Posted on 12/21/2004 10:32:45 AM PST by mhking
As if Canada’s Muslim community isn’t divided enough, it is now embroiled in a debate over whether portions of the Sharia (Islamic law) relating to divorces, inheritance, child custody, remarriage, marriage contracts and similar issues, should be used as part of Ontario’s Arbitration Act.
Both, the Jews and the Christian have been using their religious laws under this act for several years. The Arbitration Act was passed in 1991 as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to free up expensive court time. The arbitration is binding on both parties although it can be appealed. The proposal was put forward by the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice headed by Toronto area lawyer Syed Mumtaz Ali.
Almost immediately, the proposal was picked up by the mainstream media (read a media dubious about anything Muslim) prodded on by some fringe Muslims. It was bandied about as the coming to Canada of a law under which women are stoned to death for adultery.
The sensational media coverage forced the Ontario Government to appoint Marion Boyd, Ontario’s former Attorney General, to arbitrate on the arbitration proposal, and come up with recommendations, which are due any day.
On the one hand, there is little doubt that as with any ancient religious code, the rights of women and children under the Sharia are out of date. For instance, the Koran gives male heirs twice the share that it gives female heirs. Also, depending on which branch of Islamic law one applies and which interpretation, women may or may not have the right to divorce while a husband enjoys the Triple Talaq, where he says the word Talaq or divorce three times and the marriage is history.
There are two main issues, as outlined by the Canadian Council of Muslim Women (CCMW), a long-standing organization devoted to Muslim women in Canada. “[Sharia Law] Tribunals will marginalize Canadian Muslim women [eroding their equality rights] and increase the privatization of Family Law.”
Even lawyer Riad Saloojee of the Council on American-Islam Relations Canada (CAIR-Canada) acknowledges that many aspects of the Sharia run counter to Canada’s Charter of Rights.
His group does not want to use the word Sharia. CAIR-CAN accepts the argument that Muslim women, especially new Canadians, could be coerced into accepting this process but rightly argues that they could be coerced as well under the existing system.
It backs the arbitration provided safeguards are built in to protect Muslim women and children. It would like both parties to get independent legal advice before agreeing to binding arbitration. It would also like an information campaign to be undertaken to make sure women, especially from different minority language groups (Muslims come from all over the world, with Indonesia being the larges Islamic country) understand their rights.
Like CAIR-CAN, the CCMW also made submissions to Ms. Boyd, presenting her with studies on the application of Muslim family law in France, Germany and England. “In Britain,” it says, “Muslim family law was rejected in order to uphold universally accepted human rights values…”
Other than the Institute, the tribunals are supported by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), well-known for its studies on how the media reports on Islamic affairs. It recommends that the tribunals be allowed, with proper auditing done to safeguard against the kinds of issues raised by the CCMW. “[Sharia] arbitration panels [should] be given a chance to proceed with a review in two years,” it says.
The most practical bottom line however is set by Razia Jaffer, CCMW’s national president, who says that their preference is to see “family matters being settled through existing family laws and the justice system being sensitized to the needs and aspirations of Canadian Muslim women.” Period.
Or as I mentioned in my recent commentary on OMNI-TV, “Ontario’s family law is based on the most modern concepts of secular justice which take into account the horrible treatment meted out to women and children by male dominated societies for centuries… ban the use of all religious laws Muslim, Christian and Jewish…”
(Zuhair Kashmeri is a Toronto-based freelance broadcaster and financial editor who has worked for The Globe and Mail and CBC, has written for newspapers worldwide and is the author of two books. He is also a commentator on OMNI-TV.)
.
.
.
.
Harhar.
Say a few prayers for Canada - that country is going to need some sort of Divine Intervention to turn itself around. It's sad.
I am sure they will not start with public stonings right off the bat. First it will be property rights, then human rights, then beatings with rods and THEN public stonings. C'mon people, where is the tolerance and understanding for these people and thier religion of peace?
iF SHARI'A CAN GET THEM TO PLAY HOCKEY....
I've glanced at a few atricle about this topic over the last week..all of them glibly toss in as a given a statement that " Jews and Christians have been doing this in Canada for several years." Is this true..and to the same extent?..
Morons like this like to point to constitutional and monarchy law (i.e., US & Canadian law) and insist that they are rooted in Jewish and Christian historical law. This, at least in their tiny little minds, lets them off the hook for proposing Sharia law in the nation in question.
Forget Canadia - just look at Michigan!
I will be glad if the Canadian government is overthrown by a bunch of terrorists.
How happy I will be to see their daughters and wives treated like farm animals.
I look forward to the terrorist excuting Canadians at "center ice".
Nothing will mean more to me than to see the flag's maple leaf replaced with a flag of black.
Here we go again.....
That is the truth.
........snicker......
They were waiting for their chance, and Canada gave it to them on a silver platter.
"The proposal was put forward by the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice beheaded by Toronto area lawyer Syed Mumtaz Ali."
no...before public stonings will be public cutting off offending hands....but.....they give you a clean rag to catch the blood.
/sarcasm
Where is someone in Canada willing to scream "separation of Church and state" when they need them?
Doesn't having special "religious" laws prevent anyone from ever having true freedom of religion? If you are Muslum must you always be Muslum? Can you ever choose a different religion, even in a "free" country if you are separated from others by the very laws you are given to follow?
Very bad can of worms being opened way too close to home.
They surrendered their country then want to live here because they were too lazy and weak to fight.
And it slays me everytime how the Arbitration Act somehow magically lumps together the tribunals of Jews and Christians, which includes their of human rights and equality and protects the rights of each party as the Canadian laws would were they used instead, with Sharia which openly treats women as lesser in every major way. I can't see how some well meaning Canuck, drafting the Arbitration Act, intended the Act to lessen ones rights, instead of enhancing them. Yet the ever 'tolerant', multi-cultural Canucks are all nodding what a good thing it would be to allow Sharia, and fair, too, since other religions can use tribunals, despite the protests of womens rights groups, and now some Muslims.
Waaaaaaay to close to home.
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.