Different law system according to religious belief?

[Zilverzmurfen]

I just learned about this campaign: "Demonstration against Sharia Court in Canada".

From their flyer:

It has been a year since the International Campaign against Sharia Court in Canada, called for a day of protest, nationally and internationally, against faith based courts in Ontario. The protestors wanted the Ontario to remove family law from the 1991 Arbitration Act.

The Campaign worked hard to inform the general public and the ministries in charge about the high risks of permitting Sharia courts in Ontario. Unfortunately, despite all the warnings, the government of Ontario has not taken a clear position to prevent the interference of religious institutions in the judicial system.

We call upon all concerned individuals and progressive organizations to join us in opposing the Ontario Arbitration Act 1991 which allows religion to interfere in the Canadian judicial system. This Act allows family law disputes to be resolved outside the law courts by arbitrators according to their own religious and cultural beliefs. This act allows Islamic groups to legalize the suppression of women by implementing the proposed Sharia Court.

I personally believe that a country should not have different judicial systems for people of different religious beliefs. Especially not from a womans point of view. Sign the petition if you agree. Keep barbarism at bay.

[keith]

"This Act allows family law disputes to be resolved outside the law courts by arbitrators according to their own religious and cultural beliefs."

... and of course if the parties are unsatisfied with the arbitration they can go to court.

My understanding was that (despite all the hot air) the system simply allows individuals with a training in sharia law to be recognised as arbitrators.

..... waiting to see if I got that wrong.

[jBirch]

Nope, it's the same rules as are applied to Catholics and Orthodox Jews.

James.

[Gav]

Let me get this right. There are people in countries who think that the general law of that land shouldn't apply to them because their belief system is different. Instead they think that some other law system should apply? What? Whatever happened to "When in Rome do as the romans do"? SUrely when you move to a country you agree to be bound by the local laws of that country? I can't see me getting away with the "We drink in my belief system so I should be able to drink here as our laws are different" in Saudi Arabia. Quite rightly; I would have to accept whichever penalty applied. in that country, if I were to be caught breaking their laws - whether I agree with that law or not.

[Epee_Pox]

Arbitration, almost by definition, refers to settling cases outside of the legal system. Both sides have to agree to the outcome for any arbitrated settlement to be binding. And both sides have to agree to arbitration in the first place, and the kind of arbitration.

I'm unfamiliar with the details here. But if all that has happened is that people have been permitted to choose for themselves a form of arbitration that both sides agree on, in settling cases out of court, I fail to see the problem.

It's not as if Sharia law would be replacing Canadian law, or as if different laws applied to different people. People would just be allowed to use arbitrators whose decisions both sides can live with.

What surprises ME is that Canada would have to pass a law specifically okaying Sharia arbitrators, instead of just saying something like "opposing parties in family law cases are permitted to submit their disputes to an independent arbitrator agreeable to both parties and to the Court, and upon the application and informed consent of both parties the results of such arbitration shall dispose of the matter in dispute." Why the need to single out a particular kind of arbitrator?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I just learned about this campaign: "Demonstration against Sharia Court in Canada".

Sharia court in Canada??? I smell something fishy. ZZ, are you sure that this is not just a newspaperduck?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[ThatReallyHurt]

I'm not familiar with the sharia law issues, but I have heard of a few situations where Native Canadians were allowed (by the courts) to be tried and sentenced by their own people through a tribal council or something similar. There haven't been many of those, and I'm certain it wouldn't be allowed for something very serious, like murder or something like that.

All I can really say is that everyone's rights to practice or observe their own religion or beliefs are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That being said, any rights that a particular group may have to practice certain beliefs is (or should I say, should be) trumped by the right that an individual has to fair treatment.

Like I said, I'm not familiar with the sharia law issues, but I should think that anyone being unfairly targeted by that system (for whatever reason) should be able to walk to a police station or call a lawyer and pursue anything (divorce, charges, etc.) through the regular court system.

But, in its effort to make everyone happy, Canada has done some pretty dumb things...

[ThatReallyHurt]

Just found this:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...26/?hub=Canada

From the article:

In a telephone interview with the national news agency, McGuinty announced his government would move quickly to outlaw existing religious tribunals used for years by Christians and Jews under Ontario's Arbitration Act.

Another tidbit here, which I found interesting (emphasis is mine):

Currently, Ontario's Arbitration Act allows civil disputes ranging from custody and support to divorce and inheritance to be resolved through an independent arbitrator, if both parties agree.

What I don't understand yet is why anyone would go ahead with arbitration if they were afraid of being treated unfairly...