First Steps Taken Towards Sharia Law In Canada

[james t kirk]

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/87502.php

I don't like this at all, if it's true.

The very idea of Canadian courts enforcing muslim law makes me want to puke. There can only be one law in the country, otherwise, there is chaos...

I admit, the article makes no mention of the Canadian courts going for it, but I shudder to think that it could even be possible.

____________________________________________________
"Now, once an [Islamic] arbitrator decides cases, it is final and binding. The parties can go to the local secular Canadian court asking that it be enforced. The court has no discretion in the matter.

First steps taken for Islamic arbitration board

By Judy Van Rhijn

Delegates at an October conference elected a council to set up the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (Canada).
In a neighbourhood dotted with Halal food shops and Islamic fashion stores, a recent convention of Muslim community leaders was told that they have "no choice" but to set up their own arbitration board.

The International Muslim Organization Hall in Etobicoke, Ont., was the venue for the gathering on Oct. 21. By the end of the day, the delegates had elected a 30-member council which will work towards establishing a Darul-Qada (a judicial tribunal), to be known as the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (Canada).

The convention is the latest step in a long struggle to have Islamic law recognized in Canada. Shariah is a complex and sophisticated body of law based on religious principles. Muslims must resolve all their commercial and personal disputes according to its tenets.

Click the link for the rest of the article....

 

[shack]

Let them use it to resolve things in their own community, but the standards of law for Canada are already laid out. It would be impossible for a country to operate with potentially conflicting sets of laws.

 

[George OTJ]

I think the first step was taken when the government handed some of the public schools over to the Catholic School board. This is just another religious group wanting to practice their beliefs; and a fairly large group at that.

I don't know yet whether I hate this idea, but I think an important point was made in the post attached to the article: that the muslim laws they are talking about are civil, not criminal law. The laws pertaining to business and money disputes between fellow muslims who agree to present their case to the arbitration board.

Is that so different then when striking employees and an employer seek binding arbitration?

I'm not in favour of the arbitration board having 'carte blanc', and if it were implemented, I do believe that it should be subordinate to Canadian Federal Law. Whether it could be on a par with provincial laws or not, the legal minds would have to take a look.

 

[George OTJ]

By the way, this has absolutely no chance of actually happening. Why? The Muslim community is so much divided by internal politics; there is no chance they will ever agree on anything.

I don't know. Maybe I shouldn't comment because I don't really know anything about the muslim faith. But in reading some of the comments attached to the article, I get the impression that their faith obligates true muslims to comply with muslim law to the extent it is possible within the country in which they live.
Their faith may create the arbitration board even if they can't reach a consensus on their political views.

 

[peteeey]

I'm not a lawyer, nor have I read the rest of the article, but I know that most mainstream religions have arbitration boards and their own "religious courts," and are expected to settle certain differences before going to the judicial system.

I recall one such court many years ago when a priest was defrocked because he was gay. I forget which religion, but Anglican or some similar one comes to mind.

I also know of some sort of Jewish board not allowing one of the large supermarkets to put a kosher section in its store in the Bathurst/Lawrence area because it might ruin all the smaller shops there. Apparently the store went to the courts and was told that this is a matter that should be solved by the community.

 

[papasmerf]

The Fear of being Politicaly Incorrect is a slippery slope.

The Land can have only one law. There can be several avenues of enforcement. But it must be consistant and based on standards set forth in Federal Proviencal or Local codes.

Once this premise is abandoned for political reason you begin to slip into a state of anarchy. Equal justice under the law one thing needed to preserve a free democratic society.

As for the assertaion that Catholic Schools are tantamount to Islamic Tribunals is absurd. Federal education standards must be upheld. The teaching of mainstream religion does not conflict with laws nor does Catholic Teachings place lesser value on life that is not Catholic.

 

[james t kirk]

The problem with civil laws, is that the muslims think that civil law applies to everything.

For example, divorce. Would that be considered civil law? What, some muslim guy figures he wants to divorce his wife and so he goes before this all male muslim tribunal and stands up there and says, "I divorce you" three times and she is basically out in the cold?

What about penalties for adultery? That doesn't even exist under Canadian law, but maybe they have a pit dug out back of the mosque with lots of handy bricks laying around.

Don't scoff at this. Muslim law is extreme and archaic and rooted in religion, which is not the way this country is run.

As far as i am concerned, once you live in Canada, you live by Canadian laws period.

I don't like this one bit and i hope that if the muslims approach the solictor general on this that he stops it cold in its tracks.

 

[jwmorrice]

I don't see a problem with individuals deciding to refer their problems to some sort of binding arbitration. Both parties would surely have to agree to following this procedure and the limits and powers of such an arbitration procedure would be set out in canadian law. Indeed the original article makes reference to changes made in the "Arbitration Act". So really, where's the beef?

jwm

 

[james t kirk]

The beef is that it is a slippery slope as a previous poster said.

First you start out small, then you include family law, then eventually, all the way to criminal law.

What if one muslim wants a muslim court, and the other muslim is more western, more Canadian, and he does not? What then.

No, Trudueau was right, everyone is equal before the law, no special rights for anyone. One country, one constitution, one law, one court, everyone is treated the same under that law.

That's the beef.

 

[jwmorrice]

The beef is that it is a slippery slope as a previous poster said.

First you start out small, then you include family law, then eventually, all the way to criminal law.

What if one muslim wants a muslim court, and the other muslim is more western, more Canadian, and he does not? What then.

No, Trudueau was right, everyone is equal before the law, no special rights for anyone. One country, one constitution, one law, one court, everyone is treated the same under that law.

That's the beef.

Obviously both parties would have to agree to a binding arbitration before it can take place. The powers of arbitrators and arbitration are set out in provincial and federal laws. Given those two points, I would say that we are all being treated equally. Certain parties may, within the existing legal framework, simply opt for binding alternative means to resolve their disputes. I don't see how this confers special rights on anyone.

jwm

 

[papasmerf]

Obviously both parties would have to agree to a binding arbitration before it can take place. The powers of arbitrators and arbitration are set out in provincial and federal laws. Given those two points, I would say that we are all being treated equally. Certain parties may, within the existing legal framework, simply opt for binding alternative means to resolve their disputes. I don't see how this confers special rights on anyone.

jwm

FEAR

Inside closed comunities, people are afraid of the outsiders. By giving special powers to some you will be sealing fates of many.

 

[jwmorrice]

FEAR

Inside closed communities, people are afraid of the outsiders. By giving special powers to some you will be sealing fates of many.

"Special powers"? They would have only the powers granted them as arbitrators under canadian laws. What's so "special" about that? We are, afterall, not talking about some free-standing, ghetto, kangaroo court here.

Sorry but I just don't see the hub-bub. Employers and their unions, companies in dispute, etc., have used binding arbitration for years. Why not allow individuals alternative means to settling their disputes? If they choose some arbitrator allied with the muslim legal traditions, well so what?

jwm

 

[papasmerf]

Binding Arbitration in as refered to for unions are to decide contract reladted issues. Court Arbitrations are generally used in small claims court and you surrender your right to appeal.

Agreeid nothing special if the powers are used under civil guidlines and equaly justice is found there.

But if it is based in religious beliefs and dogma then you have a question of justice dispensed with an unevenhand.

Justice is blind for a reason.

 

[papasmerf]

Re: It makes sense to me

..If we can work things out with Judge Judy, then I see no reason why the Muslims can't have their Judge Jameela!

On another note, Native North Americans use thier own forms of justice tirbunals and it seems to be working out pretty well. Of course, they WERE here before us, so maybe we need to all adopt their laws and punishments

Judge Judy and her ILK are bound by local laws and codes. The home district and county of the litigants are the comprises the rule of law used. Unless Federal law prevails.

As for Native lands...........This in most cases is considered Triabl Lands and makes land of a sovereign nation. Thus allowing for deviations from Canada law. OR so it is here in the US.

 

[George OTJ]

The Fear of being Politicaly Incorrect is a slippery slope.

The Land can have only one law. There can be several avenues of enforcement. But it must be consistant and based on standards set forth in Federal Proviencal or Local codes.

Once this premise is abandoned for political reason you begin to slip into a state of anarchy. Equal justice under the law one thing needed to preserve a free democratic society.

RE: "The Land can have only one law. " I don't disagree with this, but as other's have pointed out many other groups use arbitration and even 'courts' to deal with disputes among their people. Does not the Catholic Church have laws of it's own that their members are supposed to follow; and is not the Pope the final authority on church matters? I don't see where any of the 'laws' supported by the various churches or that, on some issues, they may recognize a higher authority outside of Canada (the Pope): I don't thing either of these points has put us on the road to a state of anarchy.

As for the assertaion that Catholic Schools are tantamount to Islamic Tribunals is absurd. Federal education standards must be upheld. The teaching of mainstream religion does not conflict with laws nor does Catholic Teachings place lesser value on life that is not Catholic.

I think you misunderstood my comment. I was not equating Catholic Schools with Islamic Arbitation panels. Merely commenting on the fact that Canadian Laws were changed to accomodate a religious organization. The changes in those laws allow Canadians to support the Catholic School board instead of the public school system through their taxes - and I believe that issue was strongly debated at the time as well.

I have not heard that the muslims were involved in changing the Arbitration Act. In fact, I believe there was some comment that they'd only recently become aware of a provision of the act which would allow them to operate an Arbitration panel under Canadian law as defined by the Arbitration Act. The Muslims don't appear to be trying change Canadian Law; they are trying to follow the teachings of their faith within Canadian Law.


There is one(?) thing I am not clear on. I believe the Arbitation panel only pertains to muslims. If a muslim enters into a business arangement with a non-muslim and a dispute arises; wouldn't they be automaticaly en-eligible for the muslim Arbitation panel? Wouldn't the Arbitation panel exclude cases involving non-muslims as one of the parties is not 'of the faith'? I don't believe you can directly compare what the Muslims are proposing with what happens within a Muslim state where Islamic Law is the Federal 'law of the land'. Canadian law wouldn't tollerate stoning adultresses; or cutting off the hand of a thief.

DISCLAIMER: I understand discussion of religions can be very flamable. It is not my intent to attack or offened anyone or their beliefs.

 

[George OTJ]

Women's rights?

There is one paragraph near the end of the article which I found interesting.

The committee is hopeful that the system will be accepted by the Muslim community at large, and in particular, Muslim women. There was only one woman present at the convention. Bibi Zainob Baksh attended in her capacity as president of the Ladies' Muslim Organization. She pointed out that there has been a mediation service in the past but it folded when it failed to attract Muslim women. She is of the opinion that if the present initiative comes to fruition, women will participate "later" in the process. "

Arn't women supposed to be very suppressed in Islamic states? Although there was only one woman at this convention, the existence of a Ladies' Muslim Organization seems to be quite a departure from what I thought their role was in Muslim society. Her comment that there had been a mediation service which failed to attract Muslim women would seem to indicate that Muslim women in Canada are more independent then the ladies in Islamic countries.

I think this is an indication of a greater flexibility within the Canadian Muslim community to adapt to Canadian society then some would have us believe.


P.S. What was it on the 'I am Canadian" thread....
25. Canadian girls kick ass!

Apparently that applies to Canadian Muslim girls as well!

 

[Cave Carson]

I'm wondering why some in the Muslim community want these Islamic tribunals anyway. If they don't want to embrace Canadian law, why did they come here in the first place? And if they don't like Canadian law, why do they choose to stay?

 

[George OTJ]

I'm wondering why some in the Muslim community want these Islamic tribunals anyway. If they don't want to embrace Canadian law, why did they come here in the first place? And if they don't like Canadian law, why do they choose to stay?

According to the article, "Syed explained the law of minorities as it is set down by the Shariah. Muslims in non-Muslim countries are required to follow the Shariah to the extent that it is practical.

"The law applies as if to Bedouin wanderers," he said. "We are required by our own law to follow the laws of the country and to follow our own laws. We have a double obligation. You don't have to be the wisest man to see there will be conflicts. . . ."

Syed explained that until recent changes in the law, Canadian Muslims have been excused from applying Shariah in their legal disputes.

Arbitration was not deemed to be practical because there was no way to enforce the decisions. Syed said the laws have recently changed with amendments to the Arbitration Act. "

It sounds to me that they aren't rejecting Canadian Law at all. The Sharia Law itself places an obligation on them to follow Canadian Law; an obligation which they do acknowledge.

As for coming to Canada, seeking a better life for your loved ones shouldn't have to mean giving up all of your heritege. Can they not be proud to be Muslims as well as being proud to be Canadians? I don't see that they have to be exclusively one or the other.

From what I've heard, Islam is a religion of peace. I think some people may be reacting against this proposal out of fear/anger created by a compartively few fanatics that we call terrorists.

 

[johnhenrygalt]

When it comes to civil law, there is no such thing as "Canadian law". Property and Civil Rights are matters within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Each provincial legislature is free to set its own rules.

Arbitration contracts are generally enforceable in most provinces (they certainly are enforceable in Quebec). This has nothing to do with islamic law. If the courts did not enforce arbitration contracts, then arbitration would be useless as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, as the losing party could always go before the common law courts to have the matter retried.

If you don't wish to be subject to the decision of a muslim arbiter, there is a simple solution; don't enter into an arbitration contract requiring a muslim arbiter.

There is no need for the xenophobic hysteria.

 

[james t kirk]

From what I've heard, Islam is a religion of peace. I think some people may be reacting against this proposal out of fear/anger created by a compartively few fanatics that we call terrorists.

Really?????

Here's an interesting read for you if you think that Islam is the religion of peace..........

........................................................................................................

The Religion of Peace
Posted August, 2003


EYEWITNESS TO STONING WOMAN IN SAUDI ARABIA FOR ADULTERY


When I was sent to Riyadh for a month to work with the US Air Force for a joint assignment, I never realized the sights I'd see. One of them was a public stoning. All I saw was a woman standing in a hole tied to a post, she was shoulder deep in the hole. The guy I was with wanted to see it. It's rare that westerners are even allowed to see this They gathered around this poor girl for around an hour, throwing rocks at her.

Stoning a human to death

Dear readers, please put on your thinking cap and imagine a mental picture of the following story.

A deep hole is dug in the ground. A 30 year old lady, tied up from feet to shoulders, as a stick, is lowered alive into this hole, in a standing position. Only her neck and head are visible. Can you imagine a human head sticking above ground?

When the order is given, a man throws a fist-sized stone at her protruding head. The stone hits her head with a thud. She screems in pain as the blood oozes down her face. Another man picks up a stone and scraps the side of her head drawing a lateral line of blood. She cries and screems in excruciating pain. Since it is a free for all, a teenage spectator from this open playing field, tries his luck, but misses her head completely. Another aims at her and flings it with force. The stone hits its intended target, her forehead.

She screems and cries loudly for mercy. There is now a gash on her forehead. Blood spurting out, down her eyes, nose, cheeks, mouth and down to the ground. She cries out for mercy but to not avail. The minutes become an hour, between the many misses, scraps, nicks, chips and strikes. Another spectator flings forcefully at her.

The stone hits the bridge of her nose with another thud. She screems again and again. This time the blood comes down from inside and outside her nose. Probably, her nasal bridge-bone is broken, causing the bleeding from inside her nostrils as well. Though her wounds are grave, as you can imagine, her screems by now are not as vociferous as earlier, and her tears help to wash some of the blood on her cheeks. Her vision has completely gone with the blood coating.The next stone hits her again. A piece of flesh pops out. No, its not, oh god, it really can't be her eye-ball. It is so bloody that you cann't really make out. By this time, blood has covered her entire face and the ground in front of her.She still makes groaning sounds. More time pass. Stoning her, continues. Her sounds are less and less audible. Her face has become unrecognisable. Flesh, like mashed meat is her face, but only more bloody, as she now literally has no human face. Small strips of flesh, like locks of hair are hanging from her. Her head is now droopping forward. At this stage a hit on her make splashes of blood. She has stopped making a sound for the last two stone pelting. Two hours have passed. The Islamic authorities check her neck for pulse. It is still beating but barely, due to the loss of blood. A flesh piece drops off her head, as the stoning process continues.

Finally,death comes to this lady. She is then left there for a few more hours for the spectators to see, because this is a public lesson for all muslim females, who commit adultery.Then her father and relatives are allowed to dig her body, and bring it above ground. Pieces of her flesh, lying on the ground, is collected and because she has no face, it is put back on the front of her head, and bundled up. Now readers, imagine that is your mother, or your daughter, or sister, or even you, yourself.

DNA is not accepted in Islam, but at least 4 witnesses of reputable character, should give testimony of the actual penetration of the sexual intercourse to convict him. You might ask, who has sexual intercourse in front of 4 witnesses? I can also ask you "how can you consider 4 men watching others' sexual intercourse, as reputable characters?".But, there is no question or denying that this is not a traditonal, customary, cultural or a kangaroo court, but a legal Islamic court, with legal Islamic judges and legal expert Islamic officials, in the muslim state of Bakori ( Nigeria), of the legal Government, democratically elected by the Muslim citizens of this state. These are the undeniable authentic facts, which no amount of words or actions can ever repudiate.