Stop the anti-Sharia hysteria

The Quebec government’s actions have generated widespread support from the right and even sections of the left. But the various arguments represent either racist hysteria or misplaced concerns. For progressives, the key is defending the oppressed, opposing the state, and understanding the contradictions of religion.

From the right, the justification for the ban is based on plain hysteria. Quebec Liberal Fatima Houda-Pepin, who proposed the private member’s resolution, stated: "Demanding the implementation of the sharia in Canada is tantamount to a takeover attempt aimed at undermining our democracy, our system of justice".

This is simply not true. As Boyd wrote in her report, "arbitration is not a parallel system, but a method of alternative dispute resolution that is subject to judicial oversight, and is thus subordinate to the court system". Furthermore, there is nothing new about this. The Ontario Arbitration Act was passed in 1991. As Boyd explained, "The mistaken belief that the government had recently made changes to the law on arbitrations was widely disseminated … Hassidic Jews, Catholics and Ismailis have used their religious doctrine to settle disputes for a decade without a hue and cry about threats to the secular state".

As Salam El Menyawi, president of the Muslim Council of Montreal, stated in response to the recent ban: "Taking such action is tantamount to religious bigotry and discrimination against a religious minority. Muslims are being excluded from rights other religions have."

The ban has to be seen in the context of Islamophobia, which has exploded since September 11, 2001. Muslims have been demonized in the media, faced hate crimes by individuals, and been subject to state-sanctioned repression.

In France, the government banned Muslim girls from attending school if they wore the hijab, and widespread support for this law is similar to what we now see over Sharia. Abstract calls for secularism mask the undertones of racism and sexism that see Islam as uniquely reactionary, or Muslim women as uniquely passive victims in need of imposed liberation.

When the western press uses the term "Sharia", it always does so by conjuring up the most reactionary uses of the term. But "Sharia" like any religious term, is extremely vague and can signify different things to different people. When we say "Catholicism" we could be referring to the Catholic liberation theology of the 1970s and 1980s, or the Catholic bigots who demonstrated this month in Toronto against same-sex marriage.

Part of this stems from many on the left not being able to explain the widespread appeal of religion, and why a section of the Muslim community might want third-party arbitration. In propagating the dominant ideas, all religions have reactionary, coercive, and sexist components to them. But this is only one aspect. As Boyd wrote:

"Many of the Muslims who responded to the Review talked about how severely stressed their community has been since the terrorism attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent incidents that have arisen from security measures taken by the Canadian government. ... This fear of discrimination in the mainstream society may make private arbitration under Muslim law seem more attractive and safer, especially to younger people seeking to establish their identity as a minority within a larger community that is seen as hostile."

This is not a question of promoting third-party arbitration for Muslims but of understanding why some choose it, and of defending their right to do so against the racism of the state. This means also engaging in debates with the left.

Tarek Fatah, of the Canadian Muslim Congress, has warned that Sharia law will create "an under-class of underprivileged people who can go into their ghettos and deal with issues and not bother them." The criticism is that the Ontario Arbitration Act was originally passed to allow courts to deal with their lack of resources by offloading their responsibilities onto local communities.

It is important to demand more funding and access for legal services, especially for vulnerable sections of the population. But this means placing the blame on neo-liberal cutbacks, not religion.

Similarly, when Catholic hospitals refuse to perform abortions (and there has been no outcry over this intrusion of religion into society), the solution is not to campaign against Catholicism but to demand that the government fund and provide accessible abortion on demand.

Fatah is also concerned that allowing third-party arbitration with Sharia law will bolster repressive governments, writing that it would be a "Christmas gift to the Mullahs of Iran and Saudi Arabia who will be rejoicing this decision and using it to validate their own oppressive governments."

But we cannot equate religious minorities in Canada with theocracies elsewhere, and we don’t challenge the latter by campaigning against the former. Israel cites scripture to justify its ruthless treatment of the Palestinians, but this is not equated with or bolstered by individuals in Canada who use the Rabbinical courts of Beth Din. And we do not challenge Israel by banning third-party arbitration for Jews in Canada.

Many regimes are oppressive, but the way to help their citizens is through a mass movement against our common enemy of imperialism. When millions marched against the war on February 15, 2003, this sent a strong message of solidarity to those resisting their local regimes. Building a broad and inclusive anti-war movement is the best way of undermining the arguments of these regimes.

This starts with challenging our own governments. If we are concerned about elements that are "undermining our democracy, our system of justice" as the Liberals claim, then we can start with banning security certificates — which are being used to detain Muslims indefinitely, without charge, evidence, or trial.

Imperialism has whipped up racist hysteria to justify wars abroad and weaken progressive movements at home. When a large section of the left in France supported the ban on the hijab — thereby legitimizing state persecution of the most oppressed section of French society — this undermined the movement against neoliberalism, and created barriers to building a united, multiracial anti-war movement.

Now in Quebec, Charest’s Liberals, weakened by a successful student strike and bracing for possible confrontation with workers, are looking for an issue that can diffuse the anger that is building against neo-liberalism. We need a united movement against racism, neo-liberalism and war. This starts with solidarity with those most under attack.