Discussing the establishment of "Sha'ria Councils": examining the different faith-arbitration models in Ontario and in the UK

The establishment of Sha’ria Councils in Western societies can be considered a good template to examine to which extent multicultural societies are effectively accommodating diversity (Cumper, 2014), especially Muslims, which engenders specific challenges and particularities (Moodod, 2007, Fukuyama, 2006), questioning strict secularization models, the public/private debate, and the accommodation of non-Western group traditions. Canada and Britain are taking two opposite directions when it comes to the adoption of faith-arbitration councils: despite being the "homeland of Multiculturalism", the "One Law For All" argument has prevailed in Canada, which resulted in a ‘Sha’ria ban’ in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Almost the same time, British-Muslims have founded the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in 2007, which remains active until present times, reaffirming some academic findings that suggest the Multiculturalism backlash (originated during the jihadist attacks in Europe) remained restricted to the rhetoric arena (Sarkozy, Merkel and Cameron anti-multiculturalism speeches), and a blatant multiculturalist practice remained stronger (Meer & Modood 2013). Therefore, we propose placing these two cases to compare the political culture, political debate (declarations deployed by politicians), State appointed legal experts (Bowan in the UK and Boyd in Ontario), and the leading role of nationwide media coverage, considering a 5 year timeframe at the time of the Muslim-claim in Ontario, to understand the commonalities and differences that have influenced these two divergent directions and possible short- and mid-term consequences (for instance, endangering at-risk groups women, children and LGBT+).