|
" Deliberating across Difference "
Afsoun Afsahi
| Document Type
|
:
|
AL
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
1072518
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
LA116147
|
| Call No
|
:
|
10.1163/22124810-00801003
|
| Language of Document
|
:
|
English
|
| Main Entry
|
:
|
Afsoun Afsahi
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
Deliberating across Difference [Article]\ Afsoun Afsahi
|
| Publication Statement
|
:
|
Leiden: Brill | Nijhoff
|
| Title of Periodical
|
:
|
Journal of Law, Religion and State
|
| Date
|
:
|
2020
|
| Volume/ Issue Number
|
:
|
8/1
|
| Page No
|
:
|
34–61
|
| Abstract
|
:
|
This paper examines two cases of deliberation on the issue of religious arbitration in Canada: first, the Sharia law debate in Ontario (deliberation in the larger public sphere); and second, a deliberation on religious arbitration in British Columbia (deliberation in a small-scale structured setting). Relying on both secondary and original data, this article demonstrates that while the Sharia law debate failed to fulfill the key functions of a deliberative engagement, the small-scale deliberation was able to achieve all three functions: participants had the chance to express their opinions; there was ample dialogue and communication evident by increased empathy, perspective-taking ability, and knowledge gains; and finally, participants were able to come to a decision, however broad, together. Through this comparison, the article highlights key barriers to deliberation across differences and concludes with some suggestions for carrying out such engagements in the future. This paper examines two cases of deliberation on the issue of religious arbitration in Canada: first, the Sharia law debate in Ontario (deliberation in the larger public sphere); and second, a deliberation on religious arbitration in British Columbia (deliberation in a small-scale structured setting). Relying on both secondary and original data, this article demonstrates that while the Sharia law debate failed to fulfill the key functions of a deliberative engagement, the small-scale deliberation was able to achieve all three functions: participants had the chance to express their opinions; there was ample dialogue and communication evident by increased empathy, perspective-taking ability, and knowledge gains; and finally, participants were able to come to a decision, however broad, together. Through this comparison, the article highlights key barriers to deliberation across differences and concludes with some suggestions for carrying out such engagements in the future. This paper examines two cases of deliberation on the issue of religious arbitration in Canada: first, the Sharia law debate in Ontario (deliberation in the larger public sphere); and second, a deliberation on religious arbitration in British Columbia (deliberation in a small-scale structured setting). Relying on both secondary and original data, this article demonstrates that while the Sharia law debate failed to fulfill the key functions of a deliberative engagement, the small-scale deliberation was able to achieve all three functions: participants had the chance to express their opinions; there was ample dialogue and communication evident by increased empathy, perspective-taking ability, and knowledge gains; and finally, participants were able to come to a decision, however broad, together. Through this comparison, the article highlights key barriers to deliberation across differences and concludes with some suggestions for carrying out such engagements in the future. This paper examines two cases of deliberation on the issue of religious arbitration in Canada: first, the Sharia law debate in Ontario (deliberation in the larger public sphere); and second, a deliberation on religious arbitration in British Columbia (deliberation in a small-scale structured setting). Relying on both secondary and original data, this article demonstrates that while the Sharia law debate failed to fulfill the key functions of a deliberative engagement, the small-scale deliberation was able to achieve all three functions: participants had the chance to express their opinions; there was ample dialogue and communication evident by increased empathy, perspective-taking ability, and knowledge gains; and finally, participants were able to come to a decision, however broad, together. Through this comparison, the article highlights key barriers to deliberation across differences and concludes with some suggestions for carrying out such engagements in the future.
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
deliberative democracy
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
multiculturalism
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
religious accommodation
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
religious arbitration
|
| Location & Call number
|
:
|
10.1163/22124810-00801003
|
| |