Opposing faith-based arbitration outright may have fed rather than countered the moral panic

Evidence

Those advocating the use of Sharia garnered attention, which only grew as more feminists came on board to denounce them. Here we might consider strategy. Knowing that a full-scale moral panic is entirely likely given today’s geopolitics, did feminist groups sufficiently consider the conditions of communication as they immediately embraced the position of the secular over the religious? I wonder what would have been the outcome had Muslim feminists in particular, regardless of their own misgivings, expended more energy on the question, What is needed to safeguard faith-based arbitration for women? … In the end, however, the dangers posed by faith-based arbitration were considered too great to risk pursuing faith-based alternatives. This was perhaps a strategic error. It might have been possible to get more safeguards within the Arbitration Act to protect Muslim women who use it, or who are coerced into using it, although the government seemed unwilling to consider this option, as the Boyd report demonstrated. At the very least, the circulation of ideas about alternative ways to be Muslim might have tempered the production of the neoliberal subject as citizen. — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 390 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Feminists against faith-based arbitration missed secularism’s imperial mirror of fundamentalism — Sherene Razack, Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims…, 378; Rejecting faith-based arbitration outright squandered a chance to safeguard Muslim women — Sherene Razack, Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims…, 390

Broader Connections

• Rejecting faith-based arbitration outright squandered a chance to safeguard Muslim women #corroborates (0.93) — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 390