Dreadfully, incoming British Prime Minister Theresa May has been continuing to defend her position on Sharia Law. Imagine: she is worried about Muslim women’s rights, but she defends Sharia law. Sharia law is opposed to women’s rights, period, despite the propaganda that stealth jihadists continue to spew as they erode our democratic institutions.

Ontario, Canada faced a similar situation 12 years ago that should be a model and example for Westerners; the Ontario Premier at the time finally declared after a long battle: “One law for all Ontarians.”

In 2004, Toronto lawyer Syed Mumtaz Ali announced that the “Islamic Institute of Civil Justice” would shortly begin arbitrating family matters on the basis of sharia law, accompanied by his verbal warning that “to be a good Muslim, all Muslims must use these sharia courts”. A heated controversy began that pitted Muslims against each other: those for and those against Sharia law in Ontario, which would set a precedent for Canada.

Many women’s groups, including Muslim groups, opposed Sharia, and the Muslim Canadian Congress argued that Sharia does not view women as equals and therefore cannot provide equal justice to all parties in a dispute, especially on issues of divorce, child custody and division of property.

In a 2004, the Canadian national newspaper, the Globe and Mail, reported on two Muslim immigrant women, Homa Arjomand and Alia Hogben, who were featured where they lobbied hard for Ontario to change its arbitration law. Arjomand even launched a petition, “International Campaign Against Sharia Courts in Canada.”

Alia Hogben discusses the difference in the Muslim population today from when her family first came to Canada in 1946 when the Muslim population was very small. She explains that as the Muslim population grew dramatically, many Muslims began living in “enclaves” and remained isolated from the rest of Canadian society.

Hogben warned that “many of the new arrivals have brought with them a far more rigid version of Islam” and she said that “a lot of money is being poured into North America from very traditional groups from Saudi Arabia and Libya.”

The article also points out a critical fact that Theresa May fails to understand in her ignorant quest to “protect” the so-called rights of Muslim women:

“Immigrant women are among the most vulnerable people in Canada. Many don’t speak English, are poorly educated, and are isolated from the broader culture. They may live here for decades without learning the language, and stay utterly dependent on their families. They have no idea of their rights under Canadian law. The arbitrators can be imams, Muslim elders or lawyers. In theory, their decisions aren’t supposed to conflict with Canadian civil law. But because there is no third-party oversight, and no duty to report decisions, no outsider will ever know if they do. These decisions can be appealed to the regular courts. But for Muslim women, the pressures to abide by the precepts of sharia are overwhelming. To reject sharia is, quite simply, to be a bad Muslim.”

Dalton McGuinty, who was Ontario Premier at the time, finally declared:

“There will be no sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.”

Since 1991, arbitration decisions were being made according to religious laws and were enforceable in Ontario courts, but the Premier rescinded the Arbitration Act that settled disputes related to commerce, religion and civil issues.

Let’s hope that there will be enough opposition to Theresa May’s defense of Sharia for her to conclude sensibly that there will be one law for all Brits, as this misguided leader vows to unite Britain. She sure is off to a bad start.

Robert Spencer also wrote about why Theresa May is a disaster for Britain.

“Theresa May forced to defend views on Sharia Law as she prepares to enter No 10”, by Zoie O’Brien, UK Express, July 12, 2016: