BY
Ontario, Canada faced a similar situation 12 years ago that should be a model example for Westerners, when the Ontario premier at the time finally declared after a battle: “one law for all Ontarians.”
In 2004, Toronto lawyer Syed Mumtaz Ali announced in 2004 that an “Islamic Institute of Civil Justice” would shortly begin arbitrating family matters on the basis of sharia law, accompanied by his verbal warning that “to be a good Muslim, all Muslims must use these sharia courts”. A a heated controversy began that pitted Muslims against each other: those for and those against Sharia law in Ontario, which would set a precedent for Canada.
Many women’s groups including Muslims opposed the sharia and the Muslim Canadian Congress argued that sharia does not view women as equals and therefore cannot provide equal justice to all parties in a dispute especially on issues of divorce, child custody and division of property.
In a 2004 Canadian national Globe and Mail report two Muslim immigrant women, Homa Arjomand and Alia Hogben, are featured where both lobbied hard for Ontario to change its arbitration law. Arjomand even launched a petition, “International Campaign Against Sharia Courts in Canada.”
Alia Hogben’s discusses the difference in the Muslim population from when her family came to Canada in 1946 when the Muslim population was very small. She explains that as the Muslim population grew dramatically, many Muslims began living in ‘enclaves’ and remained isolated from the rest of Canadian society.
Hogben warned that “many of the new arrivals have brought with them a far more rigid version of Islam” and she said that “a lot of money is being poured into North America from very traditional groups from Saudi Arabia and Libya.”
The article also points out a critical fact that Theresa May fails to understand in her ignorant quest to so-called “protect” the rights of Muslim women……
“Immigrant women are among the most vulnerable people in Canada. Many don’t speak English, are poorly educated, and are isolated from the broader culture. They may live here for decades without learning the language, and stay utterly dependent on their families. They have no idea of their rights under Canadian law.The arbitrators can be imams, Muslim elders or lawyers. In theory, their decisions aren’t supposed to conflict with Canadian civil law. But because there is no third-party oversight, and no duty to report decisions, no outsider will ever know if they do. These decisions can be appealed to the regular courts. But for Muslim women, the pressures to abide by the precepts of sharia are overwhelming. To reject sharia is, quite simply, to be a bad Muslim.”
Dalton McGuinty who was Ontario Premier at the time finally declared:
“There will be no sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.”
Since 1991, arbitration decisions were being made according to religious laws and were enforceable in Ontario courts, but the Premier rescinded the Arbitration Act that settled disputes related to commerce, religion and civil issues.
Let’s hope that there will be enough opposition to Theresa May’s defense of Sharia, for her to conclude sensibly that there will be one law for all Brits as this misguided leader vows to unite Britain. She sure is off to a bad start.
Robert Spencer also wrote about why Theresa May is a disaster for Britain.
“Theresa May forced to defend views on Sharia Law as she prepares to enter No 10”, by Zoie O’Brien, UK Express, July 12, 2016:
INCOMING Prime Minister Theresa May has defended her position on Sharia Law on the eve of taking over as the leader of the Conservative party.May sparked controversy when she spoke out in support of the Islamic courts operating in the country, telling the nation they could “benefit a great deal” from Sharia teachings.The future Tory leader made the comments as she ordered a review into the system which are accused of ordering women to stay with abusive partners.Mrs May, said she is worried the courts are “misused” and “exploited” to discriminate against Muslim women, but defended their place in society.Sharia is Islam’s legal system derived from both the Koran, Islam’s central text, and fatwas – the rulings of Islamic scholars.There are thought to be around 100 Sharia Law courts operating throughout the UK, dispensing Islamic justice outside the remit of our own legal system.Judgements handed down by the informal courts have no legal basis, but there are fears their presence means many Muslim women are not getting access to the justice they deserve.Now, before she takes over Number 10, May has been forced to restate her position on Sharia Law.The Home Secretary, when asked by Buzzfeed’s Emily Ashton about a group which says she supports Sharia in the UK, said she is “concerned” that the ‘law’ is operating in a way that could be counter to “our single rule of law”.She said: “I’ve been the politician who’s been willing to say no.“I’m concerned that Sharia law is operating in a way that could discriminate against women and that could be counter to what is our single rule of law that we have in the UK.“So there is one rule of law in the UK – that’s why I’ve set up the review that I have, chaired by Professor Mona Siddiqui, and that will be looking at the operation of Sharia law and whether it is actually operating to discriminate against women and counter to our overall rule of law.”Sharia councils aim to help resolve family, financial and commercial problems in accordance with Sharia principles.The majority of cases involve women wanting to end their Islamic marriage.The review, which will last up to 18 months, will investigate whether there are instances where British law is being broken in the name of Sharia…….
No comments:
Post a Comment