AAR...No pirates to be seen at Law and Religion

I noted earlier that there were lawyers at AAR as well (to be specific law professors.) Now before anyone makes any lawyers/pirates comparisons please know that many of my friends are lawyers! Scallywags some may be, but thieves and vagabonds they are not. ;-)

The papers in Law, Religion and Culture session considered the Bouchard Taylor Commission, Aboriginal Rights, and Islamic Law in Canada. The first paper and the last caused me the most...well frustration. The Bouchard Taylor commission considered the issue of religious accommodation in Canadian life (how big an issue is the need to accommodate the religious views of minorities in canada.) Lori Beaman was very concerned with the report's suggestion that minorities run too quickly to the courts, and that they should seek to resolve issues of accommodation privately. She felt that minorities are more vulnerable and need the safety of the courts to ensure the rule of law. But do enforced resolutions build community? Do they break down the prejudices or engrain them? Hmmm.

The paper on Islamic Law addressed the issue of arbitration in family matters, but specifically religious arbitration based on religious law. The speaker Sevak Manjiakam was so engaging I forgot to take good notes so I'll work from memory here. He argued that, not surprisingly, minorities are reluctant to go to the courts with religious issues. For much of the world questions of marriage, divorce and family are religious issues. Although anyone can choose to have their dispute settled by an religious arbitrator, that arbitration does not have the force of law. Religious arbitration was used in Ontario by the Catholic and Jewish communities for years prior to requests by Islamic groups for Sharia based arbitration. Ontario banned all religious arbitration in 2005. Mr. Manjiakam eloquently voiced the need for religious arbitration in Canada but to my surprise, challenged the way many in the Muslim community envisioned such arbitration, based solely on Sharia Law, and conducted by local Imams. He argued that there was a substantial tradition of Islamic law, and what was needed were trained legal specialists who understood both Islamic law and arbitration. He made a good case: is, for example, the average Christian church pastor qualified to make legally binding decisions about my marriage and family disputes? Counselling perhaps, depending on the courses they took, but arbitration? No, I don't think so. I also appreciate the concerns of minorities. I heard an excellent paper presented by Pascale Fournier on a similar topic back in May that considered how well meaning judges attempting to be multiculturally sensitive were arriving at very different legal conclusions. So the problem is real and it is growing.

So where now? Secular courts don't work well and private arbitration is not much better. Are we headed to a mosiac of courts based on religions and culture; not just for Muslims, but Catholics, Jews, Buddhists and Athiests. Wiser heads than I need to resolve this one....