Lettres d’appui pour la Campagne contre l'arbitrage religieux en droit de la famille en Ontario

Les lettres qui suivent soutiennent les efforts de Droits et Démocratie et d'autres organismes de la société civile dans une campagne contre l'arbitrage religieux en droit de la famille en Ontario. Pour plus d'information sur le travail de Droits et Démocratie et de ses partenaires dont le Conseil canadien des femmes musulmanes, l’Association nationale de la femme et du droit et le réseau Femmes sous lois musulmanes, cliquez ici.

Envoyez d’autres lettres d’appui à l'adresse du Procureur général de l'Ontario indiquée plus bas et faites parvenir une copie de cette lettre par courriel à Droits et Démocratie si vous voulez que nous la reproduisions ici.

Honorable Michael Bryant, Procureur général de l'Ontario
Ministère du Procureur général de l'Ontario
720 Bay Street, 11th Floor
Toronto, ON
M5G 2K1
Télécopieur : (416) 326-4007
Courriel

*Cette page peut contenir de l'information exclusivement offerte en français ou en anglais, car elle provient d'organismes n'étant pas assujettis à la Loi sur les langues officielles. Droits et Démocratie distribue cette information par courtoisie, et décline toute responsabilité en ce qui concerne la langue ou l'exactitude des renseignements.

I the undersigned, a Muslim citizen of Malaysia hereby support your struggle against the introduction of religious arbitration for family matters in Ontario.

Coming from a country with dual jurisdiction in personal laws, the syariah for Muslims and civil laws for others, I can attest to the myriad problems that will arise with the proposed introduction of religious Islamic principles.

1.  Once such arbitration is available, women would be robbed of any real choice of jurisdiction. Family and community pressure, at the risk of being ostracized, would ensure that she opts to submit to arbitration on Islamic principles;

2.  In Malaysia, both jurisdictions have different provisions. Amongst them, maintenance for divorced women (syariah - limited to 3 months after divorce), the right to divorce (syariah - men have the ability to repudiate the marriage at will while women often have their applications languishing in courts for years) and polygyny (only in syariah).

3.  The syariah laws as applied in Malaysia grants guardianship rights only to fathers. The civil laws provide equal rights for both parents.

4.  The perception of the wife’s obligations to be obedient (the concept of disobedience called “nusyuz”) and submission to her husband. A wife is deemed to have committed a marital wrong if she is found to be nusyuz and would lose her right to maintenance (during the marriage).

There are many more problems with the so called principles of Islam which are mainly interpreted by man (as opposed to being divine). There are many alternative interpretations available for the above examples which provide for gender equity and equality but have not been studied let alone adopted by the authorities. Oftentimes, the persons responsible for implementing these Islamic principles would arbitrarily select the most conservative and regressive interpretations of Islam and refuse to look at the many works that provide for better rights for women. Even the proposed criminalisation of marital rape was recently refused and labeled as anti-Islamic by a few religious intellectuals and Muslim politicians in Malaysia.

Malaysia is by no means the most conservative Muslim country in the world and yet, the struggle to reform the syariah has so far been slow to show results. Whilst the government is aware of the problems in the implementation of the syariah, political expediency in which the Malaysian government tries to prove to the Islamists that it is Islamic dictates that the syariah remains conservative at the cost of women’s rights.

If a Muslim believes that the universal message of the Qur’an is equality and justice for all, then any laws which provide for equality and justice is Islamic. Therefore, there should be nothing wrong for Muslims to accept to be guided by the laws of Canada which has equality and human rights principles entrenched in it.

It also follows that any interpretation of the syariah that does not accord with the Qur’anic worldview should be rejected. Unfortunately many so called Islamic principles as implemented in Muslim jurisdictions worldwide do not accord with this Qur’anic worldview yet States have continued to apply them at will.

Zarizana Abdul Aziz
Penang. Malaysia

I want to express my strong objection to allowing Sharia law to have any legal force in Ontario. The Ontario Courts have to think not only of Ontario but the affect this will have on women's rights around the world. This is a very retrograde move and will be seen as such by women everywhere. Moreover it would be almost impossible to ensure that it will be not abused and that women really would have a choice and not be pressured by family or cultural norms which may differ from those the courts consider usual.

Christine Lynch
Member, Canadian Federation of University Women
Wolfville, Nova Scotia
Canada

Dear Colleagues

I have just read some information relating to the Government of Ontario’s possible introduction of Sharia Courts in family law disputes.

I am appalled that the Government of Ontario should be even considering such a proposal particularly in view of the very many concerns expressed by women the world over about Sharia law and the power imbalances it strives to maintain at the expense of equality for women.

I understand that you are resisting these proposals and offer you our full support. I have already forwarded information about your campaign to other women’s organisations here and I am sure you will receive many other emails of support. Please let me know if there is anything I can do further to assist.

Rights of Women is a well respected women’s organization established in 1975 in the United Kingdom. Our aim is to empower, inform and educate women on their legal rights and remedies. Our website at www.rightsofwomen.org.uk provides further information about our work.

With Best Wishes

Ranjit Kaur
Director
Rights of Women
London, UK
www.row.org.uk

Please accept this correspondence as a token of my sincere opposition to any erosion of family law legislation for the resolution of family disputes. Clearly, there cannot be any consideration of faith, ethnicity or culture when such disputes are before the courts. If family matters are considered in the context of the religious beliefs of specific persons or households this would severely undermine the equality guarantees of the Charter.

For example, the Quebec legislature has already rejected the use of Islamic tribunals to settle family disputes. Other legislatures and/or parliament must follow this lead to ensure that no minority group or set of religious beliefs can weaken Canada's democratic institutions in the name of "religious freedoms."

Sincerely,
Pauline Raven
Kings-Hants, Nova Scotia
Canada

Dear Sir/Madame

I am writing to support the movement that demands that family matters in Canada should remain a matter of secular law to ensure that Muslim women are not discriminated against and are not treated unequally. It would be a matter of great regret were Canada that has been a beacon of equalitarianism now embarks on a policy that makes Muslim women in matters of family law less equal than other women in the land.

Yours faithfully

Haleh Afshar
Prof of Politics and Women's studies
University of York
UK

Dear Madam, Sir,

I was made aware of the issue of Shari'a courts in Canada by Women Living Under Muslim Law.

As I am teaching Islamic Studies, living in a multicultural Scotland, and as a feminist I am very concerned about issues such as the introduction of shari'a courts to deal with family law. With my colleagues and students, many of whom are Muslims, I have had numerous discussions about what a multicultural (or multifaith) society should look like and how we can make it work. Shari'a courts actually never mattered in such debates, and most of the discussants, while being practising Muslims, had a rather secular attitude. I do hope that voices like these will be heard more often in order to make a case against the Shari'a courts in Canada (or elsewhere for that matter).

I strongly support the struggle against the introduction of Shari'a courts out of my own and my Muslim students' and colleagues' conviction that they are more often than not discriminating against women.

Best wishes,
Julia Droeber

À la suite du rapport de Madame Marion Boyd intitulé «Résolution des différents en droit de la famille:pour protéger le choix, pour promouvoir l'inclusion », je tiens à faire entendre les objections suivantes concernant l'application de toute loi religieuse aux questions familiales en vertu de la Loi sur l'arbitrage de l'Ontario.

Malgré les assurances contraires de Mme Boyd, je suis scandalisée par le risque d'érosion des droits à l'égalité garantis dans les articles 15 et 28 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Je suis d'avis que les recommandations de ce rapport sanctionnent l'érosion des droits à l'égalité des femmes, au moyen des lois de l'Ontario. Je crois que la Loi sur l'arbitrage n'a jamais été conçue pour répondre aux problèmes familiaux mais qu'elle est plutôt un véhicule pour les disputes commerciales. Même avec les balises proposées par Mme Boyd, le recours à l'arbitrage dans un tel contexte met en péril des décennies de réforme législative égalitaire.

Je suis d'avis que :

• Les conflits familiaux doivent être décidés par un recours exclusif au droit de la famille, sans égard à la religion, l'origine ethnique ou la culture.


• l'arbitrage religieux ne devrait en aucun cas être permis en matière familiale, ni aucun autre principe qui porterait atteinte aux droits à l'égalité énoncés dans la Charte.

Je partage les préoccupations de la coalition internationale de groupes qui surveillent de près la décision du gouvernement de l'Ontario relativement aux recommandations du rapport Boyd. Comme eux, je suis préoccupée par l'érosion possible des droits des femmes au sein de démocraties constitutionnelles, sur la base de justifications d'ordre religieux. Vue à la lumière des dispositions de la Charte canadienne et des instruments internationaux ratifiés par le Canada, comme la Convention sur l'élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination à l'égard des femmes (CEDAW) et la Déclaration sur l'élimination de la violence contre les femmes, ces inquiétudes sont justifiées.

Nous exigeons ensemble que le gouvernement de l'Ontario respecte l'esprit du droit international des droits de la personne, et qu'il s'assure que les lois et règlements provinciaux ne soient pas en contravention avec ces instruments.

Signé,
Nadia Liassine association 20 ans barakat

NON AUX TRIBUNAUX ISLAMIQUES

Le collectif 20 ans Barakat regroupe plusieurs associations féministes en France et sert de relais aux associations de femmes algériennes qui luttent contre le code de la famille.

Ce code basé sur des lois prétendument musulmanes institutionnalise l'infériorité de la femme, la réduit à l'état de sous citoyenne en bafouant tous les droits fondamentaux.

Durant ces deux décennies, une importante communauté algérienne a choisi le Canada pour fuir la violence générée par ce code inégalitaire.

L'installation de tribunaux islamiques va permettre aux intégristes d'introduire leurs idées et pratiques rétrogrades sous formes de lois prétendument islamiques.

A la veille de la célébration de la journée des femmes, le collectif 20 ans Barakat, attentif à toutes les atteintes aux droits des femmes dans le monde, apporte son soutien au conseil canadien des femmes musulmanes, et aux autres associations de femmes immigrées, et à leurs revendications : refus de l'introduction de lois religieuses et revendication de l'égalité entre citoyens et citoyennes en particulier dans le domaine du droit familiale.

Le collectif 20 ans Barakat dénonce le rapport Boyd pour l'installation des tribunaux islamiques : partout où cette lois est en vigueur, il y a atteinte aux droits des femmes.

Le collectif 20 ans Barakat dit :

• NON à la privation du droit de la famille
• NON au retour en arrière des droits de la personne et des droits de la femme au nom du multiculturalisme
• NON à un système de justice à deux vitesses.

The following letter was sent to the Honorable Cameron Jackson, Member of Ontario's Provincial Parliament for Burlington, from Arleen Midriak, President of Canadian Federation of University Women's Burlington Chapter.

Dear Cam,

As president of CFUW Burlington, an affiliate of the Canadian Federation of University Women, a national organization of female university graduates, working for the improvement of women and promoting an intelligent participation in public affairs, I would like to convey to you our members' position on the recommendations of the Boyd Review of the Arbitration Act.

The Boyd Review of the 1991 Arbitration Act recommended arbitration should continue to be an alternative dispute resolution option that is available in family and inheritance law cases and that the Arbitration Act should continue to allow disputes to be arbitrated using religious laws.

We strongly disagree with these recommendations. Human Rights and Equality of Women are not principles in the practice of many religions and cultures. Having women's lives made subject to arbitrary private law whether of family, clan or religious group, flies in the face of the important Canadian principle of equality before the law of all citizens. It settles family disputes with no real safeguard, no appeal and little possibility of judicial review and sets up a two tier system of law that discriminates against women, particularly minority and immigrant women.

All women should have equal access to the resolution of family disputes under the Family Law Act. No group or its member should be disadvantaged by lack of knowledge of her rights and responsibilities under Canadian Law. The safeguards suggested by the Boyd Review are insufficient to guarantee equality before the law.

As our representative at Queen's Park, we strongly urge you to reject the recommendations of the Boyd Review of the Arbitration Act and to insist that Family law dispute resolution be excluded from the Arbitration Act.

Sincerely,

Arleen Midriak President
CFUW Burlington

Croyez à mon total soutien pour la lutte contre l'introduction de tribunaux musulmans au Canada. Ultime refuge, jusqu'ici, des persécutées de tous ordres.

Michèle Causse, écrivain
auteure de Contre le sexage, 200O, Paris, Balland.

Déclaration sur l'arbitrage religieux en droit de la famille

À la suite du rapport de Madame Marion Boyd intitulé "Résolution des différents en droit de la famille:pour protéger le choix, pour promouvoir l'inclusion ", je tiens à faire entendre les objections suivantes concernant l'application de toute loi religieuse aux questions familiales en vertu de la Loi sur l'arbitrage de l'Ontario.

Malgré les assurances contraires de Mme Boyd, je suis scandalisée par le risque d'érosion des droits à l'égalité garantis dans les articles 15 et 28 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Je suis d'avis que les recommandations de ce rapport sanctionnent l'érosion des droits à l'égalité des femmes, au moyen des lois de l'Ontario. Je crois que la Loi sur l'arbitrage n'a jamais été conçue pour répondre aux problèmes familiaux mais qu'elle est plutôt un véhicule pour les disputes commerciales. Même avec les balises proposées par Mme Boyd, le recours à l'arbitrage dans un tel contexte met en péril des décennies de réforme législative égalitaire.

Je suis d'avis que :

Je partage les préoccupations de la coalition internationale de groupes qui surveillent de près la décision du gouvernement de l'Ontario relativement aux recommandations du rapport Boyd. Comme eux, je suis préoccupée par l'érosion possible des droits des femmes au sein de démocraties constitutionnelles, sur la base de justifications d'ordre religieux. Vue à la lumière des dispositions de la Charte canadienne et des instruments internationaux ratifiés par le Canada, comme la Convention sur l'élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination à l'égard des femmes (CEDAW) et la Déclaration sur l'élimination de la violence contre les femmes, ces inquiétudes sont justifiées.

Nous exigeons ensemble que le gouvernement de l'Ontario respecte l'esprit du droit international des droits de la personne, et qu'il s'assure que les lois et règlements provinciaux ne soient pas en contravention avec ces instruments.

Genève, le 6 juin 2005

Signé,

Mme Aldjia Moulaï
24 ch Gradelle
1224 Chêne-Bougeries
Suisse

Dear Madame and/or Sir,

Please take into account the experience of women who have directly or indirectly have had to suffer from moslem laws. Canada has a well established tradition for asserting equal rights for men and women. Canada has fought at the UN level to obtains compliance to the convention on elimination of discrimination against women-INSTRAW. Canada cannot accept any exeption to equality in the name of culture nor tradition.

Odile Gordon-Lennox,
Chevry, France

To Whom It May Concern

Our members are very concerned that the government of Ontario are considering the introduction of religious arbitration courts for family matters in Canada despite strong evidence that the interpretation of religious law historically discriminates against women and is therefore contravening human rights law. We therefore would urge the government to consider opposing any such motion on the grounds that it is both discriminatory and unjust.

1st June 2005

Parvin Ali
Founder & Executive Director
On behalf of the FATIMA Women’s Network

Dear Friends,

Muslims for Secular Democracy (MSD), is an organisation of Indian Muslims that sees no conflict between secular democratic values -- which among other things uphold the principles of fundamental human rights for all, gender justice and pluralism -- and the essential teachings of Islam – compassion, equality, justice, peace.

In India, family laws are religion based, with each religious community having its own laws governing family affairs – marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, custodial rights etc. MSD believes that all the religion-based family laws in India are unfair to women and all are in urgent need of reform to make them gender just.

As far as Muslim Personal Laws are concerned, among other inequities, a Muslim husband can divorce his wife in an instant, whenever and without reason, exercise his legally granted privilege of polygamy at will. All talk of reform is rebuffed by the all-male Muslim clergy on the ground that these are in accordance with the shariah which they falsely claim is God-given and therefore immutable.

While in recent years there has been some reform in some Muslim-predominant societies, the overall problem remains that of a male-dominated, male chauvinist clergy that remains wedded to archaic interpretations of the shariah and opposes every attempt to create a more gender just society.

Given this, we have not the least doubt that the introduction of shariah courts in Canada will work against the interests of Muslim women. Muslims for Secular Democracy (MSD) opposes this retrograde step that in all likelihood will lead to the erosion of equality rights as guaranteed to them in Sections 15 and 28, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

MSD expresses its solidarity with all individuals and organisations engaged in fighting the bid to introduce shariah courts in Canada. It also calls upon all those proposing the shariah courts to be at least consistent and demand the introduction of shariah in criminal matters as well, for the shariah is not merely concerned with family relations.

Javed Anand
General Secretary
Muslims for Secular Democracy (MSD)

Dear Madam or Sir:

The international solidarity network Women Living Under Muslim Laws urges the Canadian government and the authorities of Ontario and other provinces to listen to the voices of the women of Canada, in particular those migrants whose families come from Muslim societies, who are resisting the use of the 1991 Arbitration Act to introduce so-called ‘Shari’a Courts’ in the resolution of family matters.

WLUML links women in over 70 Muslim countries and communities, linking women in majority and minority contexts, in states where laws are framed with reference to Islam and in secular states, and crossing boundaries of geography, language, ethnicity and other identities.

Despite our diversities, we share the commonality that all too often our oppression as women is justified with reference to Islam, and that extreme right forces seek to manipulate religion to gain political and social power.

In the name of ‘freedom of expression’ and anti-racism – the very values we stand for – and under the disguise of defending ‘community rights’ in face of the painful realities of continuing racial discrimination, fundamentalist groups and their cultural relativist allies on the left are demanding special rights for the ‘Muslim community’. But these special rights inevitably involve anti-women practices and highly regressive interpretations of Islam. They also unquestioningly presume that all migrants from Muslim contexts identify as ‘Muslim’.

In the bitter experience of the women linked through our network, constitutional guarantees of equality have not been sufficient to protect women from the effects of the ‘Islamisation’ of laws nor from the anti-women social atmosphere that they have encouraged since the rise of fundamentalist groups in the 1980s.

Indeed, family and community pressure can severely limit a woman's right to exercise ‘choice’ regarding for example which legal fora she approaches for her claim. Provisions which apparently offer a range of legal options can in reality force women to have to ‘choose’ one aspect of their multiple identities at the cost of another. This often jeopardises women's autonomy, as already demonstrated in other migrant communities, such as in France and the UK.

This is particularly true given that multiculturalist policies often give women’s voices on community issues less legitimacy than men’s voices. Obscurantist men cannot legitimately claim to ‘speak for’ these communities which are as politically and socially diverse as the majority community. If the majority community expects its issues to be resolved through democratic and pluralist processes, and be addressed as citizens rather than members of any congregation, why should these processes be denied to those from a migrant Muslim background?

The UN Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 28 has said that: “States parties should ensure that traditional, historical, religious or cultural attitudes are not used to justify violations of women's right to equality before the law and to equal enjoyment of all Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights] rights.”

WLUML therefore urges the Canadian authorities to listen to the concerns expressed by women and to follow international human rights law on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Women Living Under Muslim Laws
International Coordination Office

Dear Madam or Sir,

I urge the Canadian government and the authorities of Ontario and other provinces not to make use of the 1991 Arbitration Act to introduce so-called ‘Shari’a Courts’ in the resolution of family matters.

All too often oppression against women and minorities such as gay men is justified with reference to Islam, and that extreme right forces seek to manipulate religion to gain political and social power.

In the name of ‘freedom of expression’ and anti-racism – the very values I stand for – and under the disguise of defending ‘community rights’ in face of the painful realities of continuing racial discrimination, fundamentalist groups and their cultural relativist allies are demanding special rights for the ‘Muslim community’. But these special rights inevitably involve anti-women and anti-gay practices and highly regressive interpretations of Islam. They also unquestioningly presume that all migrants from Muslim contexts identify as ‘Muslim’.

Constitutional guarantees of equality have not been sufficient to protect women and minorities from the effects of the ‘Islamisation’ of laws nor from the anti-women/anti-gay social atmosphere that they have encouraged since the rise of fundamentalist groups in the 1980s.

Indeed, family and community pressure can severely limit especially a woman's right to exercise ‘choice’ regarding for example which legal fora she approaches for her claim. Provisions which apparently offer a range of legal options can in reality force people to have to ‘choose’ one aspect of their multiple identities at the cost of another. This often jeopardises especially women's autonomy, as already demonstrated in other migrant communities, such as in France and the UK.

This is particularly true given that multiculturalist policies often give women’s voices on community issues less legitimacy than men’s voices. Obscurantist men cannot legitimately claim to ‘speak for’ these communities which are as politically and socially diverse as the majority community. If the majority community expects its issues to be resolved through democratic and pluralist processes, and be addressed as citizens rather than members of any congregation, why should these processes be denied to those from a migrant Muslim background?

The UN Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 28 has said that: “States parties should ensure that traditional, historical, religious or cultural attitudes are not used to justify violations of women's right to equality before the law and to equal enjoyment of all Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights] rights.”

I therefore urge the Canadian authorities to listen to the concerns expressed by women and other minorities to follow international human rights law on this matter.

Yours truly

Stefan Hölzl
Germany

Déclaration sur l'arbitrage religieux en droit de la famille

À la suite du rapport de Madame Marion Boyd intitulé «Résolution des différents en droit de la famille:pour protéger le choix, pour promouvoir l'inclusion », je tiens à faire entendre les objections suivantes concernant l'application de toute loi religieuse aux questions familiales en vertu de la Loi sur l'arbitrage de l'Ontario.

Malgré les assurances contraires de Mme Boyd, je suis scandalisée par le risque d'érosion des droits à l'égalité garantis dans les articles 15 et 28 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Je suis d'avis que les recommandations de ce rapport sanctionnent l'érosion des droits à l'égalité des femmes, au moyen des lois de l'Ontario. Je crois que la Loi sur l'arbitrage n'a jamais été conçue pour répondre aux problèmes familiaux mais qu'elle est plutôt un véhicule pour les disputes commerciales. Même avec les balises proposées par Mme Boyd, le recours à l'arbitrage dans un tel contexte met en péril des décennies de réforme législative égalitaire.

Je suis d'avis que :

Je partage les préoccupations de la coalition internationale de groupes qui surveillent de près la décision du gouvernement de l'Ontario relativement aux recommandations du rapport Boyd. Comme eux, je suis préoccupée par l'érosion possible des droits des femmes au sein de démocraties constitutionnelles, sur la base de justifications d'ordre religieux. Vue à la lumière des dispositions de la Charte canadienne et des instruments internationaux ratifiés par le Canada, comme la Convention sur l'élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination à l'égard des femmes (CEDAW) et la Déclaration sur l'élimination de la violence contre les femmes, ces inquiétudes sont justifiées.

Nous exigeons ensemble que le gouvernement de l'Ontario respecte l'esprit du droit international des droits de la personne, et qu'il s'assure que les lois et règlements provinciaux ne soient pas en contravention avec ces instruments.

Date : le 6 juin 2005

Signé,

Salika Wenger,
Députée au Parlement de Genève
Présidente de l’association suisse contre les intégrismes religieux.

I am appalled that this issue is even being considered. This is a regressive and repressive step and one I oppose totally.

The progress for women to become equals under the law as well as to be treated with respect has been slow and steady. If sharia law were accepted as an alternative law for Muslim women, it would create a group of second class citizens.

Sandra Hamilton
Calgary, Alberta

Montréal, le mercredi 8 juin 2005

Je vous envoie, en mon nom et au nom des femmes du Québec, un appui unilatéral CONTRE la charia au Canada.

Etablir en sol Canadien un tel tribunal constituerait l'érection d'une charte des droits et libertés à deux vitesses, d'une justice divisée selon notre confession religieuse (et choisie par qui cette confession svp?).

Je trouve terrifiant qu'une telle possibilité soit ne serait-ce qu'envisagée dans mon pays, qui se targue de ses lois d'accès à l'égalité et qui est considéré parmi les plus démocratique au monde sur le plan légal et civique.

Il ne faut pas confondre droit des minorités et tyrannie d'une minorité ; nous savons TOUS qui avantage la CHARIA, et quels aspects épineux ce tribunal maison se targue de vouloir régler, loin de nos regards et jugements d'occidentaux: sexualité, indépendance et droit à l'autonomie des femmes musulmanes, rôle de celle-ci dans la schéma de la famille, enfantement, mariage, etc.

Au contraire, ces conflits doivent être entendus de tous; encombrer, s'il le faut, nos tribunaux, et être traités de la même façon que tout autre litige qui afflige n'importe quel Canadien. Ainsi les aberrations, les abus systématiques liés à la discrimination pourront être dénoncés et endigués à la source, au vu de tous. Ces dénonciations publiques pourront renforcer le sentiment d'égalité des femmes musulmanes dans ce pays qui est le leur aussi, renforcer leur parole contestataire contre la rigitidé islamiste à leur égard, afin que celles-ci osent de plus en plus dénoncer et modifier des façons de voir, de faire, de vivre, archaïques et dépassées.

TOUTES les femmes et tous les HOMMES dans ce pays sont égaux en droits, en libertés et en responsabilités; c'est notre devoir à tous, citoyens et Etat, de se le rappeler pour toujours et à jamais et de l'appliquer SYSTEMATIQUEMENT, (si j'osais je dirais l'appliquer de manière intégriste, c'est à dire RADICALEMENT, sans aucun compromis), sans jamais faiblir ni pâlir devant des us et coutumes parallèles.

Mylène Beauregard
Coordonnatrice
Accès-Cible Jeunesse Rosemont
Montréal

A qui de droit,

Par la présente, je souhaite vous manifester mon désaccord avec la possible instauration de tribunaux islamiques dans votre province.

L'Ontario prendra bientôt une décision sur les recommandations du rapport Boyd relativement à la possibilité d'instaurer des tribunaux islamiques (charia) en droit de la famille.

La majorité des femmes musulmanes et les organisations qui les représentent s'opposent à de tels tribunaux car ils menaceraient les droits des femmes et l'intégration de la communauté musulmane dasn la société canadienne.

Je souteint leur lutte contre tout tribunal arbitraire de quelque religion que ce soit,

Marie-Josée Ruest Québec-Maroc

Bonjour,

je tiens à dire l'importance de traiter toutes les femmes du Canada de la même manière et, en ce sens, de refuser que des tribunaux islamistes puissent trancher des litiges familiaux pour la communauté musulmane du Canada. On le sait très bien, la famille constitue un lieu privilégié des islamistes fondamentalistes pour imposer aux femmes une limitation de leur liberté. Au nom des principes d'égalité et de liberté enchassés dans la charte canadienne, je vous demande de refuser aux tribunaux islamistes la capacité de trancher quelques questions que ce soit qui regarde le droit canadien. En solidarité avec toutes les femmes du Canada,

Louise Brossard
Enseignante et chercheuse
Sociologue