Obstensibly, the move came as Muslims wanted to have religious councils to uphold Sharia (Islamic law) in arbitration cases. Until now, Jews, aborigionals, Catholics, Mennonites and other religious groups have been using religious arbitration to settle matters in civil and family cases for decades. All such religious councils are now going to be dismantled.
I’m kind of curious as to why anyone would be opposed to religious arbitration. After all, arbitration is a process that one willingly submits to to settle a dispute instead of going to civil courts. One is not required to go to arbitration. If someone feels that their rights are going to be trampled in arbitration (whether in a religious or any other setting) then one can always reject it and go to the courts.
In my view, all this decision does is take away the rights of groups to observe their religion as they wish. For example, if I borrow money from someone and a dispute arises as to whether or not I paid it back, both my co-disputant and myself may want to have the matter settled according to Torah law - but that option will now no longer be available (if I lived in Ontario, of course).
In short, I don’t see how anyone’s rights are being violated by allowing a religous arbitration process; and I fail to see why this is a good thing.
In plenty of religions, whether it is denied by their adherents or not, women have second-class status. To dismiss that or to say that any woman mistreated by any faith-based process need only call on the law of the land ignores the worse plight they could find themselves in for doing so. Faith-based arbitration belongs in the ash heap of history.
But if that’s the case, then she doesn’t have to submit to arbitration. That’s the beauty of arbitration - it’s purely voluntary. If a woman feels like her rights are going to be violated by a religious council of any kind, then she’s not under any obligation to go to one.
In a perfect world she wouldn’t need arbitration of any sort. But saying she wouldn’t be under any pressure (more ikely the threat of personal harm) is ignoring reality. The reason for women’s shelters isn’t because of mere pressure.
Are you making the assertion that the only reason people submit to arbitration is because they might be threatened with physical harm if they don’t? That’s quite a stretch…
Yes, it is a stretch. There’s also the possibility of intense cultural expectations inside religious subcommunities.
I think Dalton made the right call here. Sure, in a perfect world people should be allowed to settle their differences any way they both agree to, as long as nobody gets hurt.
But Ontario, alas, is not located in a perfect world.
The argument against it, when you get right down to it, is that Muslims are savages.
Not that I agree with this, but let’s be honest; Ontario has allowed Jews, Catholics et al. to do this for two decades. Nobody complained when it was mostly white folks exercising their right to decide disputes as they saw fit. Nobody demonstrated against people using the Bible or the Talmud in arbitration. It’s only now that Muslims want the same thing that anyone objects. Surely it’s not a coincidence that people are suddenly up in arms over faith-based arbitration now that the brown folks want it too?
McGuinty has made the second-worst decision possible here (the worst would have been disallowing Sharia arbitration but continuining to allow Catholic and Jewish law to be used in arbitration, a decision any court in the land would have declared unconstitutional.) Canada is a free country; two adults should be allowed to submit to an arbitrator using absolutely any standard of decision they like. My wife and I should be allowed to have our differences settled by the law of the Klingon Empire if that’s what we both freely want.
If people are concerned about Muslim women not knowing their rights, then maybe the solution is better civic education for immigrants, or having checks and balances in terms of ensuring people who submit to arbitration know their rights. Taking away people’s freedom of choice and association is idiotic.
As far as I can tell, the proposed repeal of the 1992 Act would not forbid you and another disputant from privately settling a dispute by appeal to a religious authority under Jewish law. It would simply mean that the dispute resolution would not be supervised or regulated by the Ontario government or its courts.
Personally, this strikes me as a good thing (although IANACanadian). People should be free to follow whatever private religious practices they wish, including submitting their private disputes to the judgement of a religious leader. But I see no compelling reason for the government to get mixed up in that.
It might admittedly be convenient to have this juridical hybrid of religious arbitration—the mores of a religious community, applied with the force of law—to reduce the burden on the civil courts. But I think that’s a convenience that it’s worth sacrificing in order to keep government and religious codes separate.
How did folks in Ontario handle their disputes before religious arbitration was established a mere thirteen years ago in 1992, anyway?
I’ve always thought that arbitration, religious or otherwise, was a good thing. Decreases the burden on the courts (saving taxpayer money), resolves disputes in a less adversarial fashion. Win-win. To my knowledge no one has ever had any problems whatsoever with religious arbitration until the possibility of Muslem religious arbitration was raised.
I recognize that there is a real, significant concern regarding the consent of social unequals to the process, but McGuinty’s response seems to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater to me. If people are being unduly pressured into “consenting” to religious arbitration, let’s build in some safeguards to protect against that. No need to ditch the entire system, which has more upsides than downsides so far as I can see.
In any society that professes freedom of worship, “worship” should entail everything from religious schooling to the use of religious courts by its religious membership in arbitration, as long as volunteering to do so isn’t coerced.
I suspect such arbitration will continue to go on in defiance of the law.
I also suspect Sharia law in Ontario will also occur underground in defiance of the law.
We are discussing faith-based arbitration in Ontario, not a process that has the backing of law. To assert that faith-based arbitration regarding a dispute between a man and a woman is fair in a land where it is the law is the stretch. Secular law was bad enough well into the 20th century (and many would say it still is)
Again, is there any reason to think that private settlement of religious disputes by religious authorities is somehow being outlawed by this decision? If a minister sits down with a couple of neighbors in his congregation to help settle their quarrel about whose leaves got blown into the other person’s yard, are the cops really going to come after him for illegal arbitration?
AFAICT, all this decision means is that the government will refuse to legally regulate or recognize such actions of religious authorities by accepting them as official tribunal in an official arbitration agreement.
Can we get a lawyer in here to rule on this? A Canadian one if possible?
"In a telephone interview with the national news agency, McGuinty announced his government would move quickly to outlaw existing religious tribunals used for years by Christians and Jews under Ontario’s Arbitration Act.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough,” he said.
**“There will be no Sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.” ** "
Yeah, Askia, I read that too. But AFAICT from the actual text of the Arbitration Act to which I linked above, this refers to governmental recognition of religious tribunals as part of an official governmentally regulated arbitration agreement.
I see no reason why a secular government should be required to accept religious authorities as official arbitrators in a legal arbitration process. Nor do I see how the government’s refusal to do so in any way interferes with the right to submit one’s disputes privately to judgement by religious leaders. It just means that the government won’t legally recognize or enforce the outcome of the judgement, as it would with an ordinary civil arbitration process.
Of course, that’s nothing about private arbitration. The sort of arbitration under discussion is court-recognized and court-enforced arbitration. People are still free to engage in completely private arbitration of any sort. zev and his neighbour could sit down with a rabbi and settle an issue. But if either were dissatisfied with the outcome, they could still file suit in the courts. If they’d used the legally-recognized arbitration process we’re talking about, once that case is resolved, it’s a done deal in the eyes of the courts.
In other words: The Ontario government is not interfering with your right to worship as you see fit, including your right to ask your religious leader(s) to tell you what to do in case of a dispute with a fellow-believer.
All the Ontario government is saying is that it will no longer accept religious leaders as officially recognized tribunals in officially recognized arbitrations whose decisions are legally enforced by Ontario courts.
[Preview: Or in yet other words, what Gorsnak said.]
I think it’s just fine if two private citizens want to submit their disputes to their religious leader(s) to be resolved by religious codes. I don’t see why the taxpayers should pay for giving this process the force of law by recognizing it in the context of court-enforced arbitration.
You have to admit, McGuinty’s own words makes it sound as if he wants religious arbitration to be outlawed, period. If he wants to just outlaw the government’s oversight of the arbitration process I’m kinda scratching my head.
I see no reason why a secular government shouldn’t accept religious authorities as arbitrators in a legal arbitration process if all parties are of the same religion and desire a solution in keeping with their religious laws, if only to make sure any decisions shouldn’t ultimately involve secular authorities as well.
There is the possibility that it’s a setup, allowing McGuinty to kill all the faith-based provisions: Sharia-law arbitration was conveniently put forward in a private member’s bill by an NDP member of the legislature, not by an Official Opposition member, or horrors, a Liberal. McGuinty allows the thing to gain steam — publicity, controversy and loud opposition. But the only way to end the dispute fairly is to not allow Sharia-law arbitration and to kill all the others. Mission accomplished.