Sharia tribunals in... Ontario?

Posted by Thad

I'd like to invite comment on this story, especially from our esteemed guest bloggers.

Sharia move in Canada draws anger

Women's rights activists are to march in 11 cities in Canada and Europe against plans to allow Sharia law tribunals in the province of Ontario.

Islamic law could be used to settle civil and marital disputes under a proposal made by former Ontario Attorney General Marion Boyd.

Roman Catholic and Jewish arbitration tribunals already operate Ontario.

Opponents of Sharia law say allowing Islamic tribunals could lead to discrimination against women.

A protest march is scheduled for Thursday in Toronto, which is the capital of Canada's most populous and multi-cultural province.

Other Canadian marches are due in Ottawa, Waterloo, Montreal and Victoria, while in Europe there will be rallies in Amsterdam, Dusseldorf, Stockholm, Goteborg, London and Paris.

For me, the money quote is this:

Ms Boyd argues that if Sharia is not allowed, all religious arbitration bodies could be abolished.

And that would be bad because… ?

- Thad

Comments

[whit]

I read about this in the Globe and Mail the other day. This is cultural relativism gone mad. I think that Sharia law runs counter to all that post enlightenment western society believes in, and that to impose it upon Muslims, in particular women, in a country that offers women equal protection is stupid-stupid-stupid. There is no excuse for ignorance to be pandered to.

Fundamentalist Islamic leaders and their followers don't like us, and we don't have to like them either. We certainly don't have to surrender 300 years of progress to them.

[ol cranky]

As far as I knew, the Jewish "tribunals" (for example, when a husband refused to provide a "get" - a religious divorce that is obtained in addition to a secular one) were for religious issues and any civil issues that went to non-binding arbitration had to be at the consent of all parties. Are they actually mandatory?

[Thad]

Cranky,

They are of course, technically optional -- but I'm sure you can imagine the kind of pressure that many women would come under from their families and their community to "choose" a Sharia tribunal.

And if there are no civil issues involved, what is the point of having state-sponsored religious arbitration bodies?

[Arwen]

The globe and mail has a poll today: so far, readers of the Globe are 92% against sharia-Law based arbitration.

I've heard the argument "we're just alienating the religious if we disallow sharia" (which, in the context of Ontario's overall strategy which allows many groups to do binding arbitration a la Judge Judy, may be true) and the argument "and it's got to be voluntary for both parties".

I'm NOT convinced that Islamic women will have the ability to make a voluntary choice: a feeling heightened by a CBC radio interview with Islamic women fearing their moms would have problems 'opting out', given the social strictures of the Muslim community.

Quote from Alia Hogben, from the Canadian Council of Muslim Women: "We don't want the (sharia) tribunals. Why would we? We don't want to be ghettoized. We're Canadian women."

Canada is secular. Multi-cultural, but secular. Although I understand the wish to make all cultures feel at home, I really think we're treading on thin Charter of Rights territory here if Sharia is allowed.

It just seems a shortsighted idea. This is going to end with no Sharia in the long run, of that I'm pretty sure. Either there'll be reperations demanded for badly treated women who couldn't culturally opt out in 50 years after a Royal Commission, or one lawyer and some brave woman who decides to fight an unfair binding arbitration will launch (and win) a charter challenge. (I can't see how any charter interpretation would allow for binding sharia based systems.) Then, if a bunch of religious tribunals are seen as non-binding, you're open to a flood of old cases newly brought to the legal system all at once - which won't help with Ontario's backlog in the long run.

[Pepper]

There shouldn't be ANY religious tribunals, sharia or otherwise. I can't believe they allowed Jewish and Roman Catholic tribunals in the first place.

[ol cranky]

And if there are no civil issues involved, what is the point of having state-sponsored religious arbitration bodies?

I've got to be honest, I don't know - I don't understand any sort of religious tribunal that has the ability to make decisions on civil law outside of a theocratic state. I really thought they were an awful remnant of the Brits with a purpose to rule on religious law.

[Mike]

The idea of muslim law here in Ontario is ridiculously infuriating.

[Ben Jones]

This is a bad, bad move. It opens the door to what has happened so many times in Europe. First Muslims are placed in their own ghetto with their own ghetto law. Then bad things happen in the ghetto. Then the majority decides they don't like having these people in their midst. Results: harassment violence and long-term resentment.
I hope it doesn't happen in Canada, but I'd be a lot more comfortable if the government did more to promote the common law.

[Mandos]

This is an old story and Ontario's been agonizing about it for months. However, I think that aside from CCMW, the Muslim women who would be most affected by this are left out of the discussion on both sides.

[Doctor Slack]

These people need to be protesting all religious tribunals in Ontario. If they are doing so or are willing to do so, they deserve whole-hearted support from all lovers of secular democratic government. If they are not doing so, they are unwittingly allowing themselves to be used as pawns in a power struggle between variations of Abrahamic political religion.

[Mnemosyne]

I'm curious to know which issues the Roman Catholic and Jewish "courts" are allowed to decide. If you restrict the Sharia decisions to the same ones made in the RC and Jewish communities ... honestly, I don't see how you can disallow it while allowing the other two. It's discrimination to say, "Well, the RC and Jewish decisions are okay, but we just can't trust You People."

[=0=]

Permit a little devil's advocacy...

I'm NOT convinced that Islamic women will have the ability to make a voluntary choice:

Does this mean that by definition no Islamic woman would ever make that choice? If not, then what do you mean?

[...]a feeling heightened by a CBC radio interview with Islamic women fearing their moms would have problems 'opting out', given the social strictures of the Muslim community.

What other familial pressures should the state shield women (or, for that matter, anyone) from? If someone doesn't want to go to the school Mom wants them to, are we to forbid the mom from witholding favor?

More broadly, what forms of voluntary association are permissible? Canada has enshrined marriage (indeed, for gay people as well, as is right and proper). Is it then the case that this definition of marriage is the only correct one?

Lots of civil agreements happen under some form of duress; there's simply no way to fix that. Still, they are voluntary under 1st world standards. I don't see how recognizing voluntary "law" in this context is that much more extraordinary than the Boy Scout Motto. (I do of course recognize the heavier weighting; I don't think they differ in kind, in the terms of the Canadian proposal.)

[Arwen]

Mnemosyne - I think you're absolutely right: there should be no law practiced by religions of any sort or you *are* being *extremely* discriminatory.

People of faith - whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim - can and do get involved in arbitration within their church communities. I'm a Quaker - always a hugely socially active community - and Friends have been doing this sort of mediation for years. BUT: should people feel unaddressed through third party arbitration/mediation, legal challenge is still an option.

To be clear =0=, I have no problem encouraging people to work things out outside of the legal system: that includes Sharia. People make choices, have culture. To make individual *religious* systems responsible for meting out legal decisions is a problem to me. If marriage is civil, same-sex couples should have access, whether they're Muslim or Christian or Jewish.

Now, y'might say a same sex Muslim couple isn't going to try to marry under Sharia: I say if you're going to make any religious body's rules a legal entity, then they have to be able to stand up to a Charter Challenge. So, if you entrench this - an Imam or Rabbi makes a decision on a civil issue - and that decision violates charter rights, and is LEGALLY BINDING, then common law has been perverted.

Frankly, I like a seperation of Church and State. Then, the Imams and Priests and Rabbis have the right not to marry same-sex people, but they have no right to set arbitration in stone. The courts deal with the secular issues, and the Imams and Priests and Rabbis deal with faith and souls. No peanut butter in MY chocolate, thanks.

[Arwen]

Oh, yes, it should be made clear - any arbitrated ruling is overturnable on appeal. However, you've created two systems of law starting from very different places.

[R. Mildred]

If these religious arbitration bodies don't deal with issues that are covered by civil laws, then what exactly is stopping pro-sharia muslims from setting up there own tribunals anyway?

Just trying to understand the legal issues, but isn't one of the benefits of making these tribunals legal that the kind of Sharia law that is "legal" in canada can be better made to fit with the canadaian constitution or whatever it's called, and Canadian views about sex and equality (and keep out the extremist fundie types too).

And another thing is, I doubt the catholic and jewish laws and tribunals are exactly a pinnacle of sexual equality, so why is islamic law so much different? Sure the fundamentalist versions are ker-razy mysogynist, but what about moderate Sharia that isn't all about the hand chopping of thieves and head chopping of gays and women, but is very specifically focused in parts on giving women's their rights under law, the whole concept of Hijab stems from trying to stop men objectifying women for God's sake (hell muhammed could conceivably be called the first feminist in the same way that jesus was the first anti-cpaitalist), and most of the rest of what these tribunals decide will no doubt be related to marriage disputes, and the position of Sharia on women's place and rights within marriage varies wildly across north africa and south asia, as does Sharia's stance on polygamy (canada hasn't legalised polyamory yet has it?).

Sharia tribunals in canada could ultimatly lead to a form of western sharia emerging that chucks out most of the bigoted stuff from Islam's tribal roots in the same way that legal canadian law has been throwing off christianity's bigoted tribal roots over the last century or so.

But it all depends on how it's implemented and on Canada's muslim culture and makeup.
And no I wouldn't be exactly sad if they got rid of all religious tribunals, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it caused more trouble than it solved.

[mudkitty]

Catholic/Xian and Jewish laws discriminate against women as well. In fact the Muslims and the Catholics take their cues from Old Testament Jews. It isn't just Sharia. Where do you think all the draping and stoning of women comes from? For Muslims, it comes from the "people of the book." The book being the bible. The same bible that xians profess to believe.

I say, if you (we the people, and the government) want to accomidate one religion, you must accomidate them all (including Wicca, Santeria, Vodoo.) Or don't accomidate any of them. It's an all of them or non of them proposition under the first amendment (which, of course, doesn't apply in Canada.)

[mudkitty]

That fucking book, the bible, has caused, and will cause, more trouble on this earth than any other book in human history. But should it be banned? Of course not.

[The Green Knight]

It's an all of them or non of them proposition under the first amendment (which, of course, doesn't apply in Canada.)

No it doesn't but the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has equivalent provisions.

The history of religious arbitration in Ontario really comes from the province's attempts to streamline its court system by encouraging people to go to arbitration rather than litigation when possible. One of the institutions that sprang up as a result of this was religiously-based arbitration in family law matters.

Defenders of the sharia proposal argue that whatever form it would take in Ontario, it would not be the same as what you see elsewhere; that's because the Charter remains the law of the land, and no arbitrations can contradict either it or Ontario family law. In fact, any party to arbitration who does not agree with the arbitrated result would have the right to appeal to the Ontario courts, who would then rule strictly in accordance with Ontario law. Opponents of it point out that because of family and community pressure, many women would be unlikely to do so.

[john_m_burt]

I'm sympathetic with the idea of encouraging the development of a Western sharia. The reason Islam spread from Morocco to the Philippines is because it adapts well to many different cultures.

But, will the creation of Canadian sharia courts help to mainstream Canadian Muslims, or ghettoize them?

I wonder what Canadi-Anna, my favorite Canadian conservative, thinks of this? Something tells me she's finally found a conservative faith-based initiative she doesn't like, but she may feel free to surprise me.

[Brandon]

One of the arguments for recognizing religious arbitration is that it actually increases what the government can do to counterbalance unfair arbitration - the idea being that religious arbitration happens whether the government recognizes it or not; by recognizing it, the government can establish clear procedures for appeal, etc. If the problem, as some opponents seem to claim, is that women will be pressured to conform to Sharia law to their detriment, then it seems the problem is already in the system, out of sight of the policing of the government; and so some proponents have suggested that this move allows for rooting out injustice already in the system. The question would then be whether this approach has already worked in similar cases (from what little I've been able to gather, it has been something of a mixed bag in First Nations cases; it seems even more difficult to find evaluations of the effectiveness in Jewish and Catholic cases).

Religious arbitration seems to be one of those ideas that, when it works, works very well, to the great convenience of everyone involved; when it doesn't work well, it can work very badly indeed. It's noteworthy that the really serious split on whether sharia tribunals are a good idea isn't between Muslims and other Canadians, but between different Muslim groups.

[Aidan Maconachy]

Thad - it is perhaps important to note with respect to other religious bodies that arbitrate on behalf of their communities, that females from those communities are not tearing their hair out in the media or staging protest demonstrations. They aren't doing this presumably because they don't feel sufficiently threatened or compromised.

It is important to note that efforts on the part of the Ontario authorities to "normalize" Sharia by substituting the term "Islamic Family Law", has been roundly rejected not by ad hoc protest groups - but by the Muslim Canadian Congress.

Why such a visceral reaction of part of females in the Islamic community in Canada and elsewhere?

A lot of these women are intimately familiar with the inside story when it comes to Sharia, having come from societies where its provisions are enforced with traditional rigor. Many of them came to the west in hopes of finding freedom from the injustices implicit in laws that exhibit a powerful anti-woman bias. Moreover, they wanted to escape from the climate of fear created by the culture of Sharia that many regard as stifling, not to say threatening.

Islamic women I believe have good reason to feel dismayed. Sharia includes many provisions that are a lot more discriminatory toward women than the quasi-legal provisions of other religious entities.

For example under Pakistan's Zina (adultery laws that are part of the Hudood ordinance of 1979) - women were targeted for the "crime" of adultery. By the late 1980's some 6,000 women in Pakistan were in prison charged with adultery or a related crime. Girls who are raped have also been imprisoned under Zina laws.

Some of the punishments meted out are beyond belief. For example there is a well documented case of thirteen year old Jehan Mina who was victimized for the "crime" of being raped and made pregnant by an uncle and his son. This child was subjected to whipping for her so-called offence.

Obviously Marion Boyd in her wisdom, and other Ontario officials involved with the implementation of Islamic Family Law provisions, will ensure that it conforms to certain humane standards. But this seems to be little comfort to women who have been traumatized by the culture which Sharia represents.

I for one, fully empathize.

[The Green Knight]

The Ontario government turned the proposal down, and is also eliminating all other religious family-law tribunals. So now we know.

[Cheryl]

The Ontario government turned the proposal down, and is also eliminating all other religious family-law tribunals. So now we know.

THANK GOD FOR THAT!!!

If people want to live their lives by this strict Sharia law, then they should not be living in a country where there is freedom for all, including WOMEN!

[ftghfhgf]

[_name_]dsfsdf[/_name_]
[_url_]http://hmma.info[/_url_]
[_email_]dsfsdf@asfsf.com[/_email_]
[_message_]http://ibga.info 1 [url=http://ibga.info]1[/url]
http://ibna.info 2 [url=http://ibna.info]2[/url]
http://ibha.info 3 [url=http://ibha.info]3[/url]
http://hnaa.info 4 [url=http://hnaa.info]4[/url]
http://hmpa.info 5 [url=http://hmpa.info]5[/url]
http://hmoa.info 6 [url=http://hmoa.info]6[/url]
http://hmra.info 7 [url=http://hmra.info]7[/url]
http://hmna.info 8 [url=http://hmna.info]8[/url]
http://hmma.info 9 [url=http://hmma.info]9[/url]

[Traffic Ticket]

"Opponents of Sharia law say allowing Islamic tribunals could lead to discrimination against women."

Being a muslim, I can say that Sharia law is not a 100% accurate law in the terms and laws represented in Islam by the Quran. Some Sharia laws express dangerous fundamental ideas, that even muslims like myself dont tolerate. In countries like Iran Sharia Law dictates everyday life for the people, and constitutes laws such as NO music or TV allowed, except "islamic". These laws are not in correct sync with the Islamic Laws taught in the Quran. I would not agree with the Sharia law being used in Ontario, Canada the way it is held by some Muslim countries.