quote:

---

Had she stayed in Iran, Homa Arjomand would now be dead.

All — all — of the women's activists she worked with in Tehran have been executed, victims of a reactionary regime that ruled, and continues to rule, by strict adherence to Islam's sharia law.

In 1989, she and her husband paid $15,000 to smugglers to help them and their two young children flee the country.

For three days, they rode on horseback through the mountains, sleeping in barns before finally reaching Turkey.

Two years later, the onetime professor of medical physics arrived in Canada as a refugee. And how grateful she was to be in a secular country, where female equality was the law.

That was then.

Last fall, Arjomand, now a transitional counsellor in Toronto for immigrant women, heard the province had quietly approved the use of Islamic law in Ontario's Muslim community.

A group she'd never heard of, called the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice, had gained the right to hold tribunals, darul qada, in which marriage, family and business disputes can be settled according to sharia.

The 1,300-year-old body of laws and rules for living was inspired by the Qur'an, Islam's holy book.

Arjomand was horrified.

"The last thing I expected in Canada, the last thing I want, is sharia law," she says. "Women are not equal under it, therefore it is opposed to Canada's laws and values. The government can't let this happen."

The government has no intention of stopping it.

---

But if you're trying to imply that I'm racist because I'm not condemnng the Catholic and Hasidic tribunals in a thread about Sharia tribunals when it was only mentioned in passing in the article, well, all I can say is, I've gone on record lots of times on babble registering my disgust with the Catholic church when it comes to their treatment of women. I don't know much about Hasidic or Orthodox Jews, but I'm willing to bet that if they're fundamental literalists, then I certainly wouldn't want tribunals based on Hasidic laws either.

Edited because you didn't say or imply that I was racist, but that the articles are racist. However, I agree 100% with the article in question.

[ 23 May 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Just to say that Catholic culture and practices are not nearly so foreign here.

There are very severe problems with the rabbinical councils concerning "Get" (rabbinically ordained divorce). The man has to give it, if not the woman is left high and dry, and few ultra-Orthodox women are prepared to say oh fuck it and live their own lives alone or with another partner.

The Council of Muslim women are protesting it, maybe they could use some help, not sure how.

Has it been proven that there are Catholic tribunals practiced under the Arbitration Act? If so, when was the last one, and how did it affect people.

http://www.humanist.toronto.on.ca/sharia.html
It should also be noted that, in arbitrating, churches and synagogues apply the definitions, terms and conditions of Ontario law. Muslims apply the terms, definitions and conditions of Shari’a.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:
And nobody has made such an accusation here... so why are we even debating it?

---

quote:

---

CAROLINE MALLAN
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF

The Ontario government will review plans to use Islamic law to settle family disputes before the practice is set to begin in the province.

Attorney-General Michael Bryant told reporters yesterday that the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice — the group that plans to use existing arbitration legislation to apply a form of sharia law to settle disputes in the Muslim community — will not begin until later this year.

"We're looking at what the options are, aware of the fact that the (institute) will not be up and running until later on this year, which permits us time to look at it and look at implications that any proposals that are being put forward might have on the entire arbitrations system and how the Arbitration Act works," Bryant said.

Premier Dalton McGuinty announced this week he has asked Bryant and Sandra Pupatello, the minister responsible for women's issues in his cabinet, to examine the issue in depth and report back to him on the best course of action.

The practice is permitted under the existing Arbitration Act that allows religious groups to resolve civil family disputes within their faith, providing all affected parties give their consent to the process and the outcomes respect Canadian law and human rights codes.

Several legal and women's groups have expressed concern that Muslim women might be coerced by what they label as a male-dominated culture into participating in sharia tribunals without informed consent because of community or religious pressures.

They argue the 1,400-year-old set of rules and laws is flawed because it does not view women as equal and therefore cannot provide equal justice to all parties in disputes, especially on issues of divorce, separation, child custody and division of property.

McGuinty said he shares that concern.

---

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]

quote:

---

I don't see the big deal. An administrative tribunal that is contained within and subject to the laws of our land, including the charter. Where the principles of justice come from should not be a concern. What matters is that Canadian law is paramount.

---

This was my position when I first read about this change to the Arbitration Act. Now, I'm not so sure.

I'll leave aside entirely, for the moment, the question of whether Muslim women will be disadvantaged by sharia decisions (which is possible). Even if they aren't, this amounts to an extension of the arbitration system (and I for one didn't previously know that it already sanctions the use of Catholic and rabbinical law). Whatever rules it may be subject to, arbitration is, more or less, private justice -- privately-administered and privately-paid for.

Is opposition to this based solely on the belief that some women would be pressured into using a Sharia tribunal? Because how many Catholic women are pressured into not using birth control? How many gay Catholic kids have been pressured to deny themselves? And we certainly don't ban the Catholic church on the grounds that it's biased.

Democracy works the other way around. The state has no place in your life except when a democratically elected government has passed specific legislation that affects a specific aspect of your life, in accordance with basic democratic principles as overseen by the courts.

Nobody "allows" anybody to join a church or a reading circle or a tiddleywinks club. You are a free person most of the time, eh? The only limit to your freedom -- and the protection of your freedom as well -- is the law.

quote:

---

You are a free person most of the time, eh? The only limit to your freedom -- and the protection of your freedom as well -- is the law.

---

Yabbut, if we believed we're free, then why shouldn't two Muslims who want to solve their differences with Sharia law be allowed to? We seem to "allow" (or at any rate we don't prevent) people of other faiths to settle their differences as they see fit, so long as the resolution falls within Canadian laws, so why not Muslims?

quote:

---

or at least discouraging them from turning to it,

---

So encourage them to consider our Canadian laws, but allow them to use Sharia if they wish. Otherwise, in the name of protecting a potential some, we'll be paternalistically deciding for many.

Assume for a moment that there exists a Muslim whose intention in seeking out a Sharia tribunal to hear his grievance is NOT to patriarchally screw over his wife. Why shouldn't he be able to? And if the other party in this dispute wishes to use Sharia law, why shouldn't he be able to as well?

As far as I know, neither the Catholic Church nor the CPC make legally binding decisions about child custody or support payments or division of property on dissolution of a marriage. The state rightfully has an interest in those kinds of decisions -- they fall under the heading of law, not private conscience.

I don't know enough to know whether there are other kinds of culture-specific tribunals operating that could violate the civil liberties of an individual involved in such cases. If there are, those present us with the same problem.

quote:

---

The state rightfully has an interest in those kinds of decisions -- they fall under the heading of law, not private conscience.

---

And yet, in a secular courtroom, a divorcing spouse could stand up and renounce all claim to marital property, or all visitation rights to a child.

In other words, while the state has a vested interest in ensuring that both participants in a dispute "have their day in court", it has, or at least exercises, no control over what these participants consider to be acceptable to them, so long as an agreement is reached.

So then why should the state step in and basically say "We don't really care why you want to use Sharia law, nor what you intend to get from this dispute, but just in case you might get the short end of the stick, we can't let you"?

The state has a legitimate interest only in some kinds of coercion. The state is legitimately interested in the welfare of all children (which may depend on defending the equal rights of women), and in seeing that individuals are not impoverished because their rights were not respected. (Yeah, yeah, but let's put our socialism aside for just a sec.)

The state is also, of course, legitimately interested in the security of person of all persons.

The key is voluntary participation by all involved. If someone is coerced into participation, then that needs to be addressed, but if everyone is voluntarily participating in a tribunal process that reflects their cultural values and is consistent with canadian law and the charter, I have no problem with that.

An excellent example would be some of the current Aboriginal restorative justice practices. Why would we deny anyone else the same options?

quote:

---

At a minimum, I can't see how the state could fail to step in in cases where any tribunal caused social harm because it failed to recognize the equality of women.

---

Equality in what specific respect? I ask only because it seems to me that defining an equality of unalike things like men and women involves is a process open to much personal interpretation similar to what you called 'private conscience'. Some inequality is obvious (eg: a house must always be in a man's name) and some not so much (eg: wife vacuums the rug, husband mows the lawn). I don't know how much of the inequality I'm told is in Sharia law is the first and how much the second.

I gave you examples, and they are precisely the same ones you are asking about.

quote:

---

Some inequality is obvious (eg: a house must always be in a man's name) and some not so much (eg: wife vacuums the rug, husband mows the lawn). I don't know how much of the inequality I'm told is in Sharia law is the first and how much the second.

---

What matters is that the Canadian state must care about case one and has no business interfering in case two.

quote:

---

I gave you examples, and they are precisely the same ones you are asking about.

---

I'm asking about real examples of real inequality. All you've given me is areas where this might come to be (division of property, child custody). What, specifically, would be the inequality when Sharia law is used to divide property or decide on child custody? How is it written into Sharia? When I know that then I'll know how much of the inequality is structural. Right now we have groups saying that Sharia is harmless, and groups saying that it would be a death knell to equality, but I haven't seen anyone spell out exactly how, and in ways that would be a dealbreaker.

2. You frustrate me because you can't see that we agree.

3. If you want to know the details of what sharia law could and wouldn't entail, then may I invite you -- as I thought I was doing somewhere above -- to read the obvious experts on this subject, the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

I repeat: they are obviously doing wonderful work, research, politicking, negotiating. There is no one contributing to this thread who could answer your questions as well as that great site could, Magoo; so, if you are sincerely interested, perhaps you could go there, read their work, and then report back to us, yes?

Whether the current secular court system does this is another matter entirely, and I will not address that here.

[ 16 June 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]

2. Yes, or getting there at least. That's why I've kept on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
I am instinctively allergic to the idea of allowing religious courts to be backed by secular legal or quasi-legal authority. The only place where questions of divorce, civil suits, or other such matters should be settled is in a secular court system with rules that do not unfairly raise the status of one party in the process. Period. No Great Potato Chip courts. No sharia courts. No bupkiss except courts of law which have no religious basis.

Whether the current secular court system does this is another matter entirely, and I will not address that here.

[ 16 June 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
1. Benjamin Disraeli? Or apocryphal?

---

For example.

web page

quote:

---

Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi, one of the most influential clerics in Sunni Islam and head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, has advocated non-painful wife-beating.

In his 1984 book 'The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam,' he wrote:
"Because of his natural ability and his responsibility for providing for his family, the man is the head of the house and of the family. He is entitled to the obedience and cooperation of his wife, and accordingly it is not permissible for her to rebel against his authority, causing disruption. Without a captain the ship of the household will flounder and sink.

---

[ 17 June 2004: Message edited by: Jack01 ]