Faith Based Initiative Stirs Debate!

by Atlantis 1 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Atlantis

  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169959,00.html Faith Based Initiative Stirs Debate

  Tuesday, September 20, 2005 By Wendy Mcelroy

  On Sept. 11, Dalton McGuinty -- the Premier of Ontario -- announced that his province would not become the first Western jurisdiction to allow Islamic law to settle family disputes such as divorce, child custody and property settlements.

  The announcement raises a question: When is it proper for the government to dictate the rules by which adults of sound mind agree to resolve family disputes?

  In the coming months, an uproar will rip through Canadian society and courts. To understand the uproar and how the preceding question is being answered requires background.

  The Ontario Arbitration Act (1991) allows family disputes on civil matters from divorce to inheritance to be resolved through an arbitrator rather than a court, as long as both parties agree. The arbitrated resolutions have the same legal force as court decisions. But the court retains power to reject a resolution that is "invalid" or embodies "unequal or unfair treatment of parties."

  Catholics, Fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Mennonites, and Jehovah's Witnesses are among the religious groups that have established faith-based arbitration as an active alternative to expensive court proceedings.

  But it is not merely a matter of expense. A Hasidic Jew, for example, might have more confidence in the wisdom of a rabbinical judgment than in a secular one. Now, rather than deny that option to one religion, McGuinty is vowing to eliminate faith-based arbitration altogether.

  Cheers!
• 

  Ingenuous

  Boyd countered that arbitration was a private act -- as opposed to one in the governmental or public sphere -- and, so, it was not subject to Charter scrutiny. Arbitration was private because "there is no state compulsion to arbitrate." Moreover, "it is a reflection of the parties' relationship…because the authority of the arbitrator flows directly from the parties agreement to be bound."... As long as a family dispute is being handled peacefully and involves only consenting adults, then everyone else should mind their own business.

  Oh, if only it were that simple! I suppose the author doesn't know how many "consenting adults" bow to the (sometimes unreasonable) pressures imposed by a faith, not to mention the sanctions known only to "insiders" that will be suffered in the name of exercising the "right" to "faith-based arbitration"

  Gender feminist groups rushed to answer the question "when is it proper for the government to dictate the rules of family disputes?" Their answer seemed to be "whenever a woman is involved."

  Their reasoning: Since it is possible for women to be brainwashed or pressured into private negotiations, all negotiations must be conducted according to identical governmental procedure and law

  Is it common to insult women's intelligence in the name of lobbying for preventive legislation? The writer portrays feminists' concerns as if they see themselves protecting women's rights because women are less capable of maintaining their mental integrity and harbor some weaknesses of intelligence (being susceptible to brainwashing and pressure) that men do not have but rarely. Is this an accurate portrayal of "gender feminist groups'" perspective?