|
|
|
News and Ideas from around the Anglican World |
|
____________________________________________________________________________
October 2005
Ontario closes the door on Sharia law Premier Dalton McGuinty’s decision last month to close the door to sharia law in Ontario was met with relief by thousands and disappointment by some.
Debra Fieguth
For almost a year, ever since former NDP attorney-general Marion Boyd released her report recommending the voluntary use of the Islamic system to deal with matters of family law, the Ontario premier had been besieged by lobbyists and letter-writers, from Muslim women to conservative and liberal Christians.
Their argument against the faith based private tribunals was that it would discriminate against women, many of whom are immigrants unfamiliar with either the English language or their rights as residents of Canada. Women fleeing harsh Islamic regimes for freedom in Canada should not have to be subjected to a system they thought they had left behind.
Part of the problem is with that word “voluntary.” Critics wondered how voluntary it is if a woman wants to get out of an abusive relationship and is carted off to a tribunal that will deal her yet another blow. What choice does a battered wife really have? How is she going to get her fair share in property and custodial matters? Where there is a gross imbalance of power, choices are not really voluntary. And besides, who is going to check to see if the tribunal’s judgment tramples further on her rights?
These are the questions McGuinty had to deal with when making his decision. In its strictest form, the sharia code regulates every aspect of life. In Nigeria, where my husband and I travelled for six weeks this past summer, 12 out of 19 northern states have instituted some form of sharia over the past five years. Although in some states Christians are told the code doesn’t apply to them, when it comes to a property dispute between a Muslim and a Christian, who is going to decide whether to go through a sharia court or a judicial one?
Taken to its extreme, sharia segregates men and women travelling by bus and taxi, calls for amputation of the hand of those caught stealing, and sentences adulterers to stoning. You might have heard the story of a young Nigerian woman who was raped by several men, had a child as a result, and was sentenced to stoning. Fortunately, worldwide public outcry and a technicality saved her.
Of course those extremes wouldn’t happen in Canada because the punishment could not contravene existing Canadian laws. Still, given the private nature of religious tribunals, there would inevitably be abuses. Certainly there were real concerns with the traditional Islamic approach to family law: that only husbands are able to initiate divorce, that fathers would be awarded child custody after divorce, and that sons would inherit more than daughters.
So McGuinty did the right thing in saying there would be no sharia courts permitted in Ontario. But in making that call, he had to take away the rights of others. Under the Arbitration Act of 1991, Jews, Aboriginals and some Christian groups were able to deal with family disputes and property matters through their own traditional means. McGuinty now plans to amend the Act to disallow the tribunals and make all Ontarians accountable to the same secular law.
This will no doubt cause a backlog in an already overburdened judicial system. And of course it causes consternation for those who have been happily and successfully – and fairly – using the tribunals.
But it’s a price that has to be paid, and one that Christians who care about human rights should gladly accept. Otherwise, too many women and children in a growing population of Canadian Muslims - around 650,000 - would be at risk.
|
|||
|
|
|
Copyright The Anglican Planet © 2005 |