Quebec rejects Sharia law

[bhk]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...057195-cp.html

By LES PERREAUX




QUEBEC (CP) - While Ontario considers a move to allow Islamic law to help settle some family disputes, Quebec sent a clear message Thursday it will not permit Muslim tribunals.

Quebec lawmakers from all parties voted unanimously in the legislature to reject the use of Islamic tribunals in the legal system. The vote was a pre-emptive strike to stop a growing movement among some Muslims to have the religion to play a role in family law.

The member of the Quebec Liberal government who led the debate Thursday took the unusual step of criticizing a report by former Ontario attorney general Marion Boyd that recommended opening the door to Islamic family law.

Liberal backbencher Fatima Houda-Pepin said any move to allow Muslim family law would lead to similar demands in criminal and civil legal areas.

"The application of Sharia in Canada is part of a strategy to isolate the Muslim community so it will submit to an archaic vision of Islam," said Houda-Pepin, the sponsor of the motion.

"These demands are being pushed by groups in the minority that are using the Charter of Rights to attack the foundation of our democratic institutions. It's a political agenda in the name of Islam."

The head of one Muslim organization was angry that Quebec is singling out one religious group.

Salam Elmenyawi of the Muslim Council of Montreal said Houda-Pepin and Quebec lawmakers are portraying the entire Muslim community as extremists.

"I'm shocked and dismayed to see the national assembly of Quebec take such a step," Elmenyawi said in an interview.

"If the Quebec government does not want faith-based arbitration, they should call it so and not specifically target Islam and Muslims. Otherwise it is very clear this is religious bigotry. To make motions against an identifiable religious community is very serious."

Houda-Pepin said her motion specifically targeted Islam because only Muslims are asking for special status in family courts.

Houda-Pepin denied that Premier Jean Charest's Liberals are putting pressure on the Ontario government, which is expected to make a decision before summer. Charest said he simply wants to send a clear message that all Quebecers are equal under the law.

"It's important to send a very clear message that there is one rule of law in Quebec," Charest told reporters.

"We are a very inclusive society, but a society that will govern itself according to one set of rules."

The debate over Sharia law surfaced in Canada two years ago when a Muslim group in Ontario proposed the arbitration of family disputes according to Islamic law.

Elmenyawi said the rules of Islam dictate that a Muslim woman who wants to remain true to her faith can divorce only through the intervention of religious imams or judges.

Houda-Pepin said the implementation of Islamic law takes different forms in every country in the Muslim world. She listed a litany of horrors that have taken place against women in the name of Sharia law, from the whipping of Pakistani rape victims who fail to prove their case to the stoning of Sudanese women accused of adultery.

I'm shocked.

[Ranger]

She listed a litany of horrors that have taken place against women in the name of Sharia law, from the whipping of Pakistani rape victims who fail to prove their case to the stoning of Sudanese women accused of adultery.

Yeah, that's precisely what I have in mind about the problems of Islamic Law.

Couple other events to add to that list of horrors is the religion police in Saudi Arabia stopping firemen and others from rescuing schoolgirls from a fire because they did not have their headscarf, and that case in Nigeria - in one of the Muslim states - a woman was raped by her brother, gave birth to a child, and the Muslim court sentenced her to death by stoning until the last minute due to world pressure.
So does the Sharia law belong in civil society? Nope.

[eXcentris]

Since I'm from Quebec, I'm not shocked at all. Sharia law is religious law. After decades of being brainwashed and opressed by the iron fist of the Catholic church, we then woke up and proceeded to take religion out of government, schools, and pretty much everywhere else in society except in actual churches and other houses of worship. So this Sharia law nonsense has no chance in hell of happening in this province.

[Tommy Ceez]

Only eXcentris could respond to a thread about sharia law by blaming Catholics for something.

[Myster X]

at least George Bush is not to blame yet

[Giantrobo]

Originally Posted by Tommy Ceez

Only eXcentris could respond to a thread about sharia law by blaming Catholics for something.

[eXcentris]

Originally Posted by Tommy Ceez

Only eXcentris could respond to a thread about sharia law by blaming Catholics for something.

Now, can you please tell me why you don't buy my explanation? How much do you know about the history of this province? My guess, you don't know squat...

But hey, only Tommy Ceez replies to topics he knows nothing about (i.e. threadcraps) just to take lame shots at me knowing they fail miserably everytime...

[Red Dog]

Do they allow rabbinical courts?

[bhk]

Now, can you please tell me why you don't buy my explanation? How much do you know about the history of this province? My guess, you don't know squat...

But hey, only Tommy Ceez replies to topics he knows nothing about (i.e. threadcraps) just to take lame shots at me knowing they fail miserably everytime...

Calm down Francis, Tommy's comment was

[eXcentris]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

Do they allow rabbinical courts?

Yes, but this arbitration process (applied to family matters and civil disputes) rulings are not legally binding like in Ontario for example. Then you might ask, ok if they are not legally binding, why not allow Shariah law too. Because Shariah law is opressive and would be a serious threat to equality rights of women who would be under pressure to accept the rulings and would most likely not challenge them in civil courts. Also, Sharia doctrine does not only apply to civil disputes, but to commercial, criminal, and international matters as well. According to Muslim scholars, it is not possible to only apply parts of Sharia law. It either applies or it doesn't. Compounding the problem, is the fact that different countries/Muslim groups apply the law differently and that there is no recognized central authority for resolving disputed points of Shariah doctrine. There is also virtually no formal certification process to designate someone as being qualified to interpret Islamic law. So, assuming that some rulings were challenged and did land in civil courts, lawyers and judges knowing squat about Shariah law, would be ill equiped to hear such cases.

[Red Dog]

Originally Posted by eXcentris

Yes, but this arbitration process (applied to family matters and civil disputes) rulings are not legally binding like in Ontario for example. Then you might ask, ok if they are not legally binding, why not allow Shariah law too. Because Shariah law is opressive and would be a serious threat to equality rights of women who would be under pressure to accept the rulings and would most likely not challenge them in civil courts. Also, Sharia doctrine does not only apply to civil disputes, but to commercial, criminal, and international matters as well. According to Muslim scholars, it is not possible to only apply parts of Sharia law. It either applies or it doesn't. Compounding the problem, is the fact that different countries/Muslim groups apply the law differently and that there is no recognized central authority for resolving disputed points of Shariah doctrine. And assuming that some rulings were challenged and did land in civil courts, lawyers and judges knowing squat about Shariah law, would be ill equiped to hear such cases.

No one is required to follow Sharia law. If a Muslim is oppressed or wronged in some way, he or she can still go to the Canadian courts. Also, who is to say that there still won't be 'underground' Sharia courts?

To me, it is like agreeing to arbitration instead of court - completely voluntary.

Does Canada have the equivalent of the Establishment Clause?

[eXcentris]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

No one is required to follow Sharia law. If a Muslim is oppressed or wronged in some way, he or she can still go to the Canadian courts. Also, who is to say that there still won't be 'underground' Sharia courts?

True, no one is forced but if you legitimize them in that male dominated world, then women would have little choice, in such closed communities, to use them so they would essentially be "forced". As for underground Sharia courts, they probably exist but that's no reason to legitimize them.

To me, it is like agreeing to arbitration instead of court - completely voluntary.

I'm quite sure that a lot of Muslims, especially the fundamentalists who are in favor of Shariah courts, would use a rather different definition of the word "voluntary".

Does Canada have the equivalent of the Establishment Clause?

Huh? The what?

[Red Dog]

Originally Posted by eXcentris

I'm quite sure that a lot of Muslims, especially the fundamentalists who are in favor of Shariah courts, would use a rahther different definition of the word "voluntary".

Oh I don't disagree. I just don't see how this really changes anything.

To me, it simply comes down to a question of whether Canada has an equivalent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, because they seem to be favoring certain religions over others by legitimizing certain religious courts.

[eXcentris]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

Oh I don't disagree. I just don't see how this really changes anything.

To me, it simply comes down to a question of whether Canada has an equivalent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, because they seem to be favoring certain religions over others by legitimizing certain religious courts.

Sure looks that way and I don't have a problem with that.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the supreme law of the land and should not legitimize anything which is deemed discriminatory.

The arbitration system may work within many communities where there is a respect for cultural norms and acknowledgement that this arbitration system is at all times subservient to the formal legal system and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sorry but Muslim fundamentalists who favor Shariah law are not quite there yet.

[kvrdave]

Crap, this is going to make it a lot harder to mutilate the girls genitals.