Multiculturalism versus rights
Sharia decision struck right balance, says Andrew Cardozo
Premier Dalton McGuinty was right when he announced Ontario would remain a sharia- free zone. And June Callwood was right when she said sharia law “ ought to be outside the limit of respecting multiculturalism.”
Multiculturalism, like any other policy or ethos, has its limits, and there is nothing new about that. We crossed that bridge years ago when we outlawed female genital mutilation, which some religious and cultural groups claimed they had a right to practise because it was in keeping with their traditions. We said No for many obvious reasons.
Every so often an issue comes along that challenges us as a society to grapple with competing rights. Sometimes we can accommodate these rights and other times we cannot.
This was not an easy decision to make nor will it be unanimously popular, but it is good for Ontario and good for maintaining a harmonious society where the rights of some women will not be neglected. It is a victory for balanced multiculturalism. A large number of Muslim women and men articulated their strong belief that sharia law puts women in an unequal position by giving men the upper hand in cases of marriage breakdown by denying women basic equality. Defenders of sharia said two things: First that this was not true, and second that adhering to sharia tribunals would be voluntary. On the first count there will always be debate, but increasingly, even sharia proponents conceded there may well be many instances when women would be dealt an uneven hand and find themselves subservient. So sharia supporters increasingly focused on the second issue, its voluntary nature. They said sharia arbitration would be voluntary for women, that they would have a choice whether to seek a settlement through the provincial courts or through a sharia court. Maybe so in theory, said the detractors, but definitely not in practice, and this was the nub of the question. This was where politicians needed to listen closely.
For a Muslim family that faced marriage breakdown, there would have been enormous and unrelenting pressure brought to bear on the woman to make the choice for sharia. In families where sharia was the preference, to deny that route would be to deny Islam, hence making the woman unsuitable to be a mother.
Sadly, such pressure would not come only from the men in the husband’s family, but could just as well come from women, including the woman’s own female relatives.
For proponents to say woman would have had a choice can only be seen as extremely naive, or worse, duplicitous. Women who had fled theocracies like Iran were begging and pleading for an understanding that there would be no such thing as “ optional.” They would have no real- life option to deny the sharia route. The Canadian Council of Muslim Women and the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women made that very clear.
Proponents said these women should spend less time protesting and instead focus on helping to ensure that women could realize their options. Hello! We would now need increased services, voluntary and otherwise, to protect women from something they don’t need protection from now. Isn’t that a clue sharia is a problem? The proponents also said that if religious law was allowed for other religions, namely Christians and Jews, then it must be allowed for Muslims. I would argue that is not necessarily so — it’s the offending practice that is the issue, not the group that espouses it. But McGuinty has taken away that argument because he is going to remove religious arbitration for all groups — better so if we want to keep from having different legal systems for different groups. After all, this alternate arbitration option was put in place by the province in an effort to save money. Surely saving money should come second to rights.
In recent months we were told that some proponents of sharia had become politically active in certain key ridings in Ontario. Now, if the Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats stand up together for women’s equality, these proponents will be neutralized.
Multiculturalism is about respecting religious and cultural rights, but we do this ideal no favours if we don’t exercise our judgment sometimes and say No to practices that are almost certain to lead to inequality. Women’s rights are not optional. The Charter does not give governments that right. Andrew Cardozo is an Ottawa-based public-policy analyst and long-time proponent of multiculturalism and equality rights.