Replies

"I don't see a problem. It's basically communities solving disputes themselves"

No, there is a much bigger problem. You need to put yourself in the place of these Muslim women. If you go with Sharia in a divorce case, you assured to lose everything, kids, alimony, everything. If they go with Canadian law, you would get your share (many would say more than your share, but that's for another thread).

Yes, you can opt out of Sharia Law. But what happens next, your family and entire community disowns you. You may even find yourself the victim of an "honor killing". In the end, you have no choice but to abide by Sharia Law.

That's the problem. Once you set up a parallel legal system, be it "voluntary" or not, you're basically enslaving the Muslim women and giving them no hope of freedom. In effect, they can no longer use the Canadian system, which would have treated them as something more than cattle. If everyone had to live under the Canadian system, the men would simply lose their dominance.

If anything is going to bring Islam into 19th century (you have to start somewhere) in the West, it will be their women rejecting the scam, as they see Western women given true freedom.

The Canadians have done the Muslim men a huge favor and closed off that escape path. They will soon see the results.

This is precisely what I was thinking. The Muslim communities will probably actively dissuade the Muslim people from using the Canadian system and ostracize those who don't.

Multiculturalism does no one any good. Behind the pin-ups of children holding hands across the globe plastered inside every classroom in the Western world is a divisive inner core. Keep culture associated with geography.

Apf

Once you set up a parallel legal system, be it "voluntary" or not, you're basically enslaving the Muslim women and giving them no hope of freedom.

Both countries have a long history of using arbitration to settle disputes. This arbitration is simply limited to a group of people who would accept it.

We've both said that the secular courts would be more friendly to women. But contrast it with other religous arbitration. A woman whose husband died would come off better for inheritance in a Shari'a panel than in an orthodox Jewish or old-time fundamentalist Christian panel. They would also do better when wanting to divorce an abusive husband (that right is specifically in the Quran).

Being a fan of secular courts, were I a woman I wouldn't want to go to arbitration from any of these three religions, but they are free to do so.