• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sharia Law in Canada?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MAJOR_Baker
  • Start date Start date
Well, having read the article above I can understand why women especially would not want this law to be in effect here in Canada.

And, lets face it, Indian healing circle or no having a distinct sepperation between church and state is a good idea...Especially when the law that is being brought in for the arbitration was created by a society that does not view men and women as equals.

I have been against this law coming into effect here since the topic was started and I'm glad that the govt is not allowing it into our province.

Slim
 
2332Piper said:
We all know that Muslim women are for the most part still subordinate people in the Muslim communties (even in Canada) among the stricter families, the same families that would use Sharia law (I doubt we'll see many secular Muslims using Sharia courts).

That goes for Jewish women too - orthodox Judaism isn't known for its liberal attitudes towards women. That being said, I don't see why religious arbitration, using Sharia or any other religious law, is a problem if both parties are consenting. I'm no great fan of religion in general, but as long as none of the decisions by the arbitrator violate Canadian law, where's the harm? I won't shed any tears if they just do a way with all religious arbitration, though. The less influence religion has, the better (in my opinion).
 
2332Piper said:
Do you think a Muslim woman from a strict muslim family (the only ones who would be likely to use these 'courts') would have any 'say' in whether or not she uses the court or not?

You know, I thought the same way untill someone (might have been Brit) pointed out that such a woman would be highly unlikely to use our existing courts.
 
You know, I thought the same way untill someone (might have been Brit) pointed out that such a woman would be highly unlikely to use our existing courts.

Supposing that this is true, and I've seen no evidence that it is, how will removing the more moderate option, faith based arbitration, compell them to use secular arbitrators and courts? Would they not be compelled to just shut up and try to live with an abusive relationship? I think that giving people  more choice is always a good thing.

I suppose I should applaud the sudden embrace by our board conservatives of what seems to me a  left wing feminist agenda. :)
 
Here's another viewpoint:

Having practiced family law in Ontario since 1985, I watched with some amusement the recent uproar over whether or not Ontarians should be allowed to arbitrate their matrimonial disputes using sharia law.

In their haste to condemn what they view as an unjust and undesirable body of law, opponents of sharia arbitration overlook the corollary implicit in their position:  namely, that ordinary Ontario family law-as specified primarily in the Family Law Act and the Divorce Act-is a just and desirable code for resolving matrimonial disputes.

To me, this proposition is laughable.  Blinded by their fear of radical Islamists, sharia opponents have played right into the hands of a different set of radicals:  radical feminists.

Although gender-neutral in its language, today's family law legislation was enacted over the past two decades primarily with the intention of benefiting women at the expense of men.  My own view is that these laws have also institutionalized injustice at the expense of justice.

The Divorce Act, for instance, provides that a spouse's "conduct in relation to the marriage" is irrelevant in determining her entitlement to spousal support.  Although superficially gender-neutral, this provision actually protects women (who comprise the overwhelming proportion of support recipients) from the consequences of their own blatant marital misconduct-acts such as adultery, desertion and violence.  Countless  Canadian men pay support to their estranged wives and former wives despite the fact that these women deceived them, cuckolded them, then departed to live openly with new lovers or new husbands.  Other men are paying support to women who viciously assaulted them.

When I first began practicing family law, such behaviour would have disentitled a wife to support.  Nowadays, instead of punishing women for breaching their contracts, the law rewards them.

Is this the legal system we hold out as an exemplar of justice?

Then there are the child custody and support laws.  The vast preponderance of custodial parents and child support recipients are mothers.  Men who seek custody generally face an uphill battle.  I have heard several judges openly admit to being biased in favour of granting custody to mothers.

Nevertheless, the law requires fathers to pay support in prescribed amounts even if the mothers poison their children's minds to the point where the kids refuse to speak to their fathers.  Fathers have to pay even if the mothers uproot their children and drag them off to another province so that the fathers rarely or never get to see them.  Fathers have to pay even if the mothers are wealthier than they are and don't need the money.  Several Canadian men are known to have committed suicide as a result of these laws.  Others have fled the country.

Is this the legal system we consider superior to religious arbitration?

Finally, there are Ontario's property equalization laws-a code riddled with irrational, arbitrary provisions and flukes of timing.

For instance, suppose two individuals who each own their own homes get married.  They flip a coin and decide to occupy the husband's house, while renting out the wife's.  Then they separate.  The wife gets to keep the value of the house she owned as of the date of marriage, without splitting it.  The husband, however, has to divide the entire value of his house with the wife and cannot deduct the equity he brought into the marriage.

Or suppose the wife's parents bestow a stock portfolio on their daughter.  Not to be outdone, the husband's parents give their son a house.  The couple moves in, then separates.  The wife gets to keep her parents' gift without dividing it with her husband.  The husband, by contrast, must divide the value of his parent's gift with his wife, merely because it happens to be a "matrimonial home" rather than stocks.

But there's a further wrinkle.  If the wife's parents gave their daughter the stocks during the marriage, she wouldn't have to divide any of it with her husband.  However, if they had given the stocks to her before the marriage, she would have to give her husband half the increase in value which occurred between marriage and separation.  Perfectly comprehensible?  Not.

These capricious property laws actually are gender-neutral.  The same bizarre outcomes would occur regardless of which spouse owned what property.  I have assigned genders to the spouses only because the examples become extremely difficult to follow if gender-neutral language is used.  I suspect, however, that the original impetus to grant special status to a "matrimonial home" was rooted in a belief that it would more frequently favour wives-a strategy which may in fact have backfired. 

Nevertheless, the point is that Ontario's matrimonial laws are hardly a shining example of rationality, impartiality or justice.  Now that Premier McGuinty has promised to revamp the existing Arbitrations Act by outlawing religious tribunals, he should consider taking a broom to the rest of the sorry mess.

I have NO idea whether the author's diatribe about the family law is justified or not, but I do agree that the anti-Sharia movement is essentially an effort by feminists to capitalize on anti-Muslim hysteria. That's it. I'm not saying that Sharia law is better, so don't take me to task on this.
 
Quote,
I suppose I should applaud the sudden embrace by our board conservatives of what seems to me a   left wing feminist agenda.

...and once again your words make more the fool you.....I guess being a conservative I shouldn't be doing the laundry and making supper right now,.... aww. Britney, the first on the board to whine about sterotypes yet the first to do it.....
 
Well congratulations, Bruce, I always knew you'd come over to the light eventually. My efforts bear fruit!  Speaking of supper, perhaps I could interest you in some delightful vegetarian recipies?  ;)
 
I guess I should stand up and say a women's place is in the kitchen. Much more conservative of me yes?  Roll Eyes

Yes.

This is a secular country where our courts are free of religious coersions.

True.

I do NOT support any form of faith based arbitration in this country, be it native, muslim or christian.

So, you were/are opposed to the 1991 Arbitration Act?

 
I'm not allowed to go to a Christian church and ask for a priest to decide my divorce(and imagine the noise the PC crowd would make, oh no, he's using a christian church, he must be a bigot and a womanizer) so why should Muslims be extended the same 'right'?

;D ;D ;D

Slim, Bruce, 48th, THIS is the reason why there will be another 10 years of good Liberal goverment.

And as to your reply re: my woman 'comment'. Not funny.

Who was trying to be funny? My applause was genuine.
 
Check and mate. I'm going back to my corner to sober up and make some coherent arguments.  Grin

*ahem* There's no need, sir, I've done all the thinking for you already, you just need to sign here...... ;)
 
Britney Spears said:
;D ;D ;D

Slim, Bruce, 48th, THIS is the reason why there will be another 10 years of good Liberal goverment.

Please don't ever use the words "good" and "liberal government" together in a sentence again.  Next thing you know you'll start talking about "millitary intelligence", and before you know it you'll be weaving baskets in a padded room.  ;D

Just for the record, I was actualy agreeing with you earlier.  Taking away their option to seek alternate forms of arbitration is futile at best and harmful at worst.  Especialy since reckognizing muslim faith baesed arbitration as legitemate could allow the government to place SOME limits on it, whereas now it'll go on anyway without the government having any say in it.
 
Well, as long as we stop over-simplifying the matter and embrace the fact that Sharia Law in Canada is a Good Thingâ„¢, then my work here is done.  :D
 
I'm not Canadian, so I know I shouldn't bud in ( sorry ) But Sharia law is **** and NO people on this planet should ever have to live under a so oppressive and gender discriminating set of rules! EVER!

nff3dy.gif
 
KevinB said:
I am of two minds about this issue - since how can we accept Native Community Healing Circle judgements and yet refuse to allow religious arbetration?

(Before people acuse of slinging crap to make ripple in the puddle - my brother worked at a Community Healing Circle in BC, and from how he explained it and cases he mentioned it seemed to be a very effective and relevant method)

Two different things. I'm currently serving on a Native Community Council. First, it's primarily criminal, not civil, and it's not arbitration, it's community sentencing after an appearance in court and with the recommendation of the Crown. Apples and oranges. And you're right, for the types of crimes that are referred, it is more effective in future prevention then standard sentencing.
 
Back
Top