[Marcarc]

This is something that should be discussed more as most people, myself included, know/knew little about it. <br /> <br /> One can see two points of view. As regards Quebece one can regard it as a specific culture outlawing the presence of another, this merely shows its intolerance of other cultures.<br /> <br /> I personally don't disagree with their ruling,however, it is interesting to note that the 'beis din' or jewish arbitration panels have been functioning since jews arrived in canada and priests and ministers likewise can act as arbitrators in family disputes. There have been many female jews who have been trying to get media attention for decades to no avail, because like the sharia, the beis din is typically patriarchal. Women who are divorced must ask permission of their husbands in order to remarry, and there are other similar difficulties faced by jewish women, many who assert that the arbitration panel simply cannot be trusted.<br /> <br /> However, we should realize that the sharia in Ontario, is NOT a court just because muslims say it is. It is an arbitration panel authorized by the arbitration act. <br /> <br /> It is also interesting that most religious cultures in Canada already have their own arbitration panels, and the sharia has a surprising ally with the b'hai brith, the jewish organization. Even many native bands are being given far more powers for arbitration, partly because of court overloads, but also because of our charter which recognizes the religious rights of peoples.<br /> <br /> Also interesting is that much of the opposition to sharia has been focused solely on the group and the man who organized its political lobby, however, this man will not be sitting on arbitration panels. Sharia is far more flexible than most critics give it credit for, and much fear mongering goes on with horrible examples of it in other repressive countries. Of course we need only look south to see a country willing to execute retarded children to note that one doesn't need to go far to realize that western notions of justice aren't as black and white as many would have us believe.<br /> <br /> Keep in mind that a native homeless person who can't afford bail can serve up to three years in prison, that's not even an exception. So we shouldn't pretend that somehow 'human rights' is in a sacred perview of the west. <br /> <br /> Since sharia means 'path' it has limitless interpretations, some of these in parts of the world we often support are conserably severe. Likewise a state which executes, such as the US, CAN be severe, that doesn't mean by nature it NEEDS to be so. <br /> <br /> So to deny it, the charter basically had to say 'well, the jews and christians can have arbitration panels, but we really don't trust you guys', which essentially voids the charter. Quebec has on charter to restrict its powers, and one can look at the decision several different ways.<br /> <br />

[Calumny]

Here's a few of articles discussing the Ontario Arbitration Act:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://lists.humanist.toronto.on.ca/pipermail/hat-letters/2004-December/000013.html">Walkom</a><br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.ccmw.com/ShariainCanada/Ontario%20sharia%20tribunals%20assailed.htm">Hurst</a><br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.youmeworks.com/sharia_canada.html">Wente</a><br /> <br /> I think the 'Walkom' article sums the matter up pretty well. <br /> <br /> I have no problem with religious bodies or any other panel performing mediation in specific civil matters. I agree with Walkom though that to acknowledging the decision rendered to be legally binding under Ontario law is not desirable. <br /> <br /> Changing the act to reflect the same harms no one. Those who choose to accept the decision reached by a mediation panel can go on with their lives with no harm done. <br /> <br /> Those who may be coerced or pressured to do the same, then have a change of heart at a later date, will have the same legal recourse available to them as any other Ontarian.<br /> <br /> I'm not saying our current legal system is the be all an end all. However, I'd prefer to see the current system of civil law enhanced where desirable to incorporate what is good from other legal systems, then have the same rules apply to all, than to have a number of parallel civil law systems in which the decision rendered may differ depending on the whatever rules are applicable in the participant's religion, race or culture.

[michou]

[QUOTE]"As regards Quebece one can regard it as a specific culture outlawing the presence of another, this merely shows its intolerance of other cultures."[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> That is a wanton comment if I ever read one. <br /> <br /> This is not about intolerance but about the rule of law. Québec is an inclusive and a laic society and it also believes there should be one rule of law for all. <br /> <br /> We should question ourselves as to why only the family aspect of sharia tribunals is being proposed by muslim religious bodies. Why not the whole sharia code of law while we are at it ? How about a wide variety of sharia tribunals depending on your shiite, sunnite or other muslim branch origins ? <br /> <br /> Women muslim movements and associations in Canada are against these sharia tribunals being set up in Canada. The NoSharia in Canada organization is led by Muslims. Their reasons for decrying the institution of sharia tribunals in Canada are probably much more pertinent than any opinion given out by white canadian males on the subject. As one of the highlighted comment below states, would accepting sharia tribunals in Canada be a form of racism hidden under a disguise of multicultural openness ? <br /> (If Québec is intolerant, then Marcarc must be a racist. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> )<br /> <br /> <b><a href="http://www.ccmw.com/ShariainCanada/Initial%20Response%20to%20Boyd%20Report.htm">Canadian Council of Muslim Women (CCMW)</a></b><br /> <br /> Excerpt: <br /> The Canadian Council of Muslim Women (CCMW) expresses disappointment in Marion Boyd’s report on Ontario’s 1991Arbitration Act -  which  the former NDP Government, with Ms. Boyd as a Cabinet minister made law. CCMW intends to hold elected Ontario MPPs and their officials accountable for the damage that will be done if Ms. Boyd’s recommendations are not seriously questioned. CCMW will continue to press for the removal of family matters from private arbitration, as is the case in Quebec, in order to protect women’s and children’s equality rights – as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other Canadian laws.<br /> <br /> “CCMW believes that the ‘amendments/safeguards’ being proposed by Ms Boyd, while well intentioned, are naïve; they will not guarantee equal treatment of vulnerable individuals, including Muslim women and children.” CCMW chooses to trust that the Ontario government will now accept its direct responsibility for conducting a more thorough and comprehensive examination of family law and the equitable use of arbitration so that Muslim women’s equality rights are included and protected within the existing family law provincial system. <br /> <br /> CCMW asks, “If use of less expensive alternative dispute resolution mechanisms was meant to alleviate the pressures on the justice system, why create more injustice?  Why not redirect the resources that will be required to implement the so-called Boyd ‘safeguards’ to improve the existing family law system? Muslim women deserve to benefit from the same rights as those accorded to all Canadian women.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <b><a href="http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=1566">L'Association des femmes iraniennes de Montréal </a></b><br /> <br /> Ghettoïsation et multiculturalisme <br /> <br /> Mme Chokrai pense que si on veut vraiment une meilleure intégration, comme le souhaite Marion Boyd, il faut aider les gens à trouver leur place au sein de la société, d'autant plus que ce pays a besoin de dentistes, de médecins, etc. "Dans notre association seulement, souligne la militante, il y a une dentiste, une médecin, une pharmacienne. La dentiste n'a pas de travail à l'extérieur, elle garde les enfants, celle qui est médecin est retournée à l'université de Montréal pour faire des études d'infirmière, c'est très difficile pour elle. Quant à l'autre, elle travaille comme commis de pharmacie. Si on veut qu'elles s'intègrent, il faut qu'on favorise une meilleure francisation, qu'on les aide à se trouver un emploi digne de leurs compétences". Elaheh Chokrai estime que ce n'est pas en les ghettoïsant, en leur disant d'aller régler leurs problèmes entre musulmans qu'on y arrivera.  <b>"C'est une forme de racisme sous les apparences de l'ouverture multiculturelle. </b> Qui a formé ces tribunaux, qui les a élus, qui les connaît ? Il n'y a pas de transparence, aucune garantie qu'ils vont être démocratiques. En tant que Québécoises, serions-nous d'accord pour que nos litiges familiaux soient tranchés par l'Église ?", demande  <b>la militante qui ne connaît personne de son milieu qui soit en faveur de ces tribunaux. </b><br /> <br /> <b><a href="http://www.nosharia.com/">International Campaign against Shari'a courts in Canada</a></b><br /> <br /> - Quebec’s decision to ban Sharia court is a victory for all defenders of human rights<br /> <br /> - “We expect that Ontario should do the same”<br /> <br /> - YWCA Toronto Supports Quebec Decision on Religious Arbitration <br /> <br /> - CCMW Welcomes Quebec Motion on Sharia Law  <br /> <br />   

[Marcarc]

Who says I am a 'white male'? I said that one CAN interpret it that way, which is quite justifiable.<br /> <br /> There are groups that are for it and groups that are against it. You will also note that none of the muslim critics stated that there were against the use of Sharia-at least none of the ones I read and I read several. What they criticized was Boyd's attempt at 'safeguarding' women's rights. This is sensible on their behalf, anybody who deals with women's rights knows that even our mainstream society does a lousy job of protecting women's rights, particularly in family law and protection of women at risk.<br /> <br /> The question is do you outlaw one religion's rights. In a system based on precedence if you outlaw one then you must outlaw all of them. This means outlawing jewish, orthodox, catholic, protestant and native arbitration panels, which is a huge transgression on what many people see as fundamental religious rights.<br /> <br /> There are many though who claim exactly that, hence the proposals to enhance family law in the civil system and discontinue use of religious tribunals altogether. As stated, jewish women in particular support this ideal. This may very well have merit, but needs further discussion. <br /> <br /> It only applies to family law because it is an arbitration panel and is not a court. This was clearly stated, however, female muslim critics are quite correct to be concerned because Sharia is 'intended' to apply to all aspects of life, and there are serious repercussions to going outside the tribunal. In other words, in the wrong hands they can easily 'overstep their bounds'. If a woman feels her rights are being violated there may be a 'cultural price' to going outside of the arbitration system, and even worse is the case where a woman doesn't even know her rights.<br /> <br /> That is a fundamental flaw in our 'inclusive' society, since few people are actually taught what their rights are. Children don't learn it in school, and there are few courses available for adults. Some NGO's, particularly poverty groups will offer training, but for a society to not even teach its inhabitants the basics of what it means to live in the society seems to me to be grossly incorrect policy. <br /> <br /> However, to specifically outlaw Sharia based on what 'could happen', is not exactly inclusive. Quebec still hasn't maintained why it continues to allow the beis din, even though many jewish women's organization likewise want it discontinued. That is why it CAN be seen as being racist, and quite legitimately. <br /> <br /> In virtually every article I read the groups were quite emphatic that they were not opposed to Sharia. So why not let the most critical group of the process facilitate it's incorporation? Many types of Sharia are at least as egalitarian as our western system, some even moreso. If the groups most affected can participate in deciding which type of sharia is used, then many of those fears will be allayed. Instead, we have a system of government that lets people present briefs and then a bureaucracy decides. In a system like that I agree that there should be serious discussions about whether allowing outside systems of arbitration at all.

[michou]

Succinctly, the Québec national assembly voted unanimously against the interference of religion in their state affairs. I'd reasonably deduct Québécers have made their choice (if we still live in a democracy that is) and their message couldn't be any clearer. Islam and muslims are protected by the charter of rights but their religious laws cannot subsitute themselves to the rule of the nation's law. Religion has no business there, democracy does. <br /> <br /> Québécers have been working at securalizing their society for the past 40 years, so the unanimity vote didn't really surprise anyone in the province. The validity of the motion is not even open for discussion.

[michou]

Analysis on the issue : <b><a href="http://www.nawl.ca/brief-sharia.html#14">National Association of Women and the Law<br /> </a></b><br /> Family Arbitration Using Sharia Law: Examining Ontario's Arbitration Act and its Impact on Women <br /> <br /> <br />

[samuel]

I just can't believe what I'm reading here. Some of you need to get off your "racism" soap box and acknowledge the fact this is about protecting society's most vulnerable. Religious fundamentalism of any stripe has no place in deciding matters of civil liberty. The very fact these sham tribunals are allowed to exist opens the door for abuse. If you want to wait for some Muslim person to write a book about being subjected to years of abuse and not doing anything about it for fear of becoming an outcast in the community, then keep supporting this backward mentallity. Reminds me of stories about Québec in the 1920s when women stayed in abusive situations to uphold "religious family values", pure ignorance.

[Marcarc]

I still haven't heard any comments about the use of beis din in Quebec, as far as I can discover it is in common practise, but I don't know whether Quebec is also 'secularizing' that aspect or not because I can find little online. If it IS in common practise, then the racism claim seems clear to me. Allowing judaic arbitration, or catholic arbitration and disallowing muslim arbitration seems fairly racist to me. As I said, Sharia is not necessarily anti-women, however, even western religions are patriarchal, and fundamentalist christians have pretty strong gender views themselves. It is also not a court, and any findings can be challenged by the charter, this is true of any arbitration.<br /> <br /> I don't see how the Quebec National Assembly passing a law is 'serving democracy' any more than the Canadian government's passing a law does. There was no referendum on the subject and much of the debate was quite inflammatory in the press I've seen. Few people in Quebec know much about the vagaries of family arbitration and religions place in it, it certainly isn't one of those topics that's all over the media. <br /> <br /> I suppose this was posted toward the aim of making Quebec look better than the rest of Canada so long as people dislike the mere mention of Sharia. There are many very legitimate concerns to this issue, but whether simply banning it outright is the best way is perhaps not the answer for all the provinces-particularly those who are enhancing cultural freedoms rather than restricting them. Who knows, upon analysis maybe there are some very positive aspects to it which are relevant. <br /> <br /> If Quebec is outlawing ALL religious forms of family arbitration that is different, and I couldn't agree more-however, the charter would have to become far broader to encompass all the items that exist in a cultural context.

[samuel]

There is no such occult arbitration/court/tribunal in Québec Marcarc. One is free to consult with his/her religious leaders be they Hells Angels or Evangelicals, but in no way do any of these consultations cary the slightest clout or official government approval. In no way are these sanctioned alternatives.

[samuel]

Your assumption it was posted "toward the aim of making Quebec look better than the rest of Canada" is arrogance and continues the age old misunderstanding that 'distinct is synonymous with superior'. If you want to know, the real reason for my posting it is because a recent debate of how fundamentalism is trying to reshape Canada (excluding Québec) recently took place here. I thought this would highlight one more example of how Québec is taking a different view of the issue.

[Calumny]

Just to clarify, does the Quebec decision forbid sharia tribunals in Quebec or simply state the decisions of the same will carry no weight within the Quebec legal system?<br /> <br />

[samuel]

Among other administrative issues, Quebec's National Assembly deliberates on matters of law and the definitions of "tribunal" in relation to law are:<br /> <br /> - A seat or court of justice.<br /> - The bench on which a judge or other presiding officer sits in court.<br /> - A committee or board appointed to adjudicate in matters of law.<br /> - Something that has the power to determine or judge matters of law.<br /> <br /> The motion that was unanimously adopted is:<br /> <br /> "Que l'Assemblée nationale du Québec s'oppose à l'implantation des tribunaux dits islamiques au Québec et au Canada"<br /> <br /> "That the National Assembly of Québec opposes the implementation of so-called Islamic tribunals in Québec and in Canada"<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fra/communiques/comm_255.htm">http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fra/communiques/comm_255.htm</a>

[samuel]

I heard this quotation from a Muslim woman in Québec which is so damned appropriate, here is a translation:<br /> <br /> "It is hard enough for any woman to find the courage of stepping out of an abusive situation through law. Imagine how such a person would feel about first having to go through an Islamic version of law and if it fails, having to take it to higher grounds. The mere notion of this is a deterent and a potential motive for abusive partners."<br /> <br /> Muslim women in Québec fully and openly oppose this. Ontario is making a huge mistake and opening a Pandora's box. If they follow through with this, I expect Muslims in Québec who support it will move there, which is fine by me <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'><br /> <br /> What I find really strange though is that I posted this same subject on a Québec web site and a flood of posts insued with a wide variety of opinions. I commend Marcarc, Calumny and Michou for engaging the subject, but I can't help notice how so many steer clear of important societal issues such as this in the ROC, or at least on this ROC website. Can anyone explain this?

[Marcarc]

Sharia has been given such a bad name that I think most here would see as I mentioned-that Quebec is 'better' than Ontario or the ROC, and rarely do people like to toot Quebec's horn as they are quite able to do it themselves.<br /> <br /> Here is a good article on Sharia in Ontario: http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent. ... text=mwjhr<br /> <br /> I seriously doubt that 'muslim women are opposed to sharia'. The vast majority of muslim arbitration is already done according to sharia-sharia is simply Islamic Law. Far more arbitration is done in canada than resolutions through the courts. That muslim women would organize and oppose the legitimation of a right wing interpretation of sharia seems more to the point. Like most religious communities the muslim community has been practising sharia since 1982 and it has been legitamized since 1992's Arbitration Act. However, it is far different when a right wing organization wants it politicized, which is what is occurring. <br /> <br /> There are huge issues here, and not surprising one of the main lobbies has simply been to have public debates on the topic and not let some faceless bureaucrats decide everything. This has huge political implications.<br /> <br /> One thing to note is that much of this is done simply because our provincial government has no money. Nobody wants to talk about this but essentially the arbitration act was set up to get rid of court backlogs-rather than hire more people. That we put more money into our judicial system is simply not being considered an option. If Quebec is doing this, then it would be far more preferential (in my mind) to the privatization of civil law-which is effectively what this is. People are happy so long as we don't have to pay for it-until we hear something like this.<br /> <br /> One thing that is noticed from the article is that the arbitration act isn't even set up to deal with family law. So the idea that child custody will be granted to the father simply doesn't exist-at least in law. Of course, part of the problem is that you can do like Quebec and 'just say no', but unless the police force is going to go door to door asking muslims whether they've been affected, it's not like it's going to go away. Arbitration is a private function agreed on by two people who agree to abide by an arbitror's decision-this will continue. The only exceptions will be if some gutsy muslim woman goes to the police to delegitamize it if it doesn't go her way. That will no doubt happen now in Quebec, but won't stop the fact that consenting muslims will agree to arbitration.<br /> <br /> There is another possibility that is not being tossed around at all and that is to close off all forms of religious arbitration yet allow all religous mediation. <br /> <br /> Another factor to consider is that the vast majority of sharia cases have nothing to do with women at all. As I said, custody cannot be decided by arbitration, however, there may be cases where a woman is pressured to abide by an illegal judgement. To my mind that is more likely to occur if Sharia is not legitimized, since it will ensure that such a woman has as little 'outside' contact as possible. Most cases of sharia law pertain to all the other aspects of civil law, namely commercial resolutions, rental disputes, and construction. It's no surprise that the government wants to enhance it, since once again it is the privatization of civil law. Whether that's the direction canadians want to go is open for debate, but is also irrelevant since WE won't be making any decisions on the matter. <br /> <br />

[Calumny]

[QUOTE]One thing that is noticed from the article is that the arbitration act isn't even set up to deal with family law. So the idea that child custody will be granted to the father simply doesn't exist-at least in law.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I'm not sure what article you mean.<br /> <br /> I haven't read the act however, from what I understand without doing so, the arbitration act doesn't need to address specific areas of civil or family law. <br /> <br /> One of the concerns raised was that sharia law views the father as having primary custodial rights. If the father is granted these rights in the tribunal, the arbitration act recognizes this decision as being legally valid under Ontario law.<br /> <br /> It should be noted that it is not allowable for any arbitration process followed in accordance with the arbitration act to render a decision that is illegal under Ontario law, e.g., forcing a fourteen year old to marry a thirty year old, etc.<br /> <br /> Obviously, one can come at this from a number of angles, not all of which I'll address.<br /> <br /> For example, in reference to some concerns mentioned by some female Muslims re: their rights, the point should be made that a number of non-Muslim Canadian males males aren't really keen on how things go for them under current family law, e.g., barring clear inability to care for a child, the mother generally receives custody. So, some non-Muslim males might see aspects of sharia as being not so bad a thing.<br /> <br /> My only concern is as mentioned above. Is it, regardless of Ms. Boyd's inane logic, is it desirable to have a number of parallel civil legal systems with differing rules, adminstered by who knows who and with what (by Canadian standards) qualifications?<br /> <br /> If this isn't seen as desirable then, as Marcarc mentioned, it should in my opinion (and not referring to Quebec) apply across the board rather than being aimed specifically at the process employed by any particular religion.<br /> <br /> In terms of the rationale given by the government for the Ontario decision (cost saving/reduction of burden on courts), I remain somewhat dubious. The 'no money' routine is often used as an excuse for actions which are at the end of the day not necessarily money based. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE]What I find really strange though is that I posted this same subject on a Québec web site and a flood of posts insued with a wide variety of opinions. I commend Marcarc, Calumny and Michou for engaging the subject, but I can't help notice how so many steer clear of important societal issues such as this in the ROC, or at least on this ROC website. Can anyone explain this?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I may be wrong, Samuel, however I'd bet if you posted this on a more right-wing oriented ROC board you'd have seen a larger number of responses than you might on Vive. Both the right wing and left wing are great at accusing each other of hypocrisy that in fact they both share re: what is taboo or not desirable for discussion as perceived by either side.