Can tolerant Canada tolerate sharia?

[JohnLocke]

Can tolerant Canada tolerate sharia?
By Susan Bourette -- The Christian Science Monitor
August 10, 2004
----
TORONTO – Their burnished domes rise high above the adjacent pizza parlors and drab strip malls, like beacons of sanctity in this largely secular country. But the peaceful facades of the dozens of mosques in Canada's most populous province belie the public rancor that has been stirred up over the use of sharia, or Islamic law, by Ontario's Muslims.
Muslims here, supported by a 1991 provincial law, have been using sharia to mediate legal disputes, such as divorce and child custody. But in the spring, after a Muslim group proposed creating a formalized tribunal, what had been going on quietly for more than a decade became front-page fodder and led to a government review of the law. A report is expected next month.
While no one here expects the increasing use of sharia to lead to some of the more radical rulings associated with Islamic law - stonings or amputations - critics worry that the rights of women are being sacrificed for the sake of multiculturalism.
"It's shocking to see the seeds of an Islamic republic being sown here in Canada," one young woman shouted to vociferous applause at a recent Toronto rally, organized to denounce the practice of sharia in Ontario. "Sharia doesn't work anywhere else in the world. Why does the government believe it will work here?"
Sharia is a centuries-old Islamic system of justice based on the precepts of the Koran. It's legally used by religious scholars and imams in Ontario to mediate a narrow range of disputes - from clashes over property and inheritances, to matters in marriage and divorce.
(...)
The Ontario government redrafted legislation in 1991, granting religious leaders the authority to mediate civil matters. The law, called the Arbitration Act, was designed to help unburden an already over-taxed court system. (...)
But critics of sharia charge that, in this case, the principles of multiculturalism are being exploited to enforce oppression. They argue that the practice of sharia in Canada undermines the country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it discriminates against women.
"We've had a flood of e-mails from people asking, 'How can we help stop what is so dangerous to Muslim women,' " explains Alia Hogben, president of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, a national organization whose 900 members come from a variety of Islamic sects. "We believe Canadian women should all live under one law."
What bridles those like Ms. Hogben is a system of justice in which divorcing women are cut off from spousal support after three months. The system also awards divorcing men with custody of the children as well as the bulk of the marital assets. Participation under the Arbitration Act is voluntary, though critics say Muslim women can be pressured in participating.
(...)
----
Read the rest here.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Granting men custody of children

after a divorce and cutting off support for the woman is not Qur'an. What Canada needs to understand is that sharia, as it is often practiced, actually goes against what many liberal Muslims interpret the Qur'an to mean.

[IA_Seth]

2. Interesting

Thanks for the post, this is something I hadn't heard of.

I guess I am not ready to pass judgement on it, especially if it is voluntary.

My first thought is of "People's Court" and "Judge" Whopner, along with the slew of them we have on TV here nowadays. It was voluntary as well. I guess this is different in the fact that it would be easier to manipulate someone into volunteering for this based on religious faith....but still. It IS voluntary.

What do the rest of ya think?

[aquart]

4. Voluntary, my ass.

That's what I think.

[yankeeinlouisiana]

5. My sentiments exactly!!

So what happens if she voluntarily goes to sharia court and doesn't like the outcome. Can she still take her ex-husband to civil court? I wonder how that would play out.

[IA_Seth]

7. Well...

I would assume that WOULDNT play out very well would it? If you volunteered to enter into any court outside of the official courts (even here in the US) you are signing away rights and agreeing to abide by that "court"'s decision.

Again, I am not an expert on this so I am only going on what sounds logical.

[Canuckistanian]

15. What they don't mention is that it must be ratified by a judge

It is a voluntary program, used only if both parties agree. It's just another court-recognized mediation process.

Each and every judgement of the sharia court must be ratified by an Ontario Court judge. The normal appeals process is still available.

Also, each ruling must conform to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our Bill of Rights).

So it's unlikely to ever see any totally unfair rulings or punishing penalties.

[IA_Seth]

8. Please explain?

How is it not voluntary, am I missing something?

[Darranar]

11. It's voluntary in some sense of the word...

but, assuming that humans possess free will, the only real difference between things generally considered "voluntary" and "obligatory" is the level of pressure to accept them and follow them. While officially it may be voluntary, there are plenty of pressures that can be put on a woman so that she will accept Sharia rulings.

[IA_Seth]

12. thanks

Yeah, the post below also makes note of the fact that "voluntary" may not be exactly the way its presented to new immigrants, which makes sense.

[Warpy]

6. How voluntary is it

for a woman from a foreign country who doesn't speak the language of her new country and is likely uneducated in the differences in legal systems?

If they want their own country under their own laws, they should have stayed put. When you emigrate to a new country it's incumbent upon you to respect and follow the laws of your new country.

If these courts want to be non binding arbitrators, fine. However, the Canadian legal system must be the primary and the only legally binding system. Otherwise, these folks will continue to have no reason to be Canadians (or Americans, or French, or Germans).

[IA_Seth]

9. point well made

I can see the issue with newly arrived immigrants..thank you for bringing that up. I suppose this sort of voluntary court system can't work if the "volunteers" don't realize what they are doing.

[LiviaOlivia]

3. Religion vs State USA

Different laws for different religions? Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist
or Christian..Their laws override others?

Example

<snip>

In 1874, (Brigham)Young's personal secretary, a polygamist named George Reynolds, volunteered to become a defendant in a federal case to determine the constitutionality of the Morrill Act. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy in 1879.

The court ruled that to excuse Reynolds' polygamy on the basis of religion would be to "make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land. . . . Government could only exist in name under such circumstance."

The Mormon Church continued its defiance of the Supreme Court decision. Church apostle Wilford Woodruff declared in January 1880 that he had received a revelation while on the San Francisco Peaks north of Flagstaff that whoever tries to stop the church from practicing the "Patriarchal Law of Abraham" shall "be damned."

<snip>

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/2003-03-13/sidebar.html

God save us from those who think they know the Truth.

[Darranar]

10. Interesting...

A lot of the paranoia about this is probably just the usual anti-Muslim propaganda; no one is going to create an Islamic republic in Canada any time soon, it's not like Bin Laden will suddenly be inserted as head of state because of this law.

Personally, I disagree with this practice, regardless of which religion is involved - it's far too easy to pressure people into accepting the jurisdiction of that religion's laws, when accepting the legal code of the nation in question would be a far wiser decision. Equality under the law means exactly that, and there shouldn't be exceptions for religions and religious law.

[DEMonstate]

13. Muslim women can be pressured in participating. REALLY???

I cannot believe my eyes! People supporting this kind of 16th century ignorance?? How in the world is this progressive?

[JohnLocke]

14. Kick (nt).