Muslims in Canada

[August1991]

These two articles caught my attention:

New hospital gowns I think this idea is humourous. At the same time, I don't see why not. It seems to me that I choose what bathing suit to wear in a hotel pool. Why should it be any different in a hospital?

Sharia arbitration courts in Canada Here too, I see no reason to forbid two people, for example, divorcing under the law they choose.

This group that opposes this freedom views Muslim women as the "weaker sex" in need of protection. Is that true? And is this the way to enlightenment?

[caesar]

Hospital gowns are not really an issue. I do believe most hospitals allow you to wear your own night wear. They would be asked to wear the gowns if they are needing many injections but could always wear a housecoat.

As for the courts; that is not a religious issue here and they should abide by our laws. Out of court settlements can be done anyway anyone sees fit.

I think we sometimes go too far to accomodate new citizens. Let them join in our ways or we will have another Quebec. It is irritating when I am told not to wish anyone Merry Christmas, We are encouraged to say happy holidays. Why should anyone be offended.

[kimmy]

These two articles caught my attention:

New hospital gowns I think this idea is humourous.  At the same time, I don't see why not.  It seems to me that I choose what bathing suit to wear in a hotel pool.  Why should it be any different in a hospital?

Sharia arbitration courts in Canada Here too, I see no reason to forbid two people, for example, divorcing under the law they choose.

This group that opposes this freedom views Muslim women as the "weaker sex" in need of protection.  Is that true?  And is this the way to enlightenment?

New hospital gowns... about time. The existing ones are pretty degrading to patients of all creeds.

Muslim courts? uh...

Well, the description in the article certainly doesn't sound that bad. It won't encroach on criminal law, it'll be run according to some kind of arbitration guidelines that are clearly spelled out, it's subject to mutual consent, and it's rulings would have to abide by the Charter of Rights. So it can't be a threat to anybody, right?

This Toronto Star article takes the opposite viewpoint. It makes the point that a Muslim woman might face community pressure to accept Sharia arbitration (how could any good Muslim choose to have her case handled by an infidel judge over an Imam?)

Women under Sharia law basically only count half as much as men. Men are entitled twice the inheritance of their sisters. Sharia couts a woman's word to have half the weight of a man's word. A man can divorce his wife on the spot just by saying so 3 times. Would that be legally binding if it happened in one of these Sharia arbitration meetings?

Mostly, I'm not very happy about the possibility because I don't like idea of that religion gaining any kind of legal foothold in Canada. Could it expand over time? Could you find yourself in a legal dispute over, say, a real-estate contract, and discover that somewhere in the fine print you agreed that any disagreements would be handled according to Sharia?

Maybe this is just alarmism, but as I see it, Sharia kind of sucks, and I don't want it gaining any sort of status in Canada, even if it never directly affects me in my life. I'm also concerned that once you take this step, you can't turn back the clock. France is trying to turn back the clock on fundamentalist Islam in France, and they've got hostage-takers demanding that head-scarves be reinstated.

.

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

Sharia is just protection for a bunch of angry men that are losing their power - it should never be adopted in Canada.

[The Terrible Sweal]

New hospital gowns... about time. The existing ones are pretty degrading to patients of all creeds.

I'm right with you there, kimmy. Like how about a little respect for human dignity?!

As for Sharia arbitrations, I don't see how they can be precluded except by amending the Arbitration Act to limit the types of arbitrators people can choose from. If we are going to say, no Sharia panels, then presumably we will say no Backwood Mormon panels too.

As for the wretched Muslim women, if they want to put their religion above their material wealth, isn't that their choice?

Also, BTW, arbitrations under the Arbitration Act can be reviewed by the courts, and overruled if they are contrary to the law. Also, no matter what decisionmaking process a party agrees to, the courts would still apply general family law to questions re: children's best interests.

[takeanumber]

In theory, it's fine if a woman and a man both want to use Sharia law.

I'm pro-choice in that way.

The reality might be different though, with some women being pressured by family and friends and the entire community to use Sharia.

It seems to me that many people immigrated to Canada to avoid Sharia law. So why should they be subjected to the same pressures that they were back home.

So I'm anti-choice in that way.

[August1991]

This quote is from the G & M article linked above:

For this reason, no one raises a fuss when Jewish and Christian courts resolve civil disputes over business, property and divorce in Ontario.

This NYT article is more explanatory:

Under the law, Jews and Christians have settled a relatively narrow number of issues without going through the courts. Rabbis have granted religious divorces, decided on matters relating to kosher dietary laws and arbitrated business disputes. Catholic couples have gone to priests to annul marriages, while churches of various dominations have settled disputes related to inappropriate behavior of ministers and monetary disagreements within and between parishes.

Could we forbid arbitration under Islamic law (sharia) but allow it under Catholic law (canon) or Jewish law (beth din)?

MS and Kimmy apparently believe that Sharia establishes rules that are contrary to Canadian principles.

TalkNumb merely wonders whether parties are free to accept the contract terms (including an arbitration clause).

As to MS and Kimmy, you are stating that you want the State to be involved in fixing terms of private contracts between individuals. The State tries to do that now for many arrangements, why not marriage too?

But then don't say that we live in a free society where diversity is encouraged. The State will be setting terms for an intimate relationship between two people. (I recall a famous phrase in thios regard...)

As to TalkNumb, I can see the State providing protection for a child. But you are suggesting that we treat Muslim women like children. Is this what we really want to do?

[takeanumber]

Sure.

If they're fresh off the boat, totally dependant upon their families and community for everything...and they're being, in effect, forced to accept a form arbitration that isn't in their best interests:

Absolutely, just because she's muslim doesn't mean she shouldn't be afforded the freedom and protection offered undered our system.

But if there's legitimate consent, without duress, by both parties, let them arbitrate how they want.

I'm just not convinced that duress isn't present.

But I'm more pro-choice on this issue; mainly because the courts oversee the process and make sure no just-off-the-boat bastard men from Northern Nigeria abuse the system.

I'll also make it clear here that muslims do not have the 'right' to use sharia law. They have the priveledge only.

The combining of religion and law is not in the Canadian liberal tradition, but if it works for them specifically, then fine.

[kimmy]

Could we forbid arbitration under Islamic law (sharia) but allow it under Catholic law (canon) or Jewish law (beth din)?

As I understand it, Muslims can (and already do) agree to have their issues settled according to sharia in an arbitration process. We don't prevent it. But to me there's a distinction between allowing two people to agree to do something, as opposed to allowing a religion to establish some sort of recognized court of their own, even if it's run subject to provisions of Canadian law.

The article you posted actually mentions this as an argument in favor of the proposed Islamic court:

In other words, by operating pursuant to Ontario law, the Islamic tribunal may offer more protection, not less, to women in the Muslim community. There is nothing to stop any group, faith-based or otherwise, from setting up their own tribunals for resolving problems. Indeed, some Muslims have already been using arbitrators to settle disputes under sharia.

The article proposes that the Islamic court is actually a good idea because it will be subject to more scrutiny than current sharia arbitration.

Is there a recognized Jewish or Catholic civil court in Ontario? (I don't know; I'm asking.)

As to MS and Kimmy, you are stating that you want the State to be involved in fixing terms of private contracts between individuals.  The State tries to do that now for many arrangements, why not marriage too?

But then don't say that we live in a free society where diversity is encouraged.  The State will be setting terms for an intimate relationship between two people. (I recall a famous phrase in thios regard...)

If Muslims agree to have arbitration done according to sharia, it appears they already have that ability, as far as I can tell. I don't think saying no to a recognized Islamic court is an interference in their right to do things the way they want. I just think creating a Sharia court is an unnecessary and undesirable step. Advocates of the court claim that it would be reviewed in 2 years and could be shut down if it's not working as desired. In practice, I think we know that wouldn't happen. If we do this, it's going to be very difficult to undo it later on. Is it a bad precident? Will it be an invitation for other special interest groups to want to create their own recognized institutions in Canada? Can we be sure that the protection supposedly provided by Ontario Arbitration Act is strong, can't be altered or eroded later by court challenges? Can we be sure that the scope of this Islamic court's activities wouldn't expand over time? We better be sure about this, because we could be opening the door.

And, do we really want this anyway? The point of creating this court would be for it to be used, right? It's basically an invitation for people to step right past Canadian civil law and go to their Muslim court. I would prefer that Muslims in Canada should get comfortable with Canadian law and process. If a Muslim couple insists on having sharia applied in their civil proceedings, they can go arrange the details on their own. I don't want to facilitate it. I don't see the value of giving people another opportunity to resist Canada's values and culture.

-kimmy

[ceemes]

There are all kinds of independant tribunals in Canada, some religious, other industrial, professional or trade. However, if an agreement cannot be worked out within these independant tribunals, then the matter is taken to Law Courts.

Sounds as if this Muslim one is just another in a long line of these independant tribunals. However, if I am not mistaken, this tribunal is only to be used for civic matters and not criminal and only if both parties agree to it. If one of the parties does not agree to go before the Shia Tribunal, then the matter is taken up by the Law Courts.

In Malaysia, Shia law is only enforced against those of the the Muslim faith, Buddhist, Christians, Hindu's and other are do not have to abide by Shia law. Common law is the law of the land there as it is in Canada (Except Quebec where Civic Law is the norm).

[DAC]

FWIW, the only Christian “courts” I know of in Canada are Church Courts in the sense that they deal strictly with issues of church rules between church members. Usually they are the governing bodies of the various churches, acting in a judicial rôle. They might be called upon to act as arbitrators in other matters by people who have seen them as wise judges, but their mandate is internal, not external. Civil law has nothing to do with their decisions.

Of interest to some, I heard from one church historian that the traditional clerical robes which still maintained in some traditions had their origins in the Roman Civil Courts. At some point after Constantine, most people were going to the church courts to resolve their problems because they were visibly so much better than the civil courts. Apparently the Caesar of the time recognized that and appointed all bishops as civil judges.