Madeleine Bunting says concern for gay rights and gender equality is ‘moral grandstanding.’
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
Simon Schama: Bush as Archbishop of Washington
Comparisons with 9/11 only reinforce differences between what the two calamities said about America.
-
Rushdie: Let the Enlightenment Begin
Nine thoughts on reform.
-
The Academic Novel and its Addressivity
Its wot? English teachers writing about each other, that’s what.
-
Academics With Asperger’s
When does eccentricity become mental illness?
-
Compassionate Conservatism in Utero
JAMA article on fetal pain awareness irritates anti-abortionists.
-
Sociologists Question Extent of Looting in N.O.
‘There was no evidence for a lot of what was being reported.’
-
It’s Over!
Golly. It’s over. I’m a bit choked. I told you I was looking forward to congratulating Homa – but she got there first. I tell you what, honey, when I clicked onto my email page and saw that subject line in an email from Homa – ‘congratulations to you all for a battle well fought’ – I must have jumped a foot.
I don’t know, maybe I shouldn’t be all that elated, it’s just the prevention of something that never should have been suggested in the first place. But I don’t care. It was suggested, and it has been prevented, and that will make a difference, so I am elated.
And so is Homa. It says so right here.
Homa Arjomand, the women’s rights activist who organized a series of protests across Canada and Europe last Thursday to convince McGuinty to abandon Shariah, was elated when she heard the news late Sunday. “I think our voice got heard loud and clear, and I thank the government for coming out with no faith-based arbitrations,” said Arjomand. “Oh, I am so happy. That was the best news I have ever heard for the past five years.”
Homa led the entire protest, all this time, and it’s finally worked. Well done Homa! Congratulations! Hurrah!
-
Is the Tide Beginning to Turn?
Seyran Ates has very interesting things to say.
Why are a few particularly estimable, highly intelligent women and men in very prominent positions, blind in one eye when it comes to the protection of minorities? Why are they blind in that eye with which they have otherwise promoted equal rights for the sexes, and still do? The so-called minority protection with respect to Islam and religious freedom can only be had at the cost of the equal rights of women, and ultimately only serves to perpetuate and reinforce obsolete, archaic, patriarchal structures. The situation of Muslim girls and women in Germany has been played down to an extreme…I want to know, and many thousands of Muslim girls and women have a right to know, why understanding and infinite tolerance is practised with particular cultural traditions that are clearly oppressive of women. Human rights are universal and unconditional. And that goes most certainly for religious objectives.
This blind eye and playing down may finally be beginning to change, because women like Seyran Ates and Fadela Amara are speaking up and getting published in large-circulation newspapers and magazines. As are men like Johann Hari and Kenan Malik – in fact the list of women and men who are doing this is getting quite long. But there’s a lot of accumulated blindness to get rid of, so the list needs to keep getting longer and longer.
Fadela Amara, who founded ‘Ni Putes ni Soumises’:
Amara emphasises that this is the difference between those who talk about cultural relativism and her organisation, which is aimed at achieving universal human rights. “An exaggerated tolerance of supposed cultural differences which results in the maintenance of archaic traditions – that’s just not acceptable.”
Like the archaic traditions ‘Shinaz’ found herself up against:
For months, a Muslim woman living in Toronto tried to wring a divorce out of her local imam. Under sharia law, her husband had to consent to the divorce – even though he had abandoned the family four years earlier and married another woman in a South Asian country where polygamy is legal. The imam told her that her spouse wanted $100,000 and all her gold jewellery, she said, asking that her identity not be disclosed because she fears retribution from her ex-husband, the imam and her community…”The imam told me, ‘there are some sharia conditions you must follow, we must come to a settlement within sharia.’ I agreed because I was desperate,” said the woman, 29, who uses the pseudonym Shinaz.
There’s room for some optimism on the sharia in Ontario front though. The Attorney General released a statement on the day of the international protests against Sharia in Ontario – in fact, ninety minutes after the Toronto demonstration ended.
The McGuinty government is firmly and completely committed to equality principles and women’s rights as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms…We have heard loud and clear from those who are seeking greater protections for women. We must constantly move forward to eradicate discrimination, protect the vulnerable, and promote equality. As the Premier re-iterated this week, we will ensure that women’s rights are fully protected. We are guided by the values and the rights enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will ensure that the law of the land in Ontario is not compromised, that there will be no binding family arbitration in Ontario that uses a set of rules or laws that discriminate against women.
Let’s hope he means it. Of course, fans of the idea of sharia courts insist that the ‘set of rules or laws’ in question doesn’t discriminate against women, that the rules are different for the two sexes but not discriminatory, etc etc etc – but let’s hope the AG is not playing that game. That looks on the face of it like a pretty strong (and clear) statement – the kind it would be hard to reconcile with sharia courts in the face of strong protests, without paying a heavy political price.
Homa Arjomand released a statement on the Attorney General’s statement, of which she sent me a copy.
TORONTO – “The government is definitely heading in the right direction”, said Ms. Homa Arjomand, Coordinator of the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada, “I hope this statement by the Attorney General means he will soon bring an end to faith-based courts in Ontario”. Yesterday at noon, Ms. Arjomand led over 400 protesters to Queen’s Park to demand the liberal government stop allowing family legal matters such as divorce and child custody, to be settled in private courts based on religious laws. At 4:30 pm, ninety minutes following the demonstration, the Attorney General of Ontario issued the…statement…”I agree with the Attorney General, we do need more protections for women and to eliminate discrimination, said Ms. Arjomand, … we can best achieve this through the Family Law Act of Ontario. The Canadian Charter can guide us as it clearly states ‘Every individual …has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination’. All we ask is to be treated equally, the same as other Canadians.” added Ms. Arjomand.
It will be nice to be able to declare one victory. I’m looking forward to it, and to congratulating Homa.
-
Open Letter: Don’t ghettoize women’s rights
In support of the “No Religious Arbitration Coalition”
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Dear Mr. McGuinty:
An important tenet of Canadian democracy hangs in the balance of your response to the matter of religious arbitration in the province of Ontario. While many Canadians may assume that we are all governed by one system of laws, created by publicly elected officials who are accountable to the electorate, your government is poised to shift the ground under this cornerstone of liberal democracy.
While our public system of law is not always perfect, it is designed to recognize the realities of all citizens and is open to public scrutiny and improvement. Such is not the case with private systems of law, such as religious laws.
The public may identify this issue from media reports as “Sharia law in Ontario,” but they, and you, need to understand that this is a matter of the formal separation of all religious matters from the business of the state. This is in no way an infringement on religious freedom, which we endorse as an equally important tenet of Canadian democracy. Religion should simply remain an important part of the lives of citizens but not of public law.
Surely the separation of church and state is understood by today’s politicians to be the fertile ground upon which modern, rights-based democracies such as that in Canada have flourished. Arbitrariness, petty theocracies and selective — rather than universal — access to public law await us if we simply treat this issue as a detail in the daily business of government.
Ontario’s commitment to religious freedom, anti-racism and multiculturalism are very important to us and to all Ontarians. Some have argued that to deny arbitration based on religious laws is a breach of these commitments.
We do not agree.
Allowing the use of religious arbitration will lead to divisiveness, the ghettoization of members of religious communities as well as human-rights abuses, particularly for those who hold the least institutional power within the community, namely women and children.
We urge you to speak strongly in favour of Ontario’s commitment to one system of laws for all, as well as for freedom of religion and anti-racism. Prohibit the use of religion in the arbitration of family law disputes through appropriate amendments to the Arbitration Act. The eyes of the world are quite literally watching Ontario at this time to see if we have the courage to move forward on this issue in a way that preserves our common bond and is inclusive and respectful of all.
Sincerely,
Margaret Atwood
Maude Barlow
June Callwood
Shirley Douglas
Michele Landsberg
Flora MacDonald
Margaret Norrie McCain
Maureen McTeer
Sonja Smits
Lois Wilson
In support of the “No Religious Arbitration Coalition”
-
‘Shinaz’ and her Experience With Sharia
Hint: it wasn’t good.
-
Blair Advised to Ditch Holocaust Day
‘Muslims feel hurt and excluded that their lives are not equally valuable’ says Sacranie.
-
Cornel West: It’s Not Just Katrina, It’s Povertina
Conservative social policy towards the poor: you’re on your own.
-
Shorter Books
Books too long, too hard; make them shorter, easier. Good plan.
-
Nick Cohen on Suckers for Fashionable Nonsense
Homeopathic dowser healers, coffee enemas, feng-shui, expensive water.
-
Midgley on Dawkins Again
Accuses ‘Dawkinsist’ orthodoxy of making the world in some important sense entirely random.
-
Blocked Bridge Story Confirmed
UPI reports survivors were kept from crossing river by fears they would loot burn and pillage.
-
Blame not a ‘Game’ but Part of Democratic Process
If officials were grossly negligent, letting tempers cool may not be best plan.
-
Poverty is About More Than Lack of Money
It’s also lack of connections, cultural capital, skills, strings to pull.
-
Seyran Ates on Multiculturalism v Rights of Women
Why is tolerance practised with cultural traditions that are clearly oppressive of women?
