Late Sunday afternoon the long-debated issue of Sharia’s place within provincial law was put to rest by Premier Dalton McGuinty. After many harsh accusations from both supporting and dissenting camps, McGuinty triumphantly declared that, “There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.” Which is about as triumphant a declaration as one can make over the telephone on a Sunday afternoon.
McGuinty’s decision has been lauded as an affirmation of the separation of religion and state so integral to the official Canadian identity as reflected in law. Indeed, we live in a country which values equality and fairness, as entrenched in Trudeau’s Charter. The abolition of faith-based arbitration is seen as confirmation that secularism and justice will prevail in multicultural Ontario.
But if Marshall McLuhan were still around to comment, you can bet he wouldn’t have been too impressed with McGuinty’s presentation. Demonstrating yet again his apperent lack of political sense or dramatic flair, the Premier resolved this heated issue over the telephone with the Canadian Press, without approval from his cabinet. Although his cavalier declaration has separated faith from law in our province-a necessary move, to be sure-it is telling that he made the statement unofficially, on the phone, on the Sunday afternoon of September 11th. Many journalists have commented that this was a clumsy way of putting an end to an important debate, but there is more to it than that.
The gravity of the decision is first undermined by the unofficial manner in which it was announced. In light of the heated debate over faith-based arbitration sparked by the proposed expansion of Sharia’s use, McGuinty’s knee-jerk response fails to bestow the deserved significance on the decision. Tensions mounted in the community this past week, with protests at Queen’s Park, Parliament Hill, and London’s Canadian High Commission. On Saturday, a coalition of female Canadian celebrities attacked McGuinty’s tacit approval of Sharia. And when Margaret Atwood gets on your case, you’re likely to get a move on. The issue was set to go to cabinet on September 21. Instead, it was resolved personally, without cabinet involvement.
Further, this declaration is undermined by the controversial date of announcement. There is presumably no direct correlation between the legacy of 9/11 and McGuinty’s decision. Still, the fact that all religious arbitration has been banned as a direct result of the potential expansion of Islamic law brings the question of religious tolerance (or rather, intolerance) to light. Responding to the Sharia debate on a Sunday-the Christian holy day-and on a date that recalls the anti-Islamic sentiment that followed 9/11, suggests that the decision was not entirely faith-free.
The ill-executed nature of McGuinty’s move to take faith-based arbitration out of provincial law prevents the definitive affirmation of the values embodied by the decision. The credibility of this crucial decision was sadly undermined by the clumsiness of his response to a key issue on a politically and religiously charged day. Cabinet protocol was created for a reason: to ensure official and credible functioning of government. By forsaking the process, McGuinty has not given this important issue the respect it deserves.
