September 12, 2005
LESSER OF TWO EVILS, GREATER OF TWO GOODS
Ontario rejects sharia law (Natalie Alcoba, National Post, September 12th, 2005)
All forms of religious arbitration -- including Islam's sharia law, which was the subject of worldwide protest last week -- will be outlawed in Ontario, the Premier said yesterday.''I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough,'' Dalton McGuinty told The Canadian Press yesterday.
''There will be no sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.''
The government will introduce legislation this fall that prohibits existing religious tribunals, used by Christians and Jews to settle family law matters on a voluntary basis since 1991.[...]
In Montreal, Rabbi Reuben Poupko of the Beth Israel Orthodox Congregation in Cote St. Luc, defended Mr. McGuinty's decision, though he said it saddened him.
''I think the Ontario government felt compelled to throw the baby with the bath water,'' Mr. Poupko said yesterday.
The resolution of this much-misunderstood controversy does not mean separated couples will be prohibited from submitting to religious arbitration, nor to have the results of that arbitration incorporated into a court order on consent. What it will mean is that they cannot be forced to undergo such arbitration by the terms of a marriage contract nor denied access to the courts on the basis that issues have already been adjudicated. This means ultimately that the future of faith-based arbitration or mediation in the Muslim community will hinge on the degree to which it enjoys the general support and respect of separated Muslim women, who are no doubt breathing quiet but huge sighs of relief.
Posted by Peter Burnet at September 12, 2005 6:05 AMI'm happy to see you condemning sharia law.
Here you seem to be saying both that sharia law (as part of the larger cultures) could serve Islamic populations well in the future, AND that it's no big deal if Islamic immigrants to the West want to keep it alive as part of their sub-cultures.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 12, 2005 1:47 PM
Michael:
So you take any objection to the argument that Islam and all who adhere to it are 100% agents of backwardness and oppression that should be crushed and consigned to the trashcan of history as tantamount to endorseing the adoption of sharia in North American family law? Geez, Michael, you're giving the word "nuance" a good name.
Posted by: Peter Burnet at September 12, 2005 2:53 PMFor like the hundredth time Peter, that isn't my position, as I've explained many, MANY times, going back to here.
Claiming over and over that such are my thoughts is a straw-woman that seems to give you great comfort - probably because you cannot answer the questions raised here, and especially here.
I would very much like a response to my last comment at the latter link.
BTW, if you're objecting to the argument that Islam and all who adhere to it are "100% agents of backwardness and oppression that should be crushed and consigned to the trashcan of history", then why would, (in your words), "Muslim women" be "breathing huge sighs of relief" when told that they can legally OPT OUT of Muslim culture ?
Your argument is similar to those that hold up Cuba as a model for the world, conveniently ignoring that all of the boats are headed AWAY from Cuba.
at September 12, 2005 5:06 PM