Speech at Panel
Discussion on Separation of religion from State at the
University
of
Toronto
's Faculty of Law
November 4th, 2004
I should that say on the one
hand it is regrettable that at the beginning
of the twenty first century we still have to deal with the ancient debate about
the separation of religion from the state. I said 'the ancient debate'
because centuries ago religion and its industries' influence had been defeated in a
great confrontation.
On the other hand this
debate has come to the forefront again due to the rise of political Islam in
the
Middle East
and to its achieving state power in
Iran
. The debate made its way into western society from the time that political
Islam started its attempt to gain political power in those societies.
It is important to recognize what tools the provoker of religious advocators, are
using to persuade people to accept the interference by religion in the justice
system.
One of the tools is the
demand to respect “minority rights” rather
than to respect individual rights.
It is not surprising to find that, in a Canada, a country that actively
infamous, doctrine, the argument of minority versus individual rights has been
put forward by the initiators of Sharia court in Canada, who claim that minority rights
require the installation of a Sharia court. Similar types of arguments have been offered
by the Islamist movement in other parts of The West.
To understand the full reactionary notion of this concept let's study the concept
of “minority rights” versus “individual rights” by using the same argument that
the initiators of
Sharia Court
in
Canada
used. We are told that because the population of Muslims in
Ontario
has reached six hundred thousand, therefore the government has to validate and legalize
their collective rights as Muslims.
I would like to touch on some of these collective rights such as the right to
practice polygamy ( having more than one wife at the same
time), and the right to forced and arranged marriages. These kinds of
marriages are recognized by Sharia and some other minority groups. (Just to remind you,
their advocators proudly announced its practice on Canadian National TV).
While death by stoning is the penalty for women who commit adultery, many
Muslim men can enjoy multiple marriages either for pleasure or as one of the ways
to resolve family disputes. If a Muslim man is not
pleased with his wife in any way, he can avoid divorce and make use of his rights. He
can keep his disobedient wife as a maid and marry another woman. Even though it is
illegal according to Canadian law, it is allowed by
Sharia law which is based on perceived duties to God . The
Ontario Arbitration Act 1991 allows him and his legal wife to agree to him
taking a second additional wife as sanctioned by Islam.
What is actually missing in this picture is the right of the specific
individuals in the group, that is, the rights of the first and the second wife.
These individuals are left with no rights of immunity of body and mind, with
no guarantee of the necessities of a normal life in
present-day society, with no assurance of individual independence, with
no ability to seek the truth about all areas of social life, and without equal
status in the family. Since these types of marriages are not legal in
Canada
, should the relationship dissolve, these
individuals (wives) are, therefore, left with no rights to their husband’s
income, pension, benefits, nor to any share of the family home .
The first victims of religion influenced culture, particularly of Sharia,
are women and children. To better explain the degree of conflict with
secular law and the extent of religious interference into the justice
system, I’d like to examine women and children’s rights
as expressed in Canadian secular law and within Sharia.
In Sharia death is the penalty for
unmarried girls, widows or divorced women who get pregnant, however,
according to Canadian law, getting pregnant is a private matter which has nothing
to do with civil or criminal law. But where do you think she would end up if she finds
her fate being decided by an Islamic arbitrator?
Children as young as
13years old are pulled out of school and forced into strangers' beds. This crime
is called 'arranged marriage' by the laws of Sharia. According
to the Sharia arbitrator, no crime has been committed, although, according to
Canadian law, it is a very serious crime . Indeed, it
would be considered a criminal offence.
A Muslim man can
divorce his wife or wives by announcing it three times in the presence of another
male. She will be eligible for three months support from her husband
and it does not matter how many years she had been married to him .
But if a Muslim women decides to divorce her husband, she must ,
according to Sharia, pay a court determined amount of money to him.
Respecting the
collective rights of the six hundred thousand Muslims as a whole,
means accepting
the segregation, at a very young age, of girls from boys in school
and on play grounds. It means approving the forcing of
girls at tender age to wear the veil (Islamic Hijab) .
It means the approval of the prohibition of girls participating
in team sports, in swimming and in dancing. It means agreeing with depriving girls
of a full education; and of isolating them from mainstream society. It means agreeing
that death should be the penalty for girls who are found to be lesbian or who get
pregnant before marriage. It means that members of this society who are
outside this particular group must bear witness to women being reduced to second
class citizens. They must simply accept it since they are not able to oppose
it.
I would like to respond to the question "How can religion penetrate the
laws of the secular state and why do members of that secular society
allow it happen?
The policy of
Multiculturalism has provided religions with many opportunities to impose their own
rules on a specific community within the greater society. Multiculturalism
promotes tolerance and respect for so-called minority opinions and beliefs, instead
of promoting the respect of the rights of those individuals of that community.
The advocates of
multiculturalism encourage the members of the wider society to see that
particular religious/ethnic group as one homogenous group with a common belief
system, common values and common behaviors. In fact, because of this attitude
towards other cultures and because of cultural relativism, two sets of values and
two sets of rights and privileges are aplied to the
residents of
Canada
.
As result, people outside a
specific 'multicultural comminity' dare not raise
questions even when the rights of individuals in the community are clearly
violated; even when women are mutilated and girls are victimized.
I see the growth of cultural relativism and the sensitivity towards
multiculturalism expressed through the tacit approval of political and financial
support provided not only by “ the international religion
industry” but also by the government of
Canada
.
Every year the government funds the training of
its legal staff in multicultural sensitivity; funds TV time supporting multicultualism, and provides facilities and financial
support to the advocates of multiculturalism. Such government support
encourages the creation of small minorities, with ghettoisation being the
outcome of that policy.
Under these circumstances, the Ontario
Arbitration Act 1991 has opened the door to religious interference in the
Canadian secular court system. Religion easily managed to penetrate the secular
State with the unfortunate result that every religion now has the
right to become an integral part of the Canadian justice system.
If we are for a modern and civil society based on the concepts of equal and universal rights for all residents ; if
we are for a society based on the social identity of human beings as opposed to their
identity by religion, nationality or ethnicity, then we must make religion the
private affair of each individual.
A key pillar the of separation of religion from state is the removal of
religion from the justice system. That means that all religious and religiously
inspired notions and references must not interfere with our justice system for the
simple reason that all religions belong to ancient times, to the period of “clans”
and “tribes” and are incompatible with today’s norms and standards. Finally,
the intrusion of religion creates conflicts in a society which contains various
religions and belief systems such as the Canadian Society.