Skip to comments.
Canada prepares to enforce Islamic law
WorldNetDaily ^
| 4/28/04
| WorldNetDaily
Posted on 04/28/2004 5:41:31 PM PDT by wagglebee
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
To: a1.414
I saw your point earlier (and the same point made on another thread) that these arbitration courts' conclusions and settlements must abide by the regular court. Shariah, Indian, what have you.
... But that's how it is *now*. I simply don't trust Canada that they won't pervert it in the future in the interests of 'embracing multiculturalism'. Contrarily, here in the US, we have a Constitution to protect us. You in Canada have the whimsical and flighty Parliamentary procedure that can change it's mind in secret at the drop of a hat with no ratification by the citizenry.
In your earlier link from the 'Independent', you ought to consider well the end to the story about Muslim women who have good reason to be worried about this change in Canadian policy. If they refuse the Shariah court, their lives might actually be in danger. Something bad is going to happen, and I believe that you suspect it too though you dont want to appear insensitive by admitting it forthrightly. If I were Canadian, I would be of the opinion that if a petitioner cannot wait for due process through the existing court system, they should put an egg in their slipper and beat it back to where ever they came from.
These community arbitration courts may work for the Indians --- ("Great Spirit Guide, I loaned Percy Two-Feathers my fishing kayak and he put a hole in the bottom of it. I want ten of his baby Harp Seal pelts as restitution!") -- but you're talking about extending this mediation to Islam, the Canadian majority demographics of which are recent immigrants from backwards-ass primitive cultures you wouldn't dare to walk across with a maple leaf sewn to your backpack.
Like I said earlier: Battery acid in some poor woman's face sooner than you think.
Now taking bets.
41
posted on
04/28/2004 7:13:11 PM PDT
by
The KG9 Kid
(Semper Fi)
To: wagglebee
In that case I apologize, I thought you were doubting the entire article.De rien.
To: a1.414
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?
43
posted on
04/28/2004 7:21:58 PM PDT
by
ijcr
(Age and treachery will always overcome youth and ability.)
To: ken5050
Ridiculous. Suppose the islamic male chauvinist pig hubby wants to divorce his wife, but she would like the protection of the Canadian law that normal people have, so she says she is not one of those mohammedans. Where does she stand before what court. Suppose a mohammedan speaks out against another mohammedan who is queer. Which one gets stoned, the accuser, who has violated canadian law by talking nasty, or the queer who has violated mohammedan law, or both? And if there are a million islamics in Canada we probably need to start building the wall now in order to have it done by the time Arafat goes into exile there.
To: highlander_UW
There Was a Time when Canadiens KNEW WHO THEY WERE!
"Sharia Law??"--
Have the Brave, Intelligent, Thoughtful, PRACTICAL Citizens of Canada "LOST THEIR MINDS??"
SINCE WHEN have the Intelligent Citizens of Canada EVER allowed the "Proclamations of a 'Religious Cult'" EVER Direct the Laws of Canada??
SOMETHING "SMELLS, Here!"
"Sharia Law" is Extraneous to the Normal, Constitutional Laws of Canada.
Either Canada ACCEPTS "Muslim Law," or the "Followers of Islamic Beliefs" accept the Culture they have "Migrated to," & attempt to Change their "Host Culture" to "Islam."
Considering Recent Worldwide Islamic Events, FEW of US--in the West--would be Likely to embrace "Islam."
To: Doc On The Bay
Islam produces nothing and accomplishes nothing, and survives by taking over cultures that are productive and innovative. They like places with an abundance of natural resources they can sell to retain some degree of sustenance, since actual useful work does not come easily to their mentality. Canada fills the bill perectly for some sort of a jihad. There is no one Canada won't let in, they have no coherent culture anymore, they have a lot of resources, and once enough mohammedans are perched there the islamicists can go after the big prize, the United States. By that time, however, we will hopefully have enough hispanics who still remember how to kick islamic butt to defend ourselves.
To: Brad's Gramma
47
posted on
04/28/2004 7:55:38 PM PDT
by
idkfa
To: idkfa
From the thread you pinged me to....
Thieves have had their hands amputated and several women have been sentenced to death by stoning for having extra-marital sex. But no death sentences have yet been carried out.
As I said....open the door a crack and in waltzes liberalism, socialism, ISLAMIC crap, and who knows what else.
48
posted on
04/28/2004 8:01:23 PM PDT
by
Brad’s Gramma
(Take THAT Kerry and Hitlery! FREEPERS ROCK!!!!)
To: a1.414
Muslims will be under great pressure to submit to these phony Sharia courts. You are sadly mistaken if you think there will be no communal pressure. A Muslim female who is raped by a Muslim male will be pressured to go to these bullsh^t Islamic courts to seek justice.
You have no poroblem with this?
49
posted on
04/28/2004 8:02:48 PM PDT
by
dennisw
(GD is against Amalek for all generations)
To: a1.414; Brad's Gramma
I think you missed the fact that choosing arbitration is a voluntary act. For now.
Ever hear the word "incrementalism"?
Ever hear the phrase "camel's nose under the tent"?
What do you think those terms describe?
50
posted on
04/28/2004 8:07:29 PM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Don Joe; a1.414
The frog in the kettle??????????????? (not you, Don...you know of what I speak)
51
posted on
04/28/2004 8:09:08 PM PDT
by
Brad’s Gramma
(Take THAT Kerry and Hitlery! FREEPERS ROCK!!!!)
To: wagglebee
It's almost time to invade Canada.
To: dennisw
Note that arbitration is only an option for civil matters (i.e. contract disputes). Rape is a crime.
A more apt concern is associated with a very common contract: marriage. Would Muslim women go to family court of Shari'a court to get a divorce? The answer to this, I'd guess, is that the ones that'd go to Shari'a court do already anyway. Ultra-Orthodox women in Brooklyn probably go to Family court for their divorces, and Muslim women in Michigan probably ask a Qadi for help.
The solution to such problems though is education and socialization (which is why I'd wait to see what happens three generations down the line), not forced conversion.
53
posted on
04/28/2004 8:47:29 PM PDT
by
a1.414
To: a1.414
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.
54
posted on
04/28/2004 8:56:04 PM PDT
by
Alouette
(Every democratic politician should live next door to a pimp, so he can have someone to look up to.)
To: The KG9 Kid
I don't happen to be Canadian. However, before making comments such as: "You in Canada have the whimsical and flighty Parliamentary procedure that can change it's mind in secret at the drop of a hat with no ratification by the citizenry.", I'd read the following:
You'll learn that Canadians also have a constitution to protect them. In particular, Section V.38 of the constitution details the procedure for amending it. It's quite similar to the one for amending the US Constitution. As I'm sure you are well-aware, parliaments don't meet in secret any more than the US Congress does, their laws don't take effect before they are made public, and are no more "flighty" than the US Congress is. The difference between Parliamentary and Presidential democracies in any case is not in the way laws are made, but rather in the independence of the executive.
The solution to the social problems of very traditional societies is exposure to the outside world. The coersion you describe already exists -- except now these women don't go to any court at all.
55
posted on
04/28/2004 9:09:38 PM PDT
by
a1.414
To: a1.414
Trol Alert!
To: ImaTexan
Ping
57
posted on
04/28/2004 9:29:19 PM PDT
by
bjcintennessee
(Don't Sweat the Small Stuff)
To: dennisw; Alouette; hellinahandcart; Yehuda
The style of this one is reminiscent of a passin pilgrim beecharmer from Kudzu Flat.
To: wagglebee
"Can't imagine how the libs will respond when we need to invade Quebec in ten years or so."
We can assume there won't be much resistance in the form of an armed citizenry to try and stop us.
To: a1.414
Right you are. After I posted I realized marriage is a much better example of problems for this Canadian Sharia court. Since it's a civil Sharia court for now. Please do not doubt this is a foot in the door for Canadian Sharia court that would adjudicate criminal matters too.
60
posted on
04/29/2004 4:17:44 AM PDT
by
dennisw
(GD is against Amalek for all generations)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson