Opposition to sharia-based courts is not fear-mongering

[Said1]

A bit of back ground on the founder and advocate of Sharia Law in Ontario.

ISLAMISM
September 7 2005


Opposition to sharia-based courts is not fear-mongering
by David Ouellette

On the eve of the international day of protest against the possible introduction of sharia-based courts in Ontario, activists, journalists and politicians have commented at length the pros and cons of faith-based mediation and arbitration as well as the Boyd report in favour of implementing such courts. In this Canadian feud, with the exception of Quebec's unanimous rejection of sharia in the media and political arena, the pro-sharia crowd has by and large consisted - not considering the Islamists - of the fair, liberal-minded intelligentsia of this nation.


Canada’s newspaper of record, for instance, the Globe and Mail, has characterized opponents to the introduction of sharia in Canada’s legal system with such rancor, one could be forgiven for believing its editorial board actually has a dog in this fight. On August 31, it wrote “the world's anti-Sharia crusaders should take a deep breath and count to 10 -- extreme Islamic law is not coming to central Canada”, a view surprisingly close to the position of the controversial Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) which charges that opponents to sharia are engaged in “fear-mongering”. Of Quebec MP Fatima Houda-Pépin who bravely warned in the province's National Assembly last May that “the application of sharia in Canada is part of the same strategy aiming to isolate the Muslim community in order to submit it to an archaic vision of Islam”, the Globe and Mail said that her statement, again in apparent acquiescence with the CIC, amounted to “fear-mongering, pure and simple”.


It would appear that the editors of the Globe and Mail cannot no be bothered to look at exactly who launched the sharia-based courts project and, most importantly, to which ends.



The media has repeatedly reported that the project was born in 2003 when Syed Mumtaz Ali, a lawyer and President of the Canadian Society of Muslims, created the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice. That's only partially true. What the media persistently fails to report, however, is that Mumtaz Ali has been advocating the implementation of binding sharia courts for a much longer time and that his goals reach far beyond the establishment of a mere Islamic arbitration and mediation process.



In 1995, in an interview posted on the Canadian Society of Muslims website, Mumtaz Ali declared: “Do you want to govern yourself by the personal law of your own religion, or do you prefer governance by secular Canadian family law? If you choose the latter, then you cannot claim that you believe in Islam as a religion and a complete code of actualized life by a Prophet who you believe to be a mercy to all”.


Much has been said about the intimidation that Muslims would face should they refrain from taking their cases to Islamic courts. If truth be said, the intimidation has already begun, as this statement by Mumtaz Ali aptly suggests.


Mumtaz Ali is unambiguous about his objectives. Islam provides a whole set of laws to which he, as all Islamists, expects true Muslims to strictly abide. As to those who prefer to be ruled by Canadian law, they are apostates, a grave accusation employed only by radical Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Mawdudi persuasions. Apostasy, it should be reminded, is punished by death according to the sharia.

It should therefore not surprise that the same man who launched the campaign for Islamic personal and family law in Canada not only believes that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should make room for the punishment of Muslim apostates in Canada, but that failing to do so would be “a flagrant breach of equality rights”. This is what Mumtaz Ali argues in an article entitled The Salman Rushdie Issue: A Synthesis of the Islamic Law of Blasphemy/Apostasy in the Context of Canadian Multiculturalism. Because the preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms acknowledges the “supremacy of god and the rule of law”, writes Mumtaz Ali, it follows that sharia, as divine law, is compatible with the Charter. Moreover, because the Charter commits the country to the preservation of its multicultural heritage, Mumtaz Ali concludes, that the punishment of would-be Muslim apostates should be enshrined as a right of the Muslim community.



As preposterous as Mumtaz Ali’s mental acrobatics to justify Charter-sanctionned penalties for would-be apostates are, it bears recalling that his project of sharia-based courts drew outright laughter at first from Muslims and non Muslims alike. Yet less than 2 years after the creation of the Institute of Islamic Civil Justice, a former Ontario attorney general has recommended the implementation of Islamic courts, a provincial government is seriously considering the project and the Canadian liberal media is advocating it whilst pouring scorn on those who warn Canadians that these courts are but a stepping stone for the edification of an Islamic legal system to be enforced by Canadian law. The Globe and Mail editorial board and assorted blindly liberal multiculturalists can call the sound critique of the sharia-based courts fear-mongering and thumb their collective nose at sharia opponents all they want, but denial will not stop Mumtaz Ali and his ilk from trying to impose legal apartheid on Canadian Muslims and destroy the legal and social fabrics of this nation.

Now I know Islamic "courts" won't be able to sentence people to death, but this guy represents those who support this extremism in Canada.

Another good peice on the issue:

Opposition to Sharia courts goes global

Lee Greenberg
Wednesday, September 07, 2005


An upcoming international demonstration designed to pressure Queen's Park (home to the Provincial Government in Toronto)9/b]into rejecting shariah courts continued to grow yesterday, even as the premier promised any decision on a faith-based court system will not jeopardize women's rights.

"They [women's rights] will not be compromised," Premier Dalton McGuinty told reporters at a news conference in Toronto yesterday.

So far, Amsterdam, Stockholm, London, Paris and Los Angeles are among the confirmed participants in tomorrow's protests. They will join similar demonstrations in Toronto, Ottawa, Waterloo, Montreal and Victoria.

Ontario Attorney-General Michael Bryant delayed a highly anticipated decision on the future of faith-based arbitration this summer, choosing to wait before making changes to a law that allows any set of principles -- including religious ones -- to be used to privately settle family disputes.

Critics say Ontario has become the target of an international political movement by extremists to entrench Islamic law in Western democracies.

"This has nothing to do with the faith of Islam. It's political Islam," said Homa Arjomand, founder of the International Campaign against Shariah Court in Canada. "Ontario is an easy target because we have multiculturalism."

Opposition to Sharia courts goes global

 

[Nuc]

Disgusting. Why does Canada need or want these fools and likewise why do they want to live in the tundra. There are Islamic countries. Move there.

 

[Said1]

Disgusting. Why does Canada need or want these fools and likewise why do they want to live in the tundra. There are Islamic countries. Move there.

I haven't looked at the Arbitration Act in detail, but I don't think there a lot the government can do about it, as long as they follow the Act's guildlines.

Here's a blip from a really long paper:

The Arbitration Act allows parties to arbitrate most civil matters without express limits. Arbitrators however, may only impose such decisions on parties that the parties could
bind themselves to directly. In other words, matters of a criminal nature that involve the state, or disputes involving third parties who have not agreed to arbitrate are not matters that can be arbitrated upon. Typical disputes that are resolved via arbitration are commercial, construction and rental disputes. Certain family law matters can also be submitted to arbitration, for example, spousal support or a division of matrimonial property upon the dissolution of a marriage or common law relationship.

The Role of Arbitrators
Ontario’s Arbitration Act allows consenting parties to have their disputes settled by any mutually agreed upon person. The Act does not require arbitrators to have any special training and the parties are free to choose whomever they believe will be the most appropriate person to resolve their dispute.11 Generally, the parties appoint arbitrators and they pay the arbitrator’s fees.

A mediator can make up for the control an abuser has over a battered woman. It is not hard to understand that a woman who has been physically assaulted, demeaned and derided, threatened and isolated would find it
impossible to be assertive sitting across the table from her abuser. If the process of mediation set up continued contact [between a woman and her abuser], which is almost inevitable when dealing with custody and access issues, the autonomy and safety that she sought in leaving the relationship is seriously jeopardized.”

11 An association of chartered arbitrators utilizing a code of ethics exists in Ontario, but there is no legal requirement to avail oneself of these services. See online: ADR Institute of Ontario

Though several media sources have noted that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will protect against discriminatory provisions in arbitral agreements, it must be recalled that arbitration impacts only civil disputes. The Charter became part of the Constitution of Canada in 1982. It is legislation that protects citizens from the potentially discriminatory actions of the state by arming them with certain rights such as the right to equality and the right to freedom of religion. It does not apply to disputes between private individuals. Thus, the Charter does not bind arbitrators per se. Though s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that any law that is inconsistent with the Charter “is to the extent of the inconsistency of no force or effect”,13 it is difficult to predict what impact this will have on legislation that allows two parties with informed consent to agree to arbitration using any “rules of law.”

Traditionally perceived as facets of private life protected from state intrusion, certain family law matters have recently been acknowledged as subjects of public scrutiny and influence. For example, in the matter of spousal support where government action is not implicated, the courts have utilized a process of interpretation by which Charter values have been imported into disputes between private individuals in order to recognize and redress historic disadvantages endured by women. An argument can be made that
arbitration involving family law, no matter what legal framework is used to resolve the dispute, should import Charter values such as, equality in order to maintain coherence in the law.

Oops, forgot the link: http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=mwjhr

 

[Annie]

I haven't looked at the Arbitration Act in detail, but I don't think there a lot the government can do about it, as long as they follow the Act's guildlines.

Here's a blip from a really long paper:

Law is weird, from whatever side one is looking at it, when it flies in the face of common sense.

 

[Said1]

Law is weird, from whatever side one is looking at it, when it flies in the face of common sense.

The international protest puts an interesting spin on things (I'd like to see the actual turn out, especially at Lib headquarters at Queens Park). This is McGuinty's chance to do something about his 213 unfullfilled campaigne promises. He even looks like a wimp.

 

[Annie]

The international protest puts an interesting spin on things (I'd like to see the actual turn out, especially at Lib headquarters at Queens Park). This is McGuinty's chance to do something about his 213 unfullfilled campaigne promises. He even looks like a wimp.

I don't know the details, but will say that when the US had the blind shiek and the mastermind behind the first WTC bombings, we didn't take it seriously. How many times did Clinton balk at 40-600 casualites?

 

[Said1]

I don't know the details, but will say that when the US had the blind shiek and the mastermind behind the first WTC bombings, we didn't take it seriously. How many times did Clinton balk at 40-600 casualites?

That's just it. I don't know if you were following the Armenian Genocide thread, but Canavar brought up Turkish diplomats that have been killed by Armenian terrorists. One was shot here, not far from my house, an attempt was made on another (paralysing him) and an attempt on another was botched somehow. A liason out of the embassy here was also killed abroad. Meaning, there ARE terrorists in this CITY, to say we are immune for whatever reason is simply retarded. I know it's a seperate issue, but the point is still the same, you never who, when, or where.

 

[Annie]

That's just it. I don't know if you were following the Armenian Genocide thread, but Canavar brought up Turkish diplomats that have been killed by Armenian terrorists. One was shot here, not far from my house, an attempt was made on another (paralysing him) and an attempt on another was botched somehow. A liason out of the embassy here was also killed abroad. Meaning, there ARE terrorists in this CITY, to say we are immune for whatever reason is simply retarded. I know it's a seperate issue, but the point is still the same, you never who, when, or where.

I think you are correct. On another thread you said it's the leadership-could cost the people alot, they should be mobilized.