IndexSection One: From the Perspective of the StateSection Two: From the Perspective of the PublicSection Three: From the Perspective of Islamic Men and WomenThe The objective of this paper is to shed light on the history of Sharia law in Canada and to provide an analysis of how Sharia law has been integrated into Ontario family law, examining in particular the clash between gender equality and religious freedom. Canadian citizens of Ontario devoted to the Islamic faith demand the right to use Sharia law to resolve family disputes. However, many women's rights advocates argue that Sharia family law does not reflect the principles of gender equality. The global migration of religious traditions and communities, particularly the integration of the Islamic church and Sharia law in Canada, has been the result of globalization in the form of increased ease of transportation and permanent migration. This issue is important because freedom of religion and gender equality are fundamental human rights identified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay This paper will achieve its objectives by addressing the issue from the perspective of three main stakeholders: the state, the public, and the Islamic church. The first section will examine the issue from the perspective of the State, i.e. the province of Ontario and the federal government of Canada, including the provincial and federal courts. The second section will address the issue from the perspective of the Ontario public. The “public” in this context consists of the general population of Ontario, including religious groups not affiliated with the Islamic church, citizens not affiliated with the federal or provincial government, non-religious citizens, and the media. Section three will address the issue from the perspective of Islamic men and women and examine the historical context of Sharia law globally and issues related to the legal integration of Sharia law in Ontario family courts specifically related to equality rights. Section One: From the State's Perspective The Canadian Constitution is the highest form of law we have in Canada. The first part of the Constitution Act (1982), called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, protects the human rights of Canadian citizens. Article 15 of the Charter protects equality rights, stating that “every individual is equal… and is entitled to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination… in particular, without discrimination based… on religion (or) sex ”. However, the first section of the Charter clearly states that these rights and freedoms are not absolute and can be limited, if the limits prove “reasonable in a free and democratic society”. Canadian family law was originally based on Christian religious principles and the Bible. Family law is designed to reflect evolving values ​​and behaviors; however, they often lag behind contemporary norms. For example, the concept of divorce was not recognized until 1856, and many laws recognizing the rights of married women were not enacted until the late 20th century. Matters relating to child protection, adoption, custody, access, spousal and child support fall under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice, while divorce and post-marital property disputes are judgeby the Ontario Superior Court. The State encourages settlements, rather than court decisions, are encouraged as much as possible in family law to reduce unnecessary financial and emotional strain. To encourage agreements between two parties, the government subsidizes processes such as mediation and arbitration. Ontario's Arbitration Act allows citizens to appoint an arbitrator to resolve civil disputes outside of the traditional court system. The Islamic Institute of Civil Justice proposed this act to have granted them the right to resort to Sharia arbitration courts to resolve Islamic family matters. After Muslim Canadians supported this right, the Ontario government commissioned the Boyd Report (2004), which recommended that Sharia courts be permitted if they adhered to forty-six safeguards. Two years of public debate and protests ensued, culminating in Ontario's then-premier Dalton McGuinty declaring that his government "will ensure that... there will be no binding family arbitration in Ontario using one set of rules or laws that discriminate against women" (Chotalia, 2011). The Arbitration Act and the Family Law Act were then amended by the province to reflect this statement, and Sharia courts have since been largely suspended. Section two: from public perspective As discussed in Section One, the Ontario public has played a significant role in ensuring that the Arbitration Act and the Family Law Act are amended to provide greater protection for women's rights, a Sharia court costs. The “public” in this context consists of the general population of Ontario, including religious groups not affiliated with the Islamic church, citizens not affiliated with the federal or provincial government, non-religious citizens, and the media. The majority opinion held by the public was represented in Premier McGuinty's statement. Protesters such as Homa Arjomand, who leads the international campaign against Sharia courts in Canada, said allowing the courts would push back Canadian law by 1,400 years. Arjomand also said that "[my] lawyers are studying the decisions of several arbitration cases and will take them to court to expose how women are victims of male-dominated legal decisions based on religion and 6th century traditions." Another protester, Nasrin Ramazanli, said that "If Shariah is used in Canada, I feel threatened here too." However, the resulting amendments led to the banning of other religious courts, such as Jewish family courts. This upset some members of those churches who felt they were being unfairly punished as a “side effect” of the Sharia court protests, while others argue that those courts were equally unfair to women (Strauss, 2005). Section Three: From the Perspective of Islamic Men and Women Sharia, or Islamic Law, derives from the principles of the Islamic faith, particularly the Koran. Muslims consider the Quran to be the true word of Allah (god) and therefore sacred. Sharia is thought to date back to between the 6th and 10th centuries. Many countries currently follow Sharia law, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Yemen. Sharia law is complicated and difficult to understand without in-depth study. That said, Sharia law has many key and identifiable differences from the Canadian common law system. Sharia law has been criticized for favoring punishment over rehabilitation and for its shocking treatment of women. For example, drinking or handling alcohol 2011).