International Campaign against Sharia Court in Canada
www.nosharia.com
See below articles on the issue:
Islamic [In]Justice: On the Establishment of an Islamic Court in Canada, Maryam Namazie
Is Canada next? On the Plan to Establish a Sharia Court in Ontario, Canada, Azar Majedi
Campaigning against the Sharia Court in Canada, Homa Arjomand
Demonstrations against the Sharia Court in Canada
On September 8, 12-2pm in various cities
Toronto: Queen's Park, Ontario Legislature, (time, 12-2 Pm)
Contact: Homa Arjomand, Campaign Coordinator, 416-737-9500 homawpi@rogers.com
Ottawa: Parliament, (time, 12-2 PM)
Contact: Soheila Bayani (soheila_d@hotmail.com)
Vancouver: 800 Hornbi (in front of Family Court) downtown
Contact: Zari Asli, 604-727-8986
Victoria: Parliament
Contact: Abass Mohammdadi (vicc22@hotmail.com)
Montreal: detail will be posted soon
Waterloo: 100 Rittenhouse Dr. Kitchener (time, 7-9 PM)
Contact: Heidy Schmidt at 518-291-5480
England: London, Canadian High Commission, 38 Grosvenor Street (Bond Street Tube)
Contact: Sohaila Sharifi (sohailasharifi@yahoo.co.uk)
Germany: Dusseldolf , Canadian Consul
Contact: Mina Ahadi (minaAhadi@aol.com)
Sweden: Stockholm, Canadian Embassy
Contact: Mahin Alipour at 0046707777313 (mahin_alipour@yahoo.se)
Sweden: Gutenberg: Brunnsparken K1
Contact: Shahla Nori at 0046737262622 (shahla.n@bredband.net)
Holland: Den Haag, Canadian Embassy, Sophialaan 7, 2514 JP S-Gravenhage
Contact: Sorosh Ebrahimi, At 0031-(0) 61324331 (soroshebi@yahoo.com)
France: Canadian Embassy, 35 Avenue Montaigne 75008, Paris
Contact: Michèle Vianès, 06 10 39 94 87 (michelevianes@chello.fr)
Islamic [In]Justice
On the Establishment of an Islamic Court in Canada
Maryam Namazie
The 'Islamic Institute of Civil Justice' or what has become known as the Sharia Court has been heralded by proponents as
a multi-cultural way of determining personal and family disputes for those who 'choose' to abide by Sharia law in
Ontario, Canada. We are told it will promote 'minority rights' and that it is equitable, tolerant, and fair. We are told
that if it is not established, the 'Muslim minority' will be marginalised and discriminated against. That anything less
is racism pure and simple.
This is not the case.
Deceptively sugar-coating an Islamic Court in civil rights terms cannot and will not conceal the stark realities of
Sharia law and its regressive implications for human beings and Canadian society.
To begin with, Sharia law is inherently unjust and unfair even if it's only being implemented in the area of what some
call mundane civil disputes. In fact, discriminatory family and personal status codes are important pillars in the
oppression of women in Islamist societies. Much of the struggle for women's rights has taken shape in countries like
Iran vis-à-vis these very aspects of Sharia law. Discrimination and gender-based persecution in areas of marriage,
divorce, child custody and so on are in fact reasons why many women flee Islamist societies and seek refuge in Canada
and the west. These so called 'mundane' disputes have cost many a woman and girl her rights and life in the Middle East
and North Africa. Now, it aims to do the same in Canada.
Yes we know. Those who avail of the court will 'choose' to do so; it will be completely voluntary. It is interesting how
pro-women's choices the political Islamic movement becomes when it is vying for power in the west. Where are the choices
for women in Iran and Afghanistan under Sharia law and Islamic states? Where is it for women of Iraq or Saudi Arabia?
The political Islamic movement is renowned for threatening, intimidating, mutilating, maiming and killing all those who
refuse and transgress. Women and girls are always its first victims.
The very sham concept of its voluntary nature becomes clearer when you hear Mumtaz Ali who spearheaded the initiative
say: 'Once the parties have agreed .they will be committed to it by their prior consent. As a consequence, on religious
grounds, a Muslim who would choose to opt out at this stage, for reasons of convenience would be guilty of a far greater
crime than a mere breach of contract--and this could be tantamount to blasphemy-apostasy.' The penalty of which by the
way is execution under Islamic law in places like Iran. Clearly, then, even a limited Sharia Court in Canada will
increase intimidation and threats against innumerable women. It will open the way for further conquests by this
reactionary movement.
Now some say that the Islamic Court will promote 'minority rights' and ensure the fair and equitable treatment of
'minorities'. In fact, it is just the opposite.
It is discriminatory and unfair to have different and separate systems, standards and norms for 'different' people. The
concept of an Islamic Court adheres to a principle of separate but equal similar to that promoted by the former
Apartheid regime of South Africa. It was clear then as it is clear now that separate is not equal. In fact it is a
prescription for inequality and discrimination. It is the Canadian state's justification for shrugging its shoulders and
excusing itself from its responsibility towards all citizens living in Canada. It maintains fragmented 'minority
communities' leaving members of the so-called community, particularly women and children, at the mercy of reactionary
and parasitical elders and imams. It increases marginalisation and the further ghettoisation of immigrant communities.
It makes immigrants and new arrivals forever minorities and never Canadian citizens equal before and under the law.
And that is exactly the problem with the racist concepts of multi-culturalism and cultural relativism. It promotes
tolerance and respect for so-called minority opinions and beliefs, rather than and often times instead of respect for
human beings. Human beings are worthy of the highest respect but not all opinions and beliefs are worthy of respect and
tolerance. There are some who believe in fascism, white supremacy, the inferiority of women. Must those beliefs be
respected? There is a big difference between the two.
Multi-culturalism always gives precedence to cultural and religious norms, however reactionary, over the human being and
her rights. And it always sees communities as having one homogeneous belief and opinion - often times taking the most
reactionary segment of that community - the imams and elders' beliefs - as the belief and culture of the whole.
Multi-culturalism's promotion of respect for beliefs and opinions is so strong that even when rights are violated, women
mutilated and killed, girls victimised, respect for those beliefs and norms take precedence over individual and
universal rights. There is a real contradiction between cultural relativism and multi-culturalism on the one hand and
individual rights on the other.
The Canadian state is duty-bound to defend the rights of all human beings living in Canada equally often times despite
differing opinions and beliefs. Even if it is the individual's belief. Just as it intervenes when a woman refuses to
press charges against an abusive spouse. Just as it intervenes when parents abuse their children. Everyday, the state
intervenes to protect people. Not necessarily because it likes to but because civil society and established norms force
it to. It must do so here as well.
And there are some who say opposing the Sharia Court and Islamic laws is racist.
It is not.
Opposition to or critiques of or even 'phobias' of ideologies, religions, cultures, laws or political movements are not
racism. Islamophobia is not racism. Only phobias against people because of their race are racism. It is only under the
New World Order's multi-culturalism that Islamophobia has been increasingly and deceptively given legitimacy as a form
of racism. The political Islamic movement labels it such only to silence those who critique it or stand up to it.
In fact it is racist to create a Sharia Court. It is racist to discriminate against so-called minorities and deny them
universal and equal rights and standards and the secularism fought for and established by progressive movements over
centuries. It is racist to justify and ignore violations of civil rights and misogyny under the pretext of
multi-culturalism. It is racist to deny equality of all citizens before the law. It is racist to create separate legal,
social, cultural, religious systems for people deemed different.
Enough is enough! The Sharia Court in Canada is an extension of that movement that stones women on streets and hangs
apostates from cranes on city squares in Iran. It is an extension of the same movement that has threatened to kill Yanar
Mohammad of the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq for defending women's rights there. It is an extension of the
same movement that imprisons women in burqas in Afghanistan. It has no right to speak of civil rights and justice. It is
itself a pillar of injustice and rightlessness in the world today. A Sharia Court in Canada? No way! No How! We will not
allow it. Enough is enough!
Is Canada next?
On the Plan to Establish a Sharia Court in Ontario, Canada
Azar Majedi
When I heard about the Sharia court in Canada, I first thought it was a joke. When I realised it was real, that it was
really happening; when I read that soon Islamic courts may become a reality in Canada, I was overwhelmed. I was shocked.
It sounded like a fantasy world. As a friend called it: the Islamic Republic of Canada is coming into being. I thought
of my friends, like Homa Arjomand, who escaped one Islamic republic only to end up in another. How many Islamic
republics do we have to fight? One in Iran, one in Afghanistan, fighting the creation of another in Iraq, and now one in
Canada.
I am sure right now some of you will think: 'please don't exaggerate, this is going too far. This is not about the whole
of Canada; it is only about the so-called Muslim community. And it is only going to concern the civil and the family
codes not other legal aspects. You are talking as though there is going to be stonings on the streets of Toronto, and
furthermore, this is a voluntary matter; no one is forced to go to these courts if they do not choose to. It is purely
going to be their choice.' Fine. Let's examine and see whether I am exaggerating or if this statement is underestimating
the graveness of the situation and the extreme risk we are taking vis-à-vis women's, children's and human rights.
Defence of this legislation is based on fallacies.
The first is the argument that by creating Islamic courts parallel to the national courts - that is by allowing every
community to have its own judicial system - we are respecting the rights of minorities, and by doing this we are thereby
creating a less discriminatory society and supposedly a more egalitarian one. This is a totally false assumption. By
defining the rights of communities as opposed to the rights of individuals or rather citizens, we are discriminating
against a section of the society. We are depriving some citizens of their equal rights and universal rights recognised
by the society. Before the law, we should recognise citizens and not collectives or communities. By recognising
communities and assigning some arbitrary rights based on a particular culture or religion to that collective we are
leaving the members of that particular community at the mercy of the inherent power struggle of the community. The
so-called leaders of that community, be it elders or mullahs, are gaining power over the individuals.
To recognise two or more sets of values, laws and rights in a single society is a discriminatory practice. By doing
this, we are, in fact, defining different categories of citizens, and to do that on the basis of different ethnicity,
religion and culture is nothing but racism, pure and simple. We are assigning different laws, rights and norms and
standards to each different ethnic or religious group.
The concept of citizen and citizen's rights are modern concepts achieved by decades of libertarian struggle. The
reduction of the Church's power over society is another achievement. The world has made important strides towards the
recognition of concepts such as human rights. In fact, the struggle against sexism and for women's rights has been such
a process.
In the case of Islamic courts and empowering them with legal procedures regarding civil disputes or family disputes, we
are leaving women in so-called Muslim communities at the mercy of Islamic laws and traditions, which are clearly
discriminatory against women. There has been a long battle in countries under the rule of Islam by the women's
liberation movement to achieve a secular system and secular legislation in order to diminish discrimination against
women and promote the recognition of equal rights for women in the realm of family as well as the society as a whole.
The second fallacy is the argument that says referrals of family disputes to Islamic courts and Islamic arbitration is
voluntary and a matter of personal choice. This argument sounds very libertarian and legitimate. But this is only a
fancy façade for imposing a patriarchal value system on women and children. Intimidation and force of communal moral
pressure are tools of keeping women subjugated. No human being in her right mind would choose to deprive herself of
equal rights, and into a subordinate position. Under the patriarchal value system, such as Islamic traditions and norms,
women are deprived of equal rights in matters such as marriage, divorce, custody and running of family matters and
family disputes. Women in these communities are forced by intimidation and the communal moral pressure to accept this
inequality as the norm, as the natural and divine law, and to respect it. Creating a legal system and empowering the
so-called leaders of the community with legal powers as well as religious and moral power will reduce the choice for
women to live a more equal life. It will diminish women's rights to equal opportunity; it will isolate women from the
broader society and ghettoise their lives. Any women's rights activist and analyst will tell you that the family and the
dynamism of family life and family order are the pillars of women's subordination in the society. Some argue that
Islamic courts only deal with mundane issues, such as family law. This is a self-serving argument to fog the real issues
involved. The women's liberation movement has fought long and hard to reform family laws and the structure of power
inside the family. By recognising Islamic courts we are turning the clock back for women living under Islamic
traditions. The society is duty-bound to offer every woman equal opportunity and equal access to equal and universal
laws. No one has the right to deny any woman, whether in Islamic communities, Jewish or any other, from this basic
right. In an environment based on patriarchy, an old value system, and traditions so clearly misogynist, there can be no
question of exercising your choice freely. The choice will be that of the strong partner in the relationship.
In the past decades, we have witnessed a glorification of culture as a primary issue dictating people's lives and
rights. Culture has come to take precedence over human rights, equality, liberation, rights of individuals, children's
rights and women's rights - concepts and issues which have long been argued and have prominence in modern and civilised
civil societies. The birth of cultural relativism and its recognition in the society as a credible concept is the result
of this process. I ask you why an arbitrary concept such as culture must be so glorified so as to take precedence over
prominent issues such as freedom, equality and justice. Why should people be categorised and placed in different
pigeonholes according to culture or religion. These should be private matters. There is no justification for assigning
such a prominent status to culture, which overshadows any sense of justice, equality and freedom and the achievements of
long battles fought by freedom loving people and socialists for more than two centuries.
I would like to reflect on another issue here. As it regards Islamic courts, we are dealing with a movement, which has
gained political power in some influential countries and has become well known internationally: political Islam. In my
opinion, it is a reactionary and misogynist movement. I am talking to you here as a first hand victim of political
Islam. I can show you here among the audience many more victims of this brutal movement. There are many women and men
here today who have fled the torture, threats of execution and the humiliation of political Islam. For us to see the
seeds of an Islamic Republic being sown here in Canada is terrifying.
Let me briefly take you back to September 11, 2001 - the horrific day that thousands were killed in the most horrendous
manner. It was not only the number of human beings who lost their lives that shook the world but also the manner in
which it happened. As a result of this tragedy, political Islam was marginalised and came under increasing pressure. The
crimes of this brutal movement in Afghanistan and Iran were exposed. People in the world became appalled by the
atrocities committed by political Islam.
However, the actions taken by the USA and Britain, the attack on Iraq and the USA's bullying created a ground on which
this movement began to build a psychological and propaganda campaign to present itself as the victim of western racism.
It began to create a feeling of guilt among decent freedom-loving people in the west. The crimes and atrocities
inflicted by the USA in Iraq and against immigrants and people from Middle Eastern origin became a source that political
Islam came to cash in on to appear as 'victim'. After that date, political Islam took our belief in freedom and equality
hostage to serve its own interests. Our decency became a source for their exploitation. The term Islamophobia came into
being. And once more after having pushed back cultural relativism to the margins, we came to fight a new monster. We
were threatened by them and frowned upon by well-intentioned people for criticising Islam and its treatment of women,
for criticising the veil, especially child veiling. The political Islamic movement that flogged us, tortured us for not
observing the veil, and made us flee our homes and seek refuge here, now calls us racist. We should not let this happen.
This mockery must be stopped. We should put and end to this charade of victimization and self-righteousness by a
movement that has terrorised millions of women into submission and subjugation.
It is true that we are the first hand victims of political Islam, but we are not mere victims. We belong to a vibrant,
dynamic, strong, and progressive movement, which has fought political Islam not only in Iran, not only in Iraq, and not
only in the Middle East but also here in the west. We have raised the banner of freedom and equality not only for women
but for humanity and are fighting to push back religion to its rightful place - that is to the private sphere. We are
fighting to diminish the role of religion in the running of society, to separate religion from education and the state,
and judiciary. We have raised the banner of secularism. We are the front runner of the secular movement in Europe, and
now in Canada. Women's rights, equality and freedom need the secularisation of the society. We have organised this
fight; we are at the forefront of this struggle and we are proud of it. We will not allow political Islam to take root
in the west and we will soon uproot it in the Middle East as well.
Campaigning against the Sharia Court in Canada
Homa Arjomand
The reasons given for a Sharia Court in Canada by Islamists and their multi-culturalist supporters are not what they
seem. They say Muslims do not want their family problems to be made public; these tribunals will deal with civil
disputes not criminal matters; one can choose not to go before the Sharia tribunal; and that it will take less time than
a Canadian court and cost less.
Let me address each one separately. Why do the initiators of the proposal not want family disputes to be publicised
outside of their 'communities'. In communities where Sharia law interferes with people's lives, family problems are not
simply disagreements between a man and a woman and who gets what. In fact, private matters and religion are closely
linked together. To make my point clear, I would like to present one case study I have come across in my social work. I
have a client in Toronto who was taken out of school by her parents at the age of 15 and forced to marry a 29 year old
man; according to Sharia, she is married whilst under the Canadian legal system she is not. At the age of 16, this young
pregnant girl is going through separation because of domestic abuse. In a secular court, the fact that she was forced to
marry at a young age is considered a crime and her husband will be charged for assault and child abuse. As for her
parents, they too will be charged. The Children's Aid Society will get involved and if they have any other children
younger than 16, all will be moved out to the Aid Society's care. While in the eyes of the Sharia tribunal no crime has
taken place and the matter is a civil one, which can be resolved by the Islamic tribunal, under the modern secular
system of Canada, the child will be immediately protected and the abusers prosecuted.
Moreover, proponents say that the Sharia tribunal is optional for those who decide to use it. My question is optional
for whom? Muslim women lose their options right at birth. But for the sake of argument, let's go back to our case study.
Let us say that the 15 year old girl refused to accept the forced marriage, and made a complaint against her parents to
a secular court. I don't know if that would have happened in reality due to social and financial restrictions. What do
you think would have happened to her? I know it is hard to imagine. Her family would disown her for sure. For a moment,
imagine being born and brought up in such a family and the so-called Muslim community, being made to study in an Islamic
school and never having the chance to integrate within society; and then being disowned by not only your family but also
the entire community. No wonder she chose marriage over isolation. I think it is fair to say that she had no choice,
even though she could have filed a complaint. As I mentioned before, her choice was taken away right at birth. In her
case, after going through tremendous abuse (verbal, mental, financial and sexual) for eight long months and being five
months pregnant, she could not take it anymore. What are her choices now before the tribunal? Because she married
according to the Sharia, in the eyes of her community and family, her divorce has to be in accordance with the Sharia
too or else it will not be legitimate!
Proponents go on to say that the tribunal costs less and takes less time. During a recession, these two excuses may be
acceptable for the government and its right-wing parties. They may think that whatever reduces costs of social services,
health care, education and social justice is to their advantage but what would the consequences of these low costs be?
And who will pay the price? How much damage will it do to humanity? It is not their problem. The above two 'solutions'
are exactly the same as letting an unskilled layperson do heart surgery on patients in order to reduce the cost of
paying a skilled heart surgeon; the percentage of survivors in this case is obvious. Or discharging a sick patient right
after her critical operation in order to bring down the costs of the hospital or to be able to shorten the process of
recovery!! If this is not inhuman, then what is it?
My point is why should Muslim women pay a heavy price to bring down costs? If the cost of courts are high and the
process is long because of its bureaucracy, then it is everyone's duty to fight it and make sure that the justice system
is fair and affordable for everyone, while remaining secular and modern.
And finally, we often hear people saying, this is not your problem; why do you care? This is what Muslim women want.
Modern society is not built of different clans and tribes that can make their own laws and practice it without affecting
others. A modern, secular society has its own norms and standards. We have gained them by going through harsh struggles
over many years. The rights to live, education, health, to socialise and have a social life, and all other rights such
as the rights of gays and lesbians and children, etc. make up the society's standards and norms. The disturbance of any
will affect others. For example, it is not acceptable to physically discipline children. In fact it is considered abuse
and has legal consequences. When some Amish people claimed that it was their right to physically punish their children
and had nothing to do with others as they were doing it out of love for their children, society opposed it. And we had
every right to do so. It is exactly the same in the instance of the 'right' to have the Islamic Institute of Civil
Justice. It must be opposed nationally and internationally as it will diminish our social norms and standards. In the
real world, not every 'right' is or should be respected, such as the right to commit suicide, drink and drive,
institutionalise male domination, gender apartheid and segregation between man and women and so on. Whether all Muslim
women want it (as they falsely claim), 1,000,000 people demand it or just one does not affect the argument.
We still have many long hard challenges ahead for the separation of the state and administration from religion,
ethnicity, nationalism, racism and any ideology that contradicts the absolute equality of all in civil rights and before
the law. Fighting the Sharia tribunals is one important step in defending universal rights for all those living here in
Canada.
The above speeches were made on March 8, 2004, International Women's Day at a panel debate organised by the
International Campaign against the Sharia Court in Canada to debate the planned establishment of a Sharia Court in
Ontario, Canada. The successful panel was organised by Homa Arjomand, the Campaign's Coordinator. To join or find out
more about the campaign to stop the Sharia court in Canada, contact Homa Arjomand at homawpi@rogers.com, visit the
website: http://freehost14.websamba.com/noshariacourt and sign the petition online:
www.petitiononline.com/pasc1361/petition-sign.html.
ENDS