a crafter of coherent public policy.
This abrupt rollback of Christian and Jewish rights will strike some as unfair, even as some Muslims complain of being denied rights in the first place. It leaves foes of faith-based panels, including some Muslims, crying victory in a debate that shed more heat than light.
While Canadians are a tolerant people, the uproar over introducing Islamic sharia law in divorce, child custody and inheritance exposed a huge fault line in Ontario, where many feared, rightly or not, that religion might trump human rights.
Supporters of voluntary faith-based arbitration complain McGuinty has chosen the expedient option, over the forward-looking, multicultural one.
But whatever one's view, McGuinty deserves credit for opting to treat Christians, Muslims, Jews and other faith communities equitably. It would have been intolerable to permit Christians and others to continue to have faith-based panels, but to deny them to Muslims. It would also probably have been unlawful.
The Star has supported expanding the arbitration rules to include sharia, for two reasons. This newspaper believes the Ontario courts are fully capable of supervising voluntary, faith-based arbitration — providing strong safeguards are in place to protect the rights of women and children of all faiths. The 1991 Arbitration Act requires panels to treat parties "equally and fairly." The Star also felt Muslims should not be denied services open to other faiths.
However, McGuinty failed to persuade passionate opponents, including Muslim women critics, that the government would find a regulatory way to ensure Islamic panels would not favour men's rights over those of women and children. That failure to persuade sealed the panels' fate.
While McGuinty should have been more creative in reconciling Ontario law with the needs of a modern multicultural society, he cannot be faulted for insisting that the law reign supreme in disputes that affect the family, society's bedrock institution. Or that the law must apply equitably to all faiths, even if it means denying them all recourse to an alternative dispute-settlement mechanism.
By affirming these principles, his decision at least salvages something positive from a nasty controversy.
Of course, Ontarians remain free to seek religious advice in family matters, and to settle their differences amicably, within their own cultures.
But when disputes do end up before a judge, it will be Ontario law alone that resolves them, preserving what McGuinty calls "our common ground." That common ground is worth rediscovering, after this fractious debate.
Editorial: McGuinty's sharia call
Premier Dalton McGuinty may have rid himself of a nasty political controversy by deciding to ban faith-based arbitration in Ontario, rather than introduce Islamic traditions into a process already used by Christians, Jews and others. But by signalling his move in a hurried weekend phone call to the Canadian Press news service, without consulting those affected, McGuinty looks more like a firefighter than a crafter of coherent public policy.
This abrupt rollback of Christian and Jewish rights will strike some as unfair, even as some Muslims complain of being denied rights in the first place. It leaves foes of faith-based panels, including some Muslims, crying victory in a debate that shed more heat than light.
While Canadians are a tolerant people, the uproar over introducing Islamic sharia law in divorce, child custody and inheritance exposed a huge fault line in Ontario, where many feared, rightly or not, that religion might trump human rights.
Supporters of voluntary faith-based arbitration complain McGuinty has chosen the expedient option, over the forward-looking, multicultural one.
But whatever one's view, McGuinty deserves credit for opting to treat Christians, Muslims, Jews and other faith communities equitably. It would have been intolerable to permit Christians and others to continue to have faith-based panels, but to deny them to Muslims. It would also probably have been unlawful.
The Star has supported expanding the arbitration rules to include sharia, for two reasons. This newspaper believes the Ontario courts are fully capable of supervising voluntary, faith-based arbitration — providing strong safeguards are in place to protect the rights of women and children of all faiths. The 1991 Arbitration Act requires panels to treat parties "equally and fairly." The Star also felt Muslims should not be denied services open to other faiths.
However, McGuinty failed to persuade passionate opponents, including Muslim women critics, that the government would find a regulatory way to ensure Islamic panels would not favour men's rights over those of women and children. That failure to persuade sealed the panels' fate.
While McGuinty should have been more creative in reconciling Ontario law with the needs of a modern multicultural society, he cannot be faulted for insisting that the law reign supreme in disputes that affect the family, society's bedrock institution. Or that the law must apply equitably to all faiths, even if it means denying them all recourse to an alternative dispute-settlement mechanism.
By affirming these principles, his decision at least salvages something positive from a nasty controversy.
Of course, Ontarians remain free to seek religious advice in family matters, and to settle their differences amicably, within their own cultures.
But when disputes do end up before a judge, it will be Ontario law alone that resolves them, preserving what McGuinty calls "our common ground." That common ground is worth rediscovering, after this fractious debate.
Comments:
<< Home
Sharia law??? Talk about trampling right over muslim womens rights! I'm so glad the liberals vetoed this idea!
BTW, Speaking of the news, did you hear that three army reservists are charged in the brutal beating of a homeless man? That homeless man was a close friend of mine.
Post a Comment
BTW, Speaking of the news, did you hear that three army reservists are charged in the brutal beating of a homeless man? That homeless man was a close friend of mine.
# posted by 
: 11:22 p.m.
: 11:22 p.m.<< Home
