[Streaker]

Quote:

Will Canada introduce Sharia law?

By Laura Trevelyan
BBC correspondent, Toronto


Canada is a country well-known for being committed to multiculturalism, but now this most accepting of countries is debating whether tolerance has its limits.


Not all Canadian Muslims want Sharia law introduced

The basketball hoops, the sprinklers, and the two-car garages made the Toronto street look like just another unremarkable North American suburb.

Except on this street I met Mr Mumtaz Ali, the first Muslim to qualify here as a lawyer, and now the man behind the proposal to introduce Sharia law to Canada.

Over a snack of fried chicken and Indian chutney, he told me about the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice.

A Muslim has the right to live as his religion wishes him to, Mr Ali explained, and under Sharia he can finally live like a true believer in his faith.

What is more, Mr Ali pointed out, in Ontario Orthodox Jews are able to settle their civil disputes in religious courts, so why not Muslims?

Why not indeed.

It is a question which the Ontario Government is currently wrestling with.

Mr Ali puts the controversy over his plans down to what he calls post-9/11 Islamophobia.

It is probably true that Canada's neighbour, the United States, would not entertain Mr Ali's vision.

But Canada is different, and it is not just the legacy of 9/11 which is muddying the waters for Mr Ali. It is what Sharia represents to many Muslim women who have fled to Canada escaping repressive regimes.

Some women who fled Iran do not want Sharia law in Canada

Leading the charge against Sharia law here is a group of mainly Iranian women who fled from the theocracy of Ayatollah Khomeini a quarter of a century ago.

In a peaceful Toronto park, as the rain began to fall, several of these women told me why they are so viscerally opposed to the idea of Muslim religious law being used in Canada.

"I came here to escape Sharia," one woman told me. "Under it, a woman is worth half a man. He can divorce her and she has no rights."

Another woman who was tortured in Iran told me the very word Sharia made her shiver. To her it is synonymous with a brutal form of authoritarianism, which discriminates against women.

These Iranian exiles are creating a considerable PR problem for Mr Ali and his supporters.

But there are women who speak out in support of Sharia too.

In Mr Ali's front room, he introduced me to eloquent and educated Muslim women who accept that Sharia has a bad name because of how it has been interpreted.

"This is a chance for us to develop a progressive and tolerant form of Sharia, one that is consistent with 21st Century notions of gender equality," so a female PHD student told me.


Mr Mumtaz Ali is convinced a compromise can be reached

"But how do you get round the fact that women do not have the same rights as men?" I asked.

"Well, they could," said the PHD student. "I think women should be able to get as much as men out of a divorce."

Mr Ali wants the Sharia courts to be used to negotiate pre-nuptial agreements, putting women in the driving seat.

"But inheritance law is unfair," I said, "women always get less than men."

"That is because women's outgoings are less than men's as the man must always support every woman in his family, so it is fair he gets more," I was told by a chorus of female voices.

Across town from Mr Ali and his front room supporters, I sat in on a class at the University of Toronto.

The class lecturer helped set up the first Toronto mosque where women and men pray together.

"I am cautiously optimistic," the academic told me. "This will force Canadian Muslims to define who they are. It could even be a Canadian contribution to an Islamic reformation."

In a dreary looking office block in downtown Toronto, I found the woman who will decide in September what fate awaits Mr Ali and his Sharia courts.

Marion Boyd, a lawyer and former feminist activist, has been asked by the Ontario Government to review the arbitration act which allows religious groups to settle civil disputes using their own courts.

She hinted strongly to me that the government could not allow Jewish courts and forbid Muslim ones; that would be discrimination. But Ms Boyd stressed that decisions reached by Muslim courts would have to be consistent with Canada's charter of rights and freedoms.

I left Marion Boyd trying to reconcile respect for the rights of minorities with Canadian Law, and went to see a Toronto rabbi who heads a Beth Din court.

Muslims and Jews may not always be natural allies, but on this they are united. All religious people have the right to settle difficulties according to their religion, the rabbi told me, as he sat in front of a large poster of Jerusalem.

The problem the Ontario Government has is it cannot say: Jews, we like your law, it is good; and Muslims, we do not like yours, it is unfair to women.

They must find a way round that.

And this being Canada, they will find a way round it.

Since its creation, Canada has accommodated the rights of different minorities. This is just the latest challenge to a nation built on tolerance.

From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Thursday, 26 August, 2004 at 1100BST on BBC Radio 4. Please check the programme schedules for World Service transmission times.

BBC Link.

This one's a dilemma for me. So far I have been unsuccessful at finding anything on the net of an academic or in-depth nature regarding this issue, so I am still not too well informed about it.

Anyone have any thoughts, opinions, information or links about this

[DerbyX]

In no way should ANY religion form the basis of any law. Law is all about sticking to strict interpretations. Try strict interpretation of the bible, koran, torah. Law is also about changing to adapt to new situations and the evolving society. Religion is about adhering to the "unfalliable word" of god and each of the "big three" believe that they and they alone have the one true faith (well the fundementalist anyway).

Note to any fundies; Don't waste our time with "morality can only come from god".

[BartSimpson]

Absolutely! Be TOLERANT!!! Embrace Sharia Law! Let Islam dictate to you how you can have one set of rights for Muslims and another set of rights for the Rest of Canada.

Tman, I hope you're paying attention.

[ridenrain]

If I heard correctly, it had to be agreed on by both parties.

I really don't have a problem with it, but it does set a dangerous president. When will we add the unique judicial preferences of all our multicultural people. We already have some Native sentencing and that's controversial enough.

We are also having enough problems with our existing justice industry so adding another system would just make the whole thing more unworkable.
Although I'm sure many would like to see the retrial of Air India to get some teeth.

[Tman1]

BartSimpson wrote:

Absolutely! Be TOLERANT!!! Embrace Sharia Law! Let Islam dictate to you how you can have one set of rights for Muslims and another set of rights for the Rest of Canada.

Tman, I hope you're paying attention.

Bart, what does this have to do with our debate on Iraq? You want my opinion? I dont think it should be implemented as Religion has NO RIGHT to dictate law which is why religion caused the schisms during the Middle Ages and splits between the state and religion. As well, these people have no right to change OUR laws. I think BOTH religions should adhere to the Canadian supreme court.

[BartSimpson]

Tman1 wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Absolutely! Be TOLERANT!!! Embrace Sharia Law! Let Islam dictate to you how you can have one set of rights for Muslims and another set of rights for the Rest of Canada.

Tman, I hope you're paying attention.

Bart, what does this have to do with our debate on Iraq? You want my opinion? I dont think it should be implemented as Religion has NO RIGHT to dictate law which is why religion caused the schisms during the Middle Ages and splits between the state and religion. As well, these people have no right to change OUR laws. I think BOTH religions should adhere to the Canadian supreme court.

The heart of your criticisms of me is that I (and the USA) should be more tolerant of Islam.

Fine.

And here is Canada's (and yours) opportunity to be tolerant of Islam by allowing them to establish Sharia Courts in Canada.

These people don't CARE about YOUR views on secular states, they want to impose Islamic Law in Canada.

And if you do not allow it then YOU will inevitably have to deal with them blowing things up in Canada because that is what they do when they don't get their way.

Put your advice to me to the test: allow Sharia Law in Canada.

[Tman1]

So now that I shared my own view, your not satisfied with it... As well, putting words in my mouth. This has to do with Iraq how? again?

[BartSimpson]

Tman1 wrote:

:roll: So now that I shared my own view, your not satisfied with it... As well, putting words in my mouth. This has to do with Iraq how? again?

You either stop them over there or you fight them over here. President Bush chose to fight over there and, you know what? He's been right so far. Since 9/11 there have been no more domestic attacks by Al Qa'eda.

By the by, I have to go now so have a great evening!

[Tman1]

Ahh the salient Bush Doctrine. Well I guess thats up for another debate, untill next time.

[Bigboy]

So many people dont want this even Muslims. so far from what i've heard its more people who were born here and dont know what its like in Islomic countrys that want it. anyone who has moved here does not want it. Its the kinda thing we all should decide by referendom (sorry about spelling it was hot today my brains fried)

[Tman1]

Bigboy wrote:

So many people dont want this even Muslims. so far from what i've heard its more people who were born here and dont know what its like in Islomic countrys that want it. anyone who has moved here does not want it. Its the kinda thing we all should decide by referendom (sorry about spelling it was hot today my brains fried)

Referendum? Are you kidding me? You think this minority matter needs to be addressed by the whole nation because some religious fanatics not of this country want to change laws to their whim? Be serious. Like I said, they should adhere to Canadian law because by my reckoning, this is Canada, not Saudi Arabia. They have the freedom of religion and expression but over stepping a countrys laws is over stepping those freedoms.

[Streaker]

I found this while googling...

Quote:

Is Sharia law coming to Canada? Will Muslim women soon be stoned to death for cheating on their husbands? You might think so from surfing the Internet these past two weeks. But the truth is much more banal.

The story begins on November 25 with an article in the Canadian magazine Law Times about a group of Muslims seeking to set up an "Islamic Institute of Civil Justice." As reported, the body will invite consenting Muslims to submit disputes about marriage, money and other civil matters to arbitrators schooled in the precepts of Islamic religious law. Assuming the decisions are otherwise consistent with federal law (more on this below), these Sharia judgments would then be enforceable in Canadian courts.

On the surface, the idea sounds controversial. But it shouldn't be. Canadian arbitration law is generic: Consenting parties can seek to have their disputes settled according to just about any code they wish -- providing they can find a suitably competent arbitrator. If individual Jews wanted their disputes to be judged according to Talmudic law, they would theoretically be able to get those judgments upheld in court as well.

Unfortunately, this nuance was lost on the Web's bloggers. Three days after the Law Times article appeared, WorldNetDaily, a populist, right-wing Web site with an international following, reported the news with the following sensational lead: "Canadian judges soon will be enforcing Islamic law, or Sharia, in disputes between Muslims, possibly paving the way to one day administering criminal sentences, such as stoning women caught in adultery."

Shortly thereafter, American Daily, a right-wing opinion Web site, reported under the headline "Canada Allowing Sharia Barbaric Laws?" that we might be witnessing "a first step in the destruction of the Canadian Court system. The Canadians will have allowed their laws to be replaced by the whim or tradition from the homelands of any immigrant community." The next day, on the similarly minded ChronWatch, a writer argued that the latest news proved Canada is "a liability in the battle against Islamic extremism."

Then this past Thursday, The Globe and Mail splashed the headline "Tribunal will apply Islamic law in Ontario" on its front page. (The Web version wisely toned this down to "Islamic law in civil disputes raises questions.") We have no idea why the Globe editors thought this two-week-old story was worthy of A1 treatment. But at least their reporter made it clear that Ontario's Arbitration Act is subordinate to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which forbids, among other things, discrimination against women. For that matter, the Act also permits judges the discretion to strike down arbitration judgments that are contrary to public policy, or that encroach on federal statutes -- such as the Divorce Act and the Criminal Code.

The question of how much would be left of Sharia after courts strip away everything that is sexist or otherwise prohibited is an interesting question -- but not one we need to deal with here. Our point is that giving Muslims the right to apply Sharia in the resolution of mundane civil disputes will not lead to the stoning of adulterous women -- or any other scandalous result.

In other words, while the combination of Ontario arbitration law and Sharia may titillate the blogosphere, Canadians have little to fear.

Link.

I'm not too sure about this source... The author isn't named, but it's interesting...

[Bigboy]

i meant province by province. i'm against it but i'm sick of people crying i'd rather go vote no then listen to what might happen one day

[kerfuffled]

This would not be good for Canada. It opens the door for nutcase fundamentalist interpretation. Also it would be very bad for Islamic females.

[xerxes]

I saw this first reported on the CBC a year ago and I'm as against it now as I was then. I'll admit I didn't know about the Jewish Law being used in the same way though.

Last time I checked, Canada's legal system was based upon non-religious foundations in which religion would play no part. Even multiculturalism has its limits.