Shariah rising in the West

Sharia Law is bad news. It allows for female children to be circumcised by having their clitoris and parts of the labia cut off.

That's inhuman! F*ck that philosophy!

I am incredulous that au1929, of all people, posted this simple-minded, mush-headed screed. It stands in marked contrast to all his other, well thought out postings.

Good grief, au, where did you dig this one up from, NewsMax?

Just a couple of examples.



Am I supposed to get all heated up about this? The best the authors can do to get us all up in arms about "creeping Islamism" is to find three different cities on three different continents where SOME cab drivers won't carry guide dogs. That is not much.

New York City and Washington, DC have a lot of cab drivers from Muslim countries. I haven't heard any cabbies are doing it there. And if they had, I am sure we would hear about it from these authors. Frankly, this whole thing sounds like a case where, in the entire Western world, three taxi garages in separate countries had one super religious Muslim on the crew and he convinced four or five other Muslims in the garage to go along with him. Big story.





Oh come on, those laws are plainly aimed specifically at Muslims' traditional clothing. Please explain how preventing women from wearing veils increases security. I don't recall any incidents where veiled women blew anything up. And even if there were, making a woman remove the veil is not going to affect the fact that the bombs are strapped underneath her dress. How can Muslims NOT feel that laws specifically targeting their traditional female clothing is not an abridgement of their ability to practice their religion?

kelticwizard

Did not dig it up. It came out of a major newspaper. Don't remember which. Simply got tired of the repetitive posts and thought I would get some of the juices flowing by posting it.

in 2004 the ontario(canada) provincial governmant came under some pressure from certain muslims to allow sharia law to be introduced to resolve family disputes .

the ontario government set up a study group that made a (half-hearted) recommendation to further study this proposal .

probably the strongest opposition against the sharia law came from the
"CANADIAN COUNCIL OF MUSLIM WOMEN"

Hamburger:

At least your piece is substantial, an actual example of Islamic law trying to become part of the law code in a Western democracy. That puts it miles ahead of the crazy examples in the newspaper piece which started off this thread.

As it turns out, the Sharia law proposal appears never to have really had a chance of passage, just a lot of bureaucratic shuffling because the law is almost certainly unworkable but the politicians don't want to be seen as coming down hard against Muslims, so they handle it this way.

Bottom line is-no Sharia law recognized by Canadian government. Just a failed attempt to make it so. Perhaps even the fact it got that far is deserving of attention to be sure, but nothing to get really worried about.

Au1929:

Okay, I think I understand now.

The newspaper piece is not the sort of thing you usually post.

kelicwizard :
if it would not have been for the rather vigorous (and loud) protests of the CCMW , i'm not sure that the sharia law would have been stopped in its tracks .
since there was already a jewish "family law council" (for want of a better name) , the muslim proponents were able to point at it and say :
"see , that's all we want ! " .
the ontario government had to disallow all "family law councils" - including the jewish one - which caused howls of protest .
luckily for the government , they had just been elected , so didn't have to worry about election fallout - yet .
it'll be interesting to see what happens in the run-up to the next provincial election .
hbg

Hamburger:

That is astonishing-that a government recognized Jewish family law council existed.

In that case, what the Muslims wanted seems actually reasonable-the ground had been broken already for them.

Just goes to show you that compromise is not always a good thing-the Jewish family councils should never have been allowed in the first place. What was the Ontario government thinking when they created those?

wizard :
i don't know how it all started .
there are quite a few pdf documents under google - would take a while to read all .
here just one , commenting on its demise :
"Ontario - In mid-February, Ontario Canada banned all forms of religious arbitration in family matters, including Sharia law. The Bill has made it illegal for religious bodies to hold their own court to decide matters related to family law, although Ontario has allowed it since 1991. The matter became the center of contentious debates when a government-commissioned report stated that Sharia (Islamic law) courts should be allowed, since they did not jeopardize women's rights. Since the passage of Bill 27, the Muslim Canadian Congress has praised the decision, while the Canadian Jewish Congress expressed disappointment. In the past, the Jewish community in Ontario has used religious arbitration in family courts most extensively of all religious communities . "

i'm glad the muslim community had a strong representation to bring those councils to an end .
hbg

...SOURCE... several pages down

wizard :
i don't know how it all started .
there are quite a few pdf documents under google - would take a while to read all .
here just one , commenting on its demise :
"Ontario - In mid-February, Ontario Canada banned all forms of religious arbitration in family matters, including Sharia law. The Bill has made it illegal for religious bodies to hold their own court to decide matters related to family law, although Ontario has allowed it since 1991. The matter became the center of contentious debates when a government-commissioned report stated that Sharia (Islamic law) courts should be allowed, since they did not jeopardize women's rights. Since the passage of Bill 27, the Muslim Canadian Congress has praised the decision, while the Canadian Jewish Congress expressed disappointment. In the past, the Jewish community in Ontario has used religious arbitration in family courts most extensively of all religious communities . "

i'm glad the muslim community had a strong representation to bring those councils to an end .
hbg

...SOURCE... several pages down

Actually, I really don't object to churches having a court system to decide such things as divorce. That's freedom of religion.

It is the issue of the church court's decision being recognized by the provincial judicial system I have a problem with.

Let me give an example. Two members of a church go to arbitration for a divorce. Previously, both went to the church court, which decided who would get the children, the house, etc. Now, if the husband and wife both go to a government arbitration court, and both give their positions to conform to what the church had decided, that is fine with me. Unless the position violates the provincial law, of course.


Now, if two people go to government arbitration for a divorce, and both agree to let the church authorities decide, and the judge/arbitrator says, "Yeah, go ahead and let them decide, and the province will abide by the decision", then that is NOT okay, since the government is letting the church decide something which should be adjudicated by the province.

But if both the husband and wife decide to go to church authority and have them decide these matters, then make the church's position their own position when dealing with the judge/arbitrator, I don't see how anyone can rightfully stop them. Unless the church's position is against the law or official policy in some way.

the point being made by the canadian muslim women council is , that a fair number of muslim women living in canada are just not aware of their rights in canada .
since some of these women have little chance of even finding out what their rights are , they really have no free choice in accepting or declining the judgement of a sharia council .
further , since these are not "open courts" , there is no scrutiny of the judgements being rendered . they would really be courts conducted by and for muslim men .
what the CMWC has said is : "let both parties have the protection of an open court system . let them be represented by legal council , if they wish to . don't draw "a veil" over the procedings " .
hbg

Hamburger:

It seems to me that at the time the woman gets to divorce court or divorce arbitration, she will be apprised of her rights by the judge/arbitrator.

I do not know how the divorce system works in Canada. Here, I believe it varies state by state, but at least some states have the option of allowing a court approved arbitrator to rule on the matters of who gets what. Otherwise, there is a trial with a judge and, presumably, lawyers.

If I understand correctly, the main difference between the US and Canada, or at least Ontario, is that Ontario allows the arbitrator be a religious figure, or even a religious court. The Ontario government gives official sanction to these religious courts, and that is where the problem seems to lie.

Such would be considered a gross violation of church-state separation in the US.

On the other hand, even in the US, if the woman agrees to go to this religious court, and abide by it's verdict, then goes to state divorce court and agrees to court approved arbitration, and her initial position to the arbitrator coincides with the religious court, I am not sure the arbitrator can do anything about it. I am sure the arbitrator will apprise her of her rights, and that the religious court has no official standing and she does not have to obey it's rulings, but if she still says she wants what the religious court decided, there might not be much the arbitrator can do. Unless the religious court's ruling violates the law or state policy.

I think the difference is that in Canada, the province somehow worked itself into becoming complicit in sending the woman to the religious courts, and actually agreed to some situation where the religious court's decision had official sanction. That would not happen in the US. I believe that is what the Canadian Muslim woman is fighting against, and not only do I agree with her, I am very surprised that an advanced constitutional democracy like Canada would sanction such a situation in the first place.