scaramouche

...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

About me

User: scaramouche
Irreverent, contrarian, delighted to be out of synch with the zeitgeist, I depend on my sense of humour (such as it is) to keep me sane in this wacky world.

  • Contact me
  • My profile
  • Linkme

Counter

visited *loading* times

« View the previous post.  |  Home  |  View the next post. »
Wednesday, 28 January 2009


More sharia, please: CAIR-CAN founder and occasional Globe and Mail columnist Sheema Khan makes another pitch for Canadians to let down their guard and grant Islamic law the legal credence she believes it so richly deserves:
[According to a 2006 Environics survey] 44 per cent of Canadian Muslims believe Canada should accommodate their traditional beliefs, while 81 per cent of the general population thinks immigrants should adopt mainstream Canadian beliefs. In particular, 53 per cent of Muslims think sharia law should be recognized as a legal basis for settling family disputes, while an overwhelming majority of the general population disagrees. Of those surveyed, 55 per cent of Muslim women and 59 per cent of Muslims aged 18 to 29 indicated their preference for sharia law. Remember, this survey was conducted one year after the Ontario sharia controversy.
These numbers suggest that the use of sharia in Canada is by no means a dead issue, even if sharia arbitration courts have been deemed illegal in many provinces. Just look at Britain, where the government has been grappling with the role of sharia in family law. The popularity of informal "Islamic courts" - which have no standing in British law - has been growing steadily. Most cases involve women seeking divorce. Since these "courts" are outside the legal system, there is no accountability, review or transparency of the judgments, and no formal standards or training for the judges, who are exclusively male. Some have received training in Saudi Arabia, where a conservative form of Islam is prevalent.
In domestic violence cases, Islamic scholars have hesitated to dissolve abusive marriages, leaving wives too intimidated to pursue charges. In one case, a judge declined to grant a divorce to a victim of domestic violence. Her father then came forward in support, at which point the judge reversed his decision, highlighting the central role of the family patriarch in such proceedings.
The British situation illustrates that if sharia is driven underground, quasi-courts will proliferate in response to demand, without the necessary checks and balances. Given the growing affinity to sharia here, there will be future debates on this topic. Instead of the hysteria of 2005 in Ontario, we will need to engage in rational discourse about the flexibility of sharia; identities in flux; the role of religious belief in family law; and the balance between religious freedom and gender equality. In spite of reassurances by proponents, traditional Islamic law contradicts gender equality in inheritance and divorce.
Underlying this is the question: Why the growing affinity to sharia? Since 9/11, Canadian Muslims have felt increased discrimination. This has a direct impact on identity and how a minority perceives its acceptance by the majority. With the raucous, sometimes racist, nature of the Ontario controversy, many Muslims were forced to focus on sharia as a component of identity, resulting in a plurality wishing to abide by Islamic principles in matters of family law.
Making Islamic arbitration illegal will not make it vanish. Without proper oversight of informal sharia courts, we risk ending up with the mess in Britain.

My letter:

Sheema Khan claims that a spike in “discrimination” faced by Muslims post-9/11 caused them to feel rejected by the wider society and more eager to embrace sharia, Islamic law. She goes on to say that when Ontario nixed sharia tribunals, it exacerbated the sense of rejection, and that these hurt feelings can only be ameliorated by reversing that decision. In other words, if more Muslims want to see sharia set up shop here in Canada, it’s largely because of the actions of non-Muslims.
I fear she is giving us way too much credit--and giving far too little to sharia’s enduring appeal, as well as its newfound blossoming around the globe, the result of a great Islamic revival.
Then again, if I wanted to see sharia --a law that is antithetical to Western law in that it makes no distinction between church (or mosque) and state, and enshrines religious and gender inequities--gain a toehold here in Canada, I might harp on “racism” and “discrimination,” too: making people feel guilty can often be the most effective means of getting them to agree to something that is in your interest, but definitely not in their own.
Update: A tip o' my touque to the commenter who advised me to check out this comment re: Khan's piece on the G & M site:
Dr. Khan is famous for her promotion of the Islamist agenda in Canada as founding chair of CAIR-CAN, deemed to be an unindicted co-conspirator by the US Department of Justice for funding Hamas and whose US members have been found guilty of supporting terrorism by US courts.

This article is no different from her actions to promote the Islamist agenda.

Dr. Khan's assertion that Muslims have been choosing Sharia because of post 9/11 discrimination is an exercise in great Islamist spin. According to Dr. Khan, Muslims are not adopting Sharia because of the vast flow of Saudi money into Canada, or the pressure from the Saudi trained imams, or the radicalisation that is taking place at mosques and Islamic schools (that saw Islamists murder Aqsa Parvez last winter) or the new immigration of Islamists from Arab countries - no - Muslims are choosing Sharia because you and I are making them do it. As she says - "many Muslims were forced to focus on sharia as a component of identity" - a direct result of Ontario's rejection of Sharia Law.

It is unfortunate that Dr. Khan is given space in this national newspaper to propagate her Islamist agenda to Canadians.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:37 | link | comments (8)


Comments:
#1  28 January 2009 - 14:26
 
There are some excellent comments: "montreal guy" nails it right at Commenbt No. 1.
Anonymous
#2  28 January 2009 - 14:53
 
Thanks for pointing it out. See my posted Update.
User: scaramouche Contact me View user's mediablog scaramouche
#3  28 January 2009 - 15:38
 
Virtually ALL of the Globe commenters "get it", some with a quite considerable (even brutal)degree of sophistication as to Khan, CAIR-CAN and Islam generally. This is heartening. Khan must be near-meltdown- the khuffars just REFUSE TO DHIMMIFY!
Anonymous
#4  28 January 2009 - 19:14
 
Good job that you caught "montreal guy"'s post, scaramouche. The Globe censors have deleted it in its entirety. Can NOBODY get to Greenspon?
Anonymous
#5  29 January 2009 - 01:11
 
Tarek Fatah just weighed in as a Commenter, and directly addresses Khan as advancing the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has nerves of steel. We'll see how quickly his comment stays posted. The Globe is beneath contempt in how it "moderates" its Comments section.
Anonymous
#6  30 January 2009 - 22:02
 
Another commentator posted that "...the Globe is beneath contempt in how it 'moderates' its Comments section"

Only in how it moderates its Commesnts section? I rather thi nk the globe is beneath contempt from virtually any perspective. In this, the globe if not unlike every other Canadian daily I can name.

In the 21st Century, Canadians are distinguished as virtually the ONLY national population which must look at FOREIGN news organs in order to find out what is happening domestically. Canadian mainstream media are not only biased in HOW they report the news, but in WHAT news they choose to report.

I have not subscribed to a single Canadian media outlet in over two decades. Oddly, I am a senior media consultant for numerous national private sector employers.
Anonymous
#7  31 January 2009 - 23:21
 
FYI Scar, Just heard on the news today 1/31/09, the the FBI in the USA has stopped cooperating with CAIR, using CAIR to help them with the Muslim Community in the USA, after getting more information regarding their cooperation and funding of Hamas and other terrorist in the Middle East.

It was on FOX I believe.
Anonymous
#8  02 February 2009 - 17:39
 
I've seen Sheema Khan's face and it kinda makes me think that she would be well advised to wear the full burqa. She's got a face that i would expect to see on a can of crushed a$$holes.
Anonymous
Comments: