Canada: Use of Sharia law by Muslims okay, report says

Toronto Star ^ | 12/20/04 | CANADIAN PRESS

[Eastbound]

"Remeber Bagwan'

The guy with the Cadillac and all the women in the orange robes?

Balkanization will probably happen, just like big city ethnic neighborhoods only on a greater scale. Whole cities, not just neighborhoods if things go unchecked. I don't look for anything to be done on immigration reform unless we're attacked again.

[Chemist_Geek]

Excuse me.....didn't the Taliban blow up the buddist statues? Wasn't the Taliban both religious and governmental leaders?

That's precisely it. When a government is based on a religion, any religion, the temptation is always there to treat opposition to the government as opposition to God Himself, and if one's enemies are opposed to God...then any depredation is justifiable.

I reiterate: No government is competent to say anything to any person about that person's faith. "Render unto Caesar" and all that. Violent, illegal acts ought to be punished as such, not used as an excuse to suppress any faith, no matter how that faith may disagree with the majority's faith.

[Modernman]

But for the United States, at least right now, most of us are never going to support minorities imposing parallel justice systems, however you guys may try to package them, - NEVER.

And yet, private arbitration by community and religious leaders (such as the aforementioned Rabbinical courts in Brooklyn) has been going on in this country for decades, if not centuries, without any problems.

People are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Private parties have a lot of latitude when it comes to resolving civil disputes. Other than outlawing private citizens' contract rights, how do you propose to stop something like this?

[Modernman]

Can Canadians (or Americans) ask for their law to be arbitrated in Muslim countries?

Sure. It's called a choice of venue provision. If you read the terms of your agreement with your credit card company, for example, you'll find that you've agreed to have any disputes arbitrated in South Dakota or some other out-of-the-way place. If you wanted to agree to have your dispute arbitrated in Pakistan, you could.

[Chemist_Geek]

People are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Private parties have a lot of latitude when it comes to resolving civil disputes. Other than outlawing private citizens' contract rights, how do you propose to stop something like this?

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

[antiRepublicrat]

If that is so, why are so many demanding that we change to their way of living?

I don't know any who do, but then I don't know any extreme fundamentalists. I do know some Christians who want to force me to live the way they do. The Muslims I know just have their religious services and community rules just like any other religious community.

Why does shar'ia law have to be instituted for them in Canada?

Why does Canon have to be instituted for Catholics? Why should the Rabbi have any say in what happens in an orthodox Jewish community?

Why don't they assimilate to the western countries that they're so desperate to live in?

I've always had a problem with people who come over, just to create a small version of their country of origin. I lived overseas for 15 years and blended with the locals, while bringing my bit of Americana with me (the melting pot thing).

It would all depend on specific circumstances. If they blend, but they want their disputes arbitrated according to their morals, I have no problem. It is wrong if they want to create their own little Saudi Arabia in the middle of a Western country.

[antiRepublicrat]

The rabbi and priest don't promote a religion that has the goal of overthrowing the United States.

You've never heard the millions of claims of Jewish conspiracy or charges against Papists?

[aimhigh]

You've never heard the millions of claims of Jewish conspiracy or charges against Papists?

Ya, but I'm smart enough to distinguish truth from fiction, and see historical changes in the Papists. I haven't seen any changes in the diaperheads, except to get more fanatical.

[antiRepublicrat]

I haven't seen any changes in the diaperheads, except to get more fanatical.

Switch that from diaperheads to beanie-heads and you'd be called an anti-Semite.

[aimhigh]

Switch that from diaperheads to beanie-heads and you'd be called an anti-Semite.

Since the Jews haven't blown up any buildings in America, I won't.

[Chemist_Geek]

Since the Jews haven't blown up any buildings in America, I won't.

Neither have "the Muslims." Al-Qaeda terrorists have; is that too fine a point?

[antiRepublicrat]

Since the Jews haven't blown up any buildings in America, I won't.

Christians have. What do we call them?

[Chemist_Geek]

Of course not, but they can already do this, they do not need a law to do this, nor do they even need a court room. If they both have the same beliefs, then there will not even be an argument to settle, will there. They can just refer to scripture and follow the guidance. That is why this new law is worrying.

No, this ruling enables the Canadian courts to enforce rulings made by Sharia arbitrators. (I never liked the term "arbitration"; it always seemed too close to "arbitrary" to me...But I digress.) People have conflict even with the best of intentions, and no matter how seriously they take their religions. This allows them to have their day in Sharia court, then make that judgement enforceable (except if it violates Canadian statutory law as noted perviously).

[antiRepublicrat]

e. That is why this new law is worrying.

What law? According to the article, the government is just admitting that these people already have a right to do exactly as you stated: settle their differences according to their beliefs.

[beaver fever]

I've posted replys on several threads devoted to this subject merely to clear up some misunderstandings about the application of Sharia Law in Canadian Civil Courts.

My personal opinion is that the use of Sharia Law in Canada is a Trojan Horse. If it is applied Muslim Fundamentalists will abuse it to maintain there control over women and you will see blizzard of human rights cases come out it since class action suits are now permitted in Canada.

If that happens the Charter of Rights rulings will set precedents that will effect fundamentalists in other religious groups whose practices and customs are contrary to the Western tradition of Common Law.

I specifically mentioned Sikh and Mormon fundamentalists but other groups could be affected.

It is noteworthy that a large portion of the Ontario muslim community is adamantly opposed to Sharia because they have no faith that the proponents of Sharia will apply it fairly.

A friend of mine from Iran immigrated because he would not live under Sharia. Like most Iranians who immigrate to Canada, he was a professional (a doctor). All Sharia has accomplished in Iran is the mass emigration of the professional middle class. Their loss, our gain.