| Submit your comments on this article |
| Great White North |
| Sharia in Canada: Some Canadian Moslems Worried; some happy |
| 2004-04-28 |
| EFL Sharia Gains Foothold in Ontario By DeNeen L. Brown Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A14 TORONTO -- Suad Almad, her head wrapped in a blue silk scarf, was discussing her beliefs with a group of friends. She said fervently that she thought the lives of all Muslims should be governed by Islamic law, known as sharia.... Some Muslim leaders in Canada said that there should be no controversy about the new arbitration process, but some opponents expressed concern that people might feel coerced into accepting sharia-based arbitration... Alia Hogben, a board member of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, said she opposes the religious tribunals. "It is difficult to speak up because we don’t want to feed into anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic stuff ..."If I am a woman of faith, and the community of people who see themselves as leaders say that if I do not follow the sharia court here, the Islamic Institute, then I will be tantamount to blasphemy and apostasy," Hogben said in a debate shown on Canadian television. "And you know that in some countries, apostasy means death sentence." ... how could she get this idea Ali [President of the Society of Canadian Muslims] said the creation of the Islamic Court of Civil Justice would allow this "without violating any Canadian Law." Ali told the Canadian Law Times that sharia tribunals were important for practicing Muslims in Canada. He said that Muslims would no longer have an excuse not to follow sharia because it would no longer be impractical in Canada. "The concession given by sharia is no longer available to us because the impracticality has been removed," Ali said. He has written that Muslims who choose not to be governed by sharia "for reasons of convenience would be guilty of a far greater crime." Ali said in a telephone interview - No intimidation there --- Canadian Moslems will all become victims of Islam |
| Posted by:mhw |
| #16 Same way they "square" differences with all infidels, perhaps? |
| Posted by: .com 2004-04-28 8:14:52 PM |
| #15 Examine France and you will understand! I was about to say the same thing. I wonder how they intend to square Sharia with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. ... 28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-04-28 8:13:19 PM |
| #14 I don't understand how you can say that this is just a civil matter or that Muslim women won't be coherced into giving up rights. They barely have any status at all in their culture...this just makes it easy for the Muslim men to abuse them. Note the last sentence: He has written that Muslims who choose not to be governed by sharia "for reasons of convenience would be guilty of a far greater crime Shame, shame on the women's groups for looking the other way. From what I know of Sharia - women have no rights except what are given to them from men. This should simply be ruled illegal and abusive. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-28 7:13:42 PM |
| #13 This doesn't really surprise me. Canada hasn't had much in the way of a national government since Pierre Trudeau's wife posed nude in Playboy. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-04-28 6:41:11 PM |
| #12 I like it as an augmentation of civil law (Jewish law model) but not to usurp the law. And only if both parties agree to this. I am not ready to submit to Muslim law but I bet most of the Achmeds and Mohammads running around don’t realize how strict Sharia can be. The only gripes I have seen from westerners in Islamic courts is that they have little grey area. For instance if little Abdul think that because he had a bad parent that it’s ok to steal Sharia will not agree with that Liberal aspect. Also if Mohammad neglects to pay child support Sharia will not let him off the hook because he can’t find a job. I don’t think they should extend this to capital cases because Canada doesn’t allow for the death penalty. Again I think this is ok for someone to choose, but not to force it upon someone. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-04-28 6:21:31 PM |
| #11 From KesherTalk: including the requirement that parties enter into arbitration only on a voluntary basis. Any decisions by arbitrators are subject to court ratification. Canadian officials said that no criminal matters would be considered by sharia arbitrators and no corporal punishment could be imposed. Crawley said that legal provisions in other provinces also permit such tribunals. Jewish courts, using the same methods, have been operating in Ontario for years. Such a court, called a Beit Din, deals with monetary, business and family disputes, but no criminal matters. "Jewish courts have been operating in Toronto for as long as Jews have been here, hundreds of years," said Rabbi Reuven Tradburks, secretary of the Beit Din of Toronto. He said he had not heard of cases decided by arbitrators in Jewish courts that had been overturned. "A court will not enforce a decision in violation of the Charter of Rights," Crawley said, referring to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of the nation's constitution. He also said there were limits to arbitrators' powers. They cannot, for example, rule on matters regarding third parties. "The rights of children cannot be arbitrated," he said. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-28 6:05:29 PM |
| #10 How do you invoke a law like Sharia? How do you keep the morons in your hand? How do you invoke a law like Sharia? Examine France and you will understand! Organ Music. |
| Posted by: Able Weiss 2004-04-28 5:26:28 PM |
| #9 I dunno. I think this has a chance of being a GOOD thing. Here's why: Say you're are a muslim in Canada and you're happy as a clam (is that halal?). One day you get called before the tribunal. They come up with some godawful islamic ruling that sounds inane, archaic and downright stupid (hey, it's possible). So you shake your head and say the muslim equivalent of "F-you." You choose to be westernized. We call that "assimilation." Unless of course they kill you. |
| Posted by: PlanetDan 2004-04-28 4:03:05 PM |
| #8 He said that Muslims would no longer have an excuse not to follow sharia because it would no longer be impractical in Canada. Or - There will be fewer, but BETTER Muslims in Canada. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-04-28 1:11:35 PM |
| #7 Raptor, yes, and when you accept arbitration, the arbitrators decision supercedes civil courts. If I write, and ask my wife to sign, a prenuptial agreement stating that on divorce our assets should be divided in accordance with Jewish law, as interpreted by the local Orthodox Rabbinic court, would prenup be automatically void??? The way I read the above selection, all thats happened is that a set of courts has been created that someone COULD refer to in a private contract. Nothing in Canadian law has changed. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-28 1:00:32 PM |
| #6 Raptor, according to what I am reading here... choosing not to follow Sharia would be apostasy meaning a death sentence.... If they want Sharia let them move to Saudia Arabia or Pakistan. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-04-28 12:54:38 PM |
| #5 LH,arbitration is for civil matters only,my read on this is they want Sharia to superseed secular Canadian law.I wonder how long it will be before some poor women is sentence to stoning,or soeone setenced to death for apostay. |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-04-28 12:43:28 PM |
| #4 Not just Canadian Muslims, Shipman; watch for them to start involving infidels soon . . . |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2004-04-28 9:59:44 AM |
| #3 IIUC someone who writes a private contract in the US can designate that disputes under that contract are resolved by a private arbitrator, rather than the courts. The usual choice is the American Arbitration Society, IIUC. This saves time and expense associated with the government run courts. But one CAN choose a religious organization. And IIUC religious Jews, for example, can and do choose religious courts, and BY THE CONTRACT make decisions under Jewish religious law. I dont see why muslims cant do the same with Sharia. Of course if someone is subjected to threats of violence to use this, thats blatantly illegal. But social pressure??? Social pressure to do something you dont wont to is as "American as Apple Pie" If you think social pressure invalidates a contract, Im not sure you really beleive in freedom to contract. And I dont see that this has anything to do with honor killings, etc. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-28 9:57:10 AM |
| #2 said the creation of the Islamic Court of Civil Justice would allow this "without violating any Canadian Law." ahh..yes...killing of infidels, honor killings, beatings, stonings and supression of women will not violate any Canadian laws. The liberals have found themselves in a bit of a box, haven't they. heh heh |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-28 8:52:48 AM |
| #1 I fear the end of the bacon sandwich is nigh. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-04-28 8:03:22 AM |