[antiRepublicrat]

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.

[BobL]

"Judges dealing with custody issues can supercede any private decisions by the parties."

I'm being hit from both sides.

Anyway, yes, judges no doubt can supersede, the problem is that the woman will know enough not to get near a real Canadian judge - if she ever wants to be seen by her family or community, again.

Once Sharia is an option, she has already lost. The only it can be fair to her is to have her use the Canadian courts.

As for Jews and other, I don't really care. The last time I checked, there wasn't a Jewish Jihad going on around the world, and Jewish husbands treated their wives with some degree of respect.

Remember, we're trying to help pull this "religion" out of the stone age (rather than simply exterminating all of them, as a LOT of Freepers would be inclined to support). Giving them access to their barbaric legal system doesn't help.