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/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=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.
Thanks for that racist bullshit against Muslims. I know to avoid you now. Interesting you chose the Christianity forum to post this. Coincidence? I don't think so. At least have the guts to post this in the Islamic forum.
Mughal, Thanks for the informative post. One of the problems Canada (and the USA) run into is our own 'Double Standards'. A Classic example would be that Americans (and copycat Canadians) will practice the Middle Eastern tradition of Male Circumcision. [Not that all Muslims practice this but generalising] In fact, Americans/ Canadians not only practice the 'Ancient' rite of cutting off the prepuce, but actually the version where the skin is amputated completely down to the bottom of the Gland. [In babies, this skin is still attached to the gland] So, when Human Rights advocates in Canada were determined to ban Female Circumcisions from being performed in Canada - The public (rightfully so) demanded to know how we could justify banning one form of genital mutilation - Yet - Even in the year 2004, ONE in SIX Canadian parents are happy to do this to their Boys??? In the USA some 65% of baby boys are still having their penis's cut open and the gland exposed. So, I agree that we simply can NOT look a Muslim woman in the face and tell her we ban only 'that' version... but allow our own people to do the same. Keep in mind, in their particular subculture (within Canada) the women will feel they are 'Unclean' and their men think an uncircumcised woman is 'Ugly Looking' and 'Unsanitary. They can 'prove' that uncircumcised women (statistically) get infections and AIDS at a much higher rate. So,, How can we deny them this right?? I realise this is not the same thing as Sharia - however the principles are alike when it comes to Canada's 'Double Standards' and belief that the cultural abberations 'We' have borrowed from Israeli Americans is 'Different' just because 'We' do it all the time? Just some thoughts
userone mughal is a ex-muslim and islam is a political system- religion it has nothing to with a race so if you disagree with islam you are not being racist its like being anti christian thats not racist mughals a atheist or a agnostic and I would guess hes posting in the christianity section because he thinks that way he will catch the largest number of canadians
Arab conspiracy against Islam. That disgusting article was posted by Mughal. Doesn't sound racist to you? What if the article had been about a Jewish conspiracy agaisnt Islam? Would you approve then? Sounds to me Mughal is a disgruntled ex-Muslim who thinks turning to Christian prejudice will solve his problems.
UserOne, We have been hearing from Mughal for quite a while now. He has something 'against' Islam but I have never heard anything 'Racist' from him. Considering that 'Islam' is not a race. Indonesia, Bosnian, Iraqi etc are all different 'Races' and Islam could be found in all those areas. If you trying to accuse Mughal of being 'Anti-Arab' then I must say, I have never heard anything like this from him? For all we know Mughal IS Arabian??
I don't see how this is racist. I personaly wont sign the petition because I think satan will do whatever it takes to get things his way. As far as circumscision, well, I got mine done when I was but a young boy. My son when he was born. It's in The Bible to do it, and that's why we did. Dunno about that having anything to do with the muslim faith. Maybe I am just tired and not understanding. Goodnight, err morning, eitherway, I am going to sleep!
I thought you were a Christian Bandit, but I do understand your Jewish Right of an innocent blood sacrifice to fulfill the Law. Your people get this from the Middle-East and so do Abrahams other descendants - The Muslims. The Muslims also practice the innocent blood sacrifice of circumcision. (Of course, Middle Eastern people are sometimes called 'the people of the circumcision) [As Christians, we already had Jesus make the real innocent blood sacrifice, so we have no need to practice 'Shadows' of that like foreskin amputation.] In anycase this goes to make my point clearer. How can we tell Muslim Canadians that female circumcision is 'Too Primitive or Cruel' for us 'Civilized' Canadians - yet - insist that practicing male circumsision (on babys no less) is somehow perfectly legal. I guess what Im saying is that Canadians have to clean up their own backyard of these middle-eastern tribal body modification practices - Then - (and only then) can we sincerely ask immigrants to do the same.
