XPost: alt.politics.religion, can.general, can.politics   
   XPost: soc.culture.canada   
   From: sam@hotmail.com   
      
   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   
      
   How Do You Solve the Problem of Sharia?   
   Canada grapples with the boundaries of legal multiculturalism.   
   By Dahlia Lithwick   
   Posted Friday, Sept. 10, 2004, at 2:55 PM PT   
      
      
   This week has seen protests around Canada—and at Canadian Embassies   
   worldwide—as citizens grapple with an issue that blurs the boundary   
   between religious tolerance and oppression. The Ontario government is   
   considering a proposal to allow certain family law matters—including   
   divorce, custody, and inheritance—to be arbitrated by panels of Muslim   
   clerics. Supporters of the proposal say that Canada's commitment to   
   cultural diversity requires that Muslim law be accorded the same   
   respect as other legal systems. Opponents say Muslim law inherently   
   conflicts with the basic freedoms guaranteed Canadians.   
      
   Marion Boyd, Ontario's former attorney general, has been appointed by   
   Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to determine the appropriateness of   
   these sharia, or Islamic law, tribunals. She's in a tough spot.   
   Ultimately, the question comes down to whether sharia is fundamentally   
   different from other religious codes. And making that sort of   
   determination should not be the responsibility of any democratic   
   government.   
      
   The plan to use formal panels of imams and Muslim scholars to resolve   
   family-law disputes is neither radical nor subversive. For one thing,   
   Canadian imams have been informally using sharia law to settle   
   disputes between Muslims for years. For another, a 1991 Ontario law   
   known as the Ontario Arbitration Act permits Orthodox Jews and   
   Christians to submit to voluntary faith-based arbitration. These   
   agreements are then ratified by secular civil courts, so long as their   
   rulings conform to Canadian law, and both parties were willing   
   participants.   
      
   Ontario Muslims have merely sought to officially reap the benefits of   
   the Arbitration Act, leaving the Ontario government with two   
   unpleasant alternatives: They must either scrap the act altogether or   
   unearth some principled justification for allowing some religious   
   citizens, but not Muslims, to benefit from its protections. The   
   question somehow comes down to whether sharia is too inherently sexist   
   to be reconciled with Canada's civil rights laws. And if anything   
   definitive can be said about sharia, it's that no such definitive   
   pronouncements can be made.   
      
   It's probably no surprise that some religious groups find themselves   
   in the strange position of wholeheartedly embracing the wonders of   
   sharia. For instance, this week B'nai Brith Canada endorsed the   
   tribunals. And while Canadians are deeply divided over this matter, no   
   one is more divided than the Canadian Muslim community. The Muslim   
   Canadian Congress urged the Ontario government to reject the   
   tribunals, describing sharia as uncodified, racist, and   
   unconstitutional. The Canadian Council of Muslim Women similarly says,   
   "We want the same laws to apply to us as to other Canadian women." But   
   Syed Mumtaz Ali—the lawyer demanding that sharia be made available   
   under the Arbitration Act—last month declared that Muslims cannot live   
   under secular law alone: "Every act of your life is to be governed by   
   [sharia]. If you are not obeying the law, you are not a Muslim. That's   
   all there is to it."   
      
   If you hear echoes here of religious citizens of the United States who   
   claim they cannot be asked to abide by any secular law that conflicts   
   with God's law, you'll begin to grasp the problem: How does a liberal   
   democracy permit unfettered religious freedom without eventually   
   becoming a theocracy?   
      
   Sharia is a centuries-old system of justice based on Quranic law, and   
   while it includes general provisions about the importance of justice   
   and equality, as practiced throughout the world it has been used to   
   justify stonings, the flogging of rape victims, public hangings, and   
   various types of mutilation. In her weird and provocative book, The   
   Trouble With Islam, Canadian commentator Irshad Manji reminds us that   
   on average, two women die each day in Pakistan from "honor killings"   
   (a husband's revenge for adultery, flirtation, or any perceived sexual   
   shaming) and that, in Malaysia, women may not travel without the   
   written consent of a male. Saudi Arabian women may not drive.   
   Moreover, under sharia, male heirs receive almost double the   
   inheritance of females. Spousal support is limited from three months   
   to one year, unless a woman was pregnant before she was divorced. Only   
   men can initiate divorce proceedings, and fathers are virtually always   
   awarded custody of any children who have reached puberty.   
      
   Still, supporters of sharia tribunals in Canada have strong   
   arguments—in addition to claims of basic fairness suggesting that if   
   Catholics and Orthodox Jews can have divorces settled by religious   
   courts, fundamentalist Muslims must be allowed to do the same. They   
   insist that these religious arbitrations are voluntary. No one is   
   forced into religious courts. They say that if a party to an   
   arbitrated agreement is dissatisfied, she may always ask the civil   
   courts to overturn it. And proponents urge that this is an opportunity   
   to reform and revitalize sharia; creating a hybrid of Canadian-style   
   freedoms and traditional values.   
      
   Perhaps most important, supporters of these tribunals argue that any   
   aspect of sharia that conflicts with the Canadian Charter of Rights   
   and Freedoms would simply not be enforceable by the tribunals. The   
   charter expressly provides that "Notwithstanding anything in this   
   Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed   
   equally to male and female persons." Worries about a subclass of   
   impoverished women and their abandoned children are misplaced, they   
   insist, as is xenophobic hysteria over stonings or polygamy. Such   
   measures violate the laws of Canada and are simply not available to   
   sharia panels.   
      
   Truth be told, it's pretty hard to tease out a meaningful objection to   
   sharia panels under these circumstances. If participation is indeed   
   purely voluntary, if all agreements are reviewable by civil courts, if   
   parties are already submitting to these panels informally anyhow, and   
   if any provision that violates the Canadian civil rights laws is null   
   and void, what do Muslim and feminist groups find so appalling? At   
   worst, some kind of toothless sharia-lite will govern. At best, a more   
   equitable, kinder, gentler sharia may be forged.   
      
   But Canadian feminists argue that there is no such thing as purely   
   voluntary arbitration. They insist that isolated immigrant women with   
   limited English are coerced into appearing before sharia panels and   
   never advised of their rights. Refusal to abide by the dictates of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)