« One chocolate freedom pastry, please! | Main | It's the little things »

September 14, 2005

Arbitrate this

My take on the Sharia vs. the Arbitration Act thing has always been that as long as the conditions don't violate the Charter or the Criminal Code, consenting adults entering into a binding form of arbitration based on religious principles should be no different than me signing a contract with a friend wherein the first person to eat 75 hot dogs wins the other's car. It's insane, sure, but why the hell shouldn't I get my buddy's Sunfire if he keels over on Dog 64? A deal's a deal.

The fact that so many Muslims were against the Ontario government's proposals is a stinging indictment of their religion, of course, because it posits that Muslim women are not consenting adults. But that, it seemed to me, was the problem, not the idea of letting people arbitrate disputes however they see fit. Adding Islam to the faith-based arbitration list was more premature than it was wrong, and I certainly don't understand why deciding Sharia wasn't going to work means that the existing provisions for Jewish and Catholic arbitration, for instance, should be abandoned.

Everyone seems to have it ass-backwards. Here's Homa Arjomand, a leading anti-Sharia campaigner:

I'm so happy. Today is my day. Believe me, [the government's decision] is the first step. The second step is to let the community know about their rights.

Well, no. If the female Muslim community knew its rights and felt comfortable in exercising them, there would be no problem. Multiculturalism should not extend to the total subjugation of women, and if such things are happening in Canada — and it seems reasonable to believe that they are — then it's just as embarrassing to Canada as it is to Islam. Dr Elmasry has no problem admitting it:

"If you recognize arbitration results, you can regulate the process by licensing these Muslim arbitrators," he said. "You can revoke the [arbitrator's] license if his or her [cough –ed.] arbitration seems to be biased against women."

Faith-based arbitration will continue, he said, but on an ad hoc basis and without the rules or standards that would have been imposed with legal recognition and regulation.

That's not a reason to enshrine Sharia in the Arbitration Act by any means. But it is a reason to ensure that immigrants to Canada understand that they have basic rights independent of their religion — and that their religion doesn't overtrump the secular, multiethnic equality we've established in principle for every Canadian. I hope this mess can result in some real progress on that front.

Posted by Chris Selley at September 14, 2005 12:00 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tartcider.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/71

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Arbitrate this:

» Carol Garcia from Edward Martinez
The sweet life stories. [Read More]

Tracked on April 6, 2006 09:39 AM

» Carol Garcia from Edward Martinez
New interesting theme [Read More]

Tracked on April 13, 2006 03:56 AM

» Carol Garcia from Edward Martinez
New fay site [Read More]

Tracked on April 23, 2006 05:34 AM

» Carol Garcia from Edward Martinez
Live sex [Read More]

Tracked on April 26, 2006 12:14 AM

» Carol Garcia from Edward Martinez
Sex on web [Read More]

Tracked on April 26, 2006 04:24 AM

» Carol Garcia from Edward Martinez
Natural gain [Read More]

Tracked on April 27, 2006 01:14 AM

» Carol Garcia from Edward Martinez
Shemale stories [Read More]

Tracked on April 30, 2006 12:04 AM

» california hotel from california hotel
[Read More]

Tracked on April 30, 2006 01:17 AM

» Carol Garcia from Edward Martinez
Soma [Read More]

Tracked on May 4, 2006 04:48 PM

» Carol Garcia from Edward Martinez
Cheap ambien [Read More]

Tracked on May 8, 2006 08:17 AM

» Carol Garcia from Edward Martinez
Buy clonazepam online [Read More]

Tracked on May 10, 2006 06:07 AM

» bentyl from bentyl
[Read More]

Tracked on May 22, 2006 04:21 PM

» Carol Garcia from Edward Martinez
Fat sex [Read More]

Tracked on May 24, 2006 11:46 AM

» Carol Garcia from Edward Martinez
Fat girls [Read More]

Tracked on May 25, 2006 08:36 AM

» Carol Garcia from Edward Martinez
Chart live sex [Read More]

Tracked on June 3, 2006 09:45 PM

Comments

I hesitated before responding to this one, as I suspect that a large part of this issue is much ado about nothing: I imagine that most people don't opt for religious arbitration, and even still, I suspect that those with access to lawyers could easily challenge the results of a biased arbitration with a judicial review, and so the issue is really that many of the woman agreeing to religious arbitration are especially unlikely to avail themselves of these rights. But I doubt that access to full-fledged courts is really going to help these vulnerable people anyway.

And while I agree that everyone should know their fundamental rights, regardless of what their religion says, even if they did, I'd be hesitant to allow for religious arbitration unless we were confident that the religious rules won't conflict with the laws of Ontario and Canada.

Simply, if rights are fundamental, it's hard to see how you could agree to give them up, and even if you did, why the courts and the state should go along with your choice.

In fact Chris' example of the hot dog contest is a good one, although perhaps not in the way originally intended. I'd be surprised if a court would actually enforce your victory if your friend welched on the bet after losing. Not because they don't accept your right to make (stupid) binding contracts. Instead the decision would likely be on technical grounds: e.g. that the contract was considerationless or against public policy given that it was a gamble, etc. Yet these technical grounds are based in the notion that there are very real limitations on the freedom to contract -- some to do with fundamental rights (e.g. you can't agree to make yourself a slave) and others concerning what constitutes binding agreements and informed consent.

It's a little paradoxical that everyone has fundamental rights whether they like them or not. Presumably part of your rights should be to give up rights you don't like. But then the rights wouldn't be fundamental. I actually doubt that Sharia-based arbitration would have violated any fundamental rights, but the activists seemed awfully concerned about exactly that.

Posted by: berkeley at September 14, 2005 09:53 AM

Tarantino's take on this tonight seems compelling, very.
http://letitbleed.blogs.com/blog/2005/09/disarrange_a_ve.html

Posted by: Matt at September 15, 2005 12:38 AM

Bob's commentary at Let It Bleed references (and provides a link to) a site with what he describes as an excellent summary of the issue. I recommend that you take a look - it is a good review, and very worth the time to read it.

Dean

Posted by: DCardno at September 15, 2005 01:30 PM