English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article deals with the 2002–2005 controversy over faith-based arbitration tribunals in Ontario. It seeks to contribute to the existing literature on the question by looking at new empirical sources. The analysis focuses specifically on the public discourse of social actors who opposed the creation of arbitration tribunals for Christians, Jews and Muslims. The majority of those who opposed arbitration tribunals did not formulate their position in terms of an opposition between religion and feminist values. Rather, they focused their arguments on the danger of Islam, which they perceived as an oppressive and alien religion. The controversy over religious arbitration becomes a way to claim a Western, secular and Judeo-Christian Canadian identity. From this perspective, the Ontarian controversy can be likened to European debates on Islam that have emerged over the last decade (e.g. caricatures of Muhammad in Denmark, minarets in Switzerland and the burqa ban in Belgium).

The Controversy over Religious Arbitration Tribunals in Ontario: Unspoken Identity-Based Justifications?