In
this piece, Christian Concern's Director of Islamic Affairs, Tim Dieppe,
discusses a visit from human rights campaigner Raheel Raza, who shared how
sharia courts were abolished in Canada. Tim highlights some of the ways that
this was achieved, and says that we can learn from this in the
UK.
In 2006 in the province of Ontario, Canada, the law allowing sharia
courts to arbitrate family matters using sharia law was abolished. Arbitration
of family law disputes under any body of laws except Ontario law was banned. Yet
in the UK, the British government has continued to allow sharia courts to
operate in our communities, enabling something approaching a parallel legal
system. What happened in Ontario and what lessons can be applied
here?
This week, prominent and outspoken campaigner Raheel Raza came over to
London from Ontario to share her insights into how this was achieved in Canada.
Raza is a Muslim mother who speaks very robustly and articulately about the
problems of radical Islam. Amongst other things, she has produced an excellent
fifteen minute documentary "By
The Numbers" which criticises
politicians for saying that Islamic terrorism "has
nothing to do with Islam", or for saying that Islamists are only a ‘tiny
minority’ of the Muslim world. She uses reputable surveys to show that, while a
minority position, the numbers of Muslims who would support suicide bombing, for
example, run into many millions of people. She unashamedly proclaims that this
is a problem, not just for Muslims, but for everyone, and it is not helped by
people pretending that the problem isn’t there.
Raza describes herself as Pakistani by birth, Canadian by choice, and
spiritually Muslim. She is a human rights campaigner, and so with this
perspective she speaks out about the discriminatory nature of sharia law and the
human rights abuses that it causes. She has received death threats and hate mail
for her courageous work. She is unafraid to address controversial issues, for
example arguing as a Muslim that Canada should ban the niqab
and the Burka in public. In 2014 she proposed a moratorium on immigration from Muslim
countries along with various other robust measures to counter Islamic
radicalism.
In 2003, there was a move to establish sharia councils in Ontario on
much the same basis as they operate here under arbitration laws. This was
revealed in the press by a journalist, which kicked off some discussion and
debate. Muslim and non-Muslim campaigners went on the offensive with a huge
lobbying campaign, including speaking in the media over an extended period.
Their main argument was that they wanted "one
law for all."
Former attorney general, Marion Boyd was commissioned to review
how the arbitration act was working in Ontario. The Boyd Report, as it
became known, was published in 2004, and recommended that "The Arbitration Act should continue to allow disputes to be arbitrated
using religious law, if the safeguards currently prescribed and recommended by
this Review are observed." It took a politically correct view that
people should be able to make rulings using their own beliefs. It was
subtitled: "Protecting Choice, Promoting Inclusion." Campaigners continued to object that
this would undermine the fundamental principle of one law for all. This argument
gained traction and eventually won the day, with the government agreeing to
prohibit the use of arbitration to make rulings using another system of law.
Some use of sharia law to make rulings is still happening under the surface, but
everyone knows that this is illegal and that they are being watched. Religious
marriages must have civil registration which prevents polygamy and gives legal
rights to the women.
In the UK, the government has initiated a review into sharia courts, but this has attracted a
lot of criticism for the terms of reference and the lack of
human rights representation on the panel. The government has yet to respond to
these criticisms, and consequently many human rights groups and campaigners
have boycotted the review, arguing that it is set up to be
a whitewash. Meanwhile, the Home Affairs Select Committee, has also been
conducting its own review into sharia courts which has not been
boycotted by these organisations.
The lesson from Canada is that if people are willing to campaign
and speak out with courage and boldness about this issue, public perception and
political will can change. If sharia courts can be abolished in Canada, they can
be abolished here. In a meeting this week, Raza said: "Political
correctness and the silence of the majority is the cause of the
problem." Sharia law and
its inherent discriminatory nature needs to be criticised, and the fundamental
principle of one law for all needs to be defended. Christian
Concern.
