By Melodie Caruso
A recent proclamation by Pope Benedict XVI adds a new layer to the complex dialogue of church and state separation or convergence.
The Pope caused a commotion by threatening to deny communion to politicians who pass laws against Roman Catholic doctrine. Imagine a nation’s leader banned from receiving a sacrament because of upholding minority rights.
While Prime Minister Paul Martin stood firm on his government’s decision to support same-sex marriage, the Vatican’s meddling highlights the need to keep matters of faith distinct from the affairs of the state.
The division is necessary now, more than ever. If church and state were one, citizens may not have certain rights they hold now, including the right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press. Succinctly, religious dogma would challenge the fundamentals of democracy.
The Canadian Constitution, which enshrines the human rights of all citizens, is being twisted to undermine the principles it is supposed to uphold. The Constitution declares each individual has the right to religious freedom. This allows one to practise any faith they believe in without state interference. But what about religious interference as some fundamentalists support religion-based legal tribunals that try to dictate public policy?
A threat to the Canadian secular state came to fruition in October of 2003 as Islamic leaders attempted to introduce Shariah law in Ontario. The proposedcourt would handle complaints and disputes between Muslims, but would respect the precedence of Canadian civil law.
Both parties would have to consent to the ruling given by Shariah courts in order to make the decision legally binding. However logical this sounds, the threat made by some Islamic leaders that Muslims who do not follow this law would be considered “non-Muslims” infringes on freedom of conscience and religion.
An organizer of the International Campaign Against Shariah Law, Homa Arjomand,says Canada became a testing ground for the Shariah movement. Islamic leaders saw an opportunity to infiltrate because of the country’s growing number of Muslims and a provincial act that created the possibility for an arbitration court to set up lawfully.
“Canadian multiculturalism gave them the ability to organize under the name of freedom of expression,” Arjomand says. “The 1991 Arbitration Act gave them the room to penetrate.”
Immediately after Shariah was introduced, a fear arose. Politicians and citizens became aware that the lack of adherence to universal human rights demonstrated by Shariah courts elsewhere in the world could occur in Canada, in essence destabilizing the Canadian justice system.
This Sept.11, Premier Dalton McGuinty ended the debate about Shariah in Ontario. The provincial government would no longer allow religious arbitration courts. What many people may not realize is that the ruling also extended to other arbitration courts already in existence.
Little debate has occurred about Jewish or Catholic tribunals that have practised family law since 1991. Essentially these courts work in the same manner as the proposed Shariah courts, where both parties must consent to the ruling for it to be recognized in civil law.
These examples question how politicians allowed the system to evolve in this direction, moreover, how do they plan to get it back on course?
Sentencing circles have allowed indigenous people to settle their own disputes within Canada for years. The practice began in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Yukon, eventually making its way to the United States.It developed to strengthen Canada’s native people by lawfully blending the formal justice system and community cultural practices.
Justin Trottier of the Secular Alliance, based out of the University of Toronto, explains how the Canadian political and law system have been “balkanized.” He explains that the attempt to accommodate various beliefs and traditions has simultaneously deteriorated the fabric of the country.
“Most Canadians identify and protest against multi-tier systems like health care,” Trottier says. A two-tier health system would go against what the majority of Canadians believe. He explains that Canadians, to protect and preserve their national identity, need to purview the law and political landscape through the same lenses. “We need one strong state, one-tier system,” says Trottier.
Chris Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International, wrote in a letter to Ontario Attorney-General Michael Bryant, “Parallel alternative legal mechanisms may in some context help strengthen and protect fundamental human rights of particular sectors of society.
Specifically Neve was speaking of sentencing circles in indigenous communities. But Neve also acknowledges that, “Muslim, Jewish, and Christian legal codes applied under the 1991 Arbitration Act cannot ensure non-discriminatory treatment.”
This presents a potential problem for policymakers; how does one embrace diversity while rejecting tolerance of other cultural practices?
As the government prepares to open immigration laws further, cultural diversity will only increase. However, it is the responsibility of each immigrating individual to adopt the set of beliefs and values of their new home. Canada cannot be a testing ground for actions and ideology that put in jeopardy fundamental rights of all people, even if those people are a minority.
The ruling by McGuinty did not end the issue of religious arbitration in Canada. Instead, a very real head-on collision between religious and secular, church and state is approaching.
Ensuring the Canadian system remains free of religious influence is a complex task made murky by inconsistent laws. Citizens need to defend Canada and legislators who promote and protect the secular state.
Some sacrifices on cultural freedoms must be made, but they are necessary for the greater good.