Replies

This article is a bit misleading; see the Independent for a better account. What they are implementing is essentially a voluntary form of arbitration for certain civil matters. This doesn't mean Canadian law will be thrown out -- rather, that in civil matters, you can choose to be governed by some other law instead.

If two people sign a contract, they can voluntarily agree that any disputes will be resolved by an arbiter or their choice, including people like Judge Judy or the local Imam. What's wrong with letting people decide they want their personal disputes governed by Talmudic law instead of English Common Law? The less business that occurs in front of the usual court system, the better.

I recently signed an employment contract with an American company. This included a clause similar to "any disputes will be resolved by an arbiter (selected by them) belonging to [some organization of arbiters]". If I didn't want to be subject to such arbiteration I had the choice of not accepting the job.

"... What's wrong with letting people decide they want their personal disputes governed by Talmudic law instead of English Common Law?"

That would almost make sense if Islamic civil cases in some Muslim countries didn't end up with people being blinded in one eye, hands being cut off, or having female family members sold into whoredom to pay outstanding debts.

Oughtta be a load of laughs when someone is ordered to sell their daughter -- a Canadian citizen, mind you -- into an arranged marriage with a Pakistani living abroad.

Would Canada protect that girl, or would they help spirit her away to a foreign land like Janet Reno did to Elian?

Wait until your pre-nuptial includes "Stoning to death"

What they are implementing is essentially a voluntary form of arbitration for certain civil matters.

What's wrong with letting people decide they want their personal disputes governed by Talmudic law instead of English Common Law?

Granite or Limestone?

What's wrong with letting people decide they want their personal disputes governed by Talmudic law instead of English Common Law?

The problem arises when the secular authorities are used as enforcers for the religious courts. If two Jews have a dispute and want to take it before a beth din I'm all in favor of that. But I certainly draw the line at requiring the police to enforce the psak (verdict) of a beth din.

Furthermore, Jewish law states dina d'malchusa dina ("the law of the land is the law") just as Christianity teaches "render unto Caesar." Muslims want to apply sharia and use the taxpayer-paid police to enforce it.

What's wrong with letting people decide they want their personal disputes governed by Talmudic law instead of English Common Law?

Nothing in Saudi Arabia. Everything in the United States. We are not here to cater to the whims of those who want to get all the benefits of our way of life yet, not defend or even try to uphold it. Nothing short of mass deportation of muslim non-citizens will save our way of life. They can visit for 30 days on vacation. After that, get the hell out!