Alia Hogben is president of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and author of this courageous piece speaking out against Sharia tribunals in Canada. Thanks to the many who sent this to me from the Toronto Star:
The Canadian Council of Muslim Women is in a difficult position, as we speak out against our own government and some of our fellow Muslims, regarding the proposed application of Sharia/Muslim family law in Canada.As citizens of Canada, we believe that the laws of the land must protect us, treat us equally and be applied to all of us, irrespective of our ethnicity, race, gender or religion.
We know that any benefits for women in Muslim family law also exist in Canadian family law, plus greater protection of other rights. For example, the ability to have a pre-nuptial agreement, no polygamy, laws against violence, and fairer child custody than in Muslim law.
The provincial Arbitration Act allows for the development of "sharia" tribunals outside the court system.
We want family matters to be dealt with under the Family Law Act and not the Arbitration Act.
Neither the government nor the proponents are being honest about the Arbitration Act.
It defines arbitration as a "private" matter without the safeguards of public scrutiny.
There are no principles underlying this act, no training requirements for arbitrators, no standards, no limits to their process, no legal representation is needed, no records need be kept and only the award goes to the court.
It has been repeated ad nauseam that the tribunals will adhere to the Charter, but we find no overseeing nor monitoring to ensure this. The woman would have to take a second legal step if she wants to challenge the binding arbitrated settlement.
Where's the protection of rights, where's the cost efficiency and where's the justice?
We fear that this discussion may increase anti-Muslim hostility, which, sadly, would be injurious for us as individuals and as a community. However, the issue is too important because it is about women's human rights and our treatment under the laws of Canada.
The confusing use of terminology (sharia, Islamic, Muslim) is hampering this discussion.
Sharia is an encompassing, value-laden term, and literally means the beaten path to the water, and metaphorically describes the way Muslims are to live.
It is far more profound than mere jurisprudence, (fiqh)or Muslim law.
The term "Islamic" connotes the teachings of the faith, while "Muslim" relates to matters of the believers. Muslim family law is the human interpretation, over centuries, of Islamic guidance and is not divinely ordained, as some would have us believe.
The proponents of these tribunals are deliberately using the term Sharia, knowing that this will silence discussion and give them "Islamic" legitimacy in the eyes of some believers. They play into the fears of us, newer Canadians, arguing that we need identity markers to remain Muslim. They are belittling the rights provided under Canadian laws and presenting an idealized version of Muslim law.
Based on research in different countries on the current application of Muslim family law, founded on a patriarchal model, the conclusion is that women's rights are adversely affected.
The Canadian Council of Muslim Women cannot be against sharia by definition; our concern is about the application of Muslim family law.
Unquestionably, 1,400 years ago Muslim women were given significant rights. However, it is misleading to think that these rights are adequate and that we should not have enhanced human rights under the Universal Declaration and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which we believe are congruent with the principles of Islam.
We appreciate that in our homelands many faced economic woes, authoritarian governments, lack of democracy and human rights, plus some western neo-colonialism. In reaction, some yearn for a recreation of the halcyon, glorious days of Muslim civilization and for an idealized legal system.
If Muslim countries want to apply Muslim law, we would support development of a legal system based on Islamic principles of compassion, social justice and equality of all individuals, coupled with a strong commitment to democratic values of citizenship. Many of their current laws are not in keeping with these principles.
In Canada, we can live fully as Muslims because of the values of fairness, social justice and acceptance of diversity. We should work with our fellow citizens when faced with injustices rather than segregating ourselves in fragmented communities.
However, on this issue, we, Muslim women, are being dealt with in a discriminatory and unjust manner by both our own government and by the proponents of sharia tribunals.
We appeal to our fellow Canadians to help us fight an act that not only fails to protect us but gives permission for us to be treated adversely.
Well, tonight's sleep has gone to hell, so I may need to post this stuff more than once, being so early...
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13626
I would guess Mr. Spencer is on top of it anyway, but anyone who had doubts about Islam being a threat should start their day with that one.
Wouldn't it have been better for the Ontario provincial government to first think through the consequences before allowing any aspect of Sharia law to be implemented in its jurisdiction? This is what happens when PC ideology and vote pandering are allowed to push through legislation.
Here is the website for the International Campaign Against Shari'a Court in Canada:
http://freehost14.websamba.com/noshariacourt/
Sign the petition against Shari'a courts in Canada:
http://freehost14.websamba.com/noshariacourt/petition.htm
What is Shari'a?
Here are some examples of Shari'a law:
1. Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation;
2. A person who is ignorant about Islamic legal opinion must follow the legal opinion of a scholar;
3. The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death;
4. When slaughtering animals for food, a knife must be used to cut the windpipe and gullet;
5. A woman is only eligible to receive half the inheritance of a man;
6. Marriage may be forced on virgins by their father or father’s father;
7. A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman;
8. A woman must seek permission from her husband to leave the house;
9. A Muslim man cannot marry a woman who is a Zoroastrian, an idol worshipper, an apostate from Islam or a woman with one parent who is Jewish or Christian, with the other being Zoroastrian; a Muslim woman cannot marry anyone but a Muslim;
10. A free Muslim man may marry up to four women;
11. Retaliation is obligatory in most cases when someone is deliberately murdered except when a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian kills a Muslim apostate or a father or mother kill their offspring;
12. Non-Muslim subjects (Ahl al-Dhimma) of a Muslim state are subject to a series of discriminatory laws – “dhimmitude”;
13. The penalty for fornication or sodomy is being stoned to death;
14. The penalty for an initial theft is amputation of the right hand. Subsequent thefts are penalized by further amputations of feet and hand;
15. A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim in court; a person who is “without respectability” cannot give legal testimony; a woman’s legal testimony is only given half the legal weight of a man’s (and is only acceptable in cases involving property); to legally prove fornication or sodomy requires 4 male witnesses who actually saw the act;
16. The establishment and continuation of the Islamic Caliphate (by force, if necessary) is a communal obligation;
17. Sodomites and Lesbians must be killed;
18. Laughing too much is forbidden;
19. Musical instruments are unlawful;
20. Creating pictures of animate life is forbidden;
21. Female circumcision, which includes the excision of the clitoris, is obligatory;
22. Slavery is permitted;
23. People may be bribed to convert to Islam;
24. Beating a rebellious wife is permissible; and,
25. Lying is permissible in a time of war (or jihad).
Here is a link to a website on which I have posted the actual legal clauses and references for the above examples:
http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/21475
The Canadian Muslim women should just relax. After all, multi-cultists have always assured us that all cultures are the same, except for headgear and cuisine. What's the worst that could happen, eh?
(/I told you so, you ****ing fools)
I like her package deal:
"We appreciate that in our homelands many faced economic woes, authoritarian governments, lack of democracy and human rights, plus some western neo-colonialism"
A little neo-colonialism added, like a dash of salt or a sprig of parsley. Just enough to remind you westerners that you share the burden of what's going on in the Muslim world today. Of course, many older Muslims who remember those days would give their eye-teeth to live under French or British colonial rule right now.
Good catch, Mr. U. I have no doubt that Ms. Hogben is entirely ignorant of Mo's execution of the Banu Quraysh tribe of Jews. The islamic psychopathy to kill all khufrs far pre-dates any putative Western colonialism.
And, parenthetically, for how many more generations can the third world ride the "colonialism pony"? It's becoming almost trite to expect this offloading of responsibility for the necrotic state of islamic societies.
I'm with Underhill! Ibn Warraq also gave the same points: a lot of the "muslims" want the British and French back. Can't personally say whether or not I want them back in Canada, but it seems to have been better back then. Perhaps having some mandates and colonies would be a good idea.
I read in an interview recently that Ibn Warraq argued the West should have colonized Muslim countries LONGER, so that secularism and rationalism might have taken deeper roots.
As always, here is a link to his latest book:
http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm
And here is a link to the discussion forum at his website:
http://www.secularislam.org/discussion34/Default.htm
Ibn said "I'm with Underhill! Ibn Warraq also gave the same points: a lot of the "muslims" want the British and French back. Can't personally say whether or not I want them back in Canada, but it seems to have been better back then. Perhaps having some mandates and colonies would be a good idea."
I would take the British over the present idiots anyday.
"Your grandchildren will Bar-b-q porkchops."