Like most
Canadians, I know little about the Muslim legal system called
"sharia," but from what we hear about places like Nigeria,
Sudan, Afghanistan and East Timor where it is fully enforced, I don't
like it.
All Muslim law is
based on the teachings of Muhammad. An equivalent would be to base
Canadian law on the detailed contents of the Bible. Under sharia,
there is no separation of religion and state.
Recent reports
that sharia law will soon be incorporated into the Canadian legal
system should concern us.
In some countries,
sharia requires women to stay indoors, or walk around together
wearing tents so no one can see them. A right to abortion? There are
places where women would settle for the right to drive.
In some countries,
women get lashed or stoned to death for adultery, and infant girls
have their genitals mutilated to deprive them of sexual enjoyment
later in life. Free speech? Christian missionaries are expelled or
executed for evangelizing, and Muslims for renouncing Islam.
The extent to
which these enchanting cultural values will be enforceable under
Canadian law we are about to find out.
The Law Times
legal journal reported in its November 25 edition that on October 21
a legal conference of Muslims in Etobicoke, Ontario elected a 30-member
council. The council will establish a judicial tribunal to be known
as the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (Canada). And the IICJ will
dispense Muslim justice under the Ontario Arbitration Act.
The assembled
Muslims (one of whom was actually a woman) heard that under recent
amendments, the rulings of an arbitrator can no longer be appealed to
the courts. Civil law decisions by the new Muslim arbitration
tribunal will therefore be final.
Provincial
arbitration statutes allow parties in a civil dispute to choose a
mutually acceptable government-licensed arbitrator, instead of suing
in court and spending their life's savings on lawyers.
The obvious danger
of a sharia arbitration system is that it will not really be
voluntary. A Muslim man or woman who opts for a secular court instead
of the local kangaroo arbitrator would be expelled from the Muslim community.
On the other hand,
if Canada is to be "multicultural," how can we deny Muslim
citizens the right to a Muslim arbitrator?
This would appear
to be a dilemma.
However, it
shouldn't be. Arbitrators should be required to apply Canadian legal
principles and values, not imported ones. That way, a Muslim could
still be an arbitrator, and Muslims could still go to him for
justice. But his decision would have to rest on Canadian judicial
principles, or the arbitrator would be delicensed and the loser given
recourse to the courts.
This country is
getting genuinely weird. In the cause of tolerance we let Muslims
establish their intolerant legal system within our own, while we
hound people like Regina MP Larry Spencer out of public life for
being intolerant because he spoke the truth.
There is nothing
"hateful" about saying, as Spencer did, that there has been
a gay political agenda in this country for the past four decades,
that governments at all levels are now promoting it, that courts are
openly sympathetic to it, and that activity-related diseases shorten
the average life-span of homosexuals. These are facts.
If we want to be
free, we must tolerate the truth, and our own legal principles and traditions.
- Link Byfield
Link Byfield is
chairman of the Edmonton-based Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy.
"Just
Between Us" is a feature service of the Citizens Centre for
Freedom and Democracy. The purpose of the Citizens Centre is to
improve the quality of life for all Canadians by promoting policies
that foster individual initiative and personal responsibility.