Sep. 16, 2005. 06:39 AM
Sharia solution a fair one, and not racist
By ROSIE DIMANNO
The Toronto Star
http://tinyurl.com/bqtw4
The time has come for Canadians to be weaned off the teat of multiculturalism as a primary source of sustenance and self-identity.
Surely, in the 21st century, we are more than the sum total of our diverse parts and hyphenated definitions.
What once bound us together in a less self-assured era — the appealing dynamics of ethnic and cultural distinctions undiluted by melting pot nationalism — served its purpose well for several decades, since first advocated as a cementing ideology by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.
But somewhere along the line, perhaps when human rights tribunals and clumsily codified diversity legislation began to illogically skew the social balance, asserting minority rights over majority concepts, the whole thing began to unravel.
There is something wrong when Premier Dalton McGuinty is portrayed, at least by implication, as racist for asserting that secular courts cannot be used to uphold decisions on family law made through faith-based arbitration.
There is something amiss when religious leaders take constitutional umbrage over the paramount authority of Canadian jurisprudence on matters in which they presume to have moral authority.
There is something absurd if not outright repugnant about labelling as "Islamaphobic'' — a currently trendy neologism with no precise definition but tons of attitude — women who have spent their lives promoting gender equality, yet now find themselves castigated, in the most paternalistic language, for daring to champion the secular over the infantilizing religious.
In this hypersensitive era, when few dare speak obvious truths lest they be hounded by the righteous and the grievance-subsumed, McGuinty made the only choice possible to halt the legal enshrinement of sharia law in family arbitration matters — retroactively gutting the Arbitration Act that has, for the past 13 years, permitted faith-based mediation in Ontario by other religious denominations.
It was the NDP — twisting itself into an ideological pretzel and sacrificing basic Canadian values on the altar of religious institutional rights — that gave us that little piece of legislation.
It's difficult to say, probably because none of us investigated the practice properly in all this time, whether women, in particular, were getting a fair shake out of their rabbis and priests in matters related to divorce, custody, child support, property settlement and inheritance. Presumably, only those who take their faith ultra seriously, the orthodox, would seek arbitration from these Catholic tribunals and rabbinical courts in the first place. And if they respect those agencies, they would abide by their decisions.
In practice, from what I've been able to determine, the numbers of such formally arbitrated cases are quite small. The Catholic Archdiocese in Toronto, for example, limits quasi-judicial authority, as it existed under the Arbitration Act, to annulment requests. But an annulment doesn't replace civil divorce, which is still required to dismantle a marriage. I know of no instances where the Church has settled, say, custodial matters.
In that context, it is perhaps unfair for Catholic tribunals and rabbinical courts to have the rug pulled out from under them in order for the government to put an ecumenical face on what was clearly aimed at circumscribing Islamic authority.
McGuinty's solution is fair if disingenuous. He can't be accused of a cultural bias against Muslims. And there is no vilifying bias against Muslims in Canada because such a thing won't be tolerated, not in our institutions and not in our communities. But there was a legitimate fear that fundamentalist practices as codified in sharia law — even more worrisomely, as interpreted by individual imams — would leave women vulnerable to judgments founded on religious texts that clash with Canadian law and values.
There is nothing to prevent Muslim women, or people of any faith, to continue seeking mediation from religious authorities. Surely, it is well within the purview of such authorities to give counsel and advice to the faithful. The spiritual and the moral remain realms of temporal consultation. But this province couldn't put its faith in the fallback protections afforded by civil courts, which would still have maintained the right to overrule decisions rendered under sharia law, had the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice been successful in seeking state sanction for Islamic tribunals.
The most vulnerable individuals — women accustomed to patriarchal dictates and their children — would likely find it extremely difficult to assert their civil rights, particularly if they are new to this country, unfamiliar with our legal system, and living within an ethnic cocoon, as is the case for many recent immigrants. This might seem, as proponents of sharia law (including some Muslim women) claim, an intrinsically paternalistic view, as if Muslim women are incapable of grasping their own circumstances and require the apparatus of the state to defend them. But the reality is that, for so many women, especially immigrant women who lead insular lives, they do not share, are often not permitted to share, in the values and rights so vital to our society.
I saw this a generation ago in the constituency I know best — Catholic women in Italian families, allowed precious little choice by the domineering, if however well-intentioned, men in their lives.
Islam may be the answer for more than a billion people on this Earth and I in no way wish to diminish the richness of a majestic faith that expresses itself in every facet of a person's daily life. It is, or thus it seems to me, a religion of surrendering to intensely codified conduct. Perhaps this is what makes it so attractive and why it is the world's fastest growing faith. It's not my place to judge.
But there are applications of that faith, as determined by sharia law, that have no formalized place in Canadian society.
That much we do have the collective right to judge, without being called racist.
September 17, 2005
September 10, 2005
Margaret Atwood's Open Letter to Premier McGuinty: "Don't ghettoize women's rights"
September 10, 2005
OPEN LETTER TO ONTARIO PREMIER DALTON MCGUINTY
Don't ghettoize women's rights
The Globe and Mail
http://tinyurl.com/aqdnu
Dear Mr. McGuinty:
An important tenet of Canadian democracy hangs in the balance of your response to the matter of religious arbitration in the province of Ontario. While many Canadians may assume that we are all governed by one system of laws, created by publicly elected officials who are accountable to the electorate, your government is poised to shift the ground under this cornerstone of liberal democracy.
While our public system of law is not always perfect, it is designed to recognize the realities of all citizens and is open to public scrutiny and improvement. Such is not the case with private systems of law, such as religious laws.
The public may identify this issue from media reports as "Sharia law in Ontario," but they, and you, need to understand that this is a matter of the formal separation of all religious matters from the business of the state. This is in no way an infringement on religious freedom, which we endorse as an equally important tenet of Canadian democracy. Religion should simply remain an important part of the lives of citizens but not of public law.
Surely the separation of church and state is understood by today's politicians to be the fertile ground upon which modern, rights-based democracies such as that in Canada have flourished. Arbitrariness, petty theocracies and selective -- rather than universal -- access to public law await us if we simply treat this issue as a detail in the daily business of government.
Ontario's commitment to religious freedom, anti-racism and multiculturalism are very important to us and to all Ontarians. Some have argued that to deny arbitration based on religious laws is a breach of these commitments.
We do not agree.
Allowing the use of religious arbitration will lead to divisiveness, the ghettoization of members of religious communities as well as human-rights abuses, particularly for those who hold the least institutional power within the community, namely women and children.
We urge you to speak strongly in favour of Ontario's commitment to one system of laws for all, as well as for freedom of religion and anti-racism. Prohibit the use of religion in the arbitration of family law disputes through appropriate amendments to the Arbitration Act. The eyes of the world are quite literally watching Ontario at this time to see if we have the courage to move forward on this issue in a way that preserves our common bond and is inclusive and respectful of all.
Sincerely,
Margaret Atwood
Maude Barlow
June Callwood
Shirley Douglas
Michele Landsberg
Flora MacDonald
Margaret Norrie McCain
Maureen McTeer
Sonja Smits
Lois Wilson
OPEN LETTER TO ONTARIO PREMIER DALTON MCGUINTY
Don't ghettoize women's rights
The Globe and Mail
http://tinyurl.com/aqdnu
Dear Mr. McGuinty:
An important tenet of Canadian democracy hangs in the balance of your response to the matter of religious arbitration in the province of Ontario. While many Canadians may assume that we are all governed by one system of laws, created by publicly elected officials who are accountable to the electorate, your government is poised to shift the ground under this cornerstone of liberal democracy.
While our public system of law is not always perfect, it is designed to recognize the realities of all citizens and is open to public scrutiny and improvement. Such is not the case with private systems of law, such as religious laws.
The public may identify this issue from media reports as "Sharia law in Ontario," but they, and you, need to understand that this is a matter of the formal separation of all religious matters from the business of the state. This is in no way an infringement on religious freedom, which we endorse as an equally important tenet of Canadian democracy. Religion should simply remain an important part of the lives of citizens but not of public law.
Surely the separation of church and state is understood by today's politicians to be the fertile ground upon which modern, rights-based democracies such as that in Canada have flourished. Arbitrariness, petty theocracies and selective -- rather than universal -- access to public law await us if we simply treat this issue as a detail in the daily business of government.
Ontario's commitment to religious freedom, anti-racism and multiculturalism are very important to us and to all Ontarians. Some have argued that to deny arbitration based on religious laws is a breach of these commitments.
We do not agree.
Allowing the use of religious arbitration will lead to divisiveness, the ghettoization of members of religious communities as well as human-rights abuses, particularly for those who hold the least institutional power within the community, namely women and children.
We urge you to speak strongly in favour of Ontario's commitment to one system of laws for all, as well as for freedom of religion and anti-racism. Prohibit the use of religion in the arbitration of family law disputes through appropriate amendments to the Arbitration Act. The eyes of the world are quite literally watching Ontario at this time to see if we have the courage to move forward on this issue in a way that preserves our common bond and is inclusive and respectful of all.
Sincerely,
Margaret Atwood
Maude Barlow
June Callwood
Shirley Douglas
Michele Landsberg
Flora MacDonald
Margaret Norrie McCain
Maureen McTeer
Sonja Smits
Lois Wilson
"Keep sharia law out of Canadian judicial system" Tarek Fatah in the Kitchener Record
Aug 12, 2005
Keep sharia law out of Canadian judicial system
By TAREK FATAH
The Kitchener-Waterloo Record
http://www.therecord.com
On behalf of Canada's liberal and progressive Muslims, I appreciate Premier Dalton McGuinty delaying a decision on the use of "sharia" in Ontario's Arbitration Act. However, I urge him now to take the next logical step -- put an end to all religious arbitration.
The proposed use of religious laws to settle family disputes has deeply divided the Muslim community and caused serious concern among women's groups, children's advocates and supporters of the separation of religion and state.
We are opposed to all religious tribunals that trespass the public domain. Whether they are Rabbinical, Christian or Islamic courts, we believe they cannot, and should not, be allowed to act as substitutes for our judicial system -- a system that is based on laws created by parliamentarians who are accountable to the electorate.
I urge McGuinty to reflect on the consequences of increasing the power of religious clerics, especially in view of recent events where religion has been used to inflict terror instead of building peace and harmony.
I say this not to downplay the important role of religion in our lives, but to the dangers of bringing it into public policy and thus risking further divisiveness in our society which is already threatened with religious conflict.
In her report filed last year, former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd has recommended that "Muslim principles" be permitted in arbitration as a substitute to the Family Law Act.
As Muslims, we believe that what Boyd is recommending under the cover of "Muslim principles" is, in fact, "sharia by stealth" -- man- made laws that have been erroneously given divine authority and that cannot be debated or amended by any Canadian jurisdiction.
As a Muslim, I am not alone in my opposition to introduction of sharia into the Canadian judicial system. Many Muslim academics, religious scholars and human rights activists have voiced their concern. Organizations like the Muslim Canadian Congress, the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and the United Muslim Association have been vigorous in their opposition to any introduction of sharia into the Canadian justice system.
Prof. Omid Safi, who teaches Islamic studies at Colgate University in New York State, says, "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 -- is not only unjust, but also detrimental to the well-being of all Canadian citizens."
One of Islam's leading scholars in Europe, Prof. Tariq Ramadan of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, told a magazine there was no need for Canadian Muslims to set up their own sharia courts, saying they are "not necessary." He said demanding such courts "is another example of lack of creativity" among Muslims.
And in May of this year, none other than Nobel Peace Prize winner Shrin Ebadi took a firm stand against the introduction of Islamic tribunals in Canada, warning they open the door to potential human rights abuses.
Furthermore, I believe that introducing sharia into the judicial system will ghettoize the Muslim community, making their already difficult task of integrating into Canadian society even more onerous.
I 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.
Just as McGuinty stood up for public education, despite immense pressure from the religious lobby, I hope he will take the courageous decision to ensure that one law exists for all Ontarians, irrespective of religion, race or gender. Only then can we hope for a civic society where diversity is not allowed to create divisiveness.
If the Ontario government implements the Boyd report, I believe the move will further ghettoize the already marginalized Muslim community and will play into the hands of the racists who want nothing better than to exclude Muslims from the mainstream.
The decision McGuinty makes will have a profound long-term impact not only on our society, but also across the Muslim world, where progressive and liberal men and women are fighting to keep sharia out of the political system.
In the words of Safi, "We are alarmed at the prospects of repressive Muslim governments around the world pointing to Canada, and the implementation of sharia 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 sharia found in those countries. It is
unrealistic to think that the ayatollahs of Iran or the proponents of Wahabism in Saudi Arabia will not use this to promote the viability of their oppressive visions."
My position is not against religion. On the contrary, I 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 imams, rabbis and priests over their communities -- especially the most vulnerable.
—-----------------------------
Tarek Fatah is host of the weekly CTS-TV show, The Muslim Chronicle and a founding member of the Muslim Canadian Congress, a grassroots progressive Muslim organization.
Keep sharia law out of Canadian judicial system
By TAREK FATAH
The Kitchener-Waterloo Record
http://www.therecord.com
On behalf of Canada's liberal and progressive Muslims, I appreciate Premier Dalton McGuinty delaying a decision on the use of "sharia" in Ontario's Arbitration Act. However, I urge him now to take the next logical step -- put an end to all religious arbitration.
The proposed use of religious laws to settle family disputes has deeply divided the Muslim community and caused serious concern among women's groups, children's advocates and supporters of the separation of religion and state.
We are opposed to all religious tribunals that trespass the public domain. Whether they are Rabbinical, Christian or Islamic courts, we believe they cannot, and should not, be allowed to act as substitutes for our judicial system -- a system that is based on laws created by parliamentarians who are accountable to the electorate.
I urge McGuinty to reflect on the consequences of increasing the power of religious clerics, especially in view of recent events where religion has been used to inflict terror instead of building peace and harmony.
I say this not to downplay the important role of religion in our lives, but to the dangers of bringing it into public policy and thus risking further divisiveness in our society which is already threatened with religious conflict.
In her report filed last year, former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd has recommended that "Muslim principles" be permitted in arbitration as a substitute to the Family Law Act.
As Muslims, we believe that what Boyd is recommending under the cover of "Muslim principles" is, in fact, "sharia by stealth" -- man- made laws that have been erroneously given divine authority and that cannot be debated or amended by any Canadian jurisdiction.
As a Muslim, I am not alone in my opposition to introduction of sharia into the Canadian judicial system. Many Muslim academics, religious scholars and human rights activists have voiced their concern. Organizations like the Muslim Canadian Congress, the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and the United Muslim Association have been vigorous in their opposition to any introduction of sharia into the Canadian justice system.
Prof. Omid Safi, who teaches Islamic studies at Colgate University in New York State, says, "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 -- is not only unjust, but also detrimental to the well-being of all Canadian citizens."
One of Islam's leading scholars in Europe, Prof. Tariq Ramadan of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, told a magazine there was no need for Canadian Muslims to set up their own sharia courts, saying they are "not necessary." He said demanding such courts "is another example of lack of creativity" among Muslims.
And in May of this year, none other than Nobel Peace Prize winner Shrin Ebadi took a firm stand against the introduction of Islamic tribunals in Canada, warning they open the door to potential human rights abuses.
Furthermore, I believe that introducing sharia into the judicial system will ghettoize the Muslim community, making their already difficult task of integrating into Canadian society even more onerous.
I 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.
Just as McGuinty stood up for public education, despite immense pressure from the religious lobby, I hope he will take the courageous decision to ensure that one law exists for all Ontarians, irrespective of religion, race or gender. Only then can we hope for a civic society where diversity is not allowed to create divisiveness.
If the Ontario government implements the Boyd report, I believe the move will further ghettoize the already marginalized Muslim community and will play into the hands of the racists who want nothing better than to exclude Muslims from the mainstream.
The decision McGuinty makes will have a profound long-term impact not only on our society, but also across the Muslim world, where progressive and liberal men and women are fighting to keep sharia out of the political system.
In the words of Safi, "We are alarmed at the prospects of repressive Muslim governments around the world pointing to Canada, and the implementation of sharia 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 sharia found in those countries. It is
unrealistic to think that the ayatollahs of Iran or the proponents of Wahabism in Saudi Arabia will not use this to promote the viability of their oppressive visions."
My position is not against religion. On the contrary, I 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 imams, rabbis and priests over their communities -- especially the most vulnerable.
—-----------------------------
Tarek Fatah is host of the weekly CTS-TV show, The Muslim Chronicle and a founding member of the Muslim Canadian Congress, a grassroots progressive Muslim organization.
Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente: "Whistling sharia while we go completely off our rocker"
September 8, 2005
Whistling sharia while we go completely off our rocker
By Margaret Wente
Globe and Mail
http://tinyurl.com
What do Ontario and Iraq have in common?
Here's one thing: In both Baghdad and Toronto, women are taking to the streets to protest against the introduction of Islamic law. They know that Islamic law is no friend of women's rights, and they are fighting to make sure it has no role in the law of the state.
Progressive liberals around the world are raising the alarm over what's happening in Iraq. In Ontario, on the other hand, the progressive liberals in our government think Islamic law is a mighty fine idea. In the interest of cultural sensitivity, they want to give Muslim women the privilege of resolving family disputes through sharia arbitration tribunals conducted by imams. If all goes as planned, Ontario will be the first Western jurisdiction to permit the settlement of family disputes using sharia.
In other parts of the world, the general reaction is that we've gone completely off our rocker. "What is wrong with Canadian civil law that religious Canadians must look elsewhere?" asked Mona Eltahawy, a Muslim writing in The Christian Science Monitor.
Good question. Premier Dalton McGuinty has yet to answer it. He's been cornered by a pro-sharia report his government commissioned from former NDP politician Marion Boyd, who came up with a Rube Goldberg plan to monitor sharia courts so they wouldn't run afoul of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Then there's the awkward fact that Ontario already allows Jewish and Christian religious courts to settle family matters. Naturally, Muslim pressure groups are crying discrimination.
But not all of them. Some Muslims insist the last thing they want is Islamic courts in Canada. They're leading the no-sharia coalition, a broad mix of moderate Muslims, small-c conservatives, social activists, and women's and human-rights groups. "We want the same laws to apply to us as to other Canadian women," says the Canadian Council of Muslim Women. Even the grand mufti of Marseilles, Soheib Bencheikh, thinks we're nuts. When asked to comment on the plan for sharia in Ontario, he said: "It's illogical to apply today the precepts conceived [in tribal, patriarchal societies] to safeguard the interests of yesterday."
In the government's camp is a diehard group of multiculturalists who've decided that group religious rights outweigh women's individual rights. Their allies are conservative Muslims such as Syed Mumtaz Ali, who has campaigned for sharia for the past decade. He recently declared that Muslims cannot live under secular law alone. "Every act of your life is to be governed by [sharia]," he said. "If you are not obeying the law, you are not a Muslim. That's all there is to it."
The government reassures us that rulings under sharia will conform to Canadian law. But many of the people who favour sharia appear to have the opposite impression. "The sharia or divine law of Islam prevails over all man-made laws," wrote Abdul Malik Quraoshi in a letter to The Hamilton Spectator. "It is crystal clear in the Holy Book of Islam. No human institution can have the audacity and the cheek to interpret sharia." But don't worry. As he goes on: "Islam is a positive religion and emphasizes total loyalty and absolute obedience to its fundamental doctrines."
The government has consulted a pile of experts. But evidently it forgot to consult people who actually know a bit about the way that sharia is applied today, unofficially, in Canada's burgeoning Muslim communities. The Premier seems to be unaware that women are forced to relinquish custody of their children after divorce, or are sent packing back to their hometowns if they displease their husbands.
Bad things like this won't happen, we're told, once Muslim arbitration courts are supervised by the state. But why go to all the bother and expense of supervising them? Why give faith-based agreements the imprimatur of the state at all? And why set a precedent that other Muslim groups will point to as they push for Islamic law? "I think the politicians are out of their minds," says Homa Arjomand, who founded the International Campaign Against Shari'a Court in Canada.
Today, people will turn out to protest against sharia courts in 12 cities in Canada and Europe, including Toronto, Victoria, Ottawa, Montreal, London, Paris and Stockholm. And people around the world will marvel that we've gone completely off our rocker. Ontario and Iraq. What a pair.
Whistling sharia while we go completely off our rocker
By Margaret Wente
Globe and Mail
http://tinyurl.com
What do Ontario and Iraq have in common?
Here's one thing: In both Baghdad and Toronto, women are taking to the streets to protest against the introduction of Islamic law. They know that Islamic law is no friend of women's rights, and they are fighting to make sure it has no role in the law of the state.
Progressive liberals around the world are raising the alarm over what's happening in Iraq. In Ontario, on the other hand, the progressive liberals in our government think Islamic law is a mighty fine idea. In the interest of cultural sensitivity, they want to give Muslim women the privilege of resolving family disputes through sharia arbitration tribunals conducted by imams. If all goes as planned, Ontario will be the first Western jurisdiction to permit the settlement of family disputes using sharia.
In other parts of the world, the general reaction is that we've gone completely off our rocker. "What is wrong with Canadian civil law that religious Canadians must look elsewhere?" asked Mona Eltahawy, a Muslim writing in The Christian Science Monitor.
Good question. Premier Dalton McGuinty has yet to answer it. He's been cornered by a pro-sharia report his government commissioned from former NDP politician Marion Boyd, who came up with a Rube Goldberg plan to monitor sharia courts so they wouldn't run afoul of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Then there's the awkward fact that Ontario already allows Jewish and Christian religious courts to settle family matters. Naturally, Muslim pressure groups are crying discrimination.
But not all of them. Some Muslims insist the last thing they want is Islamic courts in Canada. They're leading the no-sharia coalition, a broad mix of moderate Muslims, small-c conservatives, social activists, and women's and human-rights groups. "We want the same laws to apply to us as to other Canadian women," says the Canadian Council of Muslim Women. Even the grand mufti of Marseilles, Soheib Bencheikh, thinks we're nuts. When asked to comment on the plan for sharia in Ontario, he said: "It's illogical to apply today the precepts conceived [in tribal, patriarchal societies] to safeguard the interests of yesterday."
In the government's camp is a diehard group of multiculturalists who've decided that group religious rights outweigh women's individual rights. Their allies are conservative Muslims such as Syed Mumtaz Ali, who has campaigned for sharia for the past decade. He recently declared that Muslims cannot live under secular law alone. "Every act of your life is to be governed by [sharia]," he said. "If you are not obeying the law, you are not a Muslim. That's all there is to it."
The government reassures us that rulings under sharia will conform to Canadian law. But many of the people who favour sharia appear to have the opposite impression. "The sharia or divine law of Islam prevails over all man-made laws," wrote Abdul Malik Quraoshi in a letter to The Hamilton Spectator. "It is crystal clear in the Holy Book of Islam. No human institution can have the audacity and the cheek to interpret sharia." But don't worry. As he goes on: "Islam is a positive religion and emphasizes total loyalty and absolute obedience to its fundamental doctrines."
The government has consulted a pile of experts. But evidently it forgot to consult people who actually know a bit about the way that sharia is applied today, unofficially, in Canada's burgeoning Muslim communities. The Premier seems to be unaware that women are forced to relinquish custody of their children after divorce, or are sent packing back to their hometowns if they displease their husbands.
Bad things like this won't happen, we're told, once Muslim arbitration courts are supervised by the state. But why go to all the bother and expense of supervising them? Why give faith-based agreements the imprimatur of the state at all? And why set a precedent that other Muslim groups will point to as they push for Islamic law? "I think the politicians are out of their minds," says Homa Arjomand, who founded the International Campaign Against Shari'a Court in Canada.
Today, people will turn out to protest against sharia courts in 12 cities in Canada and Europe, including Toronto, Victoria, Ottawa, Montreal, London, Paris and Stockholm. And people around the world will marvel that we've gone completely off our rocker. Ontario and Iraq. What a pair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
