Promoting the Everyday: Pro-Sharia Advocacy and Public Relations in Ontario, Canada’s “Sharia Debate”

Abstract

Why, in the midst of public debates related to religion, are unrepresentative orthodox perspectives often positioned as illustrative of a religious tradition? How can more representative voices be encouraged? Political theorist Anne Phillips (2007) suggests that facilitating multi-voiced individual engagements effectively dismantles the monopolies of the most conservative that tend to privilege maleness. In this paper, with reference to the 2003-2005 faith-based arbitration debate in Ontario, Canada, I show how, in practice, Phillips' approach is unwieldy and does not work well in a sound-bite-necessitating culture. Instead, I argue that the "Sharia Debate" served as a catalyst for mainstream conservative Muslim groups in Ontario to develop public relations apparatuses that better facilitate the perspectives of everyday religious conservatives in the public sphere.

Rethinking Canadian Discourses of “Reasonable Accommodation”

“…Stories grounded in everyday experiences like Alam's could have better informed their initial decision. In a common reflex by secular boards evaluating religious requests, the board consulted a small number of imams, a move that tends to privilege gatekeepers in gendered and class-blind ways (Phillips, 2007;Selby, 2013). When the school board meetings became a mediatized event, the board attempted to redress the situation by listening to students.…”

“Muslimness” and multiplicity in qualitative research and in government reports in Canada

“…In some ways, this tendency is understandable: more traditionalist forms are often less ambiguous and have greater media pull. In seeking to locate stable theological positions—and not more fragile everyday complexities—media outlets and government officials might be more likely to accentuate more facile and monolithic religiously conservative positions that tend to focus on gatekeepers and emphasize maleness (see Meetoo and Mirza, 2007; Phillips, 2007:161; Selby, 2013: 424). Reposing the “Muslim Question” in this instance would accord greater energies to considering and critiquing the apparatuses that enable the creation of this knowledge, whether governmental commissions or interview schedules.…”

“…20 Of course, there are a greater number of anti-FBA groups represented in Boyd's Report. Altogether, eighty-seven groups came together to oppose the IICJ's announcement (Weinrib, 2008: 257), whereas only nine organizations espoused FBA publicly, several with qualified support (for more on this imbalance see Selby, 2013: 428).…”