[Bodah]

$1:

Sharia law still not dead

By CHRISTINA BLIZZARD


A curious delay in proclaiming into law changes aimed at shutting down the use of sharia law in this province is cause for alarm for one Muslim spokesperson and an MPP demanding to know why the government is dragging its feet.

Amid a furor over a proposal to allow sharia law to settle civil disputes, more than a year ago Attorney General Michael Bryant issued a press release saying proposed amendments to the Abitration Act would mean there would be "one law for all Ontarians."

Oddly, although the changes were passed Feb. 14, 2006 and given royal assent shortly thereafter, they have not formally been proclaimed into law.

Bill 27 said, among other things, that third party arbitrators could only serve as advisers in civil cases. Some parts of the bill have been made law, but the key provision outlawing religious arbitration have not. In 2005, pressure was building to allow sharia law, a 1,400-year-old set of Islamic laws covering legal and family issues, be used to settle civil disputes -- including family law settlements -- in this province. Women's groups protested that sharia law is often oppressive towards women and they worried in the power imbalance that often occurs when religion is allowed to dictate law, the rights of women and children would be trampled. And moderate Muslims feared the power of the imams they had come to Canada to avoid would follow them even in this country.

"There is one family law for all Ontarians and that is Canadian law," Bryant said in a press release dated Nov. 15, 2005.

Given the foot-dragging that's happened since then, Niagara Centre MPP Peter Kormos questions the government's commitment to these changes.

"I am not sure that the government really was that enthusiastic about their proposal that they said was going to protect women," Kormos said in a recent interview.

"The elephant in the room was sharia law, but you never heard those words come from Mr. McGuinty's mouth. It's a strange thing, then, that Mr. Bryant would bask in the spotlight a year ago, but be nowhere to be seen 12 months later," Kormos said.

A spokesman for the Muslim Canadian Congress, (MCC) a group that opposes sharia law, said he is surprised and alarmed that the law hasn't been enacted.

"All over the Muslim world, people want to get away from it, (sharia law)" said Tarek Fatah in a telephone interview yesterday.

"The nurturing and the appeasement of Islamists by all political parties has come to the stage where people can come around and demand that these laws be enacted and I was hoping that Premier Dalton McGuinty's and Attorney General Michael Bryant's brave decision would have ended the issue, but it alarms me there is still some chance of these people doing what they do," Fateh said.

Fateh says MCC opposes sharia law primarily because it doesn't believe in laws that can't be debated in Parliament.

"We would have no problem with religious laws if religious laws were subject to parliamentary discourse." Instead, he says, changes in sharia law can only be made by Islamic scholars.

Other religions already have in place their own faith tribunals, and those, too, would be shut down by the changes.

A spokesman for Bryant said the law hasn't been proclaimed because the "nuts and bolts of the regulations" are still being worked out with religious leaders.

"They will be signed, sealed and delivered this spring," said Greg Crone.

"No family arbitrations based on religious principles have been brought to any Ontario court in the interim period."

Well, let's hope the amendments get proclaimed before the election writ is dropped -- and everything dies on the order paper.

It was the NDP who, in 1991, allowed individuals to negotiate civil disputes through faith-based tribunals. Frankly, it is one thing for parents to inculcate religious beliefs and values in their children. It's quite another for them to live by separate rules. In a modern society, all children should be afforded the same protection of the law. You can't have some kids governed by a court of law while other children have their fates dictated by faith-based rules that date to the Dark Ages -- whether they be Catholic, Jewish, fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. And in faiths dominated by priests, rabbis and imams, women are often intimidated into making deals they may later regret.

That is why we have the rule of law in this country. And it should apply evenly and fairly to all.

http://torontosun.com/News/Columnists/B ... 37254.html

Every vote counts for squinty McGuinty I suppose.

[kenmore]

well I think you are wrong there -- the only law in ontario is the same for everyone.. based on the constitution of you guessed it
CANADA! so if you want your sharia law -- go home

[george123]

Agreed.

[tritium]

As we all know, gay marriage is now legal in Ontario. If Sharia law were implemented, how would gay Muslim couples resolve differences? Muslim lesbians would both lose their property in a divorce? Who would keep the dowry? And what about gay male Muslims? How would they figure out which husband gets to physically beat disobedient wives? How would you figure out which one to stone to death? Guys stoning each other would take far too long. People would get bored and not stay till the end.



You want an Islamic State and Sharia Law. GO HOME!!

[kenmore]

AMEN ! said well tritium

[Confused]

tritium tritium:

As we all know, gay marriage is now legal in Ontario. If Sharia law were implemented, how would gay Muslim couples resolve differences? Muslim lesbians would both lose their property in a divorce? Who would keep the dowry? And what about gay male Muslims? How would they figure out which husband gets to physically beat disobedient wives? How would you figure out which one to stone to death? Guys stoning each other would take far too long. People would get bored and not stay till the end.



You want an Islamic State and Sharia Law. GO HOME!!

Careful you might offend someone and the PC Police will be knocking on your door.

[tritium]

Confused Confused:

tritium tritium:

As we all know, gay marriage is now legal in Ontario. If Sharia law were implemented, how would gay Muslim couples resolve differences? Muslim lesbians would both lose their property in a divorce? Who would keep the dowry? And what about gay male Muslims? How would they figure out which husband gets to physically beat disobedient wives? How would you figure out which one to stone to death? Guys stoning each other would take far too long. People would get bored and not stay till the end.



You want an Islamic State and Sharia Law. GO HOME!!

Careful you might offend someone and the PC Police will be knocking on your door.

bring'em on.

[ka3bour]

george123 george123:

Agreed.

it depends how do u see it

[sandorski]

It was my impression that other Religious groups have similar Civil Law Rights in Ontario. Meaning, that Religious Institutions are legally allowed to resolve Civil Disputes based upon their own chosen Laws and not based on Government Law. If that is true, it makes an outright ban on Sharia Law rather difficult, both Politically and Legally.

[Streaker]

sandorski sandorski:

It was my impression that other Religious groups have similar Civil Law Rights in Ontario. Meaning, that Religious Institutions are legally allowed to resolve Civil Disputes based upon their own chosen Laws and not based on Government Law. If that is true, it makes an outright ban on Sharia Law rather difficult, both Politically and Legally.

That's right. The Ontario Arbitration Act made provision for Catholics, Jews (including Orthodox Jews, if memory serves me), Jehovah's Witnesses etc.... and the rulings of the religious arbitrators were non-binding and always subject to the constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But then there was public hysteria because Muslims asked for a spot in the OAA, and the whole thing became political.

[werewolf]

As a Catholic, I was under the impression the Catholic Church did not operate an arbitration tribunal,although it has internal tribunals ruling on the religious validity of Church marriage (to clarify, a Catholic person can divorce and get married again in a non-Catholic (religious or civil) ceremony, but he/she has to go to that tribinal and have the first marriage declared null to remarry in the Church).

Also, there was indeed civil arbitration by Orthodox Jew bodies (unlikely to become famous for upholding women's equality), and Muslim Ismalii bodies, who often do not use Sharia as a binding source of jurisprudence.

[WBenson]

Streaker Streaker:

sandorski sandorski:

It was my impression that other Religious groups have similar Civil Law Rights in Ontario. Meaning, that Religious Institutions are legally allowed to resolve Civil Disputes based upon their own chosen Laws and not based on Government Law. If that is true, it makes an outright ban on Sharia Law rather difficult, both Politically and Legally.

That's right. The Ontario Arbitration Act made provision for Catholics, Jews (including Orthodox Jews, if memory serves me), Jehovah's Witnesses etc.... and the rulings of the religious arbitrators were non-binding and always subject to the constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But then there was public hysteria because Muslims asked for a spot in the OAA, and the whole thing became political.

If it's non-binding, why should my taxes pay for it? I don't want to pay because some people want to solve things the way their church wants.

[Streaker]

WBenson WBenson:

Streaker Streaker:

sandorski sandorski:

It was my impression that other Religious groups have similar Civil Law Rights in Ontario. Meaning, that Religious Institutions are legally allowed to resolve Civil Disputes based upon their own chosen Laws and not based on Government Law. If that is true, it makes an outright ban on Sharia Law rather difficult, both Politically and Legally.

That's right. The Ontario Arbitration Act made provision for Catholics, Jews (including Orthodox Jews, if memory serves me), Jehovah's Witnesses etc.... and the rulings of the religious arbitrators were non-binding and always subject to the constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But then there was public hysteria because Muslims asked for a spot in the OAA, and the whole thing became political.

If it's non-binding, why should my taxes pay for it? I don't want to pay because some people want to solve things the way their church wants.

Well, they're scrapping all religion-based arbitration, so you'll soon end up paying more because many of these disputes will now end up going to court.

[werewolf]

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression the decision of an arbitrator (religious or otherwise) is binding on both parties unless it contravenes the Constitution, the Ontario Human Rights Code or other legislation (and there can be appeals as well). According to the Act, costs can be charged to the losing party, so I think (and I might be wrong) that the only costs for the public purse would be in setting the arbitration.

On a more general note - setting arbitration bodies operating on religious principles was a mistake before attempts to set an Islamic body, and is still a mistake. Jurisprudence of various religious on civil issues may be at odds with some of the principles on which our legal system is founded (equality of genders before the law being one example). Further, community pressures on individuals to rely on such a mechanism would cast doubts as to whether participation is fully voluntary.

[xerxes]

werewolf werewolf:

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression the decision of an arbitrator (religious or otherwise) is binding on both parties unless it contravenes the Constitution, the Ontario Human Rights Code or other legislation (and there can be appeals as well). According to the Act, costs can be charged to the losing party, so I think (and I might be wrong) that the only costs for the public purse would be in setting the arbitration.

On a more general note - setting arbitration bodies operating on religious principles was a mistake before attempts to set an Islamic body, and is still a mistake. Jurisprudence of various religious on civil issues may be at odds with some of the principles on which our legal system is founded (equality of genders before the law being one example). Further, community pressures on individuals to rely on such a mechanism would cast doubts as to whether participation is fully voluntary.

To my understanding, the decisions were only only binding if both parties consented.