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.
June 11, 2005
April 17, 2005
Toronto SUN: "Catholic canon law, Judaic law -- or Sharia simply out of step for a modern society"
Sun, April 17, 2005
Bryant feels the heat over Sharia law
IT IS SIMPLY OUT OF STEP FOR A MODERN
SOCIETY TO ALLOW MEDIEVAL FORMS OF JUSTICE
By CHRISTINA BLIZZARD
The Toronto Sun
http://tinyurl.com/7z48r
WHILE ATTORNEY General Michael Bryant was making headlines all last week with his plans to keep Karla Homolka on a short leash when she is released from prison, his toughest test this spring could well be the way he deals with the thorny issue of Islamic law.
Last December, former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd released a 150-page report report supporting changes to the 1991 Arbitration Act that could allow civil family law cases to be decided using sharia law, a 1,400-year-old set of Islamic rules and laws covering legal and family issues.
The province asked Boyd to assess a plan by the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice to use sharia principles in settling family law matters. No decision has yet been made.
But Bryant is under pressure from his own backbench, especially from women, who fear any introduction of sharia law will be a setback for women and children.
Etobicoke Centre MPP Donna Cansfield has heard from groups in her community who fear their rights will be diminished. "Obviously, representing women and children is a concern to me so I think the safeguards dealing with the issues around equity and protection of women's and children's rights are important," says Cansfield.
WHAT PROTECTIONS?
She wants to know, "what are the protections that are required to ensure that their rights are in fact protected?"
Cansfield says she's talked to the Canadian Association of Muslim Women and a number of individual Muslim women in her community. "Some of them are saying they are not sure their community knows and understands the difference between arbitration and mediation," she says. (Arbitration is binding.)
Another Liberal, Kathleen Wynne, believes the province needs to move carefully on this. "It is a very big issue and it is a women's issue to a large extent, so I am vitally interested on how we respond to the report," says the Don Valley West MPP.
The Quebec government said emphatically recently that it would not allow sharia rules to be used in its courts.
Critics say sharia law is dismissive of women and treats them as being inferior to men. In the case of a marriage breakup, under Islamic law, the man is given custody of the children and it allows only three months of support to the woman.
Complicating the issue is the fact that the Arbitration Act already allows Jews and Catholics to use their own religious tenets in settling disputes. If Bryant disallows sharia, he could face accusations that he is discriminating against Muslims.
SIMILAR CONCERNS
MPPs from other parties have similar concerns. New Democrat Marilyn Churley says it's not just the Muslim faith that presents a problem when it comes to arbitration.
"Within all faith-based dispute mechanisms, there can be issues around patriarchy and sexism," she says. "The arbitration process is too susceptible to manipulation when dealing with the power dynamics often present in family relationships.
"It is not difficult to imagine, and indeed we heard of cases, where a woman leaving an abusive relationship may face intense pressure to agree to an arbitration process that is not in her interest."
The fact is, it is simply out of step for a modern society to allow medieval forms of justice, be it Catholic canon law, Judaic law -- or sharia.
Sure, Boyd and others may try to convince us that Sharia will only be used when a woman agrees to it. But how hard is it to intimidate a young woman who may be new to this country, may not be familiar with her rights -- and who may live in fear of what will happen if she doesn't agree?
The only sensible route for Bryant is to drop all religious abitration from the legislation. This is the 21st century and all women should be treated in the same fashion -- and equal to men in the eyes of the law.
Bryant feels the heat over Sharia law
IT IS SIMPLY OUT OF STEP FOR A MODERN
SOCIETY TO ALLOW MEDIEVAL FORMS OF JUSTICE
By CHRISTINA BLIZZARD
The Toronto Sun
http://tinyurl.com/7z48r
WHILE ATTORNEY General Michael Bryant was making headlines all last week with his plans to keep Karla Homolka on a short leash when she is released from prison, his toughest test this spring could well be the way he deals with the thorny issue of Islamic law.
Last December, former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd released a 150-page report report supporting changes to the 1991 Arbitration Act that could allow civil family law cases to be decided using sharia law, a 1,400-year-old set of Islamic rules and laws covering legal and family issues.
The province asked Boyd to assess a plan by the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice to use sharia principles in settling family law matters. No decision has yet been made.
But Bryant is under pressure from his own backbench, especially from women, who fear any introduction of sharia law will be a setback for women and children.
Etobicoke Centre MPP Donna Cansfield has heard from groups in her community who fear their rights will be diminished. "Obviously, representing women and children is a concern to me so I think the safeguards dealing with the issues around equity and protection of women's and children's rights are important," says Cansfield.
WHAT PROTECTIONS?
She wants to know, "what are the protections that are required to ensure that their rights are in fact protected?"
Cansfield says she's talked to the Canadian Association of Muslim Women and a number of individual Muslim women in her community. "Some of them are saying they are not sure their community knows and understands the difference between arbitration and mediation," she says. (Arbitration is binding.)
Another Liberal, Kathleen Wynne, believes the province needs to move carefully on this. "It is a very big issue and it is a women's issue to a large extent, so I am vitally interested on how we respond to the report," says the Don Valley West MPP.
The Quebec government said emphatically recently that it would not allow sharia rules to be used in its courts.
Critics say sharia law is dismissive of women and treats them as being inferior to men. In the case of a marriage breakup, under Islamic law, the man is given custody of the children and it allows only three months of support to the woman.
Complicating the issue is the fact that the Arbitration Act already allows Jews and Catholics to use their own religious tenets in settling disputes. If Bryant disallows sharia, he could face accusations that he is discriminating against Muslims.
SIMILAR CONCERNS
MPPs from other parties have similar concerns. New Democrat Marilyn Churley says it's not just the Muslim faith that presents a problem when it comes to arbitration.
"Within all faith-based dispute mechanisms, there can be issues around patriarchy and sexism," she says. "The arbitration process is too susceptible to manipulation when dealing with the power dynamics often present in family relationships.
"It is not difficult to imagine, and indeed we heard of cases, where a woman leaving an abusive relationship may face intense pressure to agree to an arbitration process that is not in her interest."
The fact is, it is simply out of step for a modern society to allow medieval forms of justice, be it Catholic canon law, Judaic law -- or sharia.
Sure, Boyd and others may try to convince us that Sharia will only be used when a woman agrees to it. But how hard is it to intimidate a young woman who may be new to this country, may not be familiar with her rights -- and who may live in fear of what will happen if she doesn't agree?
The only sensible route for Bryant is to drop all religious abitration from the legislation. This is the 21st century and all women should be treated in the same fashion -- and equal to men in the eyes of the law.
February 4, 2005
Muslim Woman in the Christian Science Monitor: "Ontario must say 'No' to Sharia
February 02, 2005
Ontario must say 'no' to Sharia
By Mona Eltahawy
Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0202/p09s01-coop.html
NEW YORK – In January last year, the US-backed Iraqi Governing Council incurred the wrath of Iraqi women by ordering that Islamic law, or sharia, replace the civil code that had governed family and divorce law since the 1950s. Women from Iraq's different religious sects denounced the decision in street protests and conferences that eventually led to sharia being listed as just one of several sources of legislation in Iraq's temporary constitution.
It is that image of Iraqi women braving the streets of occupied Baghdad to protest sharia that makes it impossible to understand what former Ontario Attorney General Marion Boyd was thinking when she recommended Jan. 17 that the province allow sharia tribunals to settle family disputes for Muslims. Her report examining the issue was commissioned by current Attorney General Michael Bryant, as Ontario considers whether to let Islamic law be used in private arbitration of civil and family-law disputes when all parties agree to it.
As a Muslim woman who is familiar with the many ways sharia is abused and used against women in my own country, Egypt, and in several other Muslim countries I have reported from, I urge Mr. Bryant and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to reject Ms. Boyd's recommendations.
Many Canadian Muslims agree. The Canadian Council for Muslim Women has called Boyd's recommendations naive. A coordinator of the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada has warned that these tribunals will compel women to stay in abusive relationships. Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, denounced the former attorney general's report as "multiculturalism run amok."
Boyd's recommendations seem to be aimed at compensating Muslims for the ugly Islamophobia that has surfaced in North America in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But women must not pay the price for liberal guilt.
According to most interpretations of sharia, women are not treated equally to men. For example, a woman inherits half of what a male relative does. Even more problematic, there is no consensus on sharia, which is derived from the Koran and the life and sayings of the prophet Muhammad.
So whose interpretation of sharia would Ontario Muslims follow? And who would have the authority to decide?
Would it be the Canadian Council of Muslim Theologians, for example, which in answer to a question on their website about women drivers, said, "To the extent of necessity, it is permissible for a woman to drive ... driving will not be permissible for leisure and going around unnecessarily."
Remember - this is in Canada, not Saudi Arabia.
No wonder Mr. Fatah termed Boyd's recommendation "the racism of lower expectations where under the garb of diversity, Muslims are being encouraged to ghettoize and withdraw from the mainstream."
Sharia tribunals would be set up under the Arbitration Act of 1991, which Boyd helped devise. The act allows people to forgo Canada's public court system by using private arbitration to settle civil and family-law disputes. Jews and Catholics have used the Arbitration Act for some time, but this in itself is problematic because it leads to an effectual privatization of the judicial system and strengthens the role of clergy in minority communities.
But what is wrong with Canadian civil law that religious Canadians must look elsewhere? And why is the Canadian court system shirking its responsibility to its citizens?
On the books, such religious courts are predicated on mutual consent of the parties and the condition that their outcomes respect Canadian law and human rights codes. That is easier said than done and Boyd knows it: She has said the arbitration she recommends for Muslims is "very much a case of buyer beware."
With sharia tribunals in place in Ontario, it isn't difficult to imagine the pressure that would be exerted on Muslim women to choose them over civil courts. Syed Mumtaz Ali of the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice, who has promoted the idea of such tribunals for years, has already denounced Muslim opponents of sharia as not "real Muslims."
There are reports that some Muslims groups in British Columbia are awaiting the green light in Ontario before they lobby their province for sharia tribunals.
Ontario must say "no" to sharia.
Ontario must say 'no' to Sharia
By Mona Eltahawy
Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0202/p09s01-coop.html
NEW YORK – In January last year, the US-backed Iraqi Governing Council incurred the wrath of Iraqi women by ordering that Islamic law, or sharia, replace the civil code that had governed family and divorce law since the 1950s. Women from Iraq's different religious sects denounced the decision in street protests and conferences that eventually led to sharia being listed as just one of several sources of legislation in Iraq's temporary constitution.
It is that image of Iraqi women braving the streets of occupied Baghdad to protest sharia that makes it impossible to understand what former Ontario Attorney General Marion Boyd was thinking when she recommended Jan. 17 that the province allow sharia tribunals to settle family disputes for Muslims. Her report examining the issue was commissioned by current Attorney General Michael Bryant, as Ontario considers whether to let Islamic law be used in private arbitration of civil and family-law disputes when all parties agree to it.
As a Muslim woman who is familiar with the many ways sharia is abused and used against women in my own country, Egypt, and in several other Muslim countries I have reported from, I urge Mr. Bryant and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to reject Ms. Boyd's recommendations.
Many Canadian Muslims agree. The Canadian Council for Muslim Women has called Boyd's recommendations naive. A coordinator of the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada has warned that these tribunals will compel women to stay in abusive relationships. Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, denounced the former attorney general's report as "multiculturalism run amok."
Boyd's recommendations seem to be aimed at compensating Muslims for the ugly Islamophobia that has surfaced in North America in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But women must not pay the price for liberal guilt.
According to most interpretations of sharia, women are not treated equally to men. For example, a woman inherits half of what a male relative does. Even more problematic, there is no consensus on sharia, which is derived from the Koran and the life and sayings of the prophet Muhammad.
So whose interpretation of sharia would Ontario Muslims follow? And who would have the authority to decide?
Would it be the Canadian Council of Muslim Theologians, for example, which in answer to a question on their website about women drivers, said, "To the extent of necessity, it is permissible for a woman to drive ... driving will not be permissible for leisure and going around unnecessarily."
Remember - this is in Canada, not Saudi Arabia.
No wonder Mr. Fatah termed Boyd's recommendation "the racism of lower expectations where under the garb of diversity, Muslims are being encouraged to ghettoize and withdraw from the mainstream."
Sharia tribunals would be set up under the Arbitration Act of 1991, which Boyd helped devise. The act allows people to forgo Canada's public court system by using private arbitration to settle civil and family-law disputes. Jews and Catholics have used the Arbitration Act for some time, but this in itself is problematic because it leads to an effectual privatization of the judicial system and strengthens the role of clergy in minority communities.
But what is wrong with Canadian civil law that religious Canadians must look elsewhere? And why is the Canadian court system shirking its responsibility to its citizens?
On the books, such religious courts are predicated on mutual consent of the parties and the condition that their outcomes respect Canadian law and human rights codes. That is easier said than done and Boyd knows it: She has said the arbitration she recommends for Muslims is "very much a case of buyer beware."
With sharia tribunals in place in Ontario, it isn't difficult to imagine the pressure that would be exerted on Muslim women to choose them over civil courts. Syed Mumtaz Ali of the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice, who has promoted the idea of such tribunals for years, has already denounced Muslim opponents of sharia as not "real Muslims."
There are reports that some Muslims groups in British Columbia are awaiting the green light in Ontario before they lobby their province for sharia tribunals.
Ontario must say "no" to sharia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
