Women’s rights must not be subject to referendum

Sometimes, it takes us a while to recognize things for what they are.

For example, when Britain adopted Sharia as a parallel, not state-controlled legal system, the publicity spin on the whole thing was – to some people – palatable.

Not to me – I consider it a matter of principle that a government must exercise control over its judiciary, just as the judiciary must exercise control over the government:  the two are parts of the ‘checks and balances’ of our legal system.  Therefore, I consider any legal system parallel t0 – yet independant – of the government and its judiciary to be a serious breech of our governance structures, and therefore unacceptable.  It is a threat to the very foundations of the way we govern ourselves!

Nor can I ever accept the principle that there ought to be different classes of citizens, with different sets of laws for each class.  To me, that very concept is highly repellent!  No longer are citizens equal to each other in the eyes of the law – they no longer even share the same law…  NO!  A person’s a person, no matter how small!  (or of which religion…)

These are two very powerful reasons why I could never support a judicial apartheid:  whatever form it may take!

These two reasons alone would make any parallel legal system 100% unacceptable to me – no matter how good they might be.   Yet, my rant  has not even touched on what I find unacceptable about Sharia…

Yet, the outrage many of us expresses at Britain’s official acceptance of Sharia as the legal system for its Muslim citizens was shrugged off by much of the MSM who assured us that Sharia was just a traditional way of doing things, that it really was a question of cultural preference, and that Muslims in Britain want it anyways, so we ought to butt out and shut up.

It’s not really all that long ago that Ontario’s Premier, Dalton McGuinty (his name – and track record – always makes me think of ‘bodymaster McGuinty’ from ‘The Valley of Fear’), almost instituted Sharia in Ontario.  And, before he considered it, he had commissioned a study, to make sure that Sharia would not be harmful to any Ontarians.  Marion Boyd, a lifelong feminist (as well as an environmentalists) and former NDP member of provincial parliament, authored the study which found that Sharia law was just fine, and fully compatible with feminist principles…

And let’s not even mention France… Muslim feminists, like Wafa Sultan advise women who are attempting to escape from oppression under Sharia law not to go to France, as they would not be safe there.

And Barak Obama, the higly popular US President, had (August 2006) campaigned in Kenya for his kinsman, Raila Odinga, whose election platform included the imposition of Sharia!

It seems to me that we have rather normalized the idea that ‘Muslims want to live under Sharia’ and that it is not our place to interfere…

In the last few days, many of us (myself included) have sharply criticized the new proposed law in Afghanistan, which would strip women (among other things) of parental rights, the freedom of movement and would legalize marital rape.  This ‘new law’ would govern the Shi’a minority (about 20%) of the Afghani population.

Please, indulge me in a chain of logic here:

  • The Shi’a minority in Afghanistan is ‘very conservative’ (some would say radicalized)
  • This Shi’a minority recognizes Koran as the only authority on law
  • This Koran-only-derived law is called – yes – Sharia
  • Therefore, this law which advocates ‘marital rape’ and strips women of basic human rights is – Sharia!!!

Perhaps we ought to thank the Afghani President, Hamid Karzai, for actually spelling out in this new Afghani law exactly what Sharia truly means!

As the following video shows:  women’s rights must never be subject to a referendum:

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank