Religious Arbitration in Canada: Protecting Women by Protecting Them from Religion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historiquement, la relation entre le feminisme et la religion a ete lourde de tension. Les feministes ont, avec justesse, critique les approches patriarcales de la pratique et de la theorie religieuses qui ont limite ou meme exclu la participation des femmes de plusieurs domaines de la vie quotidienne et religieuse. Dans le recent debat sur la en Ontario, les organisations feministes ont critique et expose plusieurs lacunes de la Loi sur l'arbitrage qui ont ajoute, de maniere particulierement demesuree, aux fardeaux des femmes. En se fondant sur cette analyse, la mobilisation feministe a concentre ses efforts sur la proscription de l'arbitrage religieux comme seule methode acceptable de proteger les femmes vulnerables. Les feministes canadiennes ont resolu que les interets des femmes vulnerables—les musulmanes, en particulier—seraient mieux proteges par une separation stricte du droit et de la religion. Cette strategie de secularisation comme solution evidente a l'inegalite des genres pose, cependant, probleme pour de nombreuses raisons. Premierement, elle ne tient pas compte des femmes religieuses qui voudraient peut-etre vivre une vie axee sur leur religion. Deuxiemement, l'appui feministe d'un mecanisme reglemente exclusivement par l'Etat occulte la resistance legitime aux politiques adoptees par le gouvernement depuis les evenements du 11 septembre 2001 qui perpetuent des mesures punitives et stigmatisantes a l'egard des personnes de couleur. A travers le prisme du debat sur la sharia, le presente article explore et complexifie la division stricte dressee volontairement entre le religieux et le seculaire en vue de retablir un equilibre qui reponde mieux aux besoins des femmes religieuses.The relationship between feminism and religion has historically been fraught with tension. Feminists have rightly criticized patriarchal approaches to religious practice and theory that have limited or excluded women's participation in many matters of everyday and/or religious life. In the recent sharia debate in Ontario, feminist organizations were critical in exposing the several deficiencies in the Arbitration Act that had an unduly burdensome impact on women. Relying on their analysis, feminist mobilization focused its lobbying efforts on proscribing religious arbitration as the only acceptable means of protecting vulnerable women. Canadian feminists resolved that the vulnerable interests of women—Muslim women, in particular—were best protected through the strict separation of law and religion. However, this strategy of secularism as the obvious solution to gender inequality was problematic for a number of reasons. First, it shows no consideration for religious women who might want to live a faith-based life. Second, the feminist endorsement of an exclusively state-run apparatus fails to understand the legitimate resistance to government policies post 9/11 that have perpetuated punitive and stigmatizing measures against people of colour. Through the prism of the sharia debate, this article explores and complicates the strict divide that was created between the religious and the secular with a view to finding a balance that more appropriately meets the needs of religious women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".