Mughal

Please visit NO SHARIA SITE FOR MORE

http://www.nosharia.com/eng.htm


Please sign the petition for stopping Canada from importing islamic shariah law in the country. Do these foolish politicians not realise the fact that islam is not compatible with international human rights declaration or secularism? If it was then why would muslims need to live by islamic law in a secualr democratic state?

http://www.petitiononline.com/pasc1361/petition.html



To: Media in Canada and USA

December 31, 2003

Join the International Campaign against setting up Shari’a court in Canada!


To: All progressive organizations and individuals


On October 21st 2003, Muslim leaders in Canada elected 30 member council to establish a judicial tribunal for Muslims known as “ the Islamic Institute of Civic Justice�. The move is designed to persuade Canadian court to uphold decisions made under the Muslim Law.

The International Campaign for the Defense of Women’s Rights in Iran is running an International Campaign against this new move in Canada.

We strongly believe that this move is anti women’s move and will push back women in the society in general. In the past 20 years, women’s rights have been increasingly under attack by the Islamic governments and groups. Women are subject to abuse for disobeying social Islamic standards. Daily degradation of women, prohibition from many forms of employment, field of study and sports, sexual segregation in buses, schools and public places, Stoning to death of women or murdering them for sexual relations outside marriage, acid-throwing in the faces of women, and flogging for transgressing Islamic laws for improper behavior have been imposed on women under Islamic influence not only in countries such as Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan but also in Western countries.

The women’s rights movement has fought this reactionary movement and many paid a price in doing so. . As part of this radical movement, we believe that all people who live in Canada are citizens with equal rights, and should live according to same social laws and norms. We do not divide society into cultural, religious, national and racial majorities and minorities. We stand for equal and universal laws and freedoms for all humanity, which should embrace all, irrespective of sex, race, ethnicity, etc.
We now are calling on all individuals and progressive organizations to oppose the proposed tribunal for legal recognition of settlements according to Shari’a. This proposal is anti-freedom, anti-women, misogynist and anti-modernism and is strongly racist.

We therefore have the following demands:

1. Religion to be declared private affair of the individual. And complete
separation of religion from education for children under the age 16.

2. Prohibition of violent and inhuman religious ceremonies, practice and any form of religious activities that is incompatible with people’s
civil rights and liberties and the principle of the equality of all.

3. Prohibition of teaching religions subjects and dogmas or religions interpretation in schools and educational establishments or in general any law and regulation that breaches the principle of secular non- religious

By signing this petition, you defend the universal rights of human beings. Your support will strengthen the radical movement for secularism.

Homa Arjomand
The coordinator
homawpi@rogers.com

Name


Sincerely,

The Undersigned


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1086646213053



Jun. 8, 2004. 03:06 PM


Protest rises over Islamic law in Ontario
Muslim women's groups vow to stop sharia courts
Lawyers say it will lead to injustices to most vulnerable


LYNDA HURST
FEATURE WRITER

When Britain's Muslim community requested the right to use Islamic law to settle family disputes, the government's refusal was unequivocal.

No, the petitioners were told: This is one nation, with one justice system for all.

Until last fall, no Western jurisdiction allowed the 1,400-year-old body of religious law called sharia to take root inside its secular legal system.

Then the province of Ontario quietly approved its use. Under the 1991 Arbitration Act, sharia-based marriage, divorce and family tribunals run by the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice are expected to begin later this year. The move has so horrified many Muslim women that they're vowing to stop the tribunals before they start.

"We've had a flood of e-mails from people, asking `How can we help?'" says Alia Hogben, president of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, whose 900 members come from a variety of Islamic sects.

They were outraged that Muslim women could be coerced into taking part in sharia tribunals or face family and community ostracism — or worse.

Why, they asked, should these women be treated differently from other Canadian women?

"When you come to Canada, you are a human being with full rights," says Jonathan Schrieder, a Toronto civil litigation lawyer. Allowing sharia here — even a "Canadianized" version, as its proponents claim — "will subject Muslim women to a huge injustice."

Schrieder is so alarmed at the prospect that he, like a half-dozen other Toronto lawyers, has offered his services pro bono in the fight to halt it.

Many others are appalled that Ontario is setting a precedent that other secular nations will be pressured to follow.

To writer Sally Armstrong, whose work has taken her to several Muslim countries, Ontario's move is a "human rights catastrophe."

Her 2002 book, Veiled Threat, described the oppression of women in Afghanistan under the extreme sharia rule of the Taliban, but she has also documented their harsh lot in nations such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Jordan. Sharia interpretation varies from culture to culture, but in no instance does it regard women as equal to men.

"Sharia law doesn't work as it is supposed to work in a single country," says Armstrong. "Why does Ontario's justice system think it will work here?"

The attorney-general's office has repeatedly said the Arbitration Act contains safeguards; that participation must be voluntary by both parties; and that women may appeal to the civil courts if they feel a decision doesn't abide by Canadian law.

Mumtaz Ali, the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice president who worked for a decade to bring sharia into Ontario's legal system, says the women needn't fear they will be treated unequally. He, too, has repeatedly said the arbitrations will be subservient to Canadian law and charter provisions.

Armstrong, however, doesn't want to see sharia anywhere near Canada.

"Canadian women won't let it happen without a protest," she predicts. "We spent 30 years working on family law and equality rights to ensure that women and children are safe in this country. We'll stand up to be counted on this."

They'll soon have the opportunity. On Sat., June 26 at 7: 30 p.m., the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada will hold a public meeting at Orial Community Centre, 2975 Don Mills Rd. On Sept. 8, a series of international demonstrations will be held in cities across Canada, and in Britain, Sweden, Germany, France and Finland, with other countries to be confirmed, says campaign co-ordinator Homa Arjomand.

Her group and the Muslim women's council are leading the fast-growing movement against the tribunals. They're lobbying Queen's Park, raising awareness among women in the community, and are in the process of drafting legal arguments. They want to show a so-far unmoveable attorney-general's office that family law must come out of the Arbitration Act altogether and return to the civil court system.

The National Association of Women and the Law is preparing a research paper on how sharia, by definition, undermines Canada's equality rights.

That's a subject lawyer and policy analyst Marilou McPhedran knows a lot about. In 1981, she was one of the authors of Section 28, the last-minute addition to the Charter of Rights that guaranteed equal rights and freedoms to male and female persons — "not withstanding anything else in the Charter."

That means, she says, that it trumps other charter sections which prohibit discrimination to individuals ("not groups") on the basis of religion, among other things, and which call for the "preservation and enhancement" of Canadians' multicultural heritage.

McPhedran remembers that former prime minister Jean Chrétien, then federal attorney-general, initially resisted adding a separate section, saying that discrimination on the basis of sex was already covered elsewhere in the charter.

"We wanted it in because women in closely controlled cultural, tribal and religious communities needed it. We said to him, `What would you do about female genital mutilation? You've got to include gender rights.'"

Chrétien agreed.

That means the Muslim women's case against sharia arbitrations is strong and compelling, says McPhedran, who as co-coordinator of the International Rights Project has travelled to several Islamic countries.

Their legal argument would be that "it is wrong for any government, any attorney-general, to stand by and allow a provincial law to be used in a way that perpetuates discrimination against women," she says.

Section 28 of the charter has not yet been tested, but McPhedran thinks this could be the case to do it.

A charter challenge, however, requires a case and a litigant. It would mean the sharia tribunals would have to be set up, and a Muslim woman, who'd gone through the process, who would charge that her equal rights had been undermined.

That could take years.

It doesn't have to come to that, says McPhedran. Instead, the Muslim women's groups could make a case prospectively that "it is highly probable the act will perpetuate inequality and have a severe and disproportionate impact on women."

"That," she adds, "should wake up the attorney-general."

One of the reasons cited by Ontario in allowing sharia tribunals is that Hasidic Jews have been using the act for years in domestic arbitrations based on Jewish law. How then can Muslims be denied access?

"The assumption is that everything has been wonderful with the Orthodox arbitrations," says McPhedran. "Let's just find out how wonderful it's been. There are too many assumptions happening here."

She suggests holding an impartial inquiry, with confidentiality guaranteed for Hasidic women to come forward and report their experiences.

The province is in a self-created bind by allowing religious groups to use the act in the first place, says family lawyer Todd Morganstein. "Either Ontario removes all religious groups from the act or it brings in real rules requiring them to follow fundamental principles of equality. But some cultural practices are simply not consistent with that."

Critics say that reality can't be glossed over in an attempt to respect religious diversity, say critics.

It won't happen if McPhedran has her way. Lawmakers have to remember that they have an overriding obligation to vulnerable populations, she says.

"Many Muslim immigrant women come from tribal and traditional cultures that are the most oppressed in the world. They are among the most vulnerable of all new Canadians."

When McPhedran ran into Attorney-General Michael Bryant last week, he made the commitment to meet with her on the issue of sharia arbitrations.

It's a start, she thinks.

Mughal

Please, do sign petition, it is important. Why? Have a look at following links

http://dawn.com/2003/08/31/top4.htm
http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/68164/1
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep20...9-2003/spr.htm
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0502/128...90.VINCLUDEFIX
http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsOct2003/lawoct.htm
http://www.peacewomen.org/news/Sept03/safeguarding.html

http://www.learningchannel.org/article/view/68164/1
http://see.oneworld.net/article/view/68164/1
http://www.dawn.com/2004/06/28/nat15.htm
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20ar...20Repealed.htm
http://womenforhumanity.org/index.php

http://womenforhumanity.org/.newsdetail.php?id=57

Thanks.

whichphilosophy

As you can see even from these articles it indicates the vast majority of Muslims are not into the sort of thing being written about.

Unless it is known what exactly is being proposed why get into the mass hysteria.

To what extent is the Sharia system being proposed? For instance I would find it hard to believe the Muslim community are proposing and the government considering a Sharia system that is legally binding.

Since I don't know exactly what is being proposed it is not possible to support or object to this.

Heathen Dawn

[removed]

Toto

Thread in CSS on the issue (contains link to an older thread).

It is a more complicated issue than it appears, because it should only apply if all parties to the dispute voluntarily agree to apply sharia - something that can be done in any dispute where parties agree to a particular contract provision, and freedom of contract is an important basis of western law.

But there are always questions about how voluntary the agreement is.

Rustharold

Maybe it will work out for the good then. When the penalty in our law is compared to the penalty in sharia law; I'm sure most of the accused will suddenly decide they just don't feel like being muslims anymore.

Do I want to be stoned :down: or shall I just continue to screw my neighbours wife. :thumbs:

Toto

There is no suggestion that sharia replace the criminal law.

The problem is in family law, child custody, divorce settlements, etc.

I'm not sure how they handle usury, which is against sharia but is the foundation of western commerce.

ploki

From this article by Azam Kamguian:

Mughal

Dear friends,

1) Just to agree that shariah should be accepted in any capacity is sufficient to give it legal and political as well as social recognition. Something that I see that many people have not realised.

2) We must not allow muslims to live by their shariah at all or the muslim society in secular states will become yet more difficult to educate because they will find yet more all sort of justifications for remaining isolated.

3) By naming and shaming people in their communities, muslims will be able to exert yet more pressure and control on their people in submissive positions eg women and children etc. So thinking that muslim will not accept shariah decisions is a false hope, for people need face saving amongst their own people. Also it is dangerous to put already weak people like women to fight shariah set up by men.

4) Why do you think people like myself ie ex-muslims are hiding from muslims even in the so called free states? This is really a very dangerous game our politician are trying to play. This is why I think they are foolish. You cannot be sensible person if you aim and fire the gun at a person and then run to save the person.

So Please, think about these like points carefully and then see if we need to accept shariah for muslims or reject it.

Regards and all the best.

WCH

There was an article in the paper today about this (Toronto, Canada) where the journalist went around to the various Muslim communities and asked them about it... apparently the vast majority of them are opposed to it.

So... my question is, if even the Muslims are against it, why the hell would we institute it? :banghead: