Shariah in Canada: A Muslim Mum's Open Letter to the Premier of Ontario

Buyer Beware?
Since when was justice a consumer product?
A Muslim Woman's Open Letter to the Premier of Ontario

By Rizwana Jafri
MuslimWakeUp!
http://tinyurl.com/5p9zw

The Honourable Dalton McGuinty,
Premier
Government of Ontario.

Dear Premier McGuinty:

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Rizwana Jafri, a Muslim mother of two sons, Vice Principal of a Toronto High School, and President of the Muslim Canadian Congress, in which capacity I am writing to you.

As you are aware the use of religious laws to settle family disputes through binding arbitration--as a substitute to the Ontario family law court system--has deeply divided the Muslim community and caused serious concern among women's groups and children's advocates.

For the record, the Muslim Canadian Congress is opposed to all religious courts and tribunals that trespass the public domain. Whether they are Rabbinical or Christian courts, Shariah-based Arbitration tribunals or any other religious-based quasi-judicial body, we believe that they cannot, and should not, be allowed to substitute our court and judicial system; a system based on laws created by parliamentarians like yourself, who are accountable to the electorate.

Recently, much to our shock, former Attorney General Marion Boyd recommended this practise not only be continued, but that "Muslim principles," which she failed to define, be allowed as a substitute to the Family Law Act. When asked to explain what parts of the Family Law Act were in conflict with "Muslim Principles," she refused to elaborate and evaded this question repeatedly.

As Muslims we believe that what Ms Boyd is recommending under the cover of "Muslim principles" is in fact "Shariah by stealth."

We believe Marion Boyd's report reflects her lack of understanding of the issues; the complexity of the religion; and the diversity of the Muslim communities. In addition, we believe that by invoking the "Buyer Beware" principle in matters of judiciary, Marion Boyd has reduced justice to a mere consumer commodity. This is antithetical to both Islamic and Canadian values, which are in essence one and the same. Justice is not a mere consumer product and citizens are more than retail consumers.

We also believe she had a serious conflict of interest in reviewing the very law that she had a hand in creating, as member of the Bob Rae cabinet, and should have refused to pass judgement on her own work.

I am asking you to please intervene and stop the implementation of the Marion Boyd Report, which also introduces an unprecedented attempt to privatise Ontario's Family Law and place it into the hands of private practitioners who have already started marketing their services as for-profit religious judges masquerading as alternate justice providers.

We are not alone in our opposition to introduction of Shariah into the Canadian judicial system. Many Muslim academics have voiced their concern as have some mosques and the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

Professor Omid Safi who teaches Islamic Studies at Colgate University in New York has written:
"The use of religious law as a substitute for laws created by parliament, and the establishment of a multi-tier legal system - one for average Canadians and one for Muslim Canadians, and others for Catholic or Jewish Canadians - is not only unjust, but also detrimental to the well being of all Canadian citizens."

Professor Safi, who is also Chair of the New York based Progressive Muslim Union of North America, adds another dimension to this controversy. He writes:
"We are also alarmed at the prospects of repressive Muslim governments around the world pointing to Canada, and the implementation of "shari’a" within Canada, as a justification for their oppressive legal systems. This is not a comment on Islamic jurisprudence as a whole, but rather on the repressive interpretations of shari’a found in those countries. It is unrealistic to think that the ayatollahs of Iran, the proponents of Wahabism in Saudi Arabia and other countries will not use this to promote the viability of their oppressive visions."

One of Islam's leading scholars in Europe, Professor Tariq Ramadan of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland told an Egyptian magazine there was no need for Canadian Muslims to set up their own Shariah courts, saying they are "not necessary" and that demanding such courts "is another example of lack of creativity" among Muslims.

Here in Toronto, Professor Taj Hashmi, who teaches at the Centre for Asian Research in York University, has gone a step further and urged ordinary Canadians to speak out and oppose the proposal. He writes:
"The Government alone cannot stop the formation of the Sharia Board; civil society in general and liberal Muslims in particular should come forward to stop this vice, which is neither Islamic nor Canadian in character and spirit."

Some prominent Canadians have also voiced their concern. Canada's first Muslim member of the Senate, Senator Mobina Jaffer has expressed her opposition to the Marion Boyd report while former Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps has labelled Marion Boyd's proposal as "hogwash. Ms. Copps writes:
"The real question untouched in the Boyd report is why civil society would agree to religious arbitration -- Muslim, Jewish, Christian or anything else -- in the first place. Have we really done all we can to examine families' experiences since such processes were given the green light in Ontario, including how many arbitrations have resulted in decisions accepted by economic dependents with few real choices? Or is this really about finding a quick solution to the backlog in our courts?"

Sheila Copps has hit the nail on the head in asking the tough question. Is this about multiculturalism or is it about cost-cutting and privatisation?

We believe that mosques, churches, temples and synagogues have an important role to play in the community, but their role should be restricted to mediation and reconciliation, not interfering with the Canadian justice system and running a parallel private-sector judiciary with self-styled religious judges for hire.

But most importantly, we believe the 1991 amendment to the Arbitration Act that allowed family disputes to be settled outside the family Law Act, was unconstitutional.

This is why we are asking your government to refer the matter to the Ontario Court of Appeal to determine:

• Whether the Arbitration Act confers jurisdiction, outside the Family Law Act, to resolve disputes of property, children, inheritance and estates in the family context.
• If the Arbitration Act does confer such jurisdiction, whether this is constitutional.

I hope you will give serious thought to the concerns I have raised. The decision you and your cabinet will make will have a profound long-term impact on society. Just as you stood up for public education despite immense pressures from all religious lobbies, we hope that you will take the courageous decision to ensure that one law exists for all Ontarians, irrespective of the religion or race. Only then can we hope for a civic society where cohesiveness takes precedence over divisiveness.

Our position is not against religion. On the contrary, we stand for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. However, freedom of religion does not mean that we dilute laws and strengthen the power of Rabbis, Imams and Priests over their communities; specially the most vulnerable.