June 22, 2005
Don't succumb to imams, rabbis, and priests
Ontario needs one law for all its citizens, regardless of religion
By Tarek Fatah
The Toronto Star
http://tinyurl.com/7dq42
In 1991, as the full impact of a recession hit the NDP government in Ontario, it explored all avenues to cut costs. Budgets were slashed and many promises, such as public auto insurance, fell by the wayside. However, one cost-cutting initiative introduced by then attorney general Howard Hampton has become a headache for the McGuinty Liberals 14 years later.
The law in question is the 1991 Arbitration Act, which permitted faith-based binding arbitration as a substitute for Family Law courts. What began as a cost-cutting measure has today split Canada's Muslim community, made strange bedfellows of otherwise hostile faith-based groups and led to the Quebec National Assembly rejecting sharia.
The issue has also divided the Liberal caucus, which is considering a report by Marion Boyd recommending the use of sharia law in private arbitration as a substitute for Ontario family law.
But the most surprising announcement came from the author of the law — Hampton. Now the leader of the NDP, he issued a statement distancing his party from the Boyd recommendations. The statement said the NDP believes "there is sufficient evidence to conclude arbitration has no place in family law."
Compared to Hampton and his New Democrats, other politicians seem to have their eyes set on the next election and are responding to the power brokering of religious leaders.
Some commentators suggest Attorney General Michael Bryant faces a thankless choice: Stick with affordable but unreliable private justice or convince Ontarians to pay for a publicly funded, publicly accountable legal system. For many, this is a no-brainer.
Privatizing our judicial system is not a choice; it is a betrayal of one of the fundamental principles of civic society. Allowing for private sector, for-profit, faith-based arbitrations in areas of family law is a slippery slope that will open up the dismantling of many public institutions already under the threat of privatization.
If implemented, this law will also cut along class and race lines: a publicly funded, accountable legal system run by experienced judges for mainstream Canadian society, and cheap, private-sector, part-time arbitrators for the already marginalized and recently arrived Muslim community.
For groups like the Muslim Canadian Congress, there is no such thing as a monolithic "Muslim family/personal law," which is just a euphemistic, racist way of saying we will apply the equivalent of "Christian law" or "Asian law" or "African law."
Authorizing private, for-profit arbitrators to substitute for judges, to apply a law that does not exist, is an insult to Ontarians.
Furthermore, we believe that introducing sharia into the judicial system ghettoizes the Muslim community — which spans five continents covering 1.3 billion people, in an extensive array of sects, languages, cultures, and customs — into one second-class compartment in the determination of human and family-law rights.
The congress believes this insidious and discriminatory marginalization plays into the extreme ideological agenda of a certain sector of Muslim-Canadian proponents of "Muslim law" that is antithetical to the Constitution and Canadian values.
In addition, such a law also plays into the hands of the reactionary, intolerant and racist elements of Canadian society who want nothing better than to exclude Muslims from the mainstream.
The MCC's opposition is not just to sharia courts. We oppose all religious courts, whether they are rabbinical, Christian or Islamic.
So far, the debate on the Boyd report has been held at secular institutions like the St. Lawrence Centre, Central Neighbourhood House and at the Law Society. By contrast, not a single mosque, despite requests, has agreed to host such a debate. This reluctance to debate adds to our fear of leaving justice in the hands of our clergy.
The NDP and Hampton have shown rare political candour in admitting that the law they introduced is no substitute for a healthy, well-funded public justice system. Other politicians should follow their lead at Queen's Park.
Dalton McGuinty and Bryant should not succumb to pressures from imams, rabbis, and priests. They should have the courage to speak for all Ontarians and say that while they respect the desire of religious communities to use their faith-based laws to mediate and resolve problems, it is not the business of the state to validate or endorse any set of religious laws.
--------------------------
Tarek Fatah is the communications director of the Muslim Canadian Congress and the host of a weekly TV show on CTS-TV, The Muslim Chronicle
June 22, 2005
June 21, 2005
Amnesty International opposes Religious Laws to settle Family Disputes in Canada
Friends,
Amnesty International has joined Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi and Islamic Scholar Tariq Ramadan in opposing the introduction of private sector, for-profit, religious arbitration as a substitute to the Family Law Court system in Ontario.
Amnesty International in a letter to the Ontario Attorney General says "the use of religious and customary laws in resolving criminal and civil disputes is an issue of concern to Amnesty International globally. We have documented alarming levels of discrimination and violence, particularly for women, in the use of these laws." The letter urges the Ontario Government to "carefully consider this global reality and to the message that will be conveyed globally," if it introduces religious laws.
In the letter AI Secretary General Alex Neve writes, "we are concerned that the use of religious laws in this manner raises a very real risk that fundamental human rights, particularly the rights of women, will be violated."
Alex Neve writes, "the use of religious laws to resolve family and inheritance disputes, effectively establishes a parallel legal system for the parties involved, which operates within, but is separate from the provincial and federal legal systems."
Here are extracts from Alex Neve's letter to the Ontario Attorney General opposing the implementation of the Marion Boyd report. Boyd has recommended the use of part-time, for-profit, self-styled arbitrators, using Sharia law as a substitute for Judges and the Family Law Courts.
Boyd's report has the support of strange bedfellows; the Zionist B'nai Brith, CAIR-Canada and the Canadian Islamic Congress.
Read and reflect
Tarek Fatah
-----------------------------
The Honourable Michael Bryant
Attorney General of Ontario
720 Bay Street, 11th Floor
Toronto, ON
M5G 2K1
June 17, 2005
Dear Attorney General Bryant,
Amnesty International is aware that you are presently considering your government's position regarding the use of religious laws, pursuant to Ontario's Arbitration Act, 1991, to resolve family and inheritance disputes. We are concerned that the use of religious laws in this manner raises a very real risk that fundamental human rights, particularly the rights of women, will be violated. We urge you to ensure that any policies you adopt, or law reform you pursue, makes the protection of basic human rights a priority. Ontario's approach to this issue must not only ensure the protection of rights of women in Ontario; it must serve as a model that other governments should be pressed to follow.
Around the world, women are frequently subjected to serious discrimination with respect to family matters such as marriage, divorce, remarriage, custody of and access to children, division of marital property, and spousal support...In our work to ensure that the protection of women's human rights, we have encountered far too many situations where exercise of cultural, traditional and religious beliefs contribute to discrimination and violence against women.
Governments are obliged to take steps to protect women from such violence and discrimination and ensure that their right to equality is fully protected in the resolution of any family law or inheritance. The fundamental right of women to equality is most comprehensively enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. This critical international human rights treaty was ratified by Canada in 1981.
Amnesty International is concerned that when the Arbitration Act is used to resolve disputes that involve the internationally recognised human rights of vulnerable or disenfranchised groups, such as the equality of women and the best interests of children, it is imperative that the arbitration process and the system of law that is applied scrupulously uphold those rights.
Amnesty International is concerned that allowing the use of religious laws to resolve family and inheritance disputes, effectively establishes a parallel legal system for the parties involved, which operates within, but is separate from the provincial and federal legal systems. Those individuals and institutions that develop or interpret religious based laws are not formally accountable in the same way as the Ontario government, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with international human rights standards.
When governments allow what is effectively the privatization of the legal processes that will be applied to resolve family and inheritance disputes they may directly or indirectly abdicate their responsibility to live up to this obligation.
At this point in time, Amnesty International is concerned that it has not been adequately demonstrated that religious laws, including Muslim, Jewish and Christian legal codes, can be applied under Ontario's Arbitration Act in a manner that will scrupulously ensure the non-discriminatory treatment of women.
As highlighted above, the use of religious and customary laws in resolving criminal and civil disputes is an issue of concern to Amnesty International globally. We have documented alarming levels of discrimination and violence, particularly for women, in the use of these laws. Canada has played a leadership role internationally in developing international human rights standards to protect the fundamental rights of women; the very rights undermined by some religious and customary law systems.
Effective measures have not yet been put at national or international levels to address this very serious human rights concern. We urge the government of Ontario to carefully consider this global reality and to the message that will be conveyed globally as it considers the question of the scope and nature of the laws that can be used under the Arbitration Act.
Sincerely,
Alex Neve
Secretary General
Amnesty International has joined Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi and Islamic Scholar Tariq Ramadan in opposing the introduction of private sector, for-profit, religious arbitration as a substitute to the Family Law Court system in Ontario.
Amnesty International in a letter to the Ontario Attorney General says "the use of religious and customary laws in resolving criminal and civil disputes is an issue of concern to Amnesty International globally. We have documented alarming levels of discrimination and violence, particularly for women, in the use of these laws." The letter urges the Ontario Government to "carefully consider this global reality and to the message that will be conveyed globally," if it introduces religious laws.
In the letter AI Secretary General Alex Neve writes, "we are concerned that the use of religious laws in this manner raises a very real risk that fundamental human rights, particularly the rights of women, will be violated."
Alex Neve writes, "the use of religious laws to resolve family and inheritance disputes, effectively establishes a parallel legal system for the parties involved, which operates within, but is separate from the provincial and federal legal systems."
Here are extracts from Alex Neve's letter to the Ontario Attorney General opposing the implementation of the Marion Boyd report. Boyd has recommended the use of part-time, for-profit, self-styled arbitrators, using Sharia law as a substitute for Judges and the Family Law Courts.
Boyd's report has the support of strange bedfellows; the Zionist B'nai Brith, CAIR-Canada and the Canadian Islamic Congress.
Read and reflect
Tarek Fatah
-----------------------------
The Honourable Michael Bryant
Attorney General of Ontario
720 Bay Street, 11th Floor
Toronto, ON
M5G 2K1
June 17, 2005
Dear Attorney General Bryant,
Amnesty International is aware that you are presently considering your government's position regarding the use of religious laws, pursuant to Ontario's Arbitration Act, 1991, to resolve family and inheritance disputes. We are concerned that the use of religious laws in this manner raises a very real risk that fundamental human rights, particularly the rights of women, will be violated. We urge you to ensure that any policies you adopt, or law reform you pursue, makes the protection of basic human rights a priority. Ontario's approach to this issue must not only ensure the protection of rights of women in Ontario; it must serve as a model that other governments should be pressed to follow.
Around the world, women are frequently subjected to serious discrimination with respect to family matters such as marriage, divorce, remarriage, custody of and access to children, division of marital property, and spousal support...In our work to ensure that the protection of women's human rights, we have encountered far too many situations where exercise of cultural, traditional and religious beliefs contribute to discrimination and violence against women.
Governments are obliged to take steps to protect women from such violence and discrimination and ensure that their right to equality is fully protected in the resolution of any family law or inheritance. The fundamental right of women to equality is most comprehensively enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. This critical international human rights treaty was ratified by Canada in 1981.
Amnesty International is concerned that when the Arbitration Act is used to resolve disputes that involve the internationally recognised human rights of vulnerable or disenfranchised groups, such as the equality of women and the best interests of children, it is imperative that the arbitration process and the system of law that is applied scrupulously uphold those rights.
Amnesty International is concerned that allowing the use of religious laws to resolve family and inheritance disputes, effectively establishes a parallel legal system for the parties involved, which operates within, but is separate from the provincial and federal legal systems. Those individuals and institutions that develop or interpret religious based laws are not formally accountable in the same way as the Ontario government, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with international human rights standards.
When governments allow what is effectively the privatization of the legal processes that will be applied to resolve family and inheritance disputes they may directly or indirectly abdicate their responsibility to live up to this obligation.
At this point in time, Amnesty International is concerned that it has not been adequately demonstrated that religious laws, including Muslim, Jewish and Christian legal codes, can be applied under Ontario's Arbitration Act in a manner that will scrupulously ensure the non-discriminatory treatment of women.
As highlighted above, the use of religious and customary laws in resolving criminal and civil disputes is an issue of concern to Amnesty International globally. We have documented alarming levels of discrimination and violence, particularly for women, in the use of these laws. Canada has played a leadership role internationally in developing international human rights standards to protect the fundamental rights of women; the very rights undermined by some religious and customary law systems.
Effective measures have not yet been put at national or international levels to address this very serious human rights concern. We urge the government of Ontario to carefully consider this global reality and to the message that will be conveyed globally as it considers the question of the scope and nature of the laws that can be used under the Arbitration Act.
Sincerely,
Alex Neve
Secretary General
June 20, 2005
Shiela Copps: "Sharia Law is a Danger to Women...Religion and Law make a Molotov Cocktail"
December 24, 2004
Sharia law is a
danger to women
Sheila Copps
The National Post
http://tinyurl.com/5ac33
The report released this week recommending the use of Sharia law in Islamic family disputes in Ontario should send a shiver down the spines of women across the country.The report's author, former Ontario attorney-general Marion Boyd, recommends widening the scope of current arbitration legislation allowing consenting parties to avoid court by choosing mediation or arbitration.
Specifically, she advocates broadening the provisions of the provincial Family Law Act to allow religious arbitration including -- but not limited to -- principles drawn from Sharia law.Boyd has defended her recommendation on the basis that arbitration involving Christians, Jews and Ismaeli Muslims has been successful since the process was established 13 years ago.
But that argument would be a whole lot more convincing if allowing Sharia law wasn't opposed by the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and spokespersons for the Muslim Canadian Congress. Boyd contends that it's offensive to suggest Muslim women are less capable of making choices than women of other faiths, and that because members of other religions have the option of mediation or arbitration, Muslims should not be excluded.
What's needed, she suggests, is public education to ensure Muslim women understand "the consequences of choices." What hogwash. The problem is not with women failing to know about or understand their choices -- it's with economic, religious and familial pressures depriving them of those choices in the first place.
Boyd has failed to examine whether religious arbitrations meet the test of fairness. Does she really believe that a penniless mother with four or five children, no Canadian work experience and limited English or French language skills has choices?
Is she naive enough to think there are choices when one party (usually male) holds all the economic power and the other party lives in a dependent situation? When marriages dissolve, that balance of power becomes even more precarious -- which is why a civilian legal system is critical.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?Even aside from faith-based decisions and processes, secular society has hardly eliminated gender inequality: It starts when we're young and continues through all aspects of life, from the classroom to the boardroom and from the home to the House of Commons.
Throw in the volatile mix of religion and the law and you have a Molotov cocktail that could blow up at any time. A few months ago, I watched a powerful television documentary exploring the lives of women living in a British Columbia religious commune where their leader went through wives like hors d'oeuvres at a Christmas party. One woman fled and was working to save those left behind, but repeated attempts to engage authorities -- from the local police to the judiciary -- achieved little. All were sympathetic, but they were either unwilling or unable to save women from physical and sexual oppression in the name of religion.
A personal experience, too, offered ample evidence of the dangers of taking religious freedoms to the extreme. As a Member of Parliament, I was once involved in helping a woman whose children were spirited out of the country during a bitter divorce proceeding. Citing cultural and religious differences, her ex-husband fled with their children to his native Pakistan despite an outstanding Canadian court order requiring the children to remain in Canada.
Working with a private investigator and the Foreign Affairs Department, she tracked the children down and went to Pakistan to retrieve them. The only thing she received for her efforts was a severe beating at the hands of her husband's family.
A Canadian court decision could not protect the woman or her children. At the time, I wrote to two dozen family members who were in contact with the children, asking for their help in securing a safe return to Canada. But all of them, including the current president of a local Muslim organization, remained silent -- and that mother has never again seen her kids.
There is no sugar-coating it: Those children were kidnapped in the name of culture and religion.The B.C. commune and the ordeals of that mother are but two examples of how faith-based traditions and customs can clash with the values and principles our civil laws strive to defend.
With the scales of justice already weighted in favour of the family breadwinner, why risk a further erosion of women's rights in the name of religion?
Sharia law is a
danger to women
Sheila Copps
The National Post
http://tinyurl.com/5ac33
The report released this week recommending the use of Sharia law in Islamic family disputes in Ontario should send a shiver down the spines of women across the country.The report's author, former Ontario attorney-general Marion Boyd, recommends widening the scope of current arbitration legislation allowing consenting parties to avoid court by choosing mediation or arbitration.
Specifically, she advocates broadening the provisions of the provincial Family Law Act to allow religious arbitration including -- but not limited to -- principles drawn from Sharia law.Boyd has defended her recommendation on the basis that arbitration involving Christians, Jews and Ismaeli Muslims has been successful since the process was established 13 years ago.
But that argument would be a whole lot more convincing if allowing Sharia law wasn't opposed by the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and spokespersons for the Muslim Canadian Congress. Boyd contends that it's offensive to suggest Muslim women are less capable of making choices than women of other faiths, and that because members of other religions have the option of mediation or arbitration, Muslims should not be excluded.
What's needed, she suggests, is public education to ensure Muslim women understand "the consequences of choices." What hogwash. The problem is not with women failing to know about or understand their choices -- it's with economic, religious and familial pressures depriving them of those choices in the first place.
Boyd has failed to examine whether religious arbitrations meet the test of fairness. Does she really believe that a penniless mother with four or five children, no Canadian work experience and limited English or French language skills has choices?
Is she naive enough to think there are choices when one party (usually male) holds all the economic power and the other party lives in a dependent situation? When marriages dissolve, that balance of power becomes even more precarious -- which is why a civilian legal system is critical.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?Even aside from faith-based decisions and processes, secular society has hardly eliminated gender inequality: It starts when we're young and continues through all aspects of life, from the classroom to the boardroom and from the home to the House of Commons.
Throw in the volatile mix of religion and the law and you have a Molotov cocktail that could blow up at any time. A few months ago, I watched a powerful television documentary exploring the lives of women living in a British Columbia religious commune where their leader went through wives like hors d'oeuvres at a Christmas party. One woman fled and was working to save those left behind, but repeated attempts to engage authorities -- from the local police to the judiciary -- achieved little. All were sympathetic, but they were either unwilling or unable to save women from physical and sexual oppression in the name of religion.
A personal experience, too, offered ample evidence of the dangers of taking religious freedoms to the extreme. As a Member of Parliament, I was once involved in helping a woman whose children were spirited out of the country during a bitter divorce proceeding. Citing cultural and religious differences, her ex-husband fled with their children to his native Pakistan despite an outstanding Canadian court order requiring the children to remain in Canada.
Working with a private investigator and the Foreign Affairs Department, she tracked the children down and went to Pakistan to retrieve them. The only thing she received for her efforts was a severe beating at the hands of her husband's family.
A Canadian court decision could not protect the woman or her children. At the time, I wrote to two dozen family members who were in contact with the children, asking for their help in securing a safe return to Canada. But all of them, including the current president of a local Muslim organization, remained silent -- and that mother has never again seen her kids.
There is no sugar-coating it: Those children were kidnapped in the name of culture and religion.The B.C. commune and the ordeals of that mother are but two examples of how faith-based traditions and customs can clash with the values and principles our civil laws strive to defend.
With the scales of justice already weighted in favour of the family breadwinner, why risk a further erosion of women's rights in the name of religion?
June 14, 2005
Shirin Ebadi decries Islamic law for Canada
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 Page A7
Shirin Ebadi decries Islamic law for Canada
By INGRID PERITZ
Globe and Mail
http://tinyurl.com/do3l7
MONTREAL -- Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, a leading human-rights crusader in her native Iran, took a firm stand against the introduction of Islamic tribunals in Canada yesterday, warning they open the door to potential rights abuses.
"I'm against having several courts and separate laws," said Ms. Ebadi, who was in Montreal to receive an honorary degree from Concordia University.
"One country, one legal code, one court -- for everybody."
Ms. Ebadi, the first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, said she opposes the idea because Muslim law is vulnerable to interpretation. As one extreme example, some Muslim countries allow polygamy and others do not.
"Which interpretation would apply here?" she said in an interview, speaking through an interpreter. "Because there are many interpretations of the same Islamic teachings and laws, it's not clear what interpretation will be used. Often, a lot of the interpretations are anti-democratic and against human rights. That is my main concern."
The advent of traditional Islamic law, or sharia, to settle family disputes has set off an impassioned debate in Canada ever since a Muslim group proposed setting up an arbitration panel in Ontario. An Ontario report has recommended an Islamic arbitration system. But Quebec's National Assembly this month voted unanimously to oppose Islamic tribunals, saying they undermined democratic values. Ms. Ebadi said her comments can be interpreted as support for Quebec's position.
Ms. Ebadi, who won the Nobel Prize in 2003, has taken up the cause of women and children in Iran. and her vocal defence of human rights has led to frequent clashes with Iran's theocratic leaders. A long-time lawyer and former judge, she heads a group in Iran that offers legal support to prisoners of conscience including journalists, political dissidents and student activists.
She has also strongly protested against the decision by Iran's Guardian Council to bar women from running in this Friday's presidential election. Ms. Ebadi is boycotting the vote.
Ms. Ebadi's visit to Montreal also marked an occasion to visit her daughter, 25-year-old Negar, who studies electrical engineering at McGill University. The Nobel laureate said she prefers Canada to the United States, where a harsher climate since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks has made life more difficult for Muslims.
"I find the political system and environment much better in Canada than the United States," she said. "Multiculturalism is respected in Canada."
In her commencement address, she said that the 9/11 terrorist attacks have made it "almost impossible" for foreign students to study there. "We must separate people's mistakes and sins from their religion and national origin," she said.
In the interview, Ms. Ebadi also urged Canada to keep pressure on Iran in resolving the death of Iranian-born Canadian Zahra Kazemi, the Montreal-based photojournalist who died in custody in Iran after being arrested in 2003.
"It appears the courts are basically trying to waste time in hopes this story will fade away and the public will forget about it," said Ms. Ebadi, who represents the Kazemi family in Iran.
Shirin Ebadi decries Islamic law for Canada
By INGRID PERITZ
Globe and Mail
http://tinyurl.com/do3l7
MONTREAL -- Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, a leading human-rights crusader in her native Iran, took a firm stand against the introduction of Islamic tribunals in Canada yesterday, warning they open the door to potential rights abuses.
"I'm against having several courts and separate laws," said Ms. Ebadi, who was in Montreal to receive an honorary degree from Concordia University.
"One country, one legal code, one court -- for everybody."
Ms. Ebadi, the first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, said she opposes the idea because Muslim law is vulnerable to interpretation. As one extreme example, some Muslim countries allow polygamy and others do not.
"Which interpretation would apply here?" she said in an interview, speaking through an interpreter. "Because there are many interpretations of the same Islamic teachings and laws, it's not clear what interpretation will be used. Often, a lot of the interpretations are anti-democratic and against human rights. That is my main concern."
The advent of traditional Islamic law, or sharia, to settle family disputes has set off an impassioned debate in Canada ever since a Muslim group proposed setting up an arbitration panel in Ontario. An Ontario report has recommended an Islamic arbitration system. But Quebec's National Assembly this month voted unanimously to oppose Islamic tribunals, saying they undermined democratic values. Ms. Ebadi said her comments can be interpreted as support for Quebec's position.
Ms. Ebadi, who won the Nobel Prize in 2003, has taken up the cause of women and children in Iran. and her vocal defence of human rights has led to frequent clashes with Iran's theocratic leaders. A long-time lawyer and former judge, she heads a group in Iran that offers legal support to prisoners of conscience including journalists, political dissidents and student activists.
She has also strongly protested against the decision by Iran's Guardian Council to bar women from running in this Friday's presidential election. Ms. Ebadi is boycotting the vote.
Ms. Ebadi's visit to Montreal also marked an occasion to visit her daughter, 25-year-old Negar, who studies electrical engineering at McGill University. The Nobel laureate said she prefers Canada to the United States, where a harsher climate since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks has made life more difficult for Muslims.
"I find the political system and environment much better in Canada than the United States," she said. "Multiculturalism is respected in Canada."
In her commencement address, she said that the 9/11 terrorist attacks have made it "almost impossible" for foreign students to study there. "We must separate people's mistakes and sins from their religion and national origin," she said.
In the interview, Ms. Ebadi also urged Canada to keep pressure on Iran in resolving the death of Iranian-born Canadian Zahra Kazemi, the Montreal-based photojournalist who died in custody in Iran after being arrested in 2003.
"It appears the courts are basically trying to waste time in hopes this story will fade away and the public will forget about it," said Ms. Ebadi, who represents the Kazemi family in Iran.
June 12, 2005
Muslim Canadain Congress says Legality of Religious Arbitration be Referred to Ontario Court of Appeals
Shariah based Arbitration is
Racist and Unconstitutional
Submissions by Muslim Canadian Congress:
Review of Arbitration Process by Marion Boyd
http://tinyurl.com/86dy8
The Muslim Canadian Congress is a national organization that provides a voice to progressive Muslims who are not represented by existing organizations. The Muslim Canadian Congress members reject organizations and a distorted view of Islam that is either sectarian, ethnocentric, authoritarian, and influenced by a fear of modernity.
Members of the Muslim Canadian Congress are proud of their Muslim heritage and the great contribution of Islam to human civilization. As Muslim Canadians, when it comes to rights and responsibilities, we believe in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Canadian constitution as our guiding principles.
The Muslim Canadian Congress is a secular organization that works to create a safe space and environment for all Muslims who are opposed to any form of theocracy. We believe in the separation of religion and state in all matters of public policy. We feel such a separation is a necessary prerequisite to building democratic societies. Societies where religious, ethnic, and racial minorities are accepted as equal citizens enjoying full dignity and human rights enunciated in the 1948 United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Muslim Canadian Congress respectfully submits:
1. that the Arbitration Act does not cover family disputes being resolved within its parameters. Furthermore, that the Family Law Act and the other pieces of legislation covering family law jurisdiction are the sole, exclusive and comprehensive scheme for resolving all family law matters touching on relationships between spouses and their children, including estate and inheritances by spouses and children. It is therefore our position that none of these matters can be dealt with under the Arbitration Act.
2. that if indeed the government takes the position, as it seems to be doing, that the Arbitration Act can deal with these matters, then the MCC further takes the position that, to that extent, the Arbitration Act is unconstitutional and of no force and effect in that:
a. It breaches the rights contained in sections 2, 7, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to any differential treatment not specifically set out in the Constitution Act, 1867;
b. Breaches the unwritten constitutional norms enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Succession Reference namely the rule of law, constitutionalism, federalism, and respect for minorities;
c. Breaches even the common law rights to equality of citizenship as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winner; and
d. Is otherwise repugnant to public policy in the de facto privatization of the legislative function and duty of parliament, which in fact, has been declared as unconstitutional as being the abandonment and abdication of the legislative function of parliament, as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Re Gray and further endorsed by the Supreme Court in Hallett and Carey.
3. In light of the fact that this Act exists and the Government states that there is such statutory and constitutional jurisdiction, and in light of the fact that MCC completely rejects and disagrees, we demand, on behalf of not only Muslim-Canadians, but all other Canadians who defend the rule of law and constitutionalism and equality, that the matter be referred on a reference to the Ontario Court of Appeal pursuant to section 8 of the Courts of Justice Act to determine:
a) Whether the Arbitration Act confers jurisdiction, outside the Family Law Act and other related family law statutes, to determine disputes of property, children, inheritance and estates in the family context.
b) If the Arbitration Act does confer such jurisdiction, whether it is constitutional.
4. With all due respect, if the Government maintains that the Act does confer such
jurisdiction, then these consultations are a charade as the Parliament has already spoken and any “report” or opinion to the Attorney General is just that: an opinion.
5. In practical and realistic terms, what began as a demand to introduce “Sharia Law” has now dishonestly mutated into the same thorn by any other name, and is still offensively unacceptable for the following reasons:
a) There is no such thing as a monolithic “Muslim Family/Personal Law” which is just an euphemistically racist way of saying that we will apply the equivalent to “Christian Law” or “Asian Law” or “African Law”;
b) It ghettoizes the Muslim community, which otherwise spans five different continents covering 1.3 billion people, in an extensive array of sects, languages, cultures, and customs, all into one second-class compartment in the determination of human and family law rights, which are of public importance and domain;
c) This insidious and discriminatory ghettoization and marginalization, into “out of sight” only plays into:
i) The hands of the extremist political and ideological agenda of a certain sector of Muslim-Canadian proponents of “Muslim Law” that is antithetical to the Canadian Constitution and values; and
ii) Equally into the hands of the reactionary, intolerant and otherwise racist segments of Canadian non-Muslim society who want nothing better than to exclude Muslims from the mainstream; all of this, behind the dishonest guise of religious tolerance and accommodation.
6. These practical and real objections are not only visible and apprehended by moderate Muslim Canadian members and voices, who adhere to the same rights and responsibilities of all other Canadians regardless of religion or race, but also highlight and focus the legal and constitutional repugnancy of these proposed measures.
7. In our respectful view, any public official body or institution that does not squarely and openly address the racism of these provisions and measures, is complicit in them.
8. Any “arbitration” system ought to be neutral and equally apply to any and all citizens regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. To have a system built on the exact opposite is to defile our Constitutional framework.
It would be extremely dishonest, and derelict of its responsibility for the government of the day to engage in this “consultation” and report with the public, and not refer it to the Court for validity, and expect groups such as the MCC to bring such a challenge.
In light of the above, MCC reiterates its demand that the Provincial Government refer the matter on a reference to the Ontario Court of Appeal pursuant to section 8 of the Courts of Justice Act.
All of which is respectfully submitted this 26th day of August 2004
Rocco Galati B.A., LL.B, LL.M
Counsel for the MCC
GALATI, RODRIGUES & ASSOCIATES
Barristers and Solicitors
637 College Street, Suite 203
Toronto, Ontario
Racist and Unconstitutional
Submissions by Muslim Canadian Congress:
Review of Arbitration Process by Marion Boyd
http://tinyurl.com/86dy8
The Muslim Canadian Congress is a national organization that provides a voice to progressive Muslims who are not represented by existing organizations. The Muslim Canadian Congress members reject organizations and a distorted view of Islam that is either sectarian, ethnocentric, authoritarian, and influenced by a fear of modernity.
Members of the Muslim Canadian Congress are proud of their Muslim heritage and the great contribution of Islam to human civilization. As Muslim Canadians, when it comes to rights and responsibilities, we believe in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Canadian constitution as our guiding principles.
The Muslim Canadian Congress is a secular organization that works to create a safe space and environment for all Muslims who are opposed to any form of theocracy. We believe in the separation of religion and state in all matters of public policy. We feel such a separation is a necessary prerequisite to building democratic societies. Societies where religious, ethnic, and racial minorities are accepted as equal citizens enjoying full dignity and human rights enunciated in the 1948 United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Muslim Canadian Congress respectfully submits:
1. that the Arbitration Act does not cover family disputes being resolved within its parameters. Furthermore, that the Family Law Act and the other pieces of legislation covering family law jurisdiction are the sole, exclusive and comprehensive scheme for resolving all family law matters touching on relationships between spouses and their children, including estate and inheritances by spouses and children. It is therefore our position that none of these matters can be dealt with under the Arbitration Act.
2. that if indeed the government takes the position, as it seems to be doing, that the Arbitration Act can deal with these matters, then the MCC further takes the position that, to that extent, the Arbitration Act is unconstitutional and of no force and effect in that:
a. It breaches the rights contained in sections 2, 7, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to any differential treatment not specifically set out in the Constitution Act, 1867;
b. Breaches the unwritten constitutional norms enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Succession Reference namely the rule of law, constitutionalism, federalism, and respect for minorities;
c. Breaches even the common law rights to equality of citizenship as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winner; and
d. Is otherwise repugnant to public policy in the de facto privatization of the legislative function and duty of parliament, which in fact, has been declared as unconstitutional as being the abandonment and abdication of the legislative function of parliament, as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Re Gray and further endorsed by the Supreme Court in Hallett and Carey.
3. In light of the fact that this Act exists and the Government states that there is such statutory and constitutional jurisdiction, and in light of the fact that MCC completely rejects and disagrees, we demand, on behalf of not only Muslim-Canadians, but all other Canadians who defend the rule of law and constitutionalism and equality, that the matter be referred on a reference to the Ontario Court of Appeal pursuant to section 8 of the Courts of Justice Act to determine:
a) Whether the Arbitration Act confers jurisdiction, outside the Family Law Act and other related family law statutes, to determine disputes of property, children, inheritance and estates in the family context.
b) If the Arbitration Act does confer such jurisdiction, whether it is constitutional.
4. With all due respect, if the Government maintains that the Act does confer such
jurisdiction, then these consultations are a charade as the Parliament has already spoken and any “report” or opinion to the Attorney General is just that: an opinion.
5. In practical and realistic terms, what began as a demand to introduce “Sharia Law” has now dishonestly mutated into the same thorn by any other name, and is still offensively unacceptable for the following reasons:
a) There is no such thing as a monolithic “Muslim Family/Personal Law” which is just an euphemistically racist way of saying that we will apply the equivalent to “Christian Law” or “Asian Law” or “African Law”;
b) It ghettoizes the Muslim community, which otherwise spans five different continents covering 1.3 billion people, in an extensive array of sects, languages, cultures, and customs, all into one second-class compartment in the determination of human and family law rights, which are of public importance and domain;
c) This insidious and discriminatory ghettoization and marginalization, into “out of sight” only plays into:
i) The hands of the extremist political and ideological agenda of a certain sector of Muslim-Canadian proponents of “Muslim Law” that is antithetical to the Canadian Constitution and values; and
ii) Equally into the hands of the reactionary, intolerant and otherwise racist segments of Canadian non-Muslim society who want nothing better than to exclude Muslims from the mainstream; all of this, behind the dishonest guise of religious tolerance and accommodation.
6. These practical and real objections are not only visible and apprehended by moderate Muslim Canadian members and voices, who adhere to the same rights and responsibilities of all other Canadians regardless of religion or race, but also highlight and focus the legal and constitutional repugnancy of these proposed measures.
7. In our respectful view, any public official body or institution that does not squarely and openly address the racism of these provisions and measures, is complicit in them.
8. Any “arbitration” system ought to be neutral and equally apply to any and all citizens regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. To have a system built on the exact opposite is to defile our Constitutional framework.
It would be extremely dishonest, and derelict of its responsibility for the government of the day to engage in this “consultation” and report with the public, and not refer it to the Court for validity, and expect groups such as the MCC to bring such a challenge.
In light of the above, MCC reiterates its demand that the Provincial Government refer the matter on a reference to the Ontario Court of Appeal pursuant to section 8 of the Courts of Justice Act.
All of which is respectfully submitted this 26th day of August 2004
Rocco Galati B.A., LL.B, LL.M
Counsel for the MCC
GALATI, RODRIGUES & ASSOCIATES
Barristers and Solicitors
637 College Street, Suite 203
Toronto, Ontario
June 11, 2005
Grand Mufti of Marseilles doubts Sharia suitable for Canadian society
Saturday, May 14, 2005 Page A17
Muslim law cleric doubts sharia
suitable for Canadian society
By ESTANISLAO OZIEWICZ
Globe and Mail
http://tinyurl.com/794pn
The grand mufti of Marseilles is adding his voice to those opposed to applying religious laws in family matters, a practice Ontario is proposing to extend to Muslims in the province.
Soheib Bencheikh, an Algerian Muslim cleric who is also the highest official of religious law for Marseilles, said yesterday that sharia, or traditional Islamic law, incorporates both spiritual and judicial concepts developed exclusively by men centuries ago and that are subject to interpretation.
He said they may not apply to contemporary Canadian society.
"Is it possible to apply the sharia in societies that are governed by constitutions that stand for gender equality?" asked Mr. Bencheikh, who supports France's prohibition of religious symbols in schools. "It's illogical to apply today the precepts conceived [in tribal, patriarchal societies] to safeguard the interests of yesterday."
Ontario's proposal to create an Islamic arbitration system -- similar to those that exist for Jews and Ismailis -- to settle family and inheritance disputes has been attacked by some Canadian Muslim women's groups, which argue that women would be coerced and lose rights afforded them under Canadian law.
Mr. Bencheikh was speaking by telephone from Montreal, where he was attending a conference organized by Rights & Democracy, an organization created by Parliament in 1988 to promote human rights and democracy around the world. The conference is exploring religious fundamentalism and its growing threat to human rights.
Rights & Democracy has denounced Ontario's move to faith-based arbitration of family matters. President Jean-Louis Roy recently wrote to Attorney-General Michael Bryant, saying that such arbitration has the effect of privatizing family law by creating a parallel system that allows the religious, cultural and political elites that organize the dispute-settlement procedures to decide on the applicable law.
With the support of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and the National Association of Women and the Law, Mr. Roy argues that many religions can be interpreted as incorporating a gender bias to the disadvantage of women's equality rights.
"[This] could very realistically result in discrimination against women," he said.
Ziba Mir-Hosseini, of the international coalition Women Living under Muslim Law, said there are two current trends in interpreting Islamic family law: one is authoritarian, retrograde, patriarchal and detrimental to women's rights, and the other is progressive and acknowledges women's rights.
She says that if Ontario were to approve the application of Islamic law through arbitration panels, it could be seen outside Canada as favouring the authoritarian trend.
Mr. Bencheikh said that applying sharia in provincial arbitration panels also runs the risk of putting Islam in a bad light and creating divisions among people rather than bringing them together.
Rights & Democracy says that while it recognizes the right to religious freedom includes the right to participate in religious processes to resolve family disputes, Canada must not allow this to override its obligation to eliminate violence and discrimination against women.
Muslim law cleric doubts sharia
suitable for Canadian society
By ESTANISLAO OZIEWICZ
Globe and Mail
http://tinyurl.com/794pn
The grand mufti of Marseilles is adding his voice to those opposed to applying religious laws in family matters, a practice Ontario is proposing to extend to Muslims in the province.
Soheib Bencheikh, an Algerian Muslim cleric who is also the highest official of religious law for Marseilles, said yesterday that sharia, or traditional Islamic law, incorporates both spiritual and judicial concepts developed exclusively by men centuries ago and that are subject to interpretation.
He said they may not apply to contemporary Canadian society.
"Is it possible to apply the sharia in societies that are governed by constitutions that stand for gender equality?" asked Mr. Bencheikh, who supports France's prohibition of religious symbols in schools. "It's illogical to apply today the precepts conceived [in tribal, patriarchal societies] to safeguard the interests of yesterday."
Ontario's proposal to create an Islamic arbitration system -- similar to those that exist for Jews and Ismailis -- to settle family and inheritance disputes has been attacked by some Canadian Muslim women's groups, which argue that women would be coerced and lose rights afforded them under Canadian law.
Mr. Bencheikh was speaking by telephone from Montreal, where he was attending a conference organized by Rights & Democracy, an organization created by Parliament in 1988 to promote human rights and democracy around the world. The conference is exploring religious fundamentalism and its growing threat to human rights.
Rights & Democracy has denounced Ontario's move to faith-based arbitration of family matters. President Jean-Louis Roy recently wrote to Attorney-General Michael Bryant, saying that such arbitration has the effect of privatizing family law by creating a parallel system that allows the religious, cultural and political elites that organize the dispute-settlement procedures to decide on the applicable law.
With the support of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and the National Association of Women and the Law, Mr. Roy argues that many religions can be interpreted as incorporating a gender bias to the disadvantage of women's equality rights.
"[This] could very realistically result in discrimination against women," he said.
Ziba Mir-Hosseini, of the international coalition Women Living under Muslim Law, said there are two current trends in interpreting Islamic family law: one is authoritarian, retrograde, patriarchal and detrimental to women's rights, and the other is progressive and acknowledges women's rights.
She says that if Ontario were to approve the application of Islamic law through arbitration panels, it could be seen outside Canada as favouring the authoritarian trend.
Mr. Bencheikh said that applying sharia in provincial arbitration panels also runs the risk of putting Islam in a bad light and creating divisions among people rather than bringing them together.
Rights & Democracy says that while it recognizes the right to religious freedom includes the right to participate in religious processes to resolve family disputes, Canada must not allow this to override its obligation to eliminate violence and discrimination against women.
Canadian Unitarians urge Government to ensure "seperation of church and state"
The Honourable Dalton McGuinty,
Premier of Ontario
Rm 281, Main Legislative Building
Queen’s Park
Toronto ON M7A 1A4
The Honourable Michael Bryant
Attorney General of Ontario
The Honourable Sandra Pupatello,
Minister of Community and Social Services
Dear Premier and Ministers,
It is of critical concern to Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice that Family Law be excluded from the Arbitration Act. We are opposed to the recommendation of the Marion Boyd Report because of the devastating psychological effect that faith-based arbitration could have on women in some religious communities, thereby compromising their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The psychological damage and ostracism that women in those faith communities may experience could be far more harmful than the physical abuse that the Report considered.
The cultural norm of many religions is hierarchical. We believe that women members of such religions who oppose the opinions of the male heirarchy may be banished from their cultural group, and left without a support network. The human rights of these women will be in jeopardy unless Family Law is excluded from the Arbitration Act. We believe that no religious law should be a part of our justice system.
In considering the Boyd Report, balanced representation between those who support faith-based arbitration and those who are opposed to it is difficult to achieve because those who would be victimized by the arbitration will fear being victimized if they oppose its adoption by the Government of Ontario.
We urge you to find other ways of coping with the case load and the financial burdens of our judicial system. Compromising the human rights of some individuals is not an acceptable method of solving these problems. According to Professor J-F. Gaudreault-DesBiens of te University of Toronto Faculty of Law, “Those who support private abitration as an efficient and relatively cheap mechanism for esolving disputes should consider that abuses of fundamental rights committed in arbitration contexts are likely to undermine the legitimacy of arbitration itself as an alternative dispute mechanism.”1
We are concerned that faith-based laws do not always agree with the laws of Canada and of Ontario. For equality before the law--a primary right of Canadians--it is essential that all decisions be based on the same body of laws. We exhort you to ensure the separation of church and state in our legal system.
We urge you to oppose the section of the Boyd Report that would allow family law to be included in the Arbitration Act. Quebec did this. Let Ontario do so as well! Then may it be said that Ontario recognizes that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies equally to all people!
Yours truly
Philip Symons
President
Footnote: 1. Jean-Francois Gaudreault-DesBiens, “Perspectives: The Limits of Private Justice? The Problems of the State Recognition of Arbitral Awards in Family and Personal Status Disputes in Ontario”, World Arbitration & Mediation Report, January 2005, Vol. 16, No. 1, p.26.
Premier of Ontario
Rm 281, Main Legislative Building
Queen’s Park
Toronto ON M7A 1A4
The Honourable Michael Bryant
Attorney General of Ontario
The Honourable Sandra Pupatello,
Minister of Community and Social Services
Dear Premier and Ministers,
It is of critical concern to Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice that Family Law be excluded from the Arbitration Act. We are opposed to the recommendation of the Marion Boyd Report because of the devastating psychological effect that faith-based arbitration could have on women in some religious communities, thereby compromising their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The psychological damage and ostracism that women in those faith communities may experience could be far more harmful than the physical abuse that the Report considered.
The cultural norm of many religions is hierarchical. We believe that women members of such religions who oppose the opinions of the male heirarchy may be banished from their cultural group, and left without a support network. The human rights of these women will be in jeopardy unless Family Law is excluded from the Arbitration Act. We believe that no religious law should be a part of our justice system.
In considering the Boyd Report, balanced representation between those who support faith-based arbitration and those who are opposed to it is difficult to achieve because those who would be victimized by the arbitration will fear being victimized if they oppose its adoption by the Government of Ontario.
We urge you to find other ways of coping with the case load and the financial burdens of our judicial system. Compromising the human rights of some individuals is not an acceptable method of solving these problems. According to Professor J-F. Gaudreault-DesBiens of te University of Toronto Faculty of Law, “Those who support private abitration as an efficient and relatively cheap mechanism for esolving disputes should consider that abuses of fundamental rights committed in arbitration contexts are likely to undermine the legitimacy of arbitration itself as an alternative dispute mechanism.”1
We are concerned that faith-based laws do not always agree with the laws of Canada and of Ontario. For equality before the law--a primary right of Canadians--it is essential that all decisions be based on the same body of laws. We exhort you to ensure the separation of church and state in our legal system.
We urge you to oppose the section of the Boyd Report that would allow family law to be included in the Arbitration Act. Quebec did this. Let Ontario do so as well! Then may it be said that Ontario recognizes that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies equally to all people!
Yours truly
Philip Symons
President
Footnote: 1. Jean-Francois Gaudreault-DesBiens, “Perspectives: The Limits of Private Justice? The Problems of the State Recognition of Arbitral Awards in Family and Personal Status Disputes in Ontario”, World Arbitration & Mediation Report, January 2005, Vol. 16, No. 1, p.26.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
