Justice Canadian Style II

The New York Times today reported on efforts in Canada to allow Muslims to apply Sharia in disputes over property, inheritance, marriage and divorce. The Times is late in reporting on the establishment of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice in Canada. In “Justice Canadian Style,” responding to an April 28 article in the Washington Post addressing the same subject, I argued that Sharia is the antithesis of civil justice.

The Times report is distinguished from that of the Post by quotations that boggle the mind and reasoning that demands comment. For example, in introducing what would seem to be a Canadian multicultural ideal, the Times wrote, “The late Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau dreamed of a Canada in which distinctive customs and identities could live side by side in harmony. Turning nationalism on its head, there would be no dominant Canadian identity, no melting pot, no official culture.

The Times continued, “H. Donald Forbes, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, said he cannot be sure how Mr. Trudeau would have responded to the idea of Shariah tribunals, “but I think he would go along.” He added that as long as the arbitration is voluntary, Mr. Trudeau would probably have concluded that “this kind of meaningful accommodation was in the spirit of multiculturalism.””

No dominant national identity? Is this not a recipe for balkanization? While common sense does exist in parts of Canada, Daimnation is proof, one can not be faulted for wondering whether Canadian common sense is destined to be overwhelmed by a people disinclined toward self preservation.

The Times did provide evidence that not all Muslims in Canada support the option of Sharia: “…some Canadian Muslim women - who say Muslim law is already applied behind closed doors - say efforts to apply it openly… would represent a dangerous precedent.” The Times quoted Homa Arjomand, an Iranian born counselor for battered women, “Here in Canada, girls are segregated from boys at private Islamic elementary schools, then forced into arranged marriages through Shariah at the age of 13, 14 or 15 to men over twice their age. How much choice do these women have?”

The Times dismissed Arjomand’s concern by noting that, “… the Ontario government has appointed Marion Boyd, a feminist activist and former provincial cabinet member to review the 1991 arbitration law.” The Times then cited an example of coexistence between religious and secular law: “It would not be the first time laws have changed to balance religion and secular rights. A group of Canadian Jewish women pressed the federal government in 1990 to enact a law to help Jewish women seeking a religious divorce against recalcitrant husbands who under Orthodox rules have the upper hand in such cases.”

This might be encouraging if Jewish law compared to Sharia like plowshares compare to plowshares, but the accurate comparison is of plowshares to swords. Jews have history as proof of the Torah's adaptability to host cultures. Islam has no similar record. Instead, Islam and Sharia, invented to authenticate a conquest, demand ascendancy.

The Times quoted Boyd: "How do we honor two commitments, to multiculturalism and equity to the rule of law, that often seem to come into conflict? We have been struggling a bit. There really are conflicting values."

There really are conflicting values? Ms. Boyd just realized this? The Muslim women she is to protect- pressed by their culture into the arms of Sharia- should worry.

Update: Jane at Armies of Liberation also addressed this story today.

Posted by publius at August 4, 2004 11:33 PM