McGuinty rejects Shariah law -- McGuinty announced his government would move quickly to outlaw existing religious tribunals used for years by Christians and Jews under Ontario's Arbitration Act.A green party would have no trouble recognizing a religious group's wish to exert penance upon its members. Respect of religion is within the basic green value set. Of course, participation is entirely voluntary with opting out (to Canadian / provincial / civic law) available at any time.
I was rather hard-pressed to find some bloggings which concur with promoting multicultural heritage, custom and religion. Here. Here. Which is sorry commentary, at least to my perspective. I suppose there are other views than mine, though.
The view that, "This will now be our version of the non-proliferation treaty," is very intolerant and reflects much that is wrong in the world today. And to homogenize the world ("I’ll be reveling in sweet secularism") to one set of ethics is similar to supporting globalization -- both options distinctly ungreen. And, of course, there are those who see religious tradition as an enemy power:
Thank goodness the Sharia law has not been introduced in Ontario, for any reason. We need to stem the tide of religious influence in the public sector. Religious fundamentalism is making too much progress in our world today.And then there are those who just create and invent their own realities. (Sept 11 posting)
It seems obvious to me that endemic Western intolerance is a great contributor to violence in the world today. Respect, here in the west, is entirely a one-way expectation.
I am disappointed to see the greenish James Bow come down against Shariah tribunals:
it is better for the government to be involved in one system of law and one system of educationOf course this is not green at all. Diversity, in all its aspects, is a component part of green thinking. Public funding of independent schools works fabulously well in other provinces. And religious tribunals, especially of various Protestant and Catholic persuasions, have been around forever --you know, the eye 4 eye types and the pluck it out cohorts -- and have only proven to be problematic when participation has not been voluntary.
But I suppose there is a possibility it could be for the best. It would ban nuns. Heaven forbid that women should be relegated to serving God and not man. And priests would have to be non-celibate - it just aint natural. Religions should have the same laws as society, afterall. And pre-marital sex would be compulsory - like it is for the rest of us. Nope, there is no way that voluntarily participating in a moralizing organization, such as community-based Islam, should be allowed to compete with our freedom-promoting, war-mongering consumer culture of self indulgence. It just aint right. And no more catering to aboriginals -- we'll just send them all back to Australia where they belong if they don't want to conform to our ways. Now is the time to man the ramparts and finish carving out the world in our image.
This decision was yet another step toward delineating the world into us's and them's. We talk the talk, all right.
The real problem with the Shariah is that there really isn't any opt out process for the woman, and there's no recourse or appeal process either. Did you read my post on it?
ReplyDelete(http://walks_like_summerrain.blogspot.com/2005/09/equality-and-justice-under-law-for.html)
If the Green party would support Shari'ah in Canada that would seriously hurt my opinion of them. Find a muslim woman in Calgary who would like to get a divorce and listen to her tale of threats and horror that she will tell. I have a friend in Calgary who has had to stay with her "husband" because he threatened if she didn't she would never see her son again, and she stays even though he is abusive and brings his girlfriend home all the time. Her life is just being his housekeeper and cook and she trades it all to be able to see her son (she doesn't get to "parent" as I parent my children, she merely gets to see him and look after him when he is home).
Allie, I have had the dubious pleasure of working in an emergency call centre. One of our most dreaded calls is the domestic dispute. Police rate these calls as one of their most dangerous: for them, the parents, interveners, children, for everyone. I can tell you that Islam has little or nothing to do with them.
ReplyDeleteYour point was ... ?
I am trying to understand this Sharia Law stuff.
ReplyDeleteI attended an 'information meeting' last week, but very little actual information came from it.
What I did learn is that there is no such thing as Sharia Law. There are something like 73 different sects of Islam, and even more versions of the Haddith (sp?); the oral 'traditions' that, along with the Kuran, make up Sharia. In other words, every Imam (i.e., would-be arbitrator) has his own set of 'laws'. I think we can say the evidence is in that not every Imam views women as having the same stature as men. (Taliban followers, as an example.) No, these men surely aren't found in CANADA! Or should we say, yet?
Some believe we should leave faith-based arbitration, and just 'modernize' the Sharia Laws to reflect Canadian sensibilities. Does this not defeat the very point of the exercise? Will we 'modernize' Catholics, too, allowing gays to demand their rights to a church wedding? If the religion states that the sons of the deceased are entitled to two-thirds of the estate, while the daughters get the remaining one-third (even if there is only one son and seventeen daughters); does our imposing 'new rules' not violate their religious freedoms?
My biggest confusion lies in what McGuinty means to do. According to the news reports he stated, "Ontarians will always have the right to seek advice from anyone in matters of family law, including religious advice. But no longer will religious arbitration be deciding matters of family law.”
At first, I thought that meant that you could still pick the arbitrator of your choice, infusing the process with your religious values so long as both sides to the conflict agreed. However, the LAW which will be used in deciding the case would be the laws of Ontario and nothing else. This, to me, makes perfect sense. However, I am now wondering if that's what he meant after all. It would still be 'religious arbitration', and we will have that 'no longer'.
And finally, WHAT CATHOLIC ARBITRATION? (as seen in news reports periodically) Even the Bishop for my area has never heard of it! Although I don't know about Jehovah Witness or Mennonite, I'm not aware of any Protestant arbitration set-up, either.
Hey, thanks for giving me a place to comment. Hopefully, someone will enlighten me.
My point?
ReplyDeleteI obviously don't need you to inform me that Islam is not synonomous with family violence any more than other religious sect, but I suspect as this is your take you've missed "the point."
That point being that the gender based rule found within the Shari'ah affords a women no rights. As Islam traditionally sees no distinction between religious and secular life there is no "opt out" as you suggested, the man is the one who makes the decision, the person who makes the judgment is a man and the woman has no counsel or protection of property/self, no rights to custody or support or even in some cases liberty and no method of appeal. That in itself is abuse enough (without considering how individual interpretations can be much worse), and I am sure if you considered it carefully you would realize you wouldn't want your daughter to be subjected to it, so why on earth would you pretend to think that it is suitable for any other woman?
In Canada we need to protect people's rights. Even if they are women. We have laws for a reason, lets not undermine them with archaic and hateful traditions. Oh and by the way, the Shariah will continue to be used amongst the muslim communities across Canada to the detriment of the woman. The recent Ontario decision just means it won't become part of our sanctioned process.
Thank Allah for small mercies.
Yes, Jenn, your point is well made that there is much cultural and geographical variation in Islam. One community may effect dispute remediation differently from another. And it is these [intentional] communities that are faced with the challenge of working out the obvious difficulties. The perceived worst in the farthest reaches of the earth, histrionically proffered, contributes little to Canada's inclusivity.
ReplyDeleteOne-third of the world's population follows the seemingly challenging Islamic faith. It would behoove us to show it as much respect as possible. The hatred and loathing with which many westerners seem to begin their understanding of Islam always troubles me as it is just as easy to begin with the embracement of Islam's inherent generosity and kindness.
Allie, your slip is showing.
Herb,
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid I too disagree with your interpretation. The Canadian Charter already protects the right to personal faith and affiliation to faith groups, et al. So long as this is upheld, your concerns should be met. Where this issue arises is that religion has still been interfering and befuddling civil law. Just as it did on the issue of same sex marriage, until recently. The same has occured in matters of arbitration for divorce and child-rearing issues. Those whom are ardent believers of their faith take to heart the arbitration provided (as much in the Christian faith as Catholic or Muslim) and I myself have witnessed many times in my life thus far, the devestating results for women. And the women whom did not succumb to the advice of the religious arbitration were subjected to social degradation and the loss of their community.
In the case of the Shariah Law, I saw play pals removed from their homes to live with their fathers, whom then cut off support to the mothers. Whom were left in utter crisis without English as a first language, without means beyond the communities support to make a living and without the courage or support to challenge the situation through Canadian Law. This was as devestating for my play pals as I am certain it was for the mother. Further the children were fed some pretty sexist and hurtful lines about the status of their mother.
I have seen different yet similar problems within other religious arbitrations, wherein women are advised to forego their rights to meet the expectations of their congregation. This may or may not change, but the statement and potential support need be publicized.
As in any divorce situation, it is indeed the responsibility of the adults to put the interests of the children first, and not everyone is so logical in times of emotional crisis. However, I agree that faith should have no place in the realm of law or politics. The statement was made by enforcing the Charter on the SSM issue and the statement is being made by enforcing the issue on the Shariah Law.
No one is being denied the right to their faith, an assertion is being made on the priority of civil law over that of religion. I think it important, from my experiences in life, that women are aware of a measure of support and protection beyond there immediate environments.
"Allie, your slip is showing."
ReplyDeleteWow. I guess this is the typical sexist reaction to an educated woman who disagrees with you.
Well good on you, Mr Herbinator, I now understand why you would advocate so strongly for the gender biased Shari'ah. I reject your sexist leanings and ideals; this will be the last time I visit here.
And maybe one day there will be hope for the Green Party, but it's not today.
Hi Ricia. I am not convinced that it is an all or nothing deal. To me it is an increase in choice and options, which is always good. The passionate arguments of removing children and stuff is equally vile in our secular system. It isn't the system, per se, which is erroneous but its application. Nowhere, and in no system, can our universal rights be sacrificed and in no way am I supporting that in the least.
ReplyDeleteAllie. My, what an angry person you are. The slip comment is a metaphor and and analogy (quite well packaged, I thought) especially as your signature picture so well encapsulates your projected ideals (ie the presumed groom publically pulling the new brides garter off with his teeth). Understanding is a two-way street -- tolerance of person freedom and tolerance of personal devotion.
But Herb, the duality is there and exists. No rights have been revoked (religous and cultural rights remain protected) while civil law has been affirmed whereas marriage laws were being out-run and contradicted by the prior structure. This is where I am confused about your opposition to the decision made.... As in the SSM situation, where the constitution clearly stated that all were recognised as equal, there was a marriage law that stated only a man and woman could marry. The situation surrounding this matter, was in fact similar. It is only that the wording of various references were contradicting each other to enough of a degree to interfere with each other.
ReplyDeletePerhaps when I find time, I'll go fetch it all fer ya to better provide explanation...
Yes, Ricia, I'm not at all in disagreement with you over any of the details you provide. Everything you say is dead on. My position is that banning of religious/cultural arbitration was unnecessary ... a waste of an excellent, adaptive instrument.
ReplyDeleteThe details are obfuscating. SSM, for example, may not be acceptable in some churches. It is unlikely then that an SSM couple would go to that church for arbitration. It does not mean that SSM arbitration is unavailable or banned. No rights are being supplanted by recognizing cultural preferences. And, staying with the example, that SSM couple can get legally married outside of the church. Recognition of the church does not prevent marrige, divorce, or arbitration but merely allows voluntary participation within that schema. I just watched "Judge Judy" (I don't typically watch TV, by the way) on TV. The start of the show states that it is binding arbitration by contract and that it is NOT an actual, state-sanctioned court proceeding. It's a weird TV-culture kind of arbitration. Perfectly fine. Why pass a law to ban it? I do not want to start from first precept believing that rights will be abused.
I hasten to add that it has been the view of some religions, perceived as whacko by most, that have established and formed the backbone of "rights" in this country.
ReplyDeleteJehovah's Witnesses have be mercilessly persecuted and charged with treason many times in Canada ... their victories have left Canada a far better place.
I have posted on this before. And yet, blood tranfusions are still available to those choosing this option.
But, Herb, I think you might be burying your head in the sand a bit. While it is true that Sharia Law arbitration will not ALWAYS be guaranteed to remove the rights of the woman in the conflict, it will happen in some cases. As the Muslim woman from Egypt said to the Muslim woman from somewhere else, "You know it, and I know it, so don't stand here and pretend you don't."
ReplyDeleteI support arbitration and mediation as a way to settle differences without the expense and formality of going to court. I support the idea of freely choosing who you will have to mediate or arbitrate the disagreements (although I do think some training and qualifications should be necessary) and if that is a member of your faith, hey, that's fine by me. If the faith group would like to formalize this procedure, providing trained arbitrators of the faith, a place to hold the meeting, etc., I'm all for it. But I do think the LAWS to be considered when reaching the conclusion should be the laws of Ontario. That way, we can be sure the rights provided by the law are protected. Well, as much as possible, anyway. The scary thing is that it would be up to the woman to complain--and we also all know that she wouldn't, necessarily, do that.
Let me ask you something, Herb. How many women, whose rights are trampled, would you be prepared to accept? We are not talking about a TV show here. These arbitrated rulings, by law as it currently stands, are to be upheld in our Ontario courts. That is the problem with it.
Hi Jenn (hey, how come you don't have a blog?).Your question is straight forward and to the point. My answer is equally succinct. Answer: none.
ReplyDeleteLaws exist to protect majorities; rights exist to protect minorities. Women (or more correctly sexual descrimination) are extremely well protected by the law. Even every political party has well-entrenched sex protection in its ideology. Protection of a sexual gender is not the issue at all -- it should be moot and I'm having trouble understanding why it keeps entering the argument (although we have universal agreement that unjustifiable sexual inequality is still rampant within the system).
Rights, however, are always a battle to bring to the fore. Resistance to emergent rights has always been the rule rather than the exception. It is my (obviously in the minority view) that "religions" have a right to moralize over their congregations and participants within said congregations have a right to participate as members of their religion. Or, to put a straight forward and to the point question to you, how many arbitrated, rights-trampling rulings have been upheld by Ontario courts?
It might be interesting to see what new rights may evolve from a greater recognition and respect of religions than has heretofore be known in Canada. Certainly the Jehovahs Witnesses have greatly blessed the rights of Canadians in general. I'm sure that Islam will have at least as many wonderful ideas to donate toward the betterment of this country. This, of course, cannot happen if we make enemies of this religion rather than befriend it.
And it's just the green thing to do ... being inclusive, respectfull and understanding of that which is different. It's in our values.
At the risk of being boorish and answering the very question which I posed of you, I'd have to say the answer is: none.
I do not see anything evil here. And yes, I might be burying my head in the sand by being [childlike?, innocent?] green. Better than the alternative, I'd say.
Hi Herb. This is a great conversation. I don't have a blog because I would spend all my time on it (look how much time I'm spending on yours!). However, I really would like to post commentary about the articles raised in my local paper, so one day . . .
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question to me in as forthright a way as you did to mine: I don't know.
I don't know if the Sharia Law arbitration panel has ever practiced. I don't see why they wouldn't have (unless none of the woman agreed to use it--which I think is hard to believe). It follows that I don't know how many complaints have been taken to the courts from it.
However, my understanding from briefly reading the law and Marilyn Boyd's report (but I'm no lawyer) is that the courts are required to uphold a properly arbitrated agreement. This makes sense, otherwise why go through the motions if you have to take it to court anyway.
Since the laws of Ontario are not required to be considered in an arbitrated settlement, anyone (not just Muslims) can disregard all the safeguards in place in the law. Since we KNOW the guy who started the Sharia Court has a very fundamentalist, sexist view of things (I can't find Marilyn Boyd's report anymore, but her opening few lines had some things to say about him), and since we KNOW several versions of Sharia do not respect women's rights, I think I am fairly safe in saying that any arbitrated rulings that DID come down from this court probably did not respect the woman's rights.
Having said all of that, I think you are on to something. It is silly to talk about modernizing religious traditions; it wouldn't be possible, never mind the incredibly disrespectful, intrusive meddling into freedom of religion. I do think that licensing Arbitrators (who will lose their licence if they fail to follow the rules) and requiring arbitrated agreements to be filed with the courts, along with, of course, using Ontario law as a basis for all agreements, is the answer. We could then ensure the rights of the participants are being upheld while at the same time, allow for the comfort of a religious environment arbitration.
As usual, my facts are as I understand them, not necessarily based in reality. If I have any fundamental facts wrong, do be sure to tell me.
Come'on. Admit it. You're hooked. When you start your blog send me the link.
ReplyDeleteAnd, hey, you don't need facts for bloggin. Just an opinion and perhaps an agenda of some sort.
Your point implying an ability to by-pass the Ontario laws is not really that valid, I don't think. It is the law that (would have) allowed more varied options. The law is not saying one can break the law. Hmm, a bit confused that but I'm sure you understand what I'm trying to say.
In any case, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms trumps all. And, for example, sex [descrimination] is well protected.
This young fella has taken an interesting 3rd party sorta look at the issue. Give it a look.
You're right. I am hooked. I just need to resolve some copyright issues with my local paper.
ReplyDeleteThat was rather difficult going, but I (sorta) got the gist (kinda).
As I understand it, properly executed arbitration rulings would be following the Arbitration Act, Ontario. Therefore, obeying that law. But WITHIN that law, it states:
"An arbitral tribunal shall decide a dispute in accordance with law, including equity, and may order specific performance, injunctions and other equitable remedies. 1991, c. 17, s. 31.
Conflict of laws
32. (1) In deciding a dispute, an arbitral tribunal shall apply the rules of law designated by the parties or, if none are designated, the rules of law it considers appropriate in the circumstances. 1991, c. 17, s. 32 (1)."
Now, if that doesn't mean disregarding the laws of Ontario as pertaining to gender discrimination, not only do I not know what it DOES mean, I also don't understand what the fuss is about with regard to the entire issue.
Ha, ha, ha. You are right. This is fun.
ReplyDeleteCopyright?? You are intellectual property?
Alright, I'm hearing your language and I'm pretty sure you have me pegged, too.
So let's clear up that grey area between us. The detail of the law is practically irrelevant to me as it is the intent and application which will stand the test of usage. There are those who get all their jollies in life by splitting hairs umpteen gajillion ways. I not one of them so I don't want to debate the specific wording of any law.
Think of the signs you see everywhere, "Not responsible for ...," "Use at your own risk," "We do not assume liability for...." In fact, an individual cannot waive liability even if such a document is signed. Such signage is simply the business trying to keep such thoughts out of the public's mind. Irresponsibility is irresponsibility and danger is danger. No amount of waiver signing will protect a stupid business from harming even a willing member of the public. My point is that certain things (obligations, rights) can never be contracted away.
The detail of specific law may (arguably) be poor but the intend of said legislation will never be assumed to be evil and malicious by any court.
Even in existing standard courts if a judge orders an individule to roll a hard-boiled egg through a mall with his nose ... this is subject to standards of decency (appeal) though, who knows, it might stand.
"I thought he was going to hit me so I hit him back first," an old Al Capp cartoon. I'd rather have the new arbitration elements up and running and contributing to Canadian society, than assume for them an evil intent and ban them between conception and birth.
Not really a head in the sand position -- which implies a deliberate not seeing. But rather a position of trust instead of spite. It's the natural green in me.
But then you are ignoring the recent historical references to religious arbitration, Herb - the reason that many feminists have railed against it's prioritized standing in relation to civil law in regard to marriage/divorce. No one is assuming "evil" will come of it just 'because" it's religion or Muslim for that matter. They are looking at a number of facts, cases and examples and insisting that the laws be reformed to reflect their more effective purpose.
ReplyDeleteIt is unfortunate the matter has been raised in regard to Muslim doctrine, I am guessing that this is what got your ire up. However the issue was of concern with the whole of the matter (for me and others anyway) and it (so far) appears that the right decision has been made to reform that relationship between religion and law regardless of which religion. This wasn't about one group of peoples, regardless of how the media has painted it.
It is very idealistic what you defend Herb. I wish everthing could be just like you envisioned. I think there is only one thing you disregard: the cihadist (in terms of expantionism) nature of Islam. Your utopia may work in Canada though where muslims are minority. I am also wondering if you know all the details of Sharia law.. Whipping, hand cutting, stone throwing... I don't think anyone in Canada would agree on the execution of that kind of punishment just because Islam allows it.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your comments.. It reminded me of Khomeni's speech before the revolution on how women are going to be liberated once Sharia comes and how everyone is going to be free on exercising their beliefs and religion etc.
Like I said, in Canada it may be harmless...