Posted on 12/20/2004 11:51:43 AM PST by Pikamax
Use of Sharia law by Muslims okay, report says
CANADIAN PRESS
Ontario Muslims should have the same rights as Roman Catholics and Jews in the province to seek arbitration based on religious law for family disputes and inheritance cases, a report by former attorney general Marion Boyd concludes.
"The Arbitration Act should continue to allow disputes to be arbitrated using religious law," Boyd recommends in her report to the Ontario government.
Boyd was appointed to study the issue after the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice requested the right to offer religious-based arbitrations for family disputes based on Sharia law.
The proposal ran into opposition from women's groups, legal organizations and the Muslim Canadian Congress, who all warned that the 1,400-year-old Sharia law does not view women as equal.
But Boyd determined that Ontario should continue to allow religious-based arbitrations and mediations, including Sharia law, and recommended strengthening protections by requiring both parties to first seek independent legal advice.
However, another of her 46 recommendations would allow people seeking mediation to waive independent legal advice.
Boyd also recommends that mediators screen each party separately about issues of power imbalance and domestic violence before they enter into an arbitration agreement.
She also said the government should work with mediators and other professional organizations to develop a standard screening process for domestic violence.
A spokesman said Attorney General Michael Bryant would not be available today to comment on the report, but added the government would study Boyd's findings "very closely
Both countries have a long history of using arbitration to settle disputes. This arbitration is simply limited to a group of people who would accept it.
We've both said that the secular courts would be more friendly to women. But contrast it with other religous arbitration. A woman whose husband died would come off better for inheritance in a Shari'a panel than in an orthodox Jewish or old-time fundamentalist Christian panel. They would also do better when wanting to divorce an abusive husband (that right is specifically in the Quran).
Being a fan of secular courts, were I a woman I wouldn't want to go to arbitration from any of these three religions, but they are free to do so.
What if the outcome of the arbitration violates the US laws of contracts? What then, my friend? Which has superiority? What they agreed to, or the law of the land?
Because that's how arbitrations work. Two private parties can agree to have their dispute settled under pretty much any law they want, so long as the law does not violate American laws or public policy.
Shira law has just superseded Canadian law.
Nope. A Canadian judge can throw out any arbitration decision that violates Canadian law or public policy.
Is....should be....isn't.
Maybe in theory and for now. Islam law has established a toe-hold. They will soon grown.
But women have no rights under Islamic law, they can be forced to submit to anything.
I was recently involved in a deal here in Virginia where the parties agreed to have certain portions of their dispute settled by an arbitrator using Sharia law. The Sharia provision in the contract is quite enforceable.
What if the outcome of the arbitration violates the US laws of contracts?
Generally speaking, the provisions of a contract trump most statutory provisions when it comes to contracts. Virginia contract law might say that doing x constitutes a default under general contract law, but you and I can agree in our contract that x will not be a default. Charging interest is legal under contract law, but you and I can decide in our contract that you cannot charge me interest for the loan you gave me.
What then, my friend? Which has superiority? What they agreed to, or the law of the land?
Unless what we agreed to is specifically illegal (a contract for prostitution) or violates public policy (a contract provision that says the husband gets custody of the kids upon divorce, no matter what the cause of the dirvorce), what the parties agreed to has priority.
Protest my comments, make arguments till your blue in the face. Canada is lost.
It is an insidious religion....strike the word religious....it is a death cult.
Why are moslems immigrating to western countries, if they want to impose shar'ia law on their populations instead of adapting to their new environments?
What's the point?
Do you think maybe it's to spread islam, and this is just one thin edge of the wedge?
I do.
"Muslims should have the same rights as Roman Catholics and Jews in the province to seek arbitration based on religious law...."
Canon Law of the RCC is not in any way like Sharia. That's a bad analogy.
A foreign law that treated women as second class citizens would not be enforceable since it violates public policy.
Again, no they are not.
Those are properly named "Mediations" and are nothing at all like arbitrations.
Mediations are different, agreed. However, arbitrations conducted under non-American law are quite enforceable. For example, there are rabbinical courts in NYC that resolve disputes between members of the Orthodox community in accordance with Talmudic law and NY courts will enforce such decisions.
Such a decision would generally not be enforceable.
"But women have no rights under Islamic law, they can be forced to submit to anything.
Such a decision would generally not be enforceable."
Then why bother having the Canadian Government officially sanction Sharia as a parallel legal system. No, there's clearly more to this, and we WILL be proven right.
Like in the US, there aren't that many Muslims in Canada and they're concentrated in a couple of cities. They really do not have any way to enforce Sharia law on the unwilling.
Are you a muslim?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.