From CP (Canadian Press), with thanks to Anthony:
Ontario Muslims should have the same rights as other religious groups in the province to seek arbitration based on religious laws for family disputes and inheritance cases, concludes a report by former attorney general Marion Boyd.Some Muslim groups called Boyd’s report “naive,” and said she fell victim to pressure from right-wing fundamentalists who want to use the 1,400-year-old Sharia law to settle divorces and custody disputes for Muslims in Ontario.
“We’re being very clear, this is not Sharia law,” said Boyd.
“This is Muslim religious principles within Canadian law.”
Boyd said her report avoided the term “Sharia” law because as practiced in Middle East countries it combines criminal and civil laws, and allows the death penalty for adultery. It also considers a woman’s testimony to be worth half that of a man’s.
“We’re talking about arbitration based on certain religious principles . . . similar to our Charter values of equality, freedom and justice,” she told reporters at a news conference.
“What exactly are these Muslim principles?” asked Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress.
“For her (Boyd) to come here and lecture Muslims as to what Muslim family law is, and Sharia is, is despicable and racist.”
Fatah said most Muslims in Ontario want to be treated as equal citizens. Proponents of Sharia in Canada are not concerned about settling family law disputes, he added.
“They are concerned at bringing justification for introducing Sharia, and legitimizing it in Pakistan, in Iran (and) in Saudi Arabia,” he said.
“She has been listening . . .to the Muslim fundamentalists . . .that this was not about Sharia.”
Boyd also called for additional safeguards to protect people from being forced into religious-based arbitration, including a recommendation for every party to have independent legal advice before agreeing not to take the case to court.
Her critics say Boyd undermined those protections by also allowing people to waive their right to legal advice before they agree to arbitration instead of going to court to settle a dispute.
“I need to sound the alarm on a recommendation that poor women should be allowed to waive their fundamental right to an independent legal opinion,” said Marilou McPhedran, legal counsel to the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.
“Marion Boyd today has given legitimacy and credibility to the right-wing racists who fundamentally are against equal rights for men and women.”
Boyd was appointed last June to study the issue after the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice said it would in effect establish a Sharia court in Ontario to handle family matters.
Another of her 46 recommendations would require mediators to screen each party separately about issues of power imbalance in the relationship and domestic violence before they enter into a religious-based arbitration agreement.
Boyd also called on the government to work with mediators and other professional organizations to develop a standard screening process for domestic violence in arbitration cases.
“Tomorrow in Tehran, in Jeddah, in Pakistan, in Kabul, in Sudan, every newspaper will say that Sharia has been approved by Canada,” predicted Fatah.
“They will not come to this press conference to hear, ‘Well, we’re not talking about Sharia, we’re talking Muslim principles.’ ”
A spokesman said Attorney General Michael Bryant would not be available today to comment on the report, but added the government would study Boyd’s findings “very closely.”
Can't criticise Islam in the state of Victoria, Australia, and now sharia law is to be brought to Canada.
What will happen when muslims reach 50 percent of the population?
Voltaire:
I saw this post on LGF by `wood-butcher`:
Relax. Now that this story has had time to reverberate around the country the general opinion is that Marion Boyd is a misguided wing-nut stuck in some kind of identity-politics feed-back loop.
Her report has been widely criticized from all corners INCLUDING the CBC. Barbara Smith on CBC Radio interviewed Boyd at length and made her look like a fool.
Smith said (paraphrased, I was driving), "How can you possibly claim that this decision does not suggest that we are willing to accomodate the fundamentalist radicals who are lobbying for full Sharia law in Canada?" She then said that just because the report did not mention Sharia law by name does not mean that those calling for absolute Sharia law will not see this as a great victory.
This is turning out to be, as we say in the Colonies, a tempest in a teapot.
_______________________________________
I draw a line at `tempest in a teapot`. To treat the matter lightly is an act of suicide.
I can only agree with Ayesha (tho` a satire at this point in time):
Muslims are right. Non of the existing Islamic countries are truly Islamic, that is why they don't progress and most of them are poor, corrupt and miserable. We must implement 100% sharia and sunna to get full benefits of Islam. Inshallah we will try to do it in USA to make it the first real Muslim country after the days of rightly guided khalifas Consider the following advantages:
- America can go to jihad against non Muslim countries. It will bring immense wealth in booty and millions of captured women. Canada and Mexico can be easy targets and are conveniently located for easy assault and hauling of booty.
-Since slavery will be allowed government can open slave markets to sell it's 20% share of the captured women.
-Captured women/slave-girls can provide affordable domestic help for house wives and clean enjoyable sex for their husbands.
-Enslaved men can be used as farm labor and factory workers at a much lower cost than unionized labor.
Whole article is at:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/AyeshaAhmed41220.htm
Canada.com (National Post) has this article with a sound off section. Post your remarks and let them know what you think of this.
here is the link
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/soundoff/story.html?id=65bb69b8-eab5-4e74-add2-a718e85719db
I posted this on my blog this morning:
The "S" word: Marion Boyd dropped an enormous stink bomb in the province of Ontario yesterday. The former attorney general (under the socialtist NDPs) was commissioned by the current Liberal government to look into whether to allow Muslim tribunals to operate in the province. The tribunals would be allowed to resolve family issues--wills, divorce, child custody--that would otherwise be settled by the regular court. Other ethnic groups like Jews and Native Canadians have recourse to their own tribunals. Isn't is fair that Muslims, too, be granted the same right?
According to Boyd, it is. The report she released yesterday reccommended that sharia courts be allowed in the province. Of course, she doesn't call them sharia courts. "We're being very clear: This is not sharia law," she says in today's Globe and Mail. "This is Muslim religious principles within Canadian law."
Come again? Aren't Muslim religious principles, ipso facto, based on sharia law? And isn't sharia law, which is notoriously unfair to an entire gender, ipso facto, antithetical to Canadian law?
Ah, but the canny Ms. Boyd has an answer to that. It can't be called sharia if it doesn't include criminal as well as civil law--the whole insidious enchillada. That kind of holistic sharia affects every facet of life, and many of its legal judgements, which can include such subtle punishment as execution for adultery or conversion to another religion, are clearly incompatible with the Canadian way. But if you take just a slice of the pie--the civil part pertaining to family relations--it is suddenly transformed from sharia, a scary word, into "Muslim religious priniciples", a concept that sounds far less threatening.
Such clever semantics may fool some of the non-Muslim human rights crowd in the province, but many Muslims, who recall their own unpleasant experiences back home, aren't buying it. Tarek Fateh, a spokesman for the Muslim Canadian Congress, is outraged that Ms. Boyd is thrusting this initiative on his people. In an interview with the CBC, Mr. Fateh says the only ones who want it are the "right-wing fundamentalists" who requested it in the first place, and that, essentially, these fundamentalists bamboozled the naive Ms. Boyd into allowing them to slip sharia into Ontario through the back door.
Mr. Fateh, a moderate Muslim content with the laws of the land, knows that sharia law is unfair to women. Period. The so-called safeguards Ms. Boyd has called for--the right of both parties to seek counsel, for example--will not guarantee Muslim women their rights, the rights to which every woman--every person--in Ontario is entitled; it will, in fact, deprive them of rights by placing them in a separate category from other women in the province. Ms. Boyd insists that Muslim women will be able to chose whether to have disputes settled by the tribunals; that women, some recently arrived, who come from a culture in which their voices have been muted or ignored will suddenly be able to stand up for themselves; that the mere fact of being on Ontario soil will embolden them to demand their due. And she is incensed if you suggest otherwise. "I find (the assumption) that Muslim women are unable to make those choices any more than any other group a bit offensive," she says in The National Post. "That kind of subtle family coercion," says the oblivious Ms. Boyd, occurs in many communities. In any case, it can be remedied through rigorous public education to help "all women undertand the consequences of choices".
It's not surprising that Ms. Boyd would make this suggestion. As a former government functionary, she is accustomed to wasting taxpayers' money in expensive and fruitless communication campaigns.
Moreover, says Ms. Boyd, we have no choice but to allow Islamic tribunals. If we don't permit Muslims to settle disputes through legally-sanctioned Muslim courts, they will take them to illegal, back alley tribunals, where women will have no guarantee of rights. That's what happened in Britain, and Ms. Boyd doesn't want to see a repeat of it here.
And, hey, isn't sharia, sorry, " traditional Muslim principles", merely another thread in our beautiful multicultural tapestry? Aren't we stronger, better, more humane when we allow people to maintain their identities, even if it might entail such un-Canadian notions as violent jihad and the subjugation of women? And if some advocates of sharia law seek, ultimately, to extend its sway throughout the entire world so that others may experience it too, who are we to put the brakes on their designs; we wouldn't want to deprive them of their "rights", now would we?
Maion Boyd is a fool! Socialist, multicultural and under the spell of militant muslims. This is the case even with many canadian conservatives.....believe it or not!
Interesting. I just received a mail from Homa Arjomand addressing this same issue:
Monday, December 20th, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Attention: Assignment Editor, City Editor, News Editor, World News Editor. Government/Political Affairs Editor
Boyd Report Pushes
Women’s Rights in Canada Back 1400 Years
Arjomand Calls for Public Hearing
TORONTO, Canada – Homa Arjomand, Coordinator of the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada opposes the conclusions of Boyd’s report because it recommends using faith-based arbitration and encourages the spread of Political Islam in Canada.
“I was surprised that Ms. Boyd didn’t find any evidence of women suffering from discrimination during faith-based arbitrations”, said Ms. Arjomand. “we submitted several reports of abuse and gave testimonies in person to Ms. Boyd,.
“… as for safeguards recommended by Boyd, I believe she had no choice but to accept the fact that faith-based courts put women in danger”, said Ms. Arjomand. “The same political forces that encouraged Ms. Boyd to define safeguards, will now work to remove family law from the Arbitration Act.”
“Our lawyers are studying the decisions of several arbitration cases and will bring them to court and expose how women are victimized by male-dominated legal decisions based on 6th century religion and traditions.”, said Ms. Arjomand.
“We’ll also challenge the use of the Arbitration Act for family law, numerous shortcomings of this Act are detailed in the resolution we filed with the government last month.” she said, “and we’ll consider a challenge based on the Canadian Charter of Rights.”
“Ms. Boyd consulted specific community groups and made 46 recommendations which will impact all the citizens of Ontario substantially for generations to come. We therefore appeal to the Government of Ontario to hold a public hearing and give all the people an opportunity to speak on this issue.” said Ms. Arjomand
“The Campaign will mobilize a strong force to oppose Sharia Law… and we encourage women who were victimized in a faith-based court to contact us.” said Ms. Arjomand.
Homa Arjomand a Toronto based transitional counselor was a human rights activist in Iran until she was forced to flee in 1989.
Media Contact: Ms. Homa Arjomand 416-737-9500
Further Information: www.nosharia.com
What Ms Boyd is missing is the bigger picture...sure this will start off small and innocent enough, and once the public has forgotten (look how fast most of the public forgot about 9-11) they will push in tiny bits for more and more sharia to be accepted touting the fact that 'they have been using this portion of sharia for this long and there have been no problems' Have they not learned that if they give the muslims an inch they will want a mile? If they feel that Canadas laws infringe on them in any way then they should head to the nearest airport and take off to a sunny shaira destination where it is leagal and acceptable to stone your wife, kill infidels and generally act like an bararic ass.
Scaramouche:
I didn't know you have a blog - what is the URL?
That's a nice post - I can't add anything as you've essentially said it. You know a proposal like this is wacky when even the CBC gets their shorts in knot over it.
BTW, in today's Toronto Globe and Mail, the daily poll is presently running 91% against this idiotic proposal.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/polls/pollResults?id=30277&pollid=30277&answerid=&poll=GAMFront&save=_save&show_vote_always=no&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult
WHY SHARIA/MUSLIM FAMILY LAW IN ONTARIO AND CANADA?
The proponents for the use of Sharia/Muslim Family law argue that:
1. It is the religious right of the Muslim community to have their own laws because the laws are God ordained and must be practiced if we are to be “good” Muslims. Muslims must advocate for their “comprehensive” way of life, no matter where we live.
http://www.ccmw.com/ShariainCanada/submission%20made%20to%20Ms%20Marion%20Boyd.htm
.
Just want to point out that the muslim community of Canada, where I live, was divided on the issue with Canadian Muslim Congress (CMC) strongly objecting to the measure and Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) supporting it in general. As many reported, this is not a new law, but essentially granting an arbitrator license to an Islamic group based on Ontario's arbitration law that was approved by the parliament and allows any group (religious or otherwise) to establish an arbitration centre.
While muslim groups were divided, the Sharia-based arbitration had strong support from the major Jewish organizations including Bnai Brith Canada that filed in the court in support of it. The only thing that Boyd could (and should) have done was to repeal the arbitration act alltogether, which was impossible in the face of the opposition from Bnai Birth Canada.
.
Meet marion Boyd:
http://marionboyd.net/aboutmarion.htm
Marion's e-mail address:
marion@marionboyd.net
Dispute Resolution in Family Law: Protecting Choice, Promoting Inclusion:
Marion Boyd's Report Available in PDF.
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/boyd/
Opening Pandora's Box, are we?
Muslim women will say that Sharia law is just because if they don't, their men will beat them into a bloody pulp. That is also the reason they puppet the refrain in public that Islam "liberates" women. There is ample evidence given by courageous women from the Muslim community who have risked, and many times forfeited, their lives to speak the truth. Sharia is neither just in criminal nor in civil matters. It is fundamentally incompatible with the UN Declaration on Human Rights and no amount of lipstick will redeem the visage of the Sharia pig.
This talk of "voluntary" acceptance of Islamic arbitration is utter nonsense. The ONLY sure means of ensuring the equality of protection under the law in Canada is the existing constitution. It has not failed so much that it needs to be augmented by a thousand year old scaled up tribal ideology of oppression. If the Muslims cannot abide by the law of Man as enshrined in the Western constitutions, then they need to return to the primative societies from whence they came. If they insist on foisting their failed value system on the West with violence, they shall be exterminated, and I don't mean that in the metaphorical sense.
The West has seen their kind before and the West has indeed exterminated their kind before. Don't imagine for a moment that it lacks the will to do so again. This ain't no Hollywood movie folks. We are witnessing the early flare-ups along the fault lines of ancient ideologies in much the same way as our ancestors witnessed. It is going to get more violent than most are willing to imagine.
Religion of War
The Honorable Marion Boyd spoke to several Muslim sources in the process of making her assessment. One was a Farzana Hassan Shahid, President Muslims Against Terrorism (M-A-T), Ontario. Just a quick check of this woman reveals that she mirrors a very particular understanding of her religion as exmpled below:
"This brings us to the concept of "Jihad" in Islam. In light of the above mentioned injunctions of the Quran, it is safe to conclude that this is undoubtedly a term that is grossly misunderstood both in the west, as well as by a great number of Muslims. Jihad means "struggle" in Allah’s cause and in matters of religion, whether they are personal, which involves fighting temptations, social, when evil must be eradicated from society, or political, when persecution or oppression have to be wiped out from a community. It does not mean "holy war"as is often reflected by media coverage."
http://www.m-a-t.org/ethics.htm
OK. So that small excerpt from Ms. Shahid shpuld itself should raise red flags. This is who Ms. Boyd is relying on to trust with making a decision which could in effect cause Muslim women to be legally the property of their Muslim husbands?
This same Marion Boyd who has supposedly championed women's rights throws Moslem women, possibly the most repressed in the world to the wolfs?
This recommendation by Boyd is the product of intellectual dishonesty and leftist liberalism. It will prove to be a disaster, but once it is accepted how do you then repeal it?
johnb--Thanks for linking to that poll. I'm going to add it to my blog which, since you asked, can be found at www.scaramouche.motime.com.
Marion Boyd sopke to Farzana Hassan Shahid (page 151 of her index http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/boyd/)
Ms. Shahid had this to say about women in Islam at her webage linked below:
"The myth: Islam discriminates against women. Women in Islam enjoy a very privileged position. They have not been burdened with the responsibility of being breadwinners, and to maintain and support them is the sole responsibility of their husband. This however does not bar them from pursuing their interests, be they personal or professional, so long as they remain within the folds of Islam."
http://www.m-a-t.org/popular.htm
If this is an example of Ms. Boyd's attempt at getting to the truth, one would not know it from her recommending that Sharia (I mean, Islamic Jurisprudence, excuse me...) be implemented.
Perhaps one should ask her if she would wish to be at the mercy of such an intolerant religion's law as a woman.
If she did in fact speak to Ms. Shahid, was she told something that clearly is not the case/ One need not be a brain surgeon to know Moslem women have no rights and as such will be seriously disadvantaged within Canadian society by this law should it be enacted.
Sharia'h, anyone?
Koran 4:11
“Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.”
Bukhari:V3B48N826
“The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”
Muslim:B1N142
“‘O womenfolk, you should ask for forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell.’ A wise lady said: Why is it, Allah’s Apostle, that women comprise the bulk of the inhabitants of Hell? The Prophet observed: ‘You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. You lack common sense, fail in religion and rob the wisdom of the wise.’ Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense? The Prophet replied, ‘Your lack of common sense can be determined from the fact that the evidence of two women is equal to one man. That is a proof.’”
Will this legalize domestic violence?
Tabari IX:113
“Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Koran.”
Andrew: Thanks for that link "Popular Myths About Islam". I'm almost speechless. I do like this quote "Muslims in fact laid down the seeds of democracy more than fourteen hundred years ago, and had this trend continued, they would have been the pioneers in this field".
Is there anything the Muslims didn't invent or discover and why, if the adherents to the "religion" are so wonderful, is the entire Muslim world a complete shithole. Sorry, we know the answer - blame it on Israel.
I guess Classical Greek democracy was just another lie propagated by the international Zionist-Neo-Con Cabal to make Muslims look bad.
And the Magna Carta was really the Al-Mansour Kharda. This is the problem with Islam --it's such a horrible belief system that its adherents have to constantly tell great big fat whopping lies to themselves and to others, in order to stay within its brainwashed embrace.
Do they not understand that their constant lying about easily checkable facts is one reason why we take nothing they say at face value? Or do they not even care, confident in their ability to eventually force their lies on everyone else by violence, constant repetition, and bullying?
"Arbeit Macht Frei".
Maybe they should try full sharia' (civil+criminal provisions) on an experimental basis and see the results - stonings, amputations, floggings galore....Chances are even then some Michael Mooores and John Epositos will find a way to putba positive spin on such crap as well!
Stupid mother canuckers
DHIMMITUDE PAYS:
French journalists freed in Iraq
Militants in Iraq have freed French reporters Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot, who were taken hostage on 20 August.
The French foreign ministry confirmed an Arabic TV report that the two men had been set free and said they would return to France on Wednesday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4115975.stm
The vast majority of proponents for Sharia-Law are Muslim males that have a vested interested
by the additional power they'll get via the approval of the State.
As for CAIR endorsing Sharia,CAIR has now abstained from the term "Sharia" in a newly post rant on Islamophobia and racism.
Check out CAIR's attempt to soften the image of spousal abuse to Female Muslims.
http://www.caircan.ca/itn_more.php?id=1301_0_2_0_C
I am confused. Let's say a Muslim woman waives the right to have the case heard in Canadian court and goes to 'Sharia' arbitration, that is not Sharia (Again what rules are these anyway? If these rules or particular judgments are inconsistent with Canadian law can they be considered binding? If rules or particular judgments inconsistent with Canadian law are not binding then why allow for the courts in the first place?). Let's say she is not satisfied with the ruling, which leaves her with an unfair portion of inheritance, or, say, a few bruises on her back for which she is to blame. What is her recourse? Can she appeal the ruling in Canadian court? But, what kind of appeal would this be, since Canadian court has not made a ruling? Or, what if the woman is satisfied with the Sharia ruling and she believes she does indeed deserve the black eyes she got last week. Is it the responsibility of the Canadian courts to intervene? Hey, she's OK with it, so we are led to believe; she 'submitted' to the ruling of God. What else could she do?
There are so many absurd counter-examples to allowing this dubious 'arbitration' I cannot see how any sane person would consider it. And Canadian citizens will have to pay for all this: money for 'screening' spousal abuse cases etc (but what if the women do not complain of spousal abuse?) and monitoring judgments etc.
And does one really think that Muslims who endorse these methods of arbitration will cooperate and identify those problematic cases and principles that will fly in the face of Canadian democracy? Will the imams speak up and say, "Take this to the state court!". Or, will they seek ways to subvert Canadian law further. And with every attempt at subversion, Canadians loose more and more money, more and more of their democracy, more and more time dealing with the insanity of the Qur'an and ahadith.