 Is Canada next?
How
many Islamic republics do we have to fight? One in Iran, one in
Afghanistan, fighting the creation of another in Iraq, and now
one in Canada
Azar Majedi
January 7, 2005
iranian.com
When I heard about the Sharia court in Canada, I
first thought it was a joke. When I realised it was real; that
it was really
happening, and when I read that soon Islamic courts may become
a reality in Canada, I was overwhelmed; I was shocked. It sounded
like a fantasy world. As a friend called it: the Islamic Republic
of Canada is coming into being. I thought of my friends, like Homa,
who escaped one Islamic republic only to end up in another. How
many Islamic republics do we have to fight? One in Iran, one in
Afghanistan, fighting the creation of another in Iraq, and now
one in Canada.
I am sure, right now, some of you will think: 'please don't
exaggerate, this is going too far. This is not about the whole
of Canada, it is only about the so-called "Moslem community".
And it is only going to concern the civil and the family codes
not other legal aspects. You are talking as though there is going
to be stoning on the streets of Toronto, and furthermore, this
is a voluntary matter, no one is forced to refer to these courts
if they do not choose to. It is going to be purely "their own choice."
Fine. Let's examine and see whether I am exaggerating, or
this statement is underestimating the graveness of the situation,
the enormity of this action, and the extreme risk we are taking
vis a vis women's rights, children's rights and human
rights.
The defence of this legislation is based on fallacies. The first
is the argument that by creating Islamic courts parallel with the
national courts - that is by allowing every community
to have its own judicial system - we are respecting the rights
of minorities, and by doing this we are thereby creating a less
discriminatory society and supposedly a more egalitarian one.
This is totally a false assumption. By defining the rights of communities
as opposed to the rights of individuals or rather citizens, we
are discriminating against a section of the society. We are depriving
some citizens of their equal rights and universal rights recognized
by the society. In the face of the law we should recognize citizens
and not collectives, or communities. By recognizing communities
and assigning some arbitrary rights based on a particular culture
or religion to that collective we are leaving the members of that
particular community at the mercy of the inherent power struggle
of the community. The so-called leaders of that community, be it
elders, or the mullahs are gaining power over the individuals.
To recognize two or more sets of values, laws and rights in a single
society is a discriminatory practice. By doing this, we are, in
fact, defining different categories of citizens, and to do that
on the basis of different ethnicity, religion and culture is nothing
but racism, pure and simple. We are assigning different laws, rights
and norms and standards to each different ethnic or religious group.
The concept of citizen and citizen's rights are modern concepts
achieved by decades of libertarian struggle. The reduction of the
church's power over society is another achievement. The
world has made important strides towards the recognition of concepts
such as human rights. In fact the struggle against sexism and for
women's rights has been such a process.
In the case of Islamic courts
and empowering them with legal procedures regarding civil disputes
or family disputes, we are leaving women
in the so-called Moslem communities at the mercy of Islamic laws
and traditions, which are clearly discriminatory against women.
There has been a long battle in countries under the rule of Islam
by the women's liberation movement to achieve a secular
system and secular legislation in order to diminish discrimination
against women and promote the recognition of equal rights for women
in the realm of family as well as the society as a whole.
The second fallacy is the argument that says referrals of family
disputes to Islamic courts, and Islamic arbitration is voluntary
and a matter of personal choice. This argument sounds very libertarian
and legitimate. But this is only a fancy faÁade for imposing
a patriarchal value system on women and children. Intimidation
and force of communal moral pressure are tools of keeping women
subjugated. No human being in her right mind would choose to deprive
herself of equal rights, and into a subordinate position.
Under
the patriarchal value system, such as Islamic traditions and norms,
women are deprived of equal rights in matters such as marriage,
divorce, custody and running of family matters and family disputes.
Women in these communities are forced by intimidation and the communal
moral pressure to accept this inequality as the norm, as the natural
and divine law and to respect it. Creating a legal system and empowering
the so-called leaders of the community with legal powers as well
as religious and moral power will reduce the choice for women to
live a more equal life. It will diminish women's rights
to equal opportunity; it will isolate women from the broader society
and ghettoize their lives.
 Any women's rights activist and
analyst will tell you that the family and the dynamism of family
life and family order are the pillars of women's subordination
in the society. Some argue that Islamic courts only deal with mundane
issues, such as family law. This is a self-serving argument to
fog the real issues involved. The women's liberation movement
has fought long and hard to reform family laws and the structure
of power inside the family. By recognising Islamic courts we are
turning the clock back for women living under Islamic traditions.
The society is duty-bound to offer every woman equal
opportunity and equal access to equal and universal laws. No one
has the right
to deny any woman, whether in Islamic communities, Jewish or any
other, from this basic right. In an environment based on patriarchy,
an old value system, and traditions so clearly misogynist, there
can be no question of exercising your choice freely. The choice
will be that of the strong partner in the relationship.
We have witnessed in the past decades, a glorification of culture
as a primary issue dictating people's lives and rights.
Culture has come to take precedence over human rights, equality,
liberation, rights of individuals, children's rights and
women's rights - concepts and issues which have been long
argued and have prominence in modern and civilized civil societies.
The birth of cultural relativism and its recognition in the society
as a credible concept is the result of this process.
I ask you
why an arbitrary concept as culture must be so glorified that takes
precedence over prominent issues such as freedom, equality, and
justice. Why should people be categorized and placed in different
pigeon holes according to culture or religion. These should be
private matters. There is no justification for assigning such prominent
status to culture which overshadows any sense of justice, equality
and freedom, the achievements of long battles fought by freedom
loving people and socialists for more than two centuries.
I like to reflect on another issue here. As it regards the Islamic
courts, we are dealing with a movement, which has gained political
power in some influential countries and has become well known internationally:
political Islam. In my opinion, it is a reactionary and misogynist
movement. I am talking here to you as a first hand victim of political
Islam. I can show you here among the audience many more victims
of this brutal movement. There are many women and men here today
who have fled the torture, execution threats, and humiliation of
political Islam. For us to see that the seeds of an Islamic republic
are being sown here in Canada is terrifying.
Let me briefly take you back to the 11th of September 2001. The
horrific day that thousands were killed in the most horrendous
manner. It was not only the number of human beings who lost their
lives that shook the world, it was the manner in which it happened.
As a result of this tragedy political Islam was marginalized and
came under increasing pressure. The crimes of this brutal movement
in Afghanistan and Iran were exposed. People in the world became
appalled by the atrocities committed by political Islam.
However the actions by the U.S. and Britain, the attack on Iraq
and the bullying attitude adopted by the U.S. created a ground
on which this movement began to build a psychological and propaganda
campaign to present itself as the victim of Western racism. It
began to create a feeling of guilt among decent freedom loving
people in the West. The crimes and atrocities inflicted by the
U.S. in Iraq and against immigrants and people from Middle Eastern
origin became a source that political Islam came to cash in on
to appear as ëvictim'. After that date, political Islam
took our belief in freedom and equality hostage to serve its own
interests. Our decency became a source for their exploitation.
The term Islamophobia came into being. And once more
after we have pushed back cultural relativism to the margins we
came to fight
a new monster. We were threatened by them and frowned upon by
well-intentioned people for criticising Islam and its treatment
of women, for criticising
the veil, especially child veiling. The movement that flogged
us, tortured us for not observing the veil, and made us flee our
homes
and seek refuge here, now calls us racist. We should not let
this happen. This mockery must be stopped. We should put and end
to
this charade of victimization and self- righteousness by a movement
that has terrorized millions of women into submission and subjugation.
It is true that we are the first hand victims of political Islam,
but we are not mere victims. We belong to a vibrant, dynamic,
strong, and progressive movement, which has fought political
Islam not
only in Iran, not only in Iraq, and not only in the Middle East
but also here in the West. We have raised the banner of freedom
and equality not only for women but for humanity and are fighting
to push back religion to its rightful place - that is to the
private sphere.  We are fighting to diminish the role of religion in the
running of society, to separate religion from education and the
state, and judiciary. We have raised the banner of secularism.
We are the front runner of the secular movement in Europe, and
now in Canada. Women's rights, equality and freedom need
the secularisation of the society. We have organised this fight;
we are at the forefront of this struggle, and we are proud of it.
We will not allow political Islam to take root in the West and
we will soon uproot it in the Middle East as well.
The above is a speech prepared by Azar Majedi for an International
Women's Day panel on March 8, 2004 on Sharia Courts and
Women's rights. Azar Majedi is the head of the Organisation
of Women's Liberation.
*
*
|
Is Canada next?
