Moral Panic and ‘One [Secular] Law for All’: Exploring the ‘Ontario Sharia Debate’

Moral Panic and ‘One [Secular] Law for All’: Exploring the ‘Ontario Sharia Debate’ by Amy Elizabeth Savile BA Joint Hons. in Communication Studies & Mediterranean Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, 2012 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Philosophy in Policy Studies in the Graduate Academic Unit of Interdisciplinary Studies Supervisor: Nick Hardy, PhD, Department of Sociology Examining Committee: Nancy Nason-Clark, PhD, Department of Sociology Howard Kislowicz, SJD, Faculty of Law Chairperson: Linda Eyre, PhD, Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies This thesis is accepted by the Dean of Graduate Studies THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK June, 2015 ©Amy Savile 2015 ABSTRACT This thesis analyzes the Ontario Sharia Debate (OSD) as a potential example of a contemporary moral panic. After identifying the key concepts, events, and themes within the OSD, the results are compared to the criteria elicited from the four main approaches to moral panics. This involves an elucidation of the theories and background behind the moral panic approaches created by Stanley Cohen, Stuart Hall et al., Erich Goode & Nachman Ben-Yehuda, and Chas Critcher. From the findings generated, an analytical framework is created for each approach. Comparing the OSD to these moral panic frameworks, it is determined that the OSD events do meet the criteria of at least two approaches: one provides valuable diagnostic measures (Goode & Ben-Yehuda), while the other traces the trajectory of events (Cohen). The comparisons of moral panic approaches also provides the opportunity to assess each framework‟s capacity to account for all the pertinent elements within the OSD - and importantly, without putting forth criteria that do not suit the case. This raises both challenges and opportunities in regards to the two remaining approaches (i.e. Hall et al. and Critcher). ii DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to Mr. Steadfast himself: my partner, Chad Savile, for the years of mental, emotional, and nutritional support. Thank you for being my sounding-board when I brainstorm, my scribe when my hands quit, my laugh-track when I note the frequent distance between policy and common sense and my reassuring hug when I acknowledge the deep impacts that separation can have. This has been an important step in an ongoing journey; one for which I know I will continue to have your constant support and pride. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Nick Hardy for his generous supply of ongoing support, advice, and resources. His tireless enthusiasm kept me passionate about my research and focused on my goals. His deft ability to reassure and guide will stay with me throughout my academic career as a model for me to emulate. Thank you for taking me under your wing. My committee members, Dr. Chris Doran and Dr. Mira Bachvarova, are also deserving of my endless gratitude. Their willingness to both diligently and promptly review and return my various drafts has been a major boon. Thank you for your sincere interest and valuable advice. Thanks also to my examiners, Dr. Nancy Nason-Clark and Dr. Howard Kislowicz, and to Dr. Linda Eyre for all her support as chairperson for my thesis. This thesis warrants a great many thanks to several people. Inspiration for the project was sparked through conversations beginning in my undergraduate years at Wilfrid Laurier University. Though I cannot thank all here, I would particularly like to acknowledge Dr. Abderrahman Beggar, Dr. Gavin Brocket, Christopher Cutting, Dr. Penelope Ironstone-Catterall, and Dr. Meena Sharify-Funk for stimulating my interests in the studies of Islam and moral panics. My inspiration was further supplemented at the University of New Brunswick, through discussions with my committee members, and with Dr. Linda Neilson, Dr. Vanda Rideout, and Dr. John Valk. Finally, I would like to thank my family for always being there for me. I thank my parents for continuously supporting my inquisitive nature. To my brothers, Glyn and Gavin, thank you for being such role models. To my husband, Chad, brace yourself, this brain‟s just getting started! iv Table of Contents ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ v List of Nomenclature and Abbreviations ......................................................................... viii Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter One: Situating the Ontario Sharia Debate ............................................................. 6 1.1 – Two Important Terms ............................................................................................ 7 1.1.1 – On Arbitration ................................................................................................. 7 1.1.2 – On Sharia ........................................................................................................ 9 1.2 – Timeline (1987-2006) .......................................................................................... 11 1987: Precursors to the Arbitration Act .................................................................... 11 1991-2003: Emergence and Application of the Arbitration Act ............................... 13 Early 2004: Sharia in the Headlines.......................................................................... 14 Mid to Late 2004: Political and Public „Call-to-Arms‟ ............................................ 15 2005-2006: Fervour and Finale ................................................................................. 17 1.3 – Prominent Themes ............................................................................................... 18 1.3.1 – Bipolarization of Debaters in the Media ....................................................... 19 1.3.2 – Dichotomization of Value Systems .............................................................. 21 1.3.3 – Characterizations: Monolithic Islam and its Oppressed Women .................. 23 1.3.4 – False Assumptions and Exaggerations.......................................................... 26 1.3.5 – Skewed Focus ............................................................................................... 29 1.4 – Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 30 Chapter Two – Stanley Cohen‟s „Processual Approach‟ .................................................. 31 2.1 – Background .......................................................................................................... 32 2.1.1 – Cohen‟s (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics ............................................ 32 2.2 – Perspectives.......................................................................................................... 38 2.2.1 – Strengths ....................................................................................................... 38 2.2.2 – Criticisms ...................................................................................................... 39 v 2.3 – Developing a Comparative Framework ............................................................... 44 2.4 – Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 46 Chapter Three – Adaptations by Stuart Hall ..................................................................... 47 3.1 – Background .......................................................................................................... 47 3.1.1 – Hall et al.‟s Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order .... 47 3.2 – Perspectives.......................................................................................................... 52 3.2.1 – Strengths ....................................................................................................... 53 3.2.2 – Criticisms ...................................................................................................... 55 3.3 – Developing a Framework ..................................................................................... 58 3.4 – Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 61 Chapter Four – Goode & Ben-Yehuda‟s „Attributional Model‟ ...................................... 62 4.1 – Introduction .......................................................................................................... 62 4.2 – Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance (1994; 2009) .................... 63 4.2.1 – Three Origins of Moral Panic: Elite, Interest-group, and Grassroots ........... 64 4.2.2 – Elements/Attributes of a Moral Panic ........................................................... 66 4.2 –

Load more