As for this topic, I can tell you that if I were given the ultimatum to either take off [part of] my hijab or not help (and possibly fail) to indict someone who attempted to sexually assault me, I would choose the latter. All the munaqabah (women who wear niqab) that I know would most likely do the same, although Allah Ta 'Ala Knows Best. Therefore, a ruling in this case requiring a woman to either remove part of her hijab or receive "justice" from Canadian law would actually persuade many not to report criminal incidents or activities at all, which seems kind of contradictory to the nature of Canadian law.
Human Wrongs, Not Rights Abused Here By the Veil
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Good point, Amatullaah.
I hope the deciding authorities would consider that point, too, but you never know. Authorities can be pretty dense at times.
I hope the deciding authorities would consider that point, too, but you never know. Authorities can be pretty dense at times.
Comparison crap? We say all the time, "Oh, that practice or idea is so backward, archaic and medieval." Which means, we don't like it. Because we are progressive, modern and forward looking and wish to expand rights for as many people as possible. We want to move forward quickly, other cultures want to move forward slowly, which I have no problem with, in their own countries.
Why take so much trouble for adults when it is not necessary? These complex and costly procedures should only be instituted for exceptional circumstances, such as for abused children in court.
As I said, I won't discuss Canada's system in comparison to other countries' systems here because it is irrelevant.
Apparently you are pretty insensitive as to how deeply other people take their traditions. Canada makes a big deal about multiculturalism and at least sometimes lets people hang onto their traditions.
And for not subjecting a victim to more trauma. I agree.
Apparently you are pretty insensitive as to how deeply other people take their traditions. Canada makes a big deal about multiculturalism and at least sometimes lets people hang onto their traditions.
Canadian born or not, working for this woman is a weird political alliance of half baked HRCs Canadians and fanatical Wahabbi style immigrants who want to shove as much demented sharia law down Canada's throat as they can.
Some Arab women are victims of "honour killings" by their families after being raped. This is true. Worse than whippings.
Here's an article discussing a Saudi woman who was sentenced to 200 lashes after being alone with a man and gang raped.
New Zealand urges compassion for Saudi rape victim : Australasia World
New Zealand urges compassion for Saudi rape victim
Posted : Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:44:02 GMT
Wellington - New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark urged Saudi Arabia Thursday to show compassion for a 19-year-old Saudi rape victim who has been sentenced to 200 lashes with a whip and six months in prison for being alone with an unrelated man. The woman was gang-raped in 2006 by seven men who abducted her with her companion from a shopping mall. A Saudi [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]court[/COLOR][/COLOR] blamed her for being alone with a man who was not a relative.
Clark said that New Zealand fully respected Saudi Arabia's judicial system, but added,
"Nonetheless, I hope that justice will prevail, and that the young woman, who is the victim in this case, will be shown leniency by the Saudi judiciary.
"I hope the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will demonstrate benevolence and compassion in this case."
Clark said she had asked New Zealand diplomats in Riyadh to make representations to the relevant Saudi authorities and to work with like-minded embassies from other countries in raising concerns. She said she was also concerned to ensure that the woman received appropriate [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]legal [COLOR=blue ! important]assistance[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR], given that her lawyer had his license to practice revoked last week.
The Shi'ite woman was originally sentenced in October 2006 to 90 lashes. That sentence was increased to 200 lashes and six months in prison last week, and the seven rapists given increased sentences of two to nine years in jail. Under Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]law[/COLOR][/COLOR], women are not allowed in public in the company of men other than relatives. Clark's statement noted that the Saudi government had recently taken some steps towards improving the situation of women, including establishing special courts to handle domestic-abuse [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]cases[/COLOR][/COLOR], adopting a new labour law addressing the rights of working women and creating a human-rights commission.
When I see traditions from undemocratic countries intersect and threaten our long standing and successful traditions of justice and fair play, then I am completely insensitive here. Guilty as charged.
Establishing precedents with multculturalism can be a dangerous legal brew. I think the framers of the 1982 Charter did not have sharia law in mind when they discussed the subject. Now it is on the table and I think sharia law in Canada should be squished like a bug wherever it is found.
What about our long-standing tradition of accepting other traditions? The RCMP let Sikhs keep their turbans when in uniform, for instance. I suppose you got uptight about that, too. Perhaps you think we should always wear wigs and gowns when we are lawyers and judges and other court officials because it is OUR tradition, too?
Why would we need to do that when it obviously does no harm in certain circumstances like this one, for instance?
___________________________________________________________________
I have friends from all around the Middle East, and I know some sisters living in Saudi Arabia as well. I am well acquainted with the whole 'honour killings' issue. However, I think you are perhaps unaware of a few points:
1. Once you start using the British-instituted 'Wahabbi' epithet, you automatically start losing credibility points with Muslims. It's kind of like asking people to take someone seriously on the issue of race relations here in Canada or the States when they generously use the word 'n*gger'.
2. The Shi'ite woman was originally given 90 lashes due to the fact that she admitted that she had sexual relations with a man outside of marriage, which is who she was going to see in the cab when the gang rape took place. As well, before she and her lawyer tried to pull the media stunt, the only person who due to receive less lashes than her was a bystander who did nothing to stop the gang rape from taking place (his allotment was to be 80 lashes). All the other men involved were going to receive either 100 lashes or more; I remember reading that one would be receiving 180 lashes. As the article you posted states, the number of lashes for pretty much everyone involved was increased when the rape victim and her lawyer attempted to use the media to try and gain sympathy in order to reduce her sentence. In response, the judge increased her punishment, saying that her attempt to subvert Shari'ah was a heinous crime. I agree, since after all, she was being punished for having illegal sexual relations outside of marriage, not for being a rape victim (those who attacked her were going to be punished heavily anyways). It was completely inappropriate for her to try and challenge the Shari'ah that the judge was applying.
Also, you may not be aware of the history of the Shi'ite-Saudi relations in the northeast region of Saudi Arabia, and what role that played in this court/media case. To summarize it briefly, the Shi'ites do not like Saudi control (since they are Sunni), and therefore have been laying low for quite some time until they had strength in numbers. Ever since the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein, and the subsequent empowerment of Iran and the Shi'ites in the Middle East in general, Shi'ites in Saudi have become emboldened. Ergo, they have become emboldened enough to challenge the Saudis' power, and this case was just an example of that. A more recent example would be the Shi'ite attempt to overrun the Baqi' cemetery in Madinah al-Munawarah, which was promtly halted and pushed back by the Sunnis present (the Shi'ites were run out of the general vicinity).
Therefore, your attempt in general to pigeon-hole this munaqabah, and refuse her rights under Canadian, and more importantly, Shari'ah law is ludicrous since you're basing it upon your obvious lack of knowledge of facts surrounding Shari'ah law, contemporary (and often historical) Muslim issues, and Muslim attitudes and responses to the issues facing our community in general.
Whether you like Muslims or not, those who are Canadian have the same rights as all other Canadians. If you seek to prevent munaqabaat from seeking what possible justice they can from the Canadian justice system, by forcing them to chose between their religion/comfort-level and being protected from possible attackers (whether sexual or not), then you are attempting to deny the rights that you hold as a Canadian to a large number of other Canadians. To avoid this headache all together, perhaps you should simply lobby your MP to declare all Muslims who are Canadian to be a separate group under Canadian law, with restricted or different rights and privileges than other Canadians.
I have worked with Sikhs/Punjabis and they are fine guys. With the RCMP turbans issue it was no big deal for me at the time, it totally blew past me, I just saw it as headgear/hat. Now that I am totally agnostic, and see all religions as bunk, I think many secular Canadians support the turbans for political reasons, seeming open minded, but Sikhs/Punjabis are a strong political force in the country and they got what they wanted. They make good policemen, but have they improved the culture of the RCMP? No, look at the Robert D case.
Then I read an article saying how a uniform should be "uniform". The same for all, equal rights and favours for none. Key elements of the progressive secular democratic state.
I think judges robes should go-I made a thread discussing that, they are useless affectations in the modern era. Gov'ts can be very fusty. I'm not against change, we need to it to improve.
THANK YOU!!! This is the first post on the forum that deals with the real issue IMO. No surprise it was posted by a woman. Making her appear before her rapist feeling naked again is a revictimization. We should be making it easier for women to see justice after a rape, not harder. No wonder most rapists won't ever be punished for their crimes.
I think that is generally what happens nowadays in Muslim countries, however, none of them rule by Shari'ah, but rather hide under the term to dispense justice as they see fit. The slight exception to this trend is Saudi Arabia, whose courts often apply Shari'ah, however, the country is not ruled by it.
Amatullah, this is the same copout used by Communists (don’t judge Communism by the actions of who claim to be Communists, by the actions of China and USSR) or by Christians (don’t judge Christianity by actions of Christians such as Crusades, Inquisition etc.).
Every time this defense is used, it sounds totally hypocritical. There are many Islamic countries which claim to practice Sharia. It doesn’t really matter what Islamic scholars say about Sharia. What is important is how it is implemented in practice.
In practice, women are very much stoned to death for adultery (as they recently did in Somalia), are considered second class citizens, little better than animals (one man is equal to two women according to Sharia and Islam).
That is how it works in practice, and that is good enough for me to condemn Sharia and Islam.
Amatullah, this is the same copout used by Communists (don’t judge Communism by the actions of who claim to be Communists, by the actions of China and USSR) or by Christians (don’t judge Christianity by actions of Christians such as Crusades, Inquisition etc.).
Every time this defense is used, it sounds totally hypocritical. There are many Islamic countries which claim to practice Sharia. It doesn’t really matter what Islamic scholars say about Sharia. What is important is how it is implemented in practice.
In practice, women are very much stoned to death for adultery (as they recently did in Somalia), are considered second class citizens, little better than animals (one man is equal to two women according to Sharia and Islam).
That is how it works in practice, and that is good enough for me to condemn Sharia and Islam.
The simple fact is that English Common Law gives the accused the right to face their accuser. As well, English Common Law has some reservations about persons going masked. English Common Law is the basis, the foundation of law in the freest states on earth, and it deserves to be preserved.
If wearing a Hijab is more important to you than the foundations of our freedom, I suggest you do NOT belong in this country. Go elsewhere.
This is how "Shari'ah" is implemented now. This is not necessarily how it was implemented during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon), or during the time of the Khulafat Rashidun. If you want to read about Shari'ah should be implemented, then read about its application during those times. These days, Shari'ah is often enforced against women, but not against men. As well, parts of it is often quoted by Muslim men to justify their haram actions, even though their actions go against the rules of Shari'ah anyways.
I don't see how the testimony of one man being equal to the testimony of two women in contract cases means that women are "treated little better than animals", or how we Muslim women are considered "second class citizens". However that's your opinion and you can keep it. But it doesn't change the fact that many men and women try their best to live by Shari'ah, and you can't stop that; only Allah Ta 'Ala Can.
The Vancouver Sun newspaper this morning had an editorial castigating the police during a drug raid in part for wearing masks, noting that they denote ill- intent in our culture. As in outlaws and terrorists. I totally agree. But Halloween is a different story of course.
Troubling questions raised by RCMP's botched raid
Troubling questions raised by RCMP's botched raid
Vancouver Sun May 6, 2009
The RCMP have apologized for bursting through the door of the wrong Surrey apartment and assaulting the occupants with a police dog, but the matter must not end there.
Even if they had the right apartment, the tactics described by the three occupants raise questions about the use of force and conduct of police that cannot be left unanswered.
Police concede that they made a mistake and that two men were bitten in the botched raid.
The three occupants of the Surrey apartment allege in a filing to the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP that they were getting ready for a late dinner when the police banged on the door and demanded that the occupants of apartment 206 come out.
They were in 205. The police broke in. The three men inside got a glimpse of RCMP Emergency Response Team officers dressed in black with their faces covered with balaclavas and a police dog rushing in.
The police were executing a warrant on neighboring apartments, where, once they opened the right doors, they found crack cocaine, heroin, a Taser, and other assorted weapons.
Police raids are always fraught with danger. They get as much information as they can about what they can expect to encounter but they never know exactly what they will face when they go through a door.
Whether on rural roads or inner cities, police officers have been shot, attacked and killed often enough to prove that the wearing of body armour is no affectation.
Four RCMP officers were killed in rural Mayerthorpe, Alta., four years ago, in the worst such incident in recent memory. They have to be ready to use sufficient force to apprehend suspects, protect themselves and the public.
But just as they can't be sure what lies behind any closed door, neither can they know for sure that the suspects they are apprehending are guilty of any crimes.
In our justice system, that determination is left to the courts, as is the determination of what punishment is justified.
What that means is that even when they are breaking down the right door, police have to bear in mind that they are still dealing with members of the public whose interests they have sworn to protect.
This case raises troubling questions about how the RCMP are now interpreting that duty.
When did it become acceptable practice for our police to hide their identity when making an arrest or dealing with the public in any fashion?
*********
In our culture, masks are associated with ill-intent. They are used to terrorize victims or to shield the identity of outlaws. They should not be worn by police.
********
Police dogs, like Tasers, are an important tool for law enforcement officers. But they should never be used to terrorize suspects or to bring a hasty conclusion to a situation that a little patience could just as easily resolve.
We need a clear statement from police on both the policy on use of dogs and the use of balaclavas or other masks used to conceal the identity of individual officers.
We recognize that police have been under a lot of pressure to deal with gang violence in the Lower Mainland. But we can't allow a fear of lawlessness to be replaced by a fear of the law.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Troubling questions raised by RCMP's botched raid
Troubling questions raised by RCMP's botched raid
Vancouver Sun May 6, 2009
The RCMP have apologized for bursting through the door of the wrong Surrey apartment and assaulting the occupants with a police dog, but the matter must not end there.
Even if they had the right apartment, the tactics described by the three occupants raise questions about the use of force and conduct of police that cannot be left unanswered.
Police concede that they made a mistake and that two men were bitten in the botched raid.
The three occupants of the Surrey apartment allege in a filing to the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP that they were getting ready for a late dinner when the police banged on the door and demanded that the occupants of apartment 206 come out.
They were in 205. The police broke in. The three men inside got a glimpse of RCMP Emergency Response Team officers dressed in black with their faces covered with balaclavas and a police dog rushing in.
The police were executing a warrant on neighboring apartments, where, once they opened the right doors, they found crack cocaine, heroin, a Taser, and other assorted weapons.
Police raids are always fraught with danger. They get as much information as they can about what they can expect to encounter but they never know exactly what they will face when they go through a door.
Whether on rural roads or inner cities, police officers have been shot, attacked and killed often enough to prove that the wearing of body armour is no affectation.
Four RCMP officers were killed in rural Mayerthorpe, Alta., four years ago, in the worst such incident in recent memory. They have to be ready to use sufficient force to apprehend suspects, protect themselves and the public.
But just as they can't be sure what lies behind any closed door, neither can they know for sure that the suspects they are apprehending are guilty of any crimes.
In our justice system, that determination is left to the courts, as is the determination of what punishment is justified.
What that means is that even when they are breaking down the right door, police have to bear in mind that they are still dealing with members of the public whose interests they have sworn to protect.
This case raises troubling questions about how the RCMP are now interpreting that duty.
When did it become acceptable practice for our police to hide their identity when making an arrest or dealing with the public in any fashion?
*********
In our culture, masks are associated with ill-intent. They are used to terrorize victims or to shield the identity of outlaws. They should not be worn by police.
********
Police dogs, like Tasers, are an important tool for law enforcement officers. But they should never be used to terrorize suspects or to bring a hasty conclusion to a situation that a little patience could just as easily resolve.
We need a clear statement from police on both the policy on use of dogs and the use of balaclavas or other masks used to conceal the identity of individual officers.
We recognize that police have been under a lot of pressure to deal with gang violence in the Lower Mainland. But we can't allow a fear of lawlessness to be replaced by a fear of the law.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Amatullaah,
A question for you. You have offered a perspective that represents first-hand-accounts. However, the view that we have been innundated with by the media paints a very different picture.
In your opinion, has the western media misrepresented Sharia and wrongly condemned it?
captain morgan, I'm currently awaiting a post that apparently the moderators have to approve before it is officially posted. In it, I actually touch upon your question in response to dumpthemonarchy's assertions in post #65, and clear up certain misconceptions as insinuated in the article he posted in that very same post. Perhaps after my response has been published by the moderators, you could read it, and then specify any questions you may further have on the subject.
I have not hear of CC doing this before.....are you sure? Maybe try reposting it.. it might have been a glitch.
I don't see how the testimony of one man being equal to the testimony of two women in contract cases means that women are "treated little better than animals", or how we Muslim women are considered "second class citizens".
That is easy to explain, Amatullaah. Let us consider the implications of this law that one man is equal to two women. Suppose in a Sharia court man testifies one way and woman testified another way. The Sharia judge has absolutely no discretion in the matter, he must believe the man, because one man testified one way, only half a man testified another way.
Thus, man may be an alcoholic, a drunk, a known liar, may be high on hashish, even perhaps the village idiot. Woman may be highly educated, perhaps a professional (doctor, lawyer etc.), that doesn’t matter. The Sharia judge must believe the village idiot, rather than the female M.D.
Now, I don’t know what this means to you. But to me, this means that women are very much second class citizens. Women are subhuman. Man is human (obviously), but woman is only half a man and hence only half human, or subhuman.
That is easy to explain, Amatullaah. Let us consider the implications of this law that one man is equal to two women. Suppose in a Sharia court man testifies one way and woman testified another way. The Sharia judge has absolutely no discretion in the matter, he must believe the man, because one man testified one way, only half a man testified another way.
Thus, man may be an alcoholic, a drunk, a known liar, may be high on hashish, even perhaps the village idiot. Woman may be highly educated, perhaps a professional (doctor, lawyer etc.), that doesn’t matter. The Sharia judge must believe the village idiot, rather than the female M.D.
Now, I don’t know what this means to you. But to me, this means that women are very much second class citizens. Women are subhuman. Man is human (obviously), but woman is only half a man and hence only half human, or subhuman.