Law
alter views
Reviewing
Islamic law to Settle Family Disputes
Canada:
Trampling on justice
V
Radhika
Very
recently, the Ontario government announced that it would
review plans to use Islamic law to settle family disputes.
While this was not exactly what Homa Arjomand, Coordinator
of the International Campaign against Sharia in Canada,
and other women activists wanted to hear, the fact that
the government agreed for a review, marks a minor victory.
Activists like Arjomand and Alia Hogben of the Canadian
Council for Muslim Women (CCMW) would rather that the
plan is disbanded altogether.
On
June 10, 2004, Attorney-General Michael Bryant said, "We
are looking at what the options are, aware of the fact
that it (an institute that plans to apply the Sharia law)
will not be up and running till later this year..."
The
controversy arose after the Islamic Institute for Civil
Justice asked for the setting up of Islamic or Sharia
courts in Ontario. This demand implies that marriage,
family and business disputes would be settled according
to Sharia, a body of laws and rules "inspired"
by the Quran.
In
October 2003, the institute, headed by retired solicitor
Mumtaz Ali, submitted a proposal to the government. And
an approval was granted under the aegis of the Arbitration
Act 1991 which allows religious groups in Ontario to settle
family disputes. Hassidic Jews have been settling their
own disputes in accordance with Jewish law for years,
as have the Catholics and Ismaili Muslims. The only stipulation
here is that the rulings (which are binding) should be
consistent with Canadian laws and Canada's charter of
rights.
Ali
argues that this stipulation should quell any misgivings
regarding the fate of women's rights. In fact, he claims
that on issues such as divorce and inheritance, Islamic
law gives more rights to women than the secular Canadian
law. "Muslim women," he pontificates, "can
get the best of both worlds."
Arjomand
and Hogben however, disagree entirely. Such courts, they
say, will be detrimental to women's interests; and there
is no need for these when women have access to a progressive
Canadian legal system that ensures women's equality. They
also dismiss the contention of Sharia law proponents,
that participation of women in these proceedings will
be purely voluntary. The activists argue that there is
a high possibility of women being pressurised by the community
and the family to participate in Islamic courts.
Most
at risk are young immigrants, who come from the Middle
East or North Africa, where Sharia has been used to subjugate
them throughout their lives. If Sharia courts were to
function here (in Canada), says Arjomand, many women will
be socially and psychologically coerced into participating.
To refuse would mean rejection by their families, the
community, or worse.
Arjomand
marshals her experience as a transitional counsellor with
women - particularly immigrant women and refugees, many
of whom come from countries that, enforce Sharia law -
to buttress this claim. This one-time professor of medical
physics in Iran was forced to flee her country; her family
arrived in Canada in 1989 as refugees.
"Women
are not equal under it (Sharia)," says Arjomand,
"therefore it is opposed to Canada's laws and values."
She and other campaign activists met with government representatives
to put their view across. In a May 7 letter to Arjomand,
John Gregory, general counsel to the attorney general,
acknowledged "the oppression that some Muslim women
experience in Canada". But that was not reason to
deny the Islamic Institute the right to use the Arbitration
Act, he said.
India-born
Alia Hogben, president of CCMW, got a similar response.
While Hogben is a devout Muslim, Arjomand is a non-believer.
But the movement against Islamic courts has been drawing
women from across the spectrum. Hogben says there is enough
documented research to show that wherever Sharia is enforced
"it is not pro-women". When Canadian law has
the same fundamentals as the basic principles of Islam
like compassion, social justice, and equality for men
and women, she says, why go looking for "another
set of laws that are controversial"?
The
two women go a step ahead and call for a re-examination
of the Arbitration Act to remove family matters from its
ambit. They are engaged in an exercise to highlight the
shortcomings of this act, and argue that cases affecting
women and children should be under family law and not
the arbitration act. Women do have the option of appeal
on a ruling of an arbitration court. "But then,"
says Arjomand, "they have to do so within a short
stipulated time. And most women, who are still in trauma,
are neither physically, emotionally or financially in
a position to appeal."
Arjomand
goes so far as to say that the Ontario government may
be agreeing to let the rights of Canadian Muslim women
be trampled upon out of fear of offending the community's
male leadership. She is also sceptical of the assumption
that decisions contrary to Canadian law will show up before
the courts.
Sharia-approved
but illegal activities already occur in Toronto, she claims.
Muslim women are battered but they don't dare report this;
and bigamy exists. Besides, among her clients are two
14-year-old girls who were married in 2003 to older men,
in defiance of Ontario law prohibiting marriage before
age 16.
So,
why have Sharia at all? Says Ali, "Living by religious
law is our whole life." In facilitating Sharia, he
says the Ontario government shows itself as the most enlightened
in the world. "This is the multiculturalism of my
friend Pierre Trudeau," he adds.
"A
false argument," retorts Hogben. "Multiculturalism
was never meant to take away the equality rights of a
group, in this case Muslim women." And Arjomand goes
a step further and argues that the bogey of multiculturalism
often leads to communities becoming insular and prevents
them from integrating into the mainstream.
The
State and religion must be kept separate, says Arjomand.
"Your beliefs should stay in your home, in your mosque,
your church, your temple. We (Canada) should remain a
secular country with no separate rules for some groups,
not when they discriminate against women."
While
the recent announcement of a review has injected optimism
in the activists, it has not made them complacent. Both
the Campaign and CCMW are currently engaged in planning
activities to bring pressure to scrap this move. A web
campaign calling for a halt to the Islamic courts has
already got the support of 3,111 people.
News
Network.
