Test Of Faith
“There will be one law for all Ontarians."
It’s a simple declarative statement that came as a shock to some, a relief to others and brings to an end a long standing debate across the province.
Premier Dalton McGuinty has decided not to allow any religious body to have a say in settling legal questions here.
The decision comes after major protests were held at Queen’s Park last week against Shariah law, a tradition of ending disputes in the Muslim community.
Advocates note the centuries old practice is a fundamental part of their faith. But opponents contend it merely isolates and discriminates against women and can’t play any part in deciding legal matters in Ontario.
In the end, McGuinty appears to have agreed, announcing his surprise decision on the weekend.
"I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough," he maintains. “There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians."
He notes anyone can still consult a religious leader on questions they may have, but once the government passes new legislation this fall, their decisions won’t be legally binding.
"Ontarians will always have the right to seek advice from anyone in matters of family law, including religious advice," he concludes. "But no longer will religious arbitration be deciding matters of family law."
But it’s not just the Muslim community that will be affected. Both Orthodox Jews and some branches of Christianity use their own set of religious laws to settle differences.
Under Ontario's Arbitration Act, which has been in effect since 1992, civil disputes ranging from custody and support to divorce and inheritance, can be resolved without court involvement using an independent arbitrator, provided both parties agree.
That will change when the government returns.
The groups involved all expressed astonishment at the speed of the decision and feel they weren’t properly consulted.
"We're stunned," admits Joel Richler of the Canadian Jewish Congress. "At the very least, we would have thought the government would have consulted with us before taking away what we've had for so many years."
But Homa Arjomand, the activist who organized a series of Canada-wide protests on the issue last week, was overjoyed with the outcome.
"I think our voice got heard loud and clear, and I thank the government for coming out with no faith-based arbitrations," she exults. "I am so happy. That was the best news I have ever heard for the past five years."
She claims women were forced to go along with the rules, or face a virtual shunning in their own community, which would leave them with few options and forever isolated from their families.
But proponents insist that's not true, since women would have to agree to the arbitration before it would be in force.
September 12, 2005
There will be no Shariah law in Ontario
A blow to all religions
Calgary Herald
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
If significant numbers of Jews and Christians condoned stoning adulteresses, enforcing dress in head-to-toe burkas, and treating women as second-class citizens, then the Canadian public would be equally opposed to their arbitration tribunals as they are to sharia courts.
This distinction appears to have been lost on Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who Sunday announced a sweeping decision to forbid all religious arbitration in his province.
After months of indecision, McGuinty finally realized Ontario ought not to become the first western jurisdiction to validate Islamic law as a method of settling family disputes. The fact that several Muslim organizations were opposed to the idea, including the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, shows that many Muslims did not have faith these tribunals would deliver fair outcomes.
However, there was no reason for McGuinty to throw out rabbinical courts and Christian mediation with the sharia bath water.
Other religious groups have used the mechanisms in Ontario's Arbitration Act to enforce voluntarily negotiated private settlements without incident. The independent tribunals provide a process that is sensitive to the religious faith of the participants and allows them to avoid the often onerous expense of court.
They also enjoy widespread support, primarily because they are genuinely voluntary: Unlike sharia, there is little concern that vulnerable women will be coerced to engage in a process that's contrary to their interests.
McGuinty should have said that sharia tribunal decisions alone would not have the force of law. Mediation would still be allowed, but sharia settlements would only be binding after the parties appeared before a secular tribunal or court.
Instead, McGuinty's intention to prohibit all religious dispute resolution could have far-reaching consequences. Will there be criminal sanction for anyone who participates in a religious tribunal? Will rabbis and priests go to jail for granting religious divorces? Will Catholics have to go out-of-province for annulments? It's not clear.
"You don't take away existing rights in one community to answer concerns in another," says Anita Bromberg, legal counsel with B'Nai Brith. If this is what the premier has in mind, he risks trampling religious freedom -- and is likely to face a court challenge of his own.
© The Calgary Herald 2005
Calgary Herald
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
If significant numbers of Jews and Christians condoned stoning adulteresses, enforcing dress in head-to-toe burkas, and treating women as second-class citizens, then the Canadian public would be equally opposed to their arbitration tribunals as they are to sharia courts.
This distinction appears to have been lost on Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who Sunday announced a sweeping decision to forbid all religious arbitration in his province.
After months of indecision, McGuinty finally realized Ontario ought not to become the first western jurisdiction to validate Islamic law as a method of settling family disputes. The fact that several Muslim organizations were opposed to the idea, including the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, shows that many Muslims did not have faith these tribunals would deliver fair outcomes.
However, there was no reason for McGuinty to throw out rabbinical courts and Christian mediation with the sharia bath water.
Other religious groups have used the mechanisms in Ontario's Arbitration Act to enforce voluntarily negotiated private settlements without incident. The independent tribunals provide a process that is sensitive to the religious faith of the participants and allows them to avoid the often onerous expense of court.
They also enjoy widespread support, primarily because they are genuinely voluntary: Unlike sharia, there is little concern that vulnerable women will be coerced to engage in a process that's contrary to their interests.
McGuinty should have said that sharia tribunal decisions alone would not have the force of law. Mediation would still be allowed, but sharia settlements would only be binding after the parties appeared before a secular tribunal or court.
Instead, McGuinty's intention to prohibit all religious dispute resolution could have far-reaching consequences. Will there be criminal sanction for anyone who participates in a religious tribunal? Will rabbis and priests go to jail for granting religious divorces? Will Catholics have to go out-of-province for annulments? It's not clear.
"You don't take away existing rights in one community to answer concerns in another," says Anita Bromberg, legal counsel with B'Nai Brith. If this is what the premier has in mind, he risks trampling religious freedom -- and is likely to face a court challenge of his own.
© The Calgary Herald 2005