Some alternatives more worthy than others

By Paul Schratz

Who knew Shariah was so threatening?

Then again, anything about religion these days seems to threaten some people, which is why it’s often the only “special interest” that must be deliberately restricted from public view.

The most outrageous viewpoints can be expressed and the most audacious privileges can be demanded, as long as they benefit approved groups. Only when it comes to religion does the shibboleth “one law for all Canadians” become society’s guiding principle.

Mulling over the implications of the Ontario government’s decision to ban faith-based arbitration under Ontario’s Arbitration Act, one is left with the disconcerting conclusion that the only reason the government rejected it is that it’s religious based.

In that sense, there are similarities with the recent decision by the B.C. government to require that a Jehovah’s Witness undergo a blood transfusion that was against her religious beliefs. One suspects that had she based her decision on any other rationale, the government wouldn’t have cared. Let someone make a decision based on religious views, however, and suddenly it’s a concern.

It remains to be seen whether Ontario’s decision will have implications for other faiths and other provinces, but governments need to take a deep breath and remind themselves that religious practitioners are not the enemy. We are citizens, and in fact we comprise the majority.

For the government to put its foot down on Shariah, and then to further rein in religious arbitration by other faiths, smacks of paranoia, akin to France’s heavy-handed banning of religious symbols in French schools. Faith-based arbitration has worked fine in the Jewish community for years, and there’s no reason why Muslims couldn’t use it successfully.

There’s no question that there were some legitimate concerns about how Shariah would be implemented. Certainly it would have to comply with Canadian legal standards. Yet governments have been perfectly capable of finding ways to adapt law to accommodate other forms of alternative resolution methods, such as native sentencing circles.

Alternative dispute resolution abounds across Canada, and includes mediation and arbitration of all sorts, tribunals, ombudsmen, restorative justice programs, community justice forums, native healing and sentencing circles, victim/offender reconciliation programs, diversion programs, and the list goes on.

All of them deviate somewhat from standard legal mechanisms, all contain a certain element of risk, and yet all manage to operate under “one law for all Canadians.”

What’s more, Shariah would have been voluntary, with recourse to the traditional justice system available if necessary.

However, as one opponent of faith tribunals put it, “We need a secular state and secular society that respects human rights and that is founded on the principle that power belongs to the people and not a God.”

That about sums it up.