So how about you debate this in impersonal terms, by looking at what Muslims, and Jews who oppose the Batei Din, have to say. I’ve made it easy by providing some links. It’s not about me or my feelings or my bias or my anything, it’s about what a lot of people – reasonable and well educated people who believe there is place for religion in life and in society – think.

You tell us that people are already violating the law even if it’s not government sanctioned and may go against our laws and our cultural institutions. No. They’re not violating the law, because it’s not against the law for people with a dispute to go to a sharia court and have it settled. That’s because sharia tribunals are outside the law.

Like, if you and I decide to play pattycakes to decide a dispute, we’re allowed to do that. If there’s communal pressure for us to play pattycakes to decide a dispute and I hate pattycakes that might suck for me, but I’m not going to want to be alienated from my community — I’m gonna throw down those pattycakes.

Now, if the law steps in and says, okay, anyone who wants to decide a dispute in Super-Duper-Officialized Pattycakes Tribunals has got to pass our no-duress consent test — then, yeah, there’s a net benefit. Which part do you disagree with?

Well, hell, I think I’d like to start a new religion and have my own courts.

Then, cripes, go start your own religion. Right here in Quebec. Under Quebec law. And if you can convince any two of your Québécois adherents to settle disputes between them according to the rules of competitive rock paper scissors then, lo, so it shall come to pass.

Heck, you can even tell any two of your adherents that anyone using the evil secular “court” system instead of the majestic principles of RPS shall be turfed from the religion. And that, too, shall come to pass. No, they’re not going to be able to use RPS against anyone who doesn’t want to use it — but these nutty cult figures only deal with each other, so RPS is good enough for them.

But not in Ontario, O RPS Guru. If you want to get that going there, people are going to wonder why you didn’t get your RPS Courts officially licensed. And when you finally do, the courts are going to be checking whether the both-parties-have-opted-for-RPS-arbitration players are really consenting, or just nervous about being turfed from the religion.

Seems like a good thing, no?

Bob and Doug have a dispute and go to their mutual friend Farley to help settle it. “What’s the capital of Quebec? Why Montreal of course!” says Farley. Bob then pays Doug the $5 he bet him.

Sanjay presented Rubina with an expensive engagement ring and Rubina agreed to marry him. 6 months later Rubina catches Sanjay fooling around with Amira and breaks off the engagement. Sanjay wants his ring back but Rubina says it’s hers to keep. They ask Rajneesh, a priest, who is right. Rajneesh decides that the just thing to do is to give the ring to the local Buddhist temple.

Channah Leah is upset. She goes to the Mikva every month, but her husband Rachmaniel still hardly touches her – they have sex maybe twice a month. Rachmaniel says he’s often too tired from his demanding job as a programmer for a Jewelry Web site. They decide to go to their Rabbi for advice. Rabbi Amsel tells Rachmaniel that he has to have sex with his wife at least 4 times a week and suggests Rachmaniel eat more garlic (like the Sephardim) to help gain strength for the task at hand.

None of these cases of alternative and informal conflict resolution is “a “surreptitious” or “illegal.” That you would erroneously claim that the application of Sharia in similar cases is a violation of Canadian societal values and laws is telling and reflective of your own biases, rather than an accurate summary of the existing law.

Canadian society in fact encourages the use of alternative conflict resolution. As it is our court system is jammed to the gills, with civil cases taking years to resolve and some criminal charges being thrown out because timely justice is impossible. Administrative type tribunals that eschew or discourage the use of lawyers are common, not just in religious settings. In fact, far from being a violation of Canadian law, they are as Canadian as back bacon, hockey and the Hudson’s Bay Company.

You presume that Sharia courts will result in massive injustices. I on the other hand presume nothing but am willing to rely on the over arching legal system to keep an eye on things to assure that justice in fact be done. That’s the sensible thing to do. That is in fact, the Canadian thing to do.

Of course, you can’t debate that point because in your fourth paragraph, you concede it. You tell us that people are already violating the law even if it’s not government sanctioned and may go against our laws and our cultural institutions.

So if I understand what you’re saying, you’re telling us that since there already exists a tacit, underground violation of Canadian laws by surreptitious application of Sharia, we can only confront it and make it better by legalizing it. Now this might be a line you want to use in advocating the sale of marijuana, but we’re talking about taking people’s civil rights and providing official consent to having them taken over by a legal system that may violate the spirit of Canadian law. Why would any sane society do that? Shouldn’t that society enforce its own civil rights and demand that its citizens abide by them?

I mean, if we were living, say, in the Ottoman Empire, and Istanbul only cared about levying taxes, and to promote peaceful subjects encouraged each community to proceed as before, I’d understand what you’re saying. However, Canada is a society that has taken decades to achieve many of the progressive laws that now make it a very open and civil society. At the peak of this openness, and in fear of not being respectful of another culture, it is opening the door for elements of that culture to run parallel to its society’s own achievements.

Well, hell, I think I’d like to start a new religion and have my own courts. No, you can’t deny me that because I have every right to be judged within my own faith. Oh, and don’t worry, we will allow our adherents to opt out and be judged by Canadian law, if they so choose. We just won’t, you know, talk to them too much in the future, and find that all the open spaces in our preschools are suddenly filled, and you know, disallow any social contact with them. But don’t worry, it’s not a bad thing to do to respect our religion, it’s a good thing.

I can’t speak to your last two paragraphs because I don’t have statistics in front of me. I’d love to know who is using the Beit Din and who isn’t. I know Conservative Jews who marry and divorce with a Beit Din. They think it’s not Jewishly authentic otherwise. They may believe they won’t be able to remarry. I don’t know which.

I do know that if the system didn’t exist and wasn’t a substitute to the Canadian courts, many of these people would not go to a beit din. Now you may pooh pooh this, but I will bet you that a rabbi, sanctioned by the state to perform marriages, will not wed a Jewish couple if the wife had been divorced and did not receive a get. I bet this would happen with a Conservative rabbi, as well.

Religion is a funny thing in the way it influences people and lives. Except it’s not funny-ha-ha.

But when they are recognised by law, extra steps are taken to ensure that both parties’ consent for the alternative arbitration was not secured under duress like, say, communal pressure. Those steps aren’t available now. Your next point is that even if they try, both parties have to consent. That’s not my point; it’s the law. If both parties don’t consent, the law is inoperative.

You then argue that communal pressure will come to bear, so the consent will be under duress: Making Sharia laws legitimate and provided for under the auspices of the Canadian legal system will open the door for the potential coercion of wives and daughters who might be faced with the severe disapproval of their community…

Well, the door’s already wide open and people are walking through it daily. Anyone for whom a Sharia court is legitimate is already using one — “official” recognition or not.

Your argument seems to be that in Toronto, Jewish women apply for gets, but in Montreal they don’t bother because there’s no law recognising them as “official”. I think you’re wrong. Or to put it another way: setting legal standards for which sharia courts are licensed will not have the negative effect of greatly increasing the number of people who actually use sharia courts.

That’s because only the very religious are likely to, and most of the very religious already do regardless of what the Ontario (or Quebec) laws are. I have yet to hear any convincing argument that, all things being equal, more people in Toronto use batei din than in Montreal. And I have yet to hear any convincing argument that more people will use sharia courts that governments check up on, than sharia courts that governments don’t.

But I’m willing to be convinced.

So yes, while Rabbinic authorities have been tragically negligent in dealing with agunahs, in Canada, the government has stepped to remedy an uncoscionable situation. I expect the same would happen with Shariah courts should they ever get out of hand. Better the legal scrutiny than none. And remember, we got Irwin Cotler and Rosalie Abella keepin an eye on stuff ….

The answer about the “good of the state” seems to be that its elected representatives and its judiciary which is able to decipher the laws of the state are the people who decide. If the Ontario government decides to go ahead with this proposal, then that is their right. Within the confines of a democratic debate, you can attempt to lobby them to change their minds, or alternatively support a party that opposes this matter.

I believe the greatest fear about Sharia stems from the fact that we know nations that abide by Sharia law (admittedly for all laws, including criminal laws which Ontario would shun), and they do not represent the Canadian civic model. At all. I think another fear is that some of these laws seems to contradict basic Canadian rights, and that it’s difficult to monitor whether people or overtly or covertly compelled to participate within this parallel legal system.

When I think about democracy and law, my goal is always to think about individual rights, but also to prevent allowing individual rights where they may restrict future individual rights or undermine democracy and the social contract of that democracy. It seems that many Muslim voices feel that Sharia being instituted in Ontario could lead down that undesired path. I am not expert enough to say unequivcally that these people are right, but from what I’m reading, it seems that way and the arguments of their opponents who seek to institute Sharia have not been as convincing.

Your final statement in the last post is the most interesting. “The good of the State comes first.” I would tend to agree with that assessment, but it brings up a good question, who gets to decide what is good for the State. You obviously have a different opinion of what is good from the people who are tring to formalize the use of Sharia. For them it is for the good of the State that they be able to ‘legally’ use those religious institutions.

I am not sure what the answer is, but in a world where Muslim Fundamentalism is creating an expanding terrorist base everyday, I am always a little nervous when that is built upon for them.