'No' to Sharia law for arbitration of family matters: Ontario Canada

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
Ontario, Canada has been considering legislation that would give government recognition to arbitration decisions of Muslim tribunals on family matters (e.g. divorce, inheritance), it being understood that the parties appeared before the tribunals voluntarily. These decisions would be based on the traditional Islamic "sharia" law.

Ontario already recognizes decisions of Christian and Jewish tribunals.

The present decision, just announced by provincial Premier McGuinty, is NOT to proceed to recognize sharia law, and-- to be fair--to strip Christian and Jewish tribunals of any secular (provincial) backing, treating all religious groups the same.

England and France are dealing with similar matters because of the large Muslim population. In simple terms, Would these Western societies--if they recognized sharia, be sacrificing hard fought principles of egalitarianism in the name of multiculturalism.

This is an update to an earlier thread, in case someone wishes to find and post its url.

www.thestar.com


McGuinty says 'No' to sharia law


PRITHI YELAJA AND ROBERT BENZIE
STAFF REPORTERS

In a surprise announcement that caught both supporters and opponents of sharia law off guard, Premier Dalton McGuinty says he will move quickly to ban all religious arbitration in the province.

McGuinty made the announcement in a telephone interview with The Canadian Press yesterday after months of debate and controversy surrounding use of Islamic sharia law in family arbitration.

"I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough," the premier told the news agency.

"There will be no sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians."

The announcement prompted tears of joy and cartwheels among opponents of sharia who say they suffered constant harassment, including verbal taunts, physical attacks and even death threats by fundamentalist Muslims because of their stance.

"I'm just thrilled! It validates what we've been saying. It's a big victory for separation of religion and state and a huge defeat for Islamic fundamentalism," said Tarek Fatah, of the Muslim Canadian Congress, adding the group feared McGuinty would allow sharia after receiving a report recommending it by former NDP attorney-general Marion Boyd.

"I want to congratulate the premier for taking such a bold and courageous decision. It restores my faith in politicians," said Fatah.

Boyd could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Proponents of sharia expressed shock and disappointment at what they call McGuinty's "flip-flop" on the issue, and the fact that he went against the recommendations of Boyd's report.

"He is misguided and will alienate many people of faith in this province," said Mohammed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress.

"He obviously caved in to political pressure from a minority with a loud voice. Not only will it cost him at the polls in the next election, the problem won't go away ... Arbitration will continue anyway, because it is part of our social fabric."

"If McGuinty is worried about women abuse," Elmasry said, "then recognizing and regulating arbitration is much better than the ad hoc procedure that is currently happening because, when you regulate it, there is transparency and accountability."

A representative from Ontario's Jewish community also expressed surprise at McGuinty's decision.

"We're stunned," said Joel Richler, Ontario region chairman of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

"At the very least, we would have thought the government would have consulted with us before taking away what we've had for so many years."

Richler said the current system — in place since 1992 — has worked well and he saw no reason for it to be changed for either his or other religious communities.

"If there have been any problems flowing from any rabbinical court decisions, I'm not aware of them," he said.

The decision likely will not affect marriage tribunals of the Catholic Church, which simply decide whether a marriage was "sacramentally valid," said Suzanne Scorsone, spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Toronto. Such tribunals do not access the Arbitration Act because they do not deal with issues such as custody, property division or support payments, she said.

Members of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women who had met just yesterday to plot their next move in fighting further legalization of sharia law, were overjoyed at McGuinty's decision.

"We're still in disbelief. But it's such good news. It's remarkable. We're very happy because it's been a difficult fight. We got a lot of flak from other Muslims who called us Islamaphobic," said Nuzhat Jafri, a spokeswoman for the group.

"It was way too complicated for the government to allow faith-based arbitration. Most faiths, whether we like it or not, are not fair to women because they are based on a patriarchal tradition."

Banning all religious arbitration is an "equitable move," Jafri added. "To single out Muslims would have been discriminatory."
=====
Religious groups say they'll fight to keep tribunals

Jewish, Muslim organizations upset after premier scraps faith-based arbitration

FROM CANADIAN PRESS

Jews and Muslims vowed today to fight for faith-based tribunals to settle family law disputes such as divorce after Premier Dalton McGuinty's surprise announcement that Ontario will outlaw all religious arbitration in the province.Religious groups are complaining they had no input before McGuinty announced Sunday that Ontario will not allow Muslim rules known as Sharia law to be used to settle family cases through arbitration, and will also end all faith-based arbitration."Why destroy something that's working in this province?" asked Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada. "Why would you penalize Judaism and Christianity?"McGuinty insisted Sunday his government wasn't
 
Pure said:
Ontario, Canada has been considering legislation that would give government recognition to arbitration decisions of Muslim tribunals on family matters (e.g. divorce, inheritance), it being understood that the parties appeared before the tribunals voluntarily. These decisions would be based on the traditional Islamic "sharia" law.

The government turned it down. ;) THERE IS NO CONSIDERING IT. This is NOT the first time it was raised in government, nor turned down. :)
 
*shrug* If there is freedom of religion, secular law must take precedence. If a community can set up it's own laws that are in conflict with the secular law, the people within the community does not have freedom of religion.
 
Never realised you guys had such things.

I guess with arbitration in family law matters, perhaps both parties can consent to a member/consultant etc of their own religious faith to sit in on the matter and play an active role in the decision making process.

Even though women may be disadavantaged, it does raise a concern that men, and therefore their women, may not use the non-secular method, and possibly women are remaining in situations that are not healthy for them, and are still disadvantaged but in different ways.

I should probably try saying then before I have a couple of drinks, eh? :)
 
As a big fan of Thomas Jefferson I fervently believe the wall between church and state must be high and wide.

This decision is a damned good one in my opinion.

Surprising McGuinty did such a thing. He's usually one of those people who puts off decisions forever.
 
I don't understand. I agree that in a free society, civil law must take precedence over religious or ethnic or any other kind of law, but if two parties agree to abide by a rabbi's or mullah's decision before they enter into arbitration, how is this different from any other type of arbitration?
 
dr_mabeuse said:
I don't understand. I agree that in a free society, civil law must take precedence over religious or ethnic or any other kind of law, but if two parties agree to abide by a rabbi's or mullah's decision before they enter into arbitration, how is this different from any other type of arbitration?


If you were a woman doc, would you "voluntarily" choose to have a divorce or some other matter settled under shira law? If you refuse to do so, the stigmitization would be intense. Why put women in a position of accepting a judgement where they are defacto third or fourth class citizens under that law or have them face social stigmitization if not open repisal?
 
What I don't understand is why people emigrate to other countries (presumably because they don't like their own very much) then want to change the new country to be more like the one they left.

It doesn't make sense. In fact, to be horribly blunt, it's one of the biggest arsehole ideas I've ever heard of.

Religion and politics should always be kept separate, regardless of whether it's Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism. End of story. We're talking about rationalism and irrationalism, and when they're blended together they have infinite potential for destruction.
 
scheherazade_79 said:
What I don't understand is why people emigrate to other countries (presumably because they don't like their own very much) then want to change the new country to be more like the one they left.
Um...cuz it wasn't their cultural traditions and religion that made them emigrate, but something else? Political prosecution, ethnic cleasing, oppression of minority religions (and then they hear that hey guys, they have freedom of religion in Canada, let's back our bags). Take your pick.

Like I said above, I don't support Sharia, or any relegious or other community law that limits the freedom and rights of the individual, granted by secular law. But I have no problem understanding their reasoning.
 
Liar said:
Like I said above, I don't support Sharia, or any relegious or other community law that limits the freedom and rights of the individual, granted by secular law. But I have no problem understanding their reasoning.

I do... I think they're weird.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
If you were a woman doc, would you "voluntarily" choose to have a divorce or some other matter settled under shira law? If you refuse to do so, the stigmitization would be intense. Why put women in a position of accepting a judgement where they are defacto third or fourth class citizens under that law or have them face social stigmitization if not open repisal?

My duh. I never even considered divorce and the social pressures involved.

Jews do most of their arguing over property and food. :rolleyes:
 
dr_mabeuse said:
My duh. I never even considered divorce and the social pressures involved.

Jews do most of their arguing over property and food. :rolleyes:


I suspect Shira's virulent anti woman positions were the main thrust of saying no. Neither Christianity in it's fundamentalist form nor Judahism is a lot better, but both of those religion's codes have evolved. The evolved versions, while still far from eglatarian aren't so blatantly sexist. But if you say not to Shira, you have to revoke the support you had given to others or else you are descriminating.
 
I never thought that the religious tribunals were a good idea in the first place when I learnt about them (years after the fact). Now there's going to be a "hue and a cry" about religious freedom and blah blah blah.

I'm glad McGuinty shut it down but boy he could have handled it better. One minute he's saying "Sharia Law? A-OK" and now it's "One Law for all Canadians". Huh.
 
Adrenaline said:
I'm glad McGuinty shut it down but boy he could have handled it better. One minute he's saying "Sharia Law? A-OK" and now it's "One Law for all Canadians". Huh.

Adrenaline, McGuinty is a Liberal. No Liberal politician comes down on any side of any question in public unless they have to.

Or they think it will win them an election.

For our non-Canadian friends, the Liberal party is simply a name. However they are not very liberal.

Unless it will win them an election.
 
I don't think any kind of religous group should have any kind of authority. That includes Christian because there isn't that much difference between Muslim and Christian fundies. People will still seek advice from the clergy but at least it will now carry less weight. Personally, I don't understand why a woman would ever agree to abide by the decision of clergy. They must know how the deck is stacked against them but Muslim clergy are probably the worst of all, except maybe those from the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints. Some of the conservative members of that sect would make Khoemeini look like a liberal feminist.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing to prevent religious arbitration. But now the findings of such arbitration are non binding. Which, if you think about it, they should be, if people enter into them voluntarily, there shouldn't be any need for secular enforcement of the decisions.
 
Right, Colly,

in your response to dr. mab's question.

mab: but if two parties agree to abide by a rabbi's or mullah's decision before they enter into arbitration, how is this different from any other type of arbitration?

colly:
//There is nothing to prevent religious arbitration. But now the findings of such arbitration are non binding. Which, if you think about it, they should be, if people enter into them voluntarily, there shouldn't be any need for secular enforcement of the decisions.//
====

I, pure, respond: It's to be emphasized the any person or couple is free to go to their local 'faith tribunal' and get a decision, and abide by it--presumably the decision is 'enforced' through community pressure and is carried out because of the obvious point "Why visit the tribunal in the first place if you're not going to abide by it?"

What was at stake is a 'new democratic' (left liberal) position that the province's "Arbitration Act" apply to religious tribunals. The act, though I have not read it, apparently specifies that, where certain procedures are followed, arbitrators' decisions are to be recognized by the courts.
If I and my insurance company agree on a professional arbitrator for the damages to my car, then, when that decision is made--pure is get $2,000--it's enforceable. I can sue, to get it. But, on the other side, I can't, if I don't like the outcome--in the absence of some gross irregularity, like discovering a 'payoff' to the arbitrator-- apply to court (sue) in an attempt to get $3000.

The recent decision then, leaves the civil court option open to all--in a meaningful way--*even where* a *religious* tribunal has spoken. If the tribunal said, 'Under sharia, this female heir is to get 1/2 of what the male heir receives' (well known islamic law), the female is free to sue, even if she appeared 'freely' before the tribunal; she may attempt to get 1/2, as she may well be entitled to, in Canadian law.
----

Incidentally, I posted this because 'faith based' arbitration is NOT a stretch for the US, or for certain (red) states. Remember that the 'right' wing questions the concept of a 'wall' between church and state, since the Constitution does not exactly say that. And Bush and co. are known to be devising 'breaches' in that wall--e.g., for public display of the 10C. So Americans should not feel 'it can't happen here'--only in Canada or England where there is misguided 'multiculturalism.'
 
Back
Top