Ontario will not become the first Western jurisdiction to allow the use of a set of centuries’ old religious rules called Sharia law to settle Muslim family disputes, and will ban all religious arbitrations in the province, Premier Dalton McGuinty told The Canadian Press on Sunday.
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.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough,” he said.
“There will be no Sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.”
I was unaware there was religious arbitration in Canada, whom I always considered more secular.
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.
Catholics, Mennonites, Jews, aboriginals and Jehovah’s Witnesses, among others, have — until now — used the act to settle family law questions without resorting to the courts.
But those who opposed permitting Sharia family arbitration argued that the reforms would give legitimacy and an unenforceable appearance of oversight to a legal code they say is — at its heart — unfair to women.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step. – C. S. Lewis
The problem is more to do with our treaties with the natives
way back in the day, the government signed a bunch of papers giving the indians a ton of rights that they never ever expected the indians to try and claim
now they are, and other religions are jumping on the bandwagon trying to get the same rights
(that's where the catholic and jewish courts came from iirc)
It's a step in the right direction to get rid of them
I don't know... If all parties involved and affected by something agree to an arbitration system of some kind what's the problem? This becomes one less case to clutter up the legal system most people decide to use. If anyone involved with a dispute prefers to use the legal system on Ontario... then of course that should prevail.
"Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage."
I think this fight tilts more to the silly side than 'scary' side. In Iran it might be scary, in Afganistan it might be scary, Malaysia it might be scary. In Canada, it's just silly.
Actually Malaysia is probably the most liberal Islamic nation in the world. You would never know it's an Islamic nation if you were there. It's not scary~
