News   May 09, 2024
 144     0 
News   May 09, 2024
 423     1 
News   May 08, 2024
 1.7K     4 

McGuinty says 'No' to sharia law

M

miketoronto

Guest
This seems like a sudden decision. But a good one.


-------------------------------------------
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."

Just hours before McGuinty's announcement, writer June Callwood, actress Shirley Douglas and other prominent Canadian women had, as a group, issued an open letter to him on behalf of the No Religious Arbitration Coalition.

Elated, Callwood and Douglas were full of praise for McGuinty.

"Wow, that's brilliant!" said Callwood. "So many women and a lot of men, too, felt this (sharia) was going to be a disaster. To do it in one big stroke is wonderful. It provides consistency."

McGuinty's decision "will be cheered around the world," said Callwood. Douglas was equally effusive. "It's terrific. Dalton McGuinty has made a move he will be proud of for a long time."

Expanding legal use of sharia would have been a "huge step backward for women ... being dictated to by men and elders of the (faith) ... this is a recipe for deep trouble for women in those communities ... why terrorize people with that kind of insecurity? I'm very pleased he's discontinuing the others as well. Religion has no place in law."

Under the 1991 Arbitration Act, sharia law is already legal in the province so long as both parties agree to its use and the arbitrators' decisions do not violate Canadian law. Aboriginal, Christian and Jewish tribunals have operating similarily under the act for the past 14 years.

Because of concerns over expanding use of sharia law in dispute resolution, the Liberals asked Boyd, whose government effectively allowed religious arbitration, to review the issue.

Since December, the government has sat on Boyd's report, which recommended retaining sharia law and other religious arbitration as an option to resolve familial disputes such as child custody and divorce.

Liberal inaction on the matter infuriated and frustrated supporters and opponents of religious tribunals.

Last Thursday, McGuinty was vilified at a Queen's Park protest for appearing tacitly to endorse sharia, which critics charge treats women unfairly. Similar demonstrations were held in Montreal and abroad in Amsterdam, Paris and Rome.

The premier told Canadian Press such religious arbitrations "threaten our common ground," and promised to introduce legislation "as soon as possible" to outlaw them.

Sources told the Toronto Star McGuinty came to the conclusion he had to prohibit all tribunals after a meeting last Wednesday with Attorney-General Michael Bryant, who has been wrestling with the tricky issue for months. Bryant could not be reached for comment.

"Ontarians will always have the right to seek advice from anyone in matters of family law, including religious advice. But no longer will religious arbitration be deciding matters of family law," McGuinty told CP.

Both opposition parties said they supported an end to religious tribunals, but panned the way the premier came to it.

Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said last night he was "very disappointed" that McGuinty would announce such sweeping policy through the media. He said faith groups should have been consulted.

"This appears to have been drawn up on a napkin — 4:20 p.m. on a Sunday seems a funny time to be making up major policy in an interview."

NDP MPP Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre) said he was "pleased" McGuinty appears to be adopting the New Democrat position of preventing religious tribunals from deciding issues best left to courts.

But Kormos criticized the premier "for allowing this to fester. His delays, his head-in-the-sand approach has provoked a debate that has become unpleasant and harmful and at times hateful."

There was much pressure from the 17-member Liberal women's caucus to ban sharia law.

Liberal MPP Kathleen Wynne (Don Valley West), one of the members urging prohibition of religious tribunals, was "relieved" at the decision.
 
Under the 1991 Arbitration Act, sharia law is already legal in the province so long as both parties agree to its use and the arbitrators' decisions do not violate Canadian law. Aboriginal, Christian and Jewish tribunals have operating similarly under the act for the past 14 years.

The thing I don't understand about all this opposition is that no one would be forced into religious arbitration. It's clearly a choice so I don't see how people who aren't forced into it can be opposed to it? Why must they be opposed to it, if it will have no affect on their lives at all? How can we call ourselves open to different religions and cultures if we're not willing to let people who want to have some relation to their own culture through the means of an optional arbitration do it? Since '92 Aboriginal, Christian and Jewish tribunals have taken place and no one has had any problem but now we have a non-North American religion come along and suddenly we're all suddenly afraid of it, despite being hypocrites by saying they should be able to live their lives through it?
 
Do keep in mind that there are many cultural and sociological reasons as to why "consensual" might very well not be the case. Peer pressure, disparity in economic powers, community bias, etc, could all operate against the individuals involved.

GB
 
^
and primary gender inequality. A lot of protest from Muslim women's groups
 
Do keep in mind that there are many cultural and sociological reasons as to why "consensual" might very well not be the case. Peer pressure, disparity in economic powers, community bias, etc, could all operate against the individuals involved.
Good point. In many cultures, the woman's family could possibly pressure the girl into accepting it with the threat of disowning her.

Overrall a good choice.
 
jeicow is it easy why this one and other tribunals should not be allowed in this country.

Because this is Canada. And when you move here you are agreeing to live by our laws. Not the laws of your religion.

So let them give up the Christian(I did not even know we had one) and Jewish Tribunals.

If people have a dispute go to the law system that was made for this whole country.

I also think that the Sharia law is causing a bigger deal then the other religions because of the womens rights and other human rights violations that are in the Sharia law.
 
Wow, banning of all religious arbitration is good news. Less influence from religion would make the world a much better place.
 
Under the arbitration act could the decisions be appealed? If so elimination of the act really doesn't change much other than to distance government from religious decisions (which is good in my opinion). In reality, if decisions could be appealed to non-religious arbitration before, nothing has changed really because one can still settle these disputes outside of the legal system if so desired.
 
I disagree. In some cultures it is all too easy for women to be forced to accept a completely unfair/unreasonable decision, sometimes through threat of violence.
 
Under the arbitration act could the decisions be appealed

Actually, if you read the arbitration act, technically, you can go through the entire tribunal and have a decision and neither party actually has to accept it. That's the reason why I don't see the problem with Sharia. You can say all you want about pressure and such, but the current family court system favours women as it is, so there already is a bias in the system. Also, family court isn't the same for every province. It ranges from province to province but all originate from certain federal legislation which govern certain aspects of it.

As for a lot of protesting, really, it's just women's groups that are protesting, not the MUSLIM women's group. If you read the mississauga news there were like 3 or 4 letters from muslim women's groups listing all these details of why it should be permitted (i recycled them already but I'll try to get a copy from the library and repost the letters). Most of the groups opposed to it all seemed to be white womens groups, who list details that are very inaccurate.
 
If you read the mississauga news there were like 3 or 4 letters from muslim women's groups listing all these details of why it should be permitted
That's completely irrevelant. The fact of the matter is that they live in Canada and should to adapt to Canadian society rather than try to have a mini-Iran here. If this law is so good then why did they come here to get away from it in the first place?
 
That's completely irrevelant. The fact of the matter is that they live in Canada and should to adapt to Canadian society rather than try to have a mini-Iran here. If this law is so good then why did they come here to get away from it in the first place?

It's funny you say this. No one in Ontario ever had a problem when Jewish, Aboriginal and Catholic law was allowed. I think you speak for the racist minority in the province who doesn't have a problem until someone who isn't white trys to do something in this province.

Btw, you might want to look back to your high school history notes, because Aboriginals were the first one here. Technically, we should be using their law.
 
^ good reply...
I think that the Ontario gov. did great by beeing fair and banning all religious arbitration/courts.. I think this will make many Muslims feel a part of the community, and not singled out...
 
"Btw, you might want to look back to your high school history notes, because Aboriginals were the first one here. Technically, we should be using their law."

Whose law? The Inuit? Cree? The aboriginals who lived here ten thousand years ago but were replaced by other Native populations?
 
Jeicow - When did I say that I don't have a problem with Catholics and Jews using their own religious law? The fact of the matter is that there should be one law for all Ontarians with no religious influence from either Catholicism, Islam or Judaism.

Oh and by the way, there are white Muslims as well.
 

Back
Top