|
Dalton McGuinty, the least popular man in Ontario government who still leads an overwhelming majority in the provincial parliament (honestly, half the liberals could go on vacation and they'd still have no problem passing legislation...literally) announced yesterday that Ontario would ban not only Muslim sharia law but all religious legal arbitration. I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand sharia law, like most traditional religious arbitration, is overwhelmingly unfair and discriminatory toward women. On an obvious, surface level it's a no-brainer. But what are the implications? Is it a violation of religious freedom to deny the practice of something which many see as important (not to say fundamental) to their faith? Are we assuming that our legal system is free of religious content? If so, we're fooling ourselves. Like it or not, western law is founded on Christian scripture and by offering only governmental law as a legal option we're pushing a subtle Christian worldview. A metaphor, albeit an exaggerated one, might be helpful. Imagine dietary scientists discovered that meat and cheese were necessary for good health, prompting high school officials to insist on cheeseburgers in all school lunches. What if the local principal forced an Orthodox Jewish kid to eat his cheeseburger, for his own good? Say the kid's 17 years old, old enough by common sense and Jewish custom to make his own choices. Suppose he has chosen to follow Torah dietary law, regardless of those who "know what's best" for him. This actually has a very practical application - Sikh men (usually over 11) wear a small knife called a kirpan as part of their religious tradition. This has made a lot of school boards and principals nervous in our post-Columbine world. There are many Muslim women in Ontario who firmly believe in sharia law - many of them were at Queen's Park, protesting in its favour. None of them feel oppressed by their faith, no matter what it might look like from a liberal western point of view. Saying that these women don't see their oppression because they don't know any better is patronizing and ethnocentric. And if sharia law is banned, does the government then lose (avoid) the opportunity (responsibility) to provide alternate arbitration when one party feels that justice has been miscarried? If sharia law was legal and open it could be regulated and observed. Now it will continue to be practiced in Ontario - it's woven into the cultural fabric of many Muslim households just as rabbinic court decisions are part of some Jewish communities - but it will be done behind closed doors. Will victimized women (and others) have an outlet? My general feeling is still that this is the right decision. Anyone who wants to abide by religious arbitration can always submit to a decision reached in that manner, without reference to the governmental legal system. But I'm not entirely convinced and I do wonder if, in an attempt to keep church and state apart, we're denying (or even attacking) the importance of faith in people's lives. I've been back at school for seven hours now, and I've yet to attend my first class... Explanation - I'm on Chapel Team A (which has nothing to do with ability, but still feels good to say...the A-Team!) and I had volunteered as this morning's cantor. Yeah. Me. Non-singer Aaron, canting a psalm at 8:15am. As luck would have it, the organist is a kindly soul who last year suffered through too much of my squawking. He was ready with a very easy piece...something low and with very few notes. So I came in first thing, and have been sitting about in the Buttery ever since, chatting with fellow Divs. I also ran over to Hart House, the sort of student union for the University of Toronto. They have a pool, and I wanted to check it out. On the way in I discovered that they also have a barber shop on the premises. It looks just like any storefront barber shop on Main St., except it's in the basement of a Victorian college building. Odd. |
