Life's Persistent Questions

Tolerant of intolerance.

Canada abandons plans to introduce sharia law.

Sounds like a no-brainer. It started with a report from the former Ontario Attorney General Boyd that recommanded the introduction of Sharia when it comes to settling family disputes in Canadian courts. Surely many, and I myself included, had pointed to this as another example of non-U.S. "western" democracies' tendency for moral equivalence and the resulting inability to stem the growing militant Islamism by those countries.

However, it appears Mrs. Boyd has us fooled. She argued that sharia should be considered in family courts because these courts already make concessions to Christian and Jewish traditional laws. With the Premier of Ontario rejecting not only the sharia but also those of other two religions, Boyd has forced the hand of the Canadian government to reaffirm the separation of civil legal codes and traditional religious "laws." Yes, I fully expect proponents from the Christian and Jewish sects to argue about the rights of women in their "progressive" religious laws, and to defend against their critics, who would point to examples in the Old and New testaments that denigrate women, by saying such religious laws are "living" laws. But how will that be different from moderate Muslims and their Koran?

I have no idea what the real motivation of Mrs. Boyd's report was. But I am glad that it brought the issue of the role of religious traditions in family courts to the forefront. How many people knew that Christian and Jewish "laws" in the Canadian courts? Is there similar examples in the U.S. courts? And should that be allowed? In hindsight, this is much less to do with government's tolerance for intolerant views, but simply fairness.

posted by hedgehog @ 4:26 PM