Ontario urged to reject Shariah law

Canadian Press via Sun Media ^ | 2005-09-09 | Keith Leslie

[Clive]

-

[Redbob]

So some Canadians do have a clue!

[ghitma]

But but but.... where is the diversity and the celebration of different cultures???

[OpusatFR]

Shariah does not agree with Civil Law.

Jewish and Canon Law do not conflict.

Sharia is seen as superior in all respects to the host countries system. The problem is this:

If Sharia is applied for family law, that is fine. But,

Sharia is also a system of laws that apply to criminal and civil cases.

That, conflicts. It is not merely a body of law for family disputes.

[hawkaw]

A few of us do.

[softwarecreator]

So they have to be "urged" to reject it?  Shouldn't that be a no-brainer?

[Adrastus]

Ask the Iranians about the wonders of diversity.

So it begins.

[Honorary Serb]

Angry demonstrators.... urged Dalton McGuinty to dismiss the idea of allowing the use of Shariah law to settle family disputes [in Ontario, Canada].

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Appeasing islamists DOES NOT WORK!!!!

[ExpatCanuck]

Have the morons in government there actually studied Sharia law enough to make the determination that it will not be in conflict with anything in the Canadian civil/criminal code?

[Ashamed Canadian]

Allahu Akbar, eh.

[Safetgiver]

They gonna shoot and chop off heads in Canduh? I'll fish elsewhere, thank you.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

I actually attended a community based meeting last night after the protest and heard Homa Arjomand, Coordinator of the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada. They run a website www.nosharia.com with more information and she was particularly passionate about the view that there should be 'no faith based arbitration allowed period'. It was quite an interesting and lively discussion - in particular the answer to a 'non-muslim questioner' in the Q and A who asked simply 'what's the big deal if this is all about the internal dispute resolution/arbitration mechanism of the group's members'? That is actually at the heart of the whole thing because one assumes that if one is willing to join a group, they then should willingly comply with the group's rules - the option is always open to leave. In this case, the fall back position is that if the issue at hand falls under provincial/federal law, that applicable law would have to supersede anything that would be rendered by the sharia court. The same is true regardless of whether one is talking about any other 'group' including dispute resolution/arbitration processes that exist in organizations such as the Roman Catholics. My guess is that the bigger issue is that the women simply don't trust their own faith even though they are quick to point out that there is supposedly no connection whatever between Muslim faith and sharia court. This is quite an interesting issue because of broader implications to any group or am I missing something here?

[AmericanChef]

This is happening right next door to us, but will soon be coming to places like Michigan (or did it already while I was blinking?)! RESIST!!

[Amalie]

This is GROUND ZERO...

[GMMAC]

Flame away but, the reasonable and just position is that of - among others - the Catholic Church:

Muslims should enjoy the same religious liberties and attendant social rights and responsibilities as any other Faith community within Canadian society - no more, no less.

Ergo, Muslims should rightly be permitted to establish arbitration bodies similar to Catholic Marriage Tribunals or Jewish Rabbinical Courts which, likewise, may be utilized by the Faithful on a voluntary basis and which exist subservient to Canadian Civil Laws and Statutes. However, on the basis of this community's known history, common sense 'profiling' surely dictates that such bodies should also logically be very closely monitored.

It's worth noting that, in Ontario, those opposed to extending such fairness to Muslims form a veritable 'who's who' of the anti-family radical left.
Accordingly, it's hardly unreasonable to conclude that - no matter how they attempt to mask it - this opposition is part and parcel of their on-going campaign against all Faith-based institutions, conventional families and traditional gender roles and moral values.

Further, as they've habitually and shamelessly used lies and intentional distortions - such as blurring the line between respective applications of Muslim civil and criminal law - to further their ends, if successful, it's more than probable they'll next go after Christian and Jewish bodies citing gross extremes and absurdities like the Spanish Inquisition and alleged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' as justification!

Aside from the sound adage of being known by the company we keep, why would any sincere and legitimate conservative want to deny anyone - no matter what their religion - an alternative to the openly corrupt and gender bigoted so-called "family" Courts?

[Modernman]

This is happening right next door to us, but will soon be coming to places like Michigan (or did it already while I was blinking?)! RESIST!!

Any court in America will enforce a decision by two private parties to have their dispute resolved in accordance with Sharia law (so long as such enforcement does not violate American law).

Private parties have a lot of leeway when deciding how their private disputes will be settled.

[Modernman]

Ergo, Muslims should rightly be permitted to establish arbitration bodies similar to Catholic Marriage Tribunals or Jewish Rabbinical Courts

That is the case in the US. Many Freepers on these threads are surprised to find out that private parties in the US are free to have their disputes settled using any system of law they desire, including Sharia.

[doc30]

Sharia is coming. The Liberla MPP's don't want to lose the radical muslim vote. The feminists will stay on the plantation so there is nothing to lose.

[GMMAC]

"Sharia is coming. The Liberla MPP's don't want to lose the radical muslim vote. The feminists will stay on the plantation so there is nothing to lose."

Dunno, when the wants of these same two special interests last collided over gay "marriage" we both know whose won out.
If I'm right, based upon the logic in my post above that attacking Faith and family is the real goal/objective, put your money on the bra-burners.
Plus, what - even metrosexual - 'male' Liberal could stand the resulting shrill whining on the ol' plantation if he didn't cave to the feminists' demands? LOL!