| Un-Canadian, eh? During the campaign to stop Ontario from establishing Sharia tribunals in Canada's most populous province, the Quebec National Assembly passed a resolution sponsored by a Muslim MNA (Member of National Assembly) Fatima Houda-Pepin, that rejected the introduction of Sharia law into the legal system of the province of Québec and reasserted that all citizens of the province were equal before the law and asks the Canadian Parliament to do the same. Canada' self-proclaimed national newspaper The Globe and Mail, in a editorial called the action of the Québec National Assembly “un-Canadian.” If asserting that all citizens are equal before the law is un-Canadian, then doing the un-Canadian thing is the right thing to do? What the introduction of Sharia tribunal will do is diminish respect for the rule of law by making the rule of law selective in its application? How can that be a good thing. Michael Ignatieff wrote in The Lesser Evil that people are more inclined to obey the law if they feel that it accords them “equal respect and equal consideration.” What happens when the amount of justice and consideration a person can expect from the judiciary becomes a function of his or her religious beliefs? How is it a good thing to establish a parallel legal system that will compel a significant number of the province's female citizens to seek morally binding decisions from a medieval-like court system where male clerics sit as judge, jury and executioner. Bernard Payeur
|
