# Sharia Law in Canada?



## MAJOR_Baker (28 Apr 2004)

Sharia Law


----------



## tabernac (28 Apr 2004)

First we let Al-Qu‘ida supporters into Canada, give them health care and a house, and now this?
I sure hope this Sharia law thing is not as bad as I think it is.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Apr 2004)

"People can agree to resolve disputes any way acceptable," 

Like killing your wife or stoning someone to death?
Great


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (28 Apr 2004)

We‘ve had Indian courts here in some provinces for a bit. They act much like the other two courts do, metting out their own justice by their own judges. It can be worse however, in Sudan sharia courts have applied to everyone, us infidels included, though there were stopgaps protecting the christians a bit.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Apr 2004)

Speaking of infidels
 http://www.joecartoon.com/pages/osamabox/


----------



## chrisf (28 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] I am not sure that it is so bad, I have never heard a non-government organization as an arbitor before. [/qb]


Really? Ever watch Judge Judy?

Can‘t recall the exact legal terms, but these courts would only apply to civil proceedings, not criminal proceedings, and both parties must agree to the alternative dispute resolution, for example, I couldn‘t go to a Jewish court and sue you without your consent. 

Basically, both parties sign an agreement stating that they will abide by the arbitrators decision.

The setting up of "Muslim Courts" as such is just setting up a formal system of alternative arbitration.


----------



## winchable (28 Apr 2004)

It‘s not a bad thing at all, and I think the "stonings" as a result will be NIL.

Alternative arbitration, not a replacement.
Everyone put down the lynch ropes.


----------



## winchable (28 Apr 2004)

If the Sharia were a mandatory means of settling legal disputes for Muslims living in Canada, then perhaps the secular question could be asked.
As it stands, from what I gather, this is an optional means of arbitration and a private venture not neccessarily supported by the government.


----------



## mattoigta (28 Apr 2004)

Yeah whats the big deal - we‘ve already got other Arbitration systems out there (ie Native, Jewish)


----------



## chrisf (28 Apr 2004)

Mr. Baker, I get the feeling you don‘t entirely understand what this is...

It‘s alternative arbitration. It‘s not set up by the state, but in this case, it‘s set up by the muslim community.

They can‘t hand out criminal verdicts, only civil verdicts.

Consider this. I sue you. Neither of us really has the time to wait for the civil courts to open up a spot for our lawsuit on the docket, but I‘m willing to wait if I have to...

We can both sign a contract that says we‘ll accept alternative arbitration. We find an arbitrator... it can be a hobo of the street if we both agree to it, in the case of the courts that are being set up, basically they‘re offering a formal system for you to find an arbitrator, familiar with muslim concepts of property. We both present our case to the arbitrator, and the arbitrator makes a decision, then we‘re both contractually obliged to abide by it. Can the arbitrators decision be over turned by a court of law? Yes, but if the arbitrators decision was fair to begin with, you‘re going to be tossed of court.

Now, on this nonsense about stonings. If a judge in a muslim court within Canada was to hand out a verdict saying somone was to be stoned, then not only would the enactors of the stoning be charged with murder, but also the arbitrator (judge) would be charged with at minimum manslaughter, probably also murder, and anyone involved in the trial could also be tried with manslaughter.

Why would somone want to have a muslim court? Expertise in the culture. What two muslims would consider a fair settlement WITHIN THE LAW might be different then a fair settlement that two jews, or two albino traffic cops might consider a fair judgement WITHIN THE LAW. Remember, it‘s a voluntary agreement between the two parties.


----------



## Yes Man (28 Apr 2004)

Voluntary arbitration is under the law not above. 

Think of it like this, you bump into the back of someone‘s car while going to work and the guy‘s rear bumper gets wrecked.  Instead of going through insurance the two of you choose to handle it on your own.  You go to the nearest mechanic and ask him what it would cost to fix, and you agreeing to pay what ever price the mechanic quotes.


----------



## Spr.Earl (28 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] Sharia Law [/qb]


They are trying but certain Progressive Muslim Womens Originations are trying to stop it.
Their argument is we came to Canada to get away from such antquated religious beliefs.

I don‘t think it will go through.


----------



## chrisf (28 Apr 2004)

With regards to the women‘s groups objection, individual women wouldn‘t be subject to them unless they voluntarily subjected themselves to it.


----------



## mattoigta (28 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Spr.Earl:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


Yes but the catch is: both parties have to agree to the process.


----------



## chrisf (29 Apr 2004)

No, somone else asked about the stoning, you however asked the question regarding whether or not Canada was secular, just adressing a variety of points at once.


----------



## chrisf (29 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Spr.Earl:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


For reference purposes, this doesn‘t need to be approved in anyway by the government... as alternative arbitration already exists. As I said above, all they‘re doing is providing a source for arbitrators.


----------



## Yes Man (29 Apr 2004)

Something to note in this discussion is that religion can and does discriminate in Canada.  But everything also falls under the "within limits" clause.


----------



## Spr.Earl (29 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Yes Man:
> [qb] Something to note in this discussion is that religion can and does discriminate in Canada.  But everything also falls under the "within limits" clause. [/qb]


You got that right!!


----------



## RCD (7 May 2004)

We are a country that is (growing up).
Like it or not this is OUR country of today.


----------



## Danjanou (7 May 2004)

I see nothing wrong with this. As noted it is a formal alternate means to settle a dispute that both parties must agree to abide by prior to entering in to. We have precendents for it in place, both the already noted Jewish one and those used by several First Nations Communities.

I don‘t see it trampling anyones rights as they have to choose to utilize it or the traditional court system.

The operative thing here is that it‘s a voluntary alternative. One of the things I like about living here is our multi-cultural make-up. My wife comes from another culture and I enjoy interacting with her family and learning new things.

One of the things I detest is the mandated official multi-culturism shoved on us by the state, read Liberals. It has been open to abuse since it‘s inception and a waste of taxpayers money.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 May 2004)

I am totally against Sharia law courts being allowed in Canada

My wife is Muslim and had to become one to marry her (Malaysian law) Both of us agree that having Sharia law here would a bad thing. Here is some of the reasons why:

1.	Sharia law is interpretive and has no real form, so any ruling by a cleric would be based on HIS (No her) interpretation and religious schooling. A Sunni, Shiite or Ismail  would all interpret differently.

2.	Sharia law also goes against common law and would infringe on people rights

3.	The use of Sharia law here is purported to be voluntary, however social pressure on Muslims here is quite intense and people in weaker position would be forced to follow the rulings against their will, by threats either physical, emotional or exclusion. I see families that do not allow their women to leave the home except to go to the mosque, they also try to prevent them from learning English or French to ensure the women do not become aware of their rights. Recently I had a  man from Somalia working as a guard, expresses astonishment that I would allow my wife out of the house without an male escort.

4.	Sharia law also discriminates against woman (it was good back in 14th century Arabia) and would limit their rights in marriage and in estate settlements. I know of 3 other women that work here in my building that are Muslim and none them want Sharia law here. 

5.	   There is a Fundamentalist movement within the Muslim community in Canada, they seek to control the Muslim community and this would be a way for them to control people and force their views onto people. I have sat in the mosques and listen to some of the stuff said by Immans and I was really pissed off by the statements that some make about western values and people.

6.	The intent of fundamental Islam is to take over the world and make all nations Islamic. In Malaysia the fundamentalist got into power in a couple of states and imposed Sharia law and values on the Chinese and Indian populations, despite promising they would not.

7.	The comparison between the native courts here and Sharia law is flawed. The natives were here first and never conceded their rights, except by treaty. The immigrants coming into Canada have made a decision to come here and accept the laws of this country. Sharia law despite attempts to update it has to many flaws and should not be allowed any special privilege here, it would be the thin edge of a wedge that would take a lot of time and money to defeat if we let it establish here.

8.	There are many good Muslims here who are peaceful and want to live and prosper here. They use their faith as a spiritual guide and in my opinion that lack of physical law in Islam in the West actually improves Islam and allows people to deal with it as a spiritual issue and not as the rule of law. Islam is facing a internal crisis that is likely to be very bloody. Islam must move away from trying to run the day to day affairs of people, to being a spiritual guide. This is what the Christian churches had to go through.


----------



## Rick_Donald (30 May 2004)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040529/COWENT29/TPNational/Canada

Is this a great country or what?


----------



## Slim (30 May 2004)

Wow...Does reading that article ever make us all feel warm and fuzzy all over! (NOT)

If anyone ever treated a female I cared for that way there would be big trouble, real fast!

Its disgusting!! Endorsed religion or not...And I'm not keen on any set of religious laws being held up by the courts, in fact I'm very much against it and find it dangerous that its happening. What happens when they expect the rest of us to abide by those laws?!

This country is slipping into a pattern of appeasment that I find very dangerous. I believe the warning signs are there in big letters for all to read. We need to start looking at them harder. :skull:


----------



## K. Ash (30 May 2004)

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know whole lot about Sharia law, but If particular muslims want to practice sharia law, they should return to the country from whence they came. 

Lets see the reaction when a woman is found stoned death?


----------



## Gayson (30 May 2004)

absent_element said:
			
		

> I'll be the first to admit that I don't know whole lot about Sharia law, but If particular muslims want to practice sharia law, they should return to the country from whence they came.
> 
> Lets see the reaction when a woman is found stoned death?



Agreed.  People immigrate to Canada from those other countries because they want to live our way of life.  If they don't like the way we do things here than they should leave.


----------



## spenco (30 May 2004)

When reading this I remembered what (i think it was) Don Cherry said about something like this...  You're an Italian, you move to the US, the second after you get your citizenship your an american...here in canada your an italian, you move to Canada and after 25 years your still an italian. 

 The us has the melting pot of cultures  whereas we have just this "mosaic" crap, if immigrants come here they should integrate with canadian culture, and no integration does not mean assimilation.  I dont really want to get into a full blown rant here but integration does seem key or we will lose our culture if this keeps up, well just be one big mini china or mini india with no identity of our own.


----------



## 1feral1 (31 May 2004)

Anyone for one minute who follows this radical and dangerous belief should be 'returned to sender' ASAP. Bloody scarey stuff, and frankly I dont want people like this living next door to me, yet alone in dear ole Canada. We are fighting a war to stop the advancement of such outragous behaviour (besides an ever growning hatred for our way of life, we know what else it breeds), and now it breeds haphazardly in what was once a totally peace loving country now floundering in the shyte of 'turd world' countries who have come to our beloved Canada, and have no repect for us, or OUR culture, but to seem to thrive in their own hatred, colonising instead of harmonising. we open our arms to immigrants, and this is the thanks we get. Boy, have true Canadians ever been hoodwinked. 

:evil: Sharia law, along with radical fundimental islam  :evil: belongs in the dark ages, and pages of some dusty rarely read history book, and only spurns hatred, oppression, intimidation, degradation, fear, torture and pain. I find it sickening that such a thing is being used in Ontario, and is sanctioned by a pisss weak limp wristed useless governent. What a dirty great big giant crock of shyte.

One day soon all this politically correctiveness is going to cause loss of innocent Canadian lives, and only then will the public wakeup, but then it will be too late.

Please excuse my abruptness, but its beyond all reason, and I am truly frustrated. 


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## FastEddy (31 May 2004)

And Next they will insist that it will become the Law.

And then their Comunity should not be subject to the Laws of the Land.

And then any person or persons out-side their Comunity who commits a Civil or Criminal Act against their Comunity should be tried under their Laws.

Sounds Crazy, Far Fetched, Could Never Happen.

Thats what they said in 1933 about a certain Painter.

But lets not Dispair, because we are going to let it happen


----------



## K. Ash (31 May 2004)

Wes, 

I think your right. 

I wonder how Mr. Harper feels about Sharia law?


----------



## CDNsig (24 Jun 2004)

There should only be ONE justice system in this country, period. Opening up for every group to use its own methods for settling disputes is setting a dangerous precedent. This country is already fragmented enough by competing special interest groups with their warring agendas. In the case of the use of Sharia law to settle disputes, I have no doubt that the Muslim community will "encourage" its use, and intimidate those who disagree into accepting blatantly unfair judgements, especially in matters such as divorce/ division of assets, where it would give a man a huge advantage... The composition of these "courts" would be imams and elders, and these are generally men who see women as inferior, and will render judgement accordingly. I'm not a lover of feminists by any means, but I do believe in equal treatment for all. Our system of justice and dispute resolution based on English Common Law is one of the cornerstones of our society, and we dilute it at our peril...


----------



## Slim (24 Jun 2004)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am totally against Sharia law courts being allowed in Canada



I know I'm going to stir up a storm when I say this but I'm afraid that I have to agree with Colin and voice the thought that I do not want Sharia Law in Canada.

One country, one set of laws.

If we went to their country, would we be able to set up our own law system?

IF they were as peaceful and open as they claim to be then they aught not to have a problem with it...But they do, don't they...

I have an aunt who was in a middle eastern country recently and the lady she was travelling with was caught with a bible.

The result was less than favourable. She did, however, escape with her life.

When was the last time that anyone was arrested in Canada because they had a copy of the Koran, or any other religious literature?

Never,  right?

I also have friends there, working as BG's. They report some pretty horrible treatment of women. Imagine a woman (or Man) you love, being judged by Sharia Law and it being binding. This is the same set of laws that allow and promote Female Genital Mutilation.

I pray that we NEVER allow this law into Canada!

Lets keep it that way!

Lets keep Sharia Law out.

Slim


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jun 2004)

I too disagree with this form of settlement because of the pressure that can be put on someone to enter into the system. Voluntary, sure ,but there are ways to "make " someone volunteer. And just to show that this isn't an anti-Muslim rant, I didn't know that the Jewish community allready had this. That can be dismantled also.  I will make a small concession for the first-nations but just a small one.
One nation-one system.[even if I believe it needs a total reform, different rant- different time]


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Jun 2004)

Not to stir the pot, but doesn't Quebec have a different legal system? Or a different civil system? Napoleonic code versus something else? Sorry for being so vague, I just barely remember in Canadian history or civics  something to the effect that Quebec had a different legal system (obviously I guess the federal criminal code is the same) and a different pension system...   Help me out here guys, what am I babbling about??    ???


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jun 2004)

It's OK Muskrat, your just babbling. 8) Every province has thier own part of the legal system as do municipality's,etc. Yes they have the QPP as opposed to the CPP and if you were a good boy and still paid your taxes here  , you would know this.
BRUCE


----------



## Gunnar (24 Jun 2004)

Quebec has a different civil law.  It was conceded to them when the British took over as there were more French than English in Canada.  If two frenchmen enter into a business arrangement, you can't judge a court case about it based on a judge's interpretation when neither party would understand where the judge was coming from, and would not find the results equitable.  This was probably simply expedience, as there were 3 million French to a much smaller number of Brits, and they knew they would probably lose any civil war if the population was unhappy....and Canada was ice and beaver skins, and not of much value to the British Crown.

But the civil law is clearly codified, and is based on legal principles and decisions that have come down through French tradition, which have to some extent been incorporated into our own.....It's understandable...you can pick up the book and read out what the rule is, unlike laws where everything is a matter of interpretation of what a prophet or Imam once said....

You're right that it makes sense to have one law, but at the time it was implemented for Lower Canada, it made more sense to do it this way for a number of reasons.  Now we have inherited it.


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Jun 2004)

Thanks Gunnar - that's what I was talking about.

Bruce - I'll have you know that I pay $35 per year in property taxes to the Province of New Brunswick, for my acre-in-the-woods


----------



## drebk (24 Jun 2004)

From: http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/PartyInfo/Policies.asp?A=5&B=1&C=0&D=0&Language=English

   Finally Canada's unwillingness to recognize Québec's distinct nature became a source of aggravation. Of course Québec is not the only part of Canada which is distinct. Newfoundlanders claim as much and so does Nunavut.

But Québec is not a province like the others. It never has been. It operates under the Napoleonic code rather than the British common law. But its biggest difference is that the majority of its inhabitants are French-speaking and it has its own distinctive majority culture.

So the recognition of this distinctiveness was primarily symbolic, like admitting to your wife that she is both equal and different. The rest of Canada refused because it feared that "equal but different" meant superior, in some mysterious way which, of course, it did not.

---------------------

so, yes they have the Napoleonic code and we have the British common law system.  but the napoleonic code covers only civil law. they have the same criminal law as we do, however they have their own policing system, and their own provincial police. This probably makes a difference because people only enter the criminal courts after the police have intervened. ie. the police are there first line of contact when they enter any judicial system. 



			
				Slim said:
			
		

> Colin P said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



k, there have been some great points made on the Muslim/Islam culture/relgion, but i have a few questions and points of my own. firstly, if the pressure within muslim families and circles is so intense that they can 'make people volunteer' for a certain type of Islam based arbitration system... then couldn't they pressure the same person to do anything else voluntarily? such as drop the charges/issue completely, go to a different, secular form of arbitration, leave the country, etc... it seems as if the arguement is that allowing this arbitration system in would be like opening a damn full of muslim anti-feminist rage that is just begging to be let out, but as of now has no were to go. I don't buy it... if this pressure is as great as they make it sound (and i honestly think that it IS) i'm sure that they do not need a formal arbitration system to act out their twisted sense of justice. I'm sure they can do that w/o a formal system...

Also, its not a legal system.... its an arbitration 'office.' True, we have the same kind of thing for Jewish and Native peoples, but we also have the same kind of thing for the secular canada. I very much encourage these types of altnerative resolutions for a few of reasons:

1. Our One nation -- One law system, is COMPLETELY OVERBURDENED!! case closed? unfortunately not for on average a year or two after its been opened. that's rediculous... but anyways, the reason they created these privately funded arbitration centers is to help aleviate the burden taxing the Canadian Justice system.  If two people can agree to go to a third party and have him decide what should happen, then that frees up our civil law courts to deal with the people who can't come to that kind of an agreement. Good thing? yes of course

2: Its only civil law. not that civil law isn't important, but to reiterate the point that 'serious' matters will be dealt with in our normal "one nation, one law system." So, its not some terrible breech of the fundamental rights that are enshrined in the charter of rights and freedoms. B/c all arbitration systems are voluntary...

3: Religion, whether you like it or not, is a very real part of our judicial system, and a very real part of Canada, always has been, and it will be for quite a while to come. especially if you believe that Atheism is a form of religion in and of itself, but that's a different thread. So, this idea that we live in a secular canada is wishful thinking, maybe we'd like to, but the fact is, we don't.

4: the job of a judge is to interpret law how he sees fit! That is why we pay them the big bucks (and so they don't take bribes, have u seen a judge's salaray, omg. 250+ easy) but we pay them the big dollars so they can interpret law. Some people think we should be more like the American system of 3 strikes, and other mandatory sentances... almost everyone i've talked to in the criminology circle is against mandatory sentences... it takes the discretionary ability away from judges, and so individual cases can't be treated individually, when sometimes it makes clear sense to do so. Also, don't think for a second that a perticular judges religious believes don't show in his rulings and interpretations of the law. They are sposed to be 100% impartial, and uncoerced, and they are, but i'm willing to say that if you look at the rulings of different judges with differering religious backgrounds, you'll see some interesting trends. Some may say this is bad, and that all judges should be alike, and that if it wasn't for religion all judges would be alike... some people mite think that judges are all robots, churned out of the same machine, so that in essence, it doesn't matter who you get as your judge, b/c the ruling will be the same irregardless of which judge you get... the answer for these people is a hearty laugh at their naieveteee. Sorry, but for you mandatory sentences is they key. but for us in reality, it matters very much who you get as your judge, some are more lenient, some are more strict, some take a passive role in the courts (as per our Adversarial system of courts) others take a very active role. They aren't robots, and they do interpret the same law differently, and they do differ in how strict they are... so if you've ever been in the court system, as a defendant, you'd better believe you and your defence council are praying for the push over judge, rather than that new hard ass of a chick who thinks she has something to prove.

(also, i realise the above about the napoleonic thing is outdated, but im too lazy to delete it ;-) )


----------



## Slim (24 Jun 2004)

drebk said:
			
		

> k, there have been some great points made on the Muslim/Islam culture/religion, but i have a few questions and points of my own. firstly, if the pressure within Muslim families and circles is so intense that they can make people volunteer for a certain type of Islam based arbitration system... then couldn't they pressure the same person to do anything else voluntarily?



I think you are being overly simplistic about the arbitration of Sharia Law. Its not a case of what they can get away with or avoid, but a question of "making it legal".

A while back there was a case of a boy from a particular village being seen with the wrong type of girl. The "tribal Council" of the boy's village got wind of this and decided to "intervene."

Their decision, based on the presented facts,eventually   led to the boy's sister ( a rather attractive 12 year old) being raped and sodomized by every elder on the council as punishment to the boy and his family. I will not mention the country or the people but they were middle eastern to be sure!

This type of behavior is perfectly legal to them. the "judgement"   was accepted because the decision makers, appointed to the role, handed it down all nice and legal. So according to their rules its o.k *to repeatedly rape a 12 year old.*

Do you want that type of behaviour here?

Every decision they make is religiously based...and their religion is harsh...very harsh. And does not respect women at all. Not merely second class citizens but not even human!

Who can say what goes on already behind closed doors in this country!

I would also like to point out that FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) is acceptable and currently practiced by these people. Go ask someone who has suffered this and get their opinion on Sharia Law. There are numerous womens groups who will provide you with plenty of information on the subject and instances of when it has already occured in this country.

No, I  don't want this system anyplace near my country, my loved ones and my home.

I realize that my point of view is not "popular" or "enlightened." Having never gone to university and had to listen to apologist, socialist profs and suck up their brand of world situational ethics, I am not burdened or clouded with this incredible sense of guilt that every person in Canada is supposed to feel for all of the "poor" followers of a faith of which certain elements   mean to harm my home.

Having served in the CF for as long as I have I have a very conservative and realistic view of the world and the people in it. No rose-coloured glasses with built in tears.

I stand by what I said before. 

Slim


----------



## drebk (24 Jun 2004)

a post has already been made on the unlikeliness and unlawfulness of this arbitration system in passing judgements and sentencing that result in illegal activities. Poor example to use, lets think about realistic punishments and sentences please. this would be a private organization, punishable by the same criminal and civil law as the rest of canadians are. So, if they passed down a "stoneing, raping, stealing, assaulting," kind of a 'sentence/punishment' then, as already been said, they'd be punishable under normal criminal law proceedings


----------



## Slim (24 Jun 2004)

"if they passed down a "stoneing, raping, stealing, assaulting," kind of a 'sentence/punishment' then, as already been said, they'd be punishable under normal criminal law proceedings"

I doubt it would be reported.

Its not what the world sees but what they( the followers of this law) believe...Remember, according to them, Sharia Law supersedes our laws.

Religion is EVERYTHING in their culture. Makes for a dangerous president when a society puts that much stock in something that could be leading them down the wrong path. 

Think it through for yourself.

Slim


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jun 2004)

Drebk,
I think the point Slim is trying to make is simple[maybe presented a little bit zealous,but BTDT] the way the islamic "code" is right now the woman is wrong. Full stop!
I fear it would be the old "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts". I don't believe it was written that way but power is a hard thing to give up. There are still a lot of  WASP's who bristle at the thought of a women being equal so don't expect the men who were raised to believe womem are "objects/assets" to just forgo that in a heartbeat. Won't/can't happen!


----------



## Slim (14 Aug 2004)

When I think of any woman (or any one) being treated that way I become physically ill.

Get this crap the fuck out of Canada!

Slim


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Aug 2004)

Just did a Quicklaw search, there are many instances already exisitng in Canadian, and indeed Anglo- Canadian jurispridence interpreting and applying the Sharia. The key word in all cases so far is "consent": although it is concievable that consent could be implied through previous conduct, and more ominously, a marriage contract between the parties or their families...  Incidentally, foreign  law is often applied to common purchase and sale contracts in canada ... for example McAfee products have an enforcebale governing law clause which requires Canadian courts to use the Dutch law to interpret the contract.... so be careful and read every contract you enter into. It can be a legal mine field if the other party wants to make an issue of it... and this is becoming more and more prevalent.


----------



## PARAMEDIC (15 Aug 2004)

spenco said:
			
		

> I don't really want to get into a full blown rant here but integration does seem key or we will lose our culture if this keeps up, well just be one big mini china or mini India with no identity of our own.


I don't want to ruffle your feathers here, maybe I'm just comprehending it wrong  but your generalisation seems a bit interesting and scary..seems to come off as a racial attack..I'm sure you coulda have substituted the "mini china" and the "mini India" with the danforth or spadina but i guess since they aren't  yellow and brown would seem appropriate.. hey i get where your coming and I am all for integration, i believe in the motto if you don't like it here get the next ship back home so you can enjoy the luxuries your country has to offer that you were running away from! 
This crap needs to get shipped back to whence it came and so too with all these criminals, save my tax dollars by feeding clothing and giving shelter to those criminals that migrate to Canada.
hey man I'm not coming after you with a flame thrower just thought it interesting that it wasn't a "mini Greece or mini Italy" so don't come after me trying to get a head butting match...not interested!!! just thought it was interesting. 
Canada should know when to draw the line although that line is getting really fuzzy. generalisation hurts all..do not throw the baby with the bath water as there are numerous contributions by shyte of the "turd world" countries who have integrated retained their culture and are making Canada proud of what it stands for.


----------



## Bert (15 Aug 2004)

I'm a little less reactive on the topic.

I'm no expert on Sharia law, but some of the aspects seem not to
agree with the Canadian Charter of Rights.  It will certainly be a matter
for the courts, lawmakers, and citizens to discuss.  What makes us Canadian in
legal terms is the Charter of Rights and the laws that govern us that
we ALL fall under.  Separate laws or processes will more or less divide us 
and thats no good.

However, I disagree with the some of the above statements of "true 
Canadianism".  It could be said most families today have at least one
side that has been in Canada for less that four generations.  Immigrants
for three hundred years have come from all over the world.  What 
is the face of a Canadian then?   In precise terms and facts, what is 
Canadian culture and what is it you fear is under threat?

Given Italians, Greeks, Chinese, Poles, Pakistanis, Ukrainians, Brits, Scots, Irish, 
Japanese, etc, they are all different cultures and have various beliefs.  Any first
generation Canadian will bring their country's issues with them whether 
they are from Singapore or Holland.  The next generations, those born in 
Canada, learn the values and the laws of Canada and share the most with
the country.  

Personally, I appreciate the mini-Greeces, the mini-Chinas, the
mini-Italys, the mini-Irelands, the mini-Indias found in amounst
Canada for a number of reasons.  What I don't like are those
that make the fences and separate "us" from "them" from
any perspective.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Aug 2004)

â Å“I'm no expert on Sharia law, but some of the aspects seem not to agree with the Canadian Charter of Rights.  It will certainly be a matter for the courts, lawmakers, and citizens to discuss.  What makes us Canadian in legal terms is the Charter of Rights and the laws that govern us that we ALL fall under.  Separate laws or processes will more or less divide us and thats no good.â ?

Bert: I am in agreement with most of what you say however, with the greatest respect sir, I take  particular issue with the above captioned paragraph. 

1.	In legal terms the Charter makes absolutely no one a Canadian. Twenty million citizens of this country were Canadians long before the Charter came into force, and the passing of the Constitution Act, 1982 did absolutely nothing to preserve or detract from that fact. Since 1982, 10-14 million other citizens have been either born Canadian or became Canadian and the existence of the Charter certainly did not make them Canadian either. With respect to citizenship, all the Charter does is guarantee  obedience to certain fundamental principles of administrative law that ensure an applicant for Citizenship is treated in accordance with the Rule of Law.

2.	Multi-culturalism, religious freedom, and equality are separate and distinct legal concepts under the Charter, which may, under certain conditions, intersect in order to advance an argument. However, each concept would be analysed separately under its own body of law: intersecting rights [sometimes called â Å“piggy-backingâ ? or â Å“bundlingâ ?] is a new and relatively untested development that some judges have characterized as dangerous. [see the last sentence of paragraph 5 for an example]. 

3.	All Canadians are subject to the Rule of Law, however, not all Canadians can derive any useful benefit from the Charter, and many are outright precluded in certain circumstances. In fact, section 15(1) and 15(2) of the Charter, [the equality provisions] create a legal scheme whereupon a large percentage of the population is effectively barred from seeking refuge in the Charter where their rights are engaged. True equality, as the saying goes, requires treating some groups â Å“more equalâ ? than others.  There is now a body of emerging legal jurisprudence in Canada that finally recognizes that with rights, come responsibilities- in my opinion, it is that trend, more than anything else, is what will re-establish a sense of Canadian identity â â€œ equality with fairness; religious freedom without internalized sub-culture oppression; duty to others; limits to unrestrained individualism etc. There is a rising trend seeking to re-balance equality litigation in Canada, touching upon, and in some cases displacing, blatantly discriminatory and divisive attitudes of many special interest groups as well tempering the rather lopsided outcomes of equality litigation so far.  
     
4.	When is the last time citizens had an effective opportunity to discuss any proposed law, let alone a form of â Å“lawâ ?? I'm sure you agree, the Sharia debate will no doubt clothe itself in overtones of racial, gender and religious bias. Several decisions written by Chief Justice Dickson, in the Supreme Court of Canada, expressly state that with respect to interpretation of laws, Courts owe little deference to legislatures and none at all to citizens. Those decisions are still cited and adhered to today in both form and substance. Therefore, the notion that there is some sort of ongoing dialogue between the Courts and legislatures [the so-called Charter dialogue] is nothing more than legal-academic myth advanced by those seeking to further entrench the power of the Court itself.  As far as legislators consulting or discussing issues with citizens, those concepts are so far removed from the way our so-called democracy currently operates such that â Å“a promise to consult or discuss an issue is not even a promise to take common sense, honesty and integrity into consideration.â ? Couple that bit of legal obiter with the pervasive political practice of selective public consultation and you end up with the hallmarks of a dysfunctional democracy slipping into a quasi dictatorship of twisted academic and political elitism.   
  
5.	Integration of concepts and precepts of the Sharia into legislation or regulations such as the Family Law Act is, on its face, nothing more and nothing less than importation of certain religious rules of conduct into marriage enforceable in a court of law â â€œ i.e. if you choose the Sharia,  you must follow the Sharia before going to court.  This is already the case with marriage contracts, many of which call for mediation before litigation. Such contracts are between 2 private persons, are enforceable in their own right, and since they are not between the state and citizen, there is no need to legislate further.  A co-habitation agreement/marriage contract trumps the FLA with certain property based exceptions. The Charter does not apply to contracts not involving the state, and to create a separate body of statutory law for Sharia marriages will open the door for legislatures to create separate forms of legal marriage- gays and lesbians will surely attack such a development. 

.....

I'm happy to see that you raised the Charter issue in this forum, and if you didn't know, there is a separate forum regarding the appropriateness of subjecting in an unrestrained manner, the Charter and the CHRC over the CF. The essence of the forum discusses the appropriateness of CF members having to rely upon the civilian system to have their Charter and human rights issues dealt with, as well as whether or not certain systemic remedies have had a negative impact on the operational effectiveness of an unique institution whose primary seat of excellence is supposed be war-fighting.

Cheers ...


----------



## joaquim (17 Aug 2004)

Many posts on this thread started with "I am no expert on sharia". Here is an article (link below) published in a muslim British newspaper, Al-Muhajiroun, that reads like a short course on sharia for the non-muslim. Here is a short excerpt:



> Economically: The sale of alcohol or pork would be prohibited, gambling would be outlawed. The currency would change from paper money to the use of Gold as standard, thereby eradicating inflation. Stocks and shares would be prohibited as would insurance, interest based transactions and the current company structures - all of this would be replaced with a unique economic system encouraging distribution of wealth, banning exploitation and hoarding and ensuring transactions are done where the goods are tangible, the services specified and the companies are real. Man would be the trustee of God's wealth on Earth promoting *investment* of it to please God â â€œ as *in Jihad to conquer other lands* to spread the law and order of Islam.



From what I can see, this is not a joke. This guy is serious. BTW, did you see how the world's wealth should first be invested in Jihad to conquer other lands? Didn't they say that armed Jihad is the work of a small, marginalized minority? Sharia applies to all muslims, not a minority.

Cheers (while you still can: alcohol will be banned under sharia)

A concerned civilian

http://www.muhajiroun.com/press_release/250704_londistan.htm


----------



## Figure11 (17 Aug 2004)

"Al-Muhajiroun is a radical Islamic group in the UK which applauds the September 11th hijackers as the "Magnificent 19." Believe it or not their stated goal is to turn Britain into an Islamic republic. Apparently, mainstream British muslims have been known to refer to them in the press as "freaks." Hey, if the shoe fits..............


----------



## Acorn (27 Aug 2004)

Sharia is almost as mis-understood in the Muslim world as it is here. The problem with Sharia law, at least as far as an application in Canada goes, is the qualifications of the legal practitioners. However we may despise them, lawyers in Canada are accredited by a system we accept and, somewhat, understand. Sharia "lawyers" have no professional association or regulatory bodies to govern them.

Islam is governed by the Qu'ran, Hadith and Sunnah (respectively the Word of God as told to the Prophet Mohammed, the Teachings [sayings] of the Prophet and the Acts of the Prophet). This body of work is interpreted by four basic schools of Sharia, creating an astonishingly varied body of legal precedent - varying from a Taliban-esque interpretation to one that is remarkably similar to our own. Where the Taliban would adhere to the medieval "law" that two women are required to equal the testimony of one man, the most liberal of the Sharia schools provides for equality. Where the Qu'ran (or maybe it is the Hadith) enjoins Muslims "Read!" the Taliban believes it to mean "read the Qu'ran," while the more liberal schools interpret it to mean "be educated" (i.e. just read, anything that comes in front of you). It is also interesting to note that the Arabic imperative of "read" has no gender case, so denying education to the female of the species is actually considered "haram" (forbidden) by the majority of educated Muslims.

"Jihad" is another concept that is broadly interpreted. The physical Jihad advocated by the Wahhabi-esque types like Bin Laden is considered the narrowest of interpretations. For many Muslims "Jihad" is the internal, spiritual, struggle ("struggle" is the literal tanslation of "jihad").

For the moment I'll avoid any comparative discussions about Christianity and Islam. Suffice it to say that most of what has been posted here is cloaked in a greatcoat of ignorance. Yes, there are concerns about application of Sharia Law in Canada, but let's be careful about where we lay the sights before we rip off a burst.


----------



## Spr.Earl (27 Aug 2004)

I came here as a kid in 64 and adopted the way of life here.Any one remember Dominion Day?

Whats next?The Jews,Hindus,Sikhs,Buddhists etc. all declaring the own laws?
Give me a F'n break!!

P.C is going toooo far now!!!


----------



## Slim (27 Aug 2004)

First X-mas in my new house...Can't wait to put up the "holiday tree"...F*****G PC a**holes!

Slim


----------



## Spr.Earl (27 Aug 2004)

What peed me off the most was a few years back,those of the Hebrew faith complained about the Cross being displayed in certain Fed. Building's which till that complaint had been displayed since 1918 now try and find a cross in honour of our fallen a Fed building close or on Remembrance Day?

Can't we all come and get a long any more as this country was at one time?
Are we Canadians or are we becoming a Hyphenated Canadians? 
If it's hyphenated I'm out of here when I retire and you are welcome too it!!!!


----------



## FastEddy (29 Aug 2004)

[quote author=Spr.Earl link=topic=16662/post-95046#msg95046 date=109358921

Can't we all come and get a long any more as this country was at one time?
Are we Canadians or are we becoming a Hyphenated Canadians? 
If it's hyphenated I'm out of here when I retire and you are welcome too it!!!!

YES, Spr. Earl, its a sad state of affairs.

Its even sadder, We can run but we can't hide.

If you have figured it out or where, please please let us know. (Chr..st I hope theres no Snow or Ice)

PS Congratulations on your 30+ coming up.


----------



## winchable (29 Aug 2004)

Personally I don't let my faith define me,
I am Technically supposed to folow the sharia law, and my Mum still does, I do not.


Quite frankly as long as both parties consent, I haven't got a sweet worry about what happens, it's their "Soul" not mine..and mine has been long condemened to hell.

There is a great deal that is of very good value in the Quran and I Have no problem when people choose to live their lives by that word.

There is much to it, specifically regarding women (not to incite any arguments) that people do not take into account or are willing to accept.
Not that I am condoning anything, by any means, I condone a much more liberal lifestyle. 

Good luck to anyone who should have to encounter this situation. The basics are, you mind your P's and Q;s and respect (if only superficially) the older traddy's that are tied up, It's not  hard to pay lip serice to something you coudnt give 3 and a half shytes about.

As for its affecting Canada, It is TRULY like any other law they've passed regarding ANYthing cultural.............


----------



## venero (29 Aug 2004)

Forced Diversity Does not work.


----------



## Bert (29 Aug 2004)

For sixty-five million years, mammals and eventually the human family roamed the continents and 
migrated here and there.  Incursions of one migration, tribe, or people, would inevitably wander
into another's territory and consequences would occur.  We have 2.5 million years of history we
don't even know about.

The ancient occupants of China, Europe, central and south eastern asia are not the same people
as who are found there today.

In recent times (-6,000 years), migrations turned more into mass organized armed conflicts as
humans began building communities and finding collective identity.  Examples are the Greeks,
the Romans, the Goths, Anglo-Saxons, the Mongols, the Ottomans, and various
migrations of Moguls, ancient Japanese, and Polynesians into early Americas from a western point 
of view.  Everybody comes from somewhere.  

Countries like France, Britain, Germany, China, India (not necessarily including the last century)
had stable monogamous populations.  The French were French, the Brits were Brits, the
Chinese were Chinese.  These regions were used to the same laws, the same appearance,
similar religion as examples.  Go to any of these regions and and see a population who have
lived there for 2,000 years, check out their attitudes, and you'll know what I mean. 

Canada, the USA, Malaysia, Australia and areas of recent European colonialism created an influx
of people into those regions and actively immigrated many peoples from around the world.
Throughout the years, the laws adopted into these countries reflected the populations.

In Canada, the heavy greater European immigration of the 1800s and 1900s has
given way to other immigrations of recent times.  Anciently, the development of
countries like Canada, the US, Australia with such diverse populations are uncommon
and without precedence.

Everyone who has ever come to Canada has historical ties to their original area, their laws,
and customs.  This is particular true of first generation immigrants.  Many high density
urban cities have strong ethnic communities like the Somalies, Italians, French,
Asians, and this trend is increasing.  With large populations of peoples whose ways
are not parallel with those of established Canadians, then an "us" and "them"
mentality becomes stronger.

The fear implied in many posts is the perceived threat to Canadian laws, rights, and 
freedoms from these communities.  Actually, Europe's situation is more intense as
recent migrant populations are gaining a political foothold.  The countries in Europe
are smaller in area and the pressures perceived by the traditional population are more
visible.

Another theoretical way of looking at it is if a Canadian immigrated to China.  You can't
take the Tim H. coffee or hockey out of the first generation.  How would
China integrate the Canadian?  Probably difficult in some ways.  Only the next 
generations of the Canadian family would be comfortable in China.

Sharia law may be applied in matters of legal arbitration but its not Canadian law or
found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Even two Saskatchewan farmers
may opt to go into legal arbitration and sort out issues by other methods if
thats how they mutually choose.  To me thats Canadian and so be it.  I don't
know if the original article of this thread is entirely factual or biased in some way,
but I believe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms defines (or
the best yet) what a Canadian is under the law.  It addresses what we
all believe in and what applies to everyone.  It must be preserved if thats
what we think we are.  

Yet, arbitration is not the law but a method.  It may use customs from other
lands but how else do you integrate new Canadians?  The original
article presents a challenge to the arbitration method where ideally the parties
should or did "mutually" agree but we know one party in this case really didn't. 
That and its apparent "contradiction" to canadian rights and freedoms what needs
to be looked at and fixed in my opinion.


----------



## GGboy (29 Aug 2004)

Lots of interesting information on Sharia in this thread, not to mention on the dreaded Charter and Supreme Court of Canada. It strikes me however, that the problems (and there WILL be problems ...) in this initiative won't come from applying sharia to a dispute between two more or less reasonable people who agree to abide by the decisions of a sharia court. The rub will be when someone doesn't agree, or agrees initially and then wants to back out once the decision involves public flogging or something (I'm being facetious about that, but you get my point) Then the whole mess winds up in front of a Supreme Court to which has just been added two of the most left-wing judges in the country and we're all stuck with what they decide unless Parliament invokes the notwithstanding clause, which they're loath to do. Trudeau has a lot to answer for ...
This ridiculous initiative is all down to politics. The government wanted to curry favour with a particular segment of the voting public, a legal community dominated by touchy feely "multiculturalists" eagerly jumped on board, and the result is an ill-considered scheme with potentially drastic ramifications being foisted on the entire population. 
What isn't getting a lot of press (in connection with this sharia nonsense or in general) is the alarmingly conservative -- to put it mildly -- bent of many imams and mosques in the Canadian Muslim community. It may well be true that the majority of Canadian Muslims are peace-loving, liberal and find the al-Qaeda/Wahabbi brand of Islam as offensive as the rest of us. But there are also many who hold and preach views that would not be out of place in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and I really, really, really hope that the CSIS boys are keeping an eye on them. My fear is what will these characters do with something like this sharia idea. The Islamic Republic of Canada anyone?


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 Aug 2004)

The fear implied in many posts is the perceived threat to Canadian laws, rights, and freedoms from these communities.   Actually, Europe's situation is more intense as recent migrant populations are gaining a political foothold.   The countries in Europe are smaller in area and the pressures perceived by the traditional population are more visible.

A paradoxical quality emerges in this analysis, most European countries are governed by civil law, not common law jurisprudence except the Brits. In Canada, [except Quebec] we share the common law with Brits, Aus, and NZ, and with growing frequency the US. *In Europe, the civil law society has been very welcoming to immigrants as a matter of policy, not law*. In the common law countries, mulitculturalism is a poli-centric matter taken into consideration as one segment of a Courts legal analysis, except for 1 country: Canada. Section 27 of the Charter may require de facto consideration, thus the Courts are intrinsicly bound to make determinations which are inclusive of cultural traditions. To date, this section has lain dormant, unfortunately the framers of the Charter gave us a clause which is a tad paraliptic as a substantive principle, but we'll see what happens. This is an intersection of legal rights, already described in a preceding post as a dangerous path upon which to tread.           

Sharia law may be applied in matters of legal arbitration but its not Canadian law or found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.    

See above and below

Even two Saskatchewan farmers may opt to go into legal arbitration and sort out issues by other methods if thats how they mutually choose.   To me thats Canadian and so be it.    

Yes that's true, the Charter ordinarily does not apply to relations between citizens in acting in private capacity. The Charter would most certainly apply if a province or the feds passed a law interefering with those relations. Person "A"   cannot ask person "B" tp contract out of a human right [not necessarily a Charter right] - any contract that requires this is unenforceable.

I don't know if the original article of this thread is entirely factual or biased in some way, but I believe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms defines (or the best yet) what a Canadian is under the law.    

Nope, it makes no representations about that whatsoever. All of the non-repealable freedoms pre-existed the Charter by operation of the common law. The Charter has actually retrenched a few rights, especially in the area of property.

It addresses what we all believe in and what applies to everyone.   It must be preserved if thats what we think we are.    

Only certain portions of the Charter apply to everyone. The Charter specifically excludes entire classes of people. See section 15.

Yet, arbitration is not the law but a method.   It may use customs from other lands but how else do you integrate new Canadians?   The original article presents a challenge to the arbitration method where ideally the parties should or did "mutually" agree but we know one party in this case really didn't. 

As long as the contract is not void for legal interpretation, an arbitrators decision is binding law, and may be overturned only on certain administrative law principles, all of which must survive a second, more intense [hence more boring] Charter analysis. Arbitration with respect to contract analysis is almost always enforced without variation by the Court. A contract formed under duress, which you seem to suggest, is void ab initio [from the start] .... no exceptions, including religion. There was a form of Jewish marriage contract requiring chastity for women only in the event of a divorce. The contract had to be signed in order for the marriage to proceed. These contracts were challenged under the Charter, and the contracts were enforced WRT all provisions that did not discriminate on the basis of gender. Hence, no contract can "touch the skin of another."   However, the suggestions so far in this thread inidcate a structural power imbalance in the contract, as well as some sort of bias in the decision maker [the arbitrator.] My gut feeling, based on the preceding factors and other posts contained here, is that Sharia would not stand in it's traditional form in Canada. The Courts are always alive to discrimination, and they would simply characterize Sharia in pith and substance not as a cultural tradition protected by the Charter, but rather a discriminatory practice that cannot survive Charter scrutiny under a gender analysis.   Although the Sharia has been in the Court for rare interpetation as to a property clause, it has not been subjected to thorough Charter analysis.     The list of intervenors in such a case would be miles long....

That and its apparent "contradiction" to canadian rights and freedoms what needs to be looked at and fixed in my opinion.  

100 percent ... see above.


----------



## gozonuts (10 Sep 2004)

I'm not going to ramble on about shit I don't know anything about! All I know is that the real problem in our country has always been our charter of rights and freedoms! This arbitrary charter doesn't apply in Quebec, where english rights have been trampled on since it's inception. Thank you Trudeau! If something like that can happen in a 'free' country, then we need to have it changed. The melting pot theory is a much better way to go, just look at Vancouver now - a typical Canadian can't even afford to buy a house there now due to rich Hong Kong people buying their way into the country.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2005)

> PM calls for spies in Australian mosques
> Canberra   | Agencies | 25/08/2005 |
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/WorldNF.asp?ArticleID=178775



Meanwhile in Canada, we see the Liberals caving in and allowing Sharia Law.  What a difference of opinion between our two governments.


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Aug 2005)

Aussies have always been infamous for telling it like it is.

The only thing is, I can't help thinking that spies generaly work better when you DON'T go talking about their objectives in front of international media reps....


----------



## Blue Max (26 Aug 2005)

George, I like the "up front, this is the way it is" Australian talk, but where did you read that Canada has caved to a request from a minority of Canadian Muslims to allow Sharia law. 

I was under the impression that it was only an issue within the Quebec community and that it was shortly rejected as Not Canadian.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2005)

The Dalton McInty Liberals of Ontario are currently working on it.  Hopefully, they will listen to the advice of less fanatical Islamic leaders and the Muslem womens associations that are denouncing it.


----------



## Slim (26 Aug 2005)

Way to go Australia...I wonder if there's room for me down there?


----------



## KevinB (26 Aug 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Way to go Australia...I wonder if there's room for me down there?


Book a few seats  

Never mind their gun laws SUCK.


----------



## paracowboy (26 Aug 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Book a few seats
> 
> Never mind their gun laws SUCK.


truly,* but * you can hunt donkeys and kangaroos!


----------



## KevinB (26 Aug 2005)

Too true- one of my buddies did a Roo hunt (they are a rodent) - but I've made it a policy not to shoot non humans.     maybe after their spies go to work they might open up the Mosques for soem bag limits...


----------



## paracowboy (26 Aug 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Too true- one of my buddies did a Roo hunt (they are a rodent) - but I've made it a policy not to shoot non humans.      maybe after their spies go to work they might open up the Mosques for soem bag limits...


yeah, I hear ya. I haven't hunted in years, myself. Critters, I mean.


----------



## Canadian Caesar (26 Aug 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> maybe after their spies go to work they might open up the Mosques for soem bag limits...



ummmm... ok.
I think that may have crossed the line slightly...


----------



## -rb (26 Aug 2005)

Canadian Caesar said:
			
		

> ummmm... ok.
> I think that may have crossed the line slightly...



[Amusing but inappropriate graphic removed by Moderator]

If you'd have bothered to read the 3rd paragraph of the article posted above you would have gotten the context of that statement. :

!Ã˜Â§Ã™â€žÃ˜Â³Ã™â€žÃ˜Â§Ã™â€¦ Ã˜Â¹Ã™â€žÃ™Å Ã™Æ’Ã™â€¦


----------



## Redeye (26 Aug 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Dalton McInty Liberals of Ontario are currently working on it.   Hopefully, they will listen to the advice of less fanatical Islamic leaders and the Muslem womens associations that are denouncing it.



That process (the significance of which, incidentally, was blown totally out of proportion) is, as I understand it, shut down as of months ago.


----------



## Canadian Caesar (26 Aug 2005)

yukon said:
			
		

> If you'd have bothered to read the 3rd paragraph of the article posted above you would have gotten the context of that statement. :



I did read the article, but I still didn't feel it quite justified that particular statement.
I'm not "raging pissed" or anything.
Just a little unnerved... :-\

Anyways, I heard that the "Dalton McInty process" was indeed shut down, at least temporarily.
I also heard that it didn't address the concerns about Sharia Law as well as some of us might be hoping.
Apparently with its level of support, it had very little chance of success from the start.

Surprise Surprise... :


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2005)

The real question on that Ontario matter may be the apparant consent of the Federal Liberals by their silence on the whole affair.


----------



## -rb (26 Aug 2005)

yukon said:
			
		

> [Amusing but inappropriate graphic removed by Moderator]



Point taken...no offense meant. ;D



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> The real question on that Ontario matter may be the apparant consent of the Federal Liberals by their silence on the whole affair.



My thoughts exactly, dare the Liberals do anything to upset the minority vote!

cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Sep 2005)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That process (the significance of which, incidentally, was blown totally out of proportion) is, as I understand it, shut down as of months ago.



I guess it hasn't completely disappeared.  Protests are set for Toronto and Ottawa, on Thursday 8 Sep 05, against Shariah Law.  These protests against Ontario allowing Shariah Law are also taking place in several other cities in Canada and Europe.


----------



## Redeye (6 Sep 2005)

Right you are, I just read about it as well.  I guess I misspoke.

That all said, what's being proposed and what's being rumoured to be in process are two very different things.  The religious-based arbitration process is giving Muslims something Jews and Catholics already have.  I can understand the concerns about precendent setting, and the fact that there are fears that immigrant Muslim women may be convinced they have no other option - that's a realistic problem that would have to addressed if such ideas were brought in (though I suspect it won't happen) - but to make the jump to the imposition of Sharia Law in strict sense is a bit rich - no one is going to overturn our judicial traditions for a minority, as some people seem to think will be the "inevitable" outcome.

I really don't have a problem with what's proposed, as long as it's always made clear to anyone participating that it is an alternative and not the status quo - a means of making a mediative process relevant to the context of one's religion and culture but NOT the way we (the masses) generally do things.  If Jews and Catholics have the same mechanism available, how can we justify not having it for Muslims?


----------



## George Wallace (6 Sep 2005)

The question is at what level is this going to take effect and why is there such an outcry from around the world at the Ontario Government's role in this?  Are we talking about creating another Legal System to run parallel to the existing Legal System we have in place, or are talking about 'Church Councilling' to take place as a form of councilling within that religious community?  Currently, the Christian and Jewish systems you talk about are not in counterveillance to the Legal System we have.  They are in the form of councilling.  Shariah Law, in no way sounds like it is a form of councilling, it sounds like a foreign Religious Law, which is interpreted differently between the varied Muslim sects, that will be allowed to make judgements equal to or over the current laws of the land.


----------



## Redeye (6 Sep 2005)

That's where the rub is coming out - Sharia Law is a legal system, and that's not what's being proposed at all.  There is no way any religious group would be allowed to actually override our legal system.

Here's what cbc.ca says:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/09/04/islamic_arbitration20050904.html



> The Ontario proposal was developed by the former Ontario attorney general, Marion Boyd, and has been embraced by many Muslims - both conservative and mainstream.
> 
> It would make it legal for Muslims to seek Islamic arbitration and mediation for family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritance cases. Boyd says this isn't the same as Shariah law, which - as practised in the Middle East - allows the death penalty for adultery, requires alimony to be paid for only three months, and tends to award custody of children to their fathers.



It seems to be only like what you describe... and something which I can see as being without any problems.  I don't think those that would seek to spread Sharia would see it as much of a victory.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2005)

Here is the problem: Jews have being using religious 'courts' as arbitrators for years â â€œ without any apparent problems and I think some Jewish religious 'law' is also slanted in favour of men (divorce proceedings, perhaps?).

If one religious group can use antiquated, 'foreign' legal precepts to manage the (voluntary) arbitration process then why cannot another?

There is, I think a very real risk that the Muslim women, especially, will end up being pressured into accepting arbitration by a mullah or iman and will have their civil rights abused and will, also, lack the sophistication and strength to go against family and communal pressure and use the Canadian legal and political systems to gain redress.

(By the way, I think that Christian religious 'courts' have the authority to resolve employer/employee disputes (e.g. congregation vs parson, vicar vs establishment) involving only their 'own.')


----------



## Redeye (6 Sep 2005)

The fear you express is where the only real concern I have with the whole process.  Through western eyes especially, Islamic laws pertaining to divorce, inheritance, and so on look very much slanted in favour of men.  There are cultural contexts and so on that make them seem less so, but that's again not the point, and those contexts don't necessarily transfer here anyhow.

My concern, like yours, is that a Muslim woman who is newly immigrated, perhaps doesn't speak an official language well, might not realize that she has a choice and might thenn unwittingly end up choosing to use the "Muslim" system and end up with a worse resolution than might have been provided through the court system.  If there is adequate prevention measures for this contingency in place then the system seems like it would be alright.  Of course, we're talking about a complement to the status quo, and not a replacement, which is what at least some who are protesting seem to think is happening.


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Sep 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> truly,* but * you can hunt donkeys and kangaroos!



Yip no semi-auto rifles unless you are a primary producer. The gun laws do suck, but the most liberal laws are of course are in Queensland. Yes one can not only hunt donkeys, but camels, goats, pigs, anad water buffalo too, plus a host of other non-native beasts of all shape and sizes.

In general mainstream Aussies have become increasingly LESS tolerant with muslims, and trying not to play the race card here, seems the muslims overall are what we can call muslims living in Australia, not Australians, that being putting their faith before their new adopted country, and that has the mainstreamers blood boiling.

Yes, we are afraid of what will happen here on day, and many attacks have been stopped before they could be carried out, but one day they'll get our weakest link.

The pure unalulterated contempt and outright hatred expresssed by some (not all) muslims not only against the Aussie government, but its people is right out in the public. They they hate us, and they know we know they hate us. Its a chilling fact, and being honest, Nancy and I are so happy to be out of Sydney now. 

Some of the most disgusting looks I have got from these people is really freaky. My crime, walking with my GF who is wearing a two piece swimsuit. Nothing too revealing by our standards, but the looks were so bad we had to leave for our own safety. Also muslim crime committed against primarily whites is on the increase. Rape, murder, extortion, home invasions, robberies, etc. So much for living by the koran. Anyways, folks, don't get me wrong, I am not stirring the pot here, but facts are simply that, and should the mods think this is too extreme, please delete this post.

For in the past going on 10 months, I have only seen 4 muslims up here in Brisbane, and it is the Australia of 30 yrs ago in Queensland, and not so much of a nation of tribes of separate cultures, like say down in Sydney, where in some of the muslim ghettos, being   non-muslim (noit necessarily white), can get you beaten and/or killed (such as a 14 yr old asian boy on the way to his friends birthday party found out - stabbed and killed for walking thru a muslim neighbourhood, and murderd for not being one of them). 

Good on the Australian government for fronting up, facing the public, and telling it like it is. Sadly, its only going to get worse. Mainstream Aussies have told the government that future immigration by muslims should be halted. Call that what you wish, but we are realising here pretty fast, we'd would be a more safe country if there were none of them here. Its pretty sad that we cannot all SIMPLY get along, but what can you do. The muslims have brought this on themselves,a nd only lately have some of the clerics have made anti-extremist statements, but even those are vaige. Generally the islamic 'communities' have kept their mouths shut and turned a blind eye to it, and that alone is nothing but bad press. what ever happend to just being Australian (never forget where you come from of course), but we don't seem to have Irish communities, or Canadian communities, or RC, C of E communities do we. The days of 'one' nation are long gone.

Cheers,

Wes

Anyways, its to the shower, its after 0600 Wed am, and I gotta get ready for work


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2005)

Wes is quite right, the situation in the UK is also out of control, with Muslim enclaves and entire "Parallel Systems" of rule (I hesitate to call it government). Many other countries in Western Europe are also facing the same problem of unassimilated Muslims, who, quite in difiance of multiculturalism, display open contempt for their host societies, refuse to abide by social norms and act out by attacking the home society in similar ways to the ones described by Wes.

I havn't seen any indications that the situation has gone as far in Canada, but there could be any number of explanations (including a refusal by the press to report such outrages, as being bad for the prevailing multicultural ethos). Call me an assimilationist, but if you are living in a nation, then you are part of that nation, and no hyphens either. Canada's "Cultural mossaic" seems to be the logical place for fractures along the lines discussed here; lets hope common sense sets in before it is too late.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Sep 2005)

After doing a bit of reading on this and chatting with others, the common concern from more conservative minded lawyers is that slowly but surely bits and pieces of Sharia law will graft into our legal system- generally through the small number Muslim judges and human rights tribunal members who are appointed into those positions along with the growing political clout of that religion in the policy making process- i.e. elected persons and those who fail to stand up to them.  The result being a bit of a hybrid model where traditional Christian values are much diminished and discouraged, secular values dominant and Muslim/Islamic values influential depending on the circumsatnces. I think that is a bit of a strecth in the medium term, but perhaps 5 or 6 generations down the road it is quite likely. [if Canada survives that long]. 

Sharia law, like almost all law and all religion, is about property- in this case a form of property in women. It has to be stopped right now, along with arranged marriages and dowry's. 

I personally think the more immediate effects are going to emerge not in family law areas, but rather commercial contract law. I understand there is now an international Islamic bank which may gain national charter status in Canada. The governing law for private commercial contracts with that bank will be Islamic law- a perfectly legal development under our current system of recognition of foreign law.


----------



## Redeye (6 Sep 2005)

Islamic banking is an interesting institution, and I don't see what the big concern is, conventional contract law would (of course) still apply.  Where Islamic banking gets its niche is from the fact that it works around the fact that Qu'ran proscribes the charging of interest (rifa).  You might not know that several major banking companies (including Citigroup) have Islamic "divisions" which operate in the Middle East because the business potential is massive.

If you really study anything about Islam, most of the basic legal principles are the same, and those that differ and are culturally incompatible with western customs I doubt will ever take hold in this country - in our lifetimes, or beyond.  No one in Canada will ever accept the concept of treating women as chattels, that's simply never going to happen.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Sep 2005)

Problem is, lots of people in business still fail to read the contracts they sign. Attornment to the jurisdiction of Iran or Saudi Arabia is not a palatable proposition, IMO. That being said, Canadian companies probably wouldn't be treated with less bias and hostilty there than in other supposedly more friendly jurisdictions....  

Cheers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> ...
> Sharia law, like almost all law and all religion, is about property- in this case a form of property in women. It has to be stopped right now, along with arranged marriages and dowry's.
> ...



Bingo!  Thank you whiskey601; I have been living so long in my nice, tidy secular-liberal world, with my nice tidy secular-liberal friends and neighbours that I had forgotten about the big, wild world.  Yes, indeed: people as property; 900 years of English history, etc, etc.

I also agree that Sharia is unacceptable in a modern, Western liberal, secular democracy.


----------



## Redeye (7 Sep 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Problem is, lots of people in business still fail to read the contracts they sign. Attornment to the jurisdiction of Iran or Saudi Arabia is not a palatable proposition, IMO. That being said, Canadian companies probably wouldn't be treated with less bias and hostilty there than in other supposedly more friendly jurisdictions....
> 
> Cheers.



I would be stunned if anyone actually ended up doing business with an Islamic bank if they weren't Muslim, or at least well read, and knew exactly what was going on.  I haven't actually heard of an Islamic bank setting up in Canada (although many foreign banks are entering the market, ICICI of India being the most successful thus far.  Anyone who enters into any contract without reading it, all the same, deserves what they get, but this sounds a little xenophobic without any backing.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Sep 2005)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I would be stunned if anyone actually ended up doing business with an Islamic bank if they weren't Muslim, or at least well read, and knew exactly what was going on.   I haven't actually heard of an Islamic bank setting up in Canada (although many foreign banks are entering the market, ICICI of India being the most successful thus far.   Anyone who enters into any contract without reading it, all the same, deserves what they get, but this sounds a little xenophobic without any backing.



A year or so ago, I read an article in the Ottawa Citizen on the fact that the Muslim faith didn't believe in paying interest, and several well off Muslims in Toronto and Ottawa had set up a 'bank' for those of their faith who required loans for the purchase of homes.   How it all works, is beyond me....but it appears that they have already set up their own 'financial institutions' in Canada.


----------



## paracowboy (7 Sep 2005)

I don't understand how it works, either, but it works, man! I've seen it in action, and it is amazing. Most of it seems to be done by handshake and word of mouth, too! You loan money in Kabul, and get it back in say, Kuwait or Dubai - Bang! Done deal. And it doesn't matter that the "banker" in Kabul was squatting in human/animal feces in an alley, 2 feet from an unexploded shell, and the dude in Dubai works out of a skyrise with a view of the Persian Gulf and the German tourists in bikinis, or maybe a back street in London, England.

Weird. One of those "Man, this job is so cool!" moments.


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Sep 2005)

I know throughout the muslim ghettos of Sydney (yes, thats exactly what they are), there is a lot of advertising for the instituion called The Arab Bank. I have only seen these billboards in those areas and no where else ever. Also adds for Zam-Zam Cola, because they dont by Coke because as they say, its owned by the Jews. wanna know more go to www.islamicsydney.com, and navigate yourself to the 'do not shop at' list, and of course their forums too! You'll be shocked, but not suprised.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Britney Spears (7 Sep 2005)

Did I miss a rather glaring shift in the focus of this thread? Somehow it went from debating the need for a source of arbitors for the Islamic communities to rantings about Sharia law? What does Sharia Law have to do with private aribtration or any of this?  Why all this screaming about "I came to Canada so I conform to Canadian law ra ra ra"? No one is arguing that you or anyone else should do otherwise. 

I'm lost.  ???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Sep 2005)

C'mon Brit. You know that if you leave a thread for more than twenty minutes the whole focus changes so that you'll never understand what you even wrote yourself!


----------



## Infanteer (7 Sep 2005)

One thing I've learned from haunting Internet BB's is that you can never fight the shift of focus in a forum - just go with the flow man!  8)


----------



## Slim (7 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> One thing I've learned from haunting Internet BB's is that you can never fight the shift of focus in a forum - just go with the flow man!   8)



?? ??? ??...

Who are you and what have you done with Infanteer?!


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Sep 2005)

Britney: 'twas me.

"Law never is, but is always about to be"



Oops, I did it again.


----------



## Cpl.Banks (8 Sep 2005)

Sharia Law=Bad in my books. Anything that makes us step back in history and lose all progress that we have achieved is just plain dumb.
It's quite frankly like deciding hey why not use arsenic as make up? Or hey what about bathing once a month? Watch out I think that the 20's are comming back...the 1520's!
UBIQUE!!


----------



## Sapper Bloggins (9 Sep 2005)

back to the subject.
The Islamists who live among us will be so emboldened that I am not at all confident our secular democracies will not be balkanised and dismantled.
Merely holding a world view that resists Islam, can hardly, by any sense of justice, be considered the cause of the conflict.
Islam is not allowing us the luxury of a life free of ideology.
The cool-eyed rationalist try to overlok this, it just reminds them they are not in the driver's seat when it comes to cultural development and cultural conflicts.

The province of Ontario has authorized the use of sharia law in civil arbitrations, if *both* parties consent.
In theory, their decisions aren't supposed to conflict w/ Canadian civil law.
With no third-party oversight, and no duty to report decisions, no outsider will ever know if they do...

You reject sharia-- you're a bad Muslim.

how bout' them apples?


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Sep 2005)

> The province of Ontario has authorized the use of sharia law in civil arbitrations, if both parties consent.
> In theory, their decisions aren't supposed to conflict w/ Canadian civil law.
> With no third-party oversight, and no duty to report decisions, no outsider will ever know if they do...



Huh?

Arbitrators cannot pass binding judgements which are illegal. If your arbitrator tells you not to pay taxes for next year, you think the gummint is going to stand by idle? 

Are you even vaguely familiar with the due proccess leading up to an agreement to arbitration?


----------



## Sapper Bloggins (9 Sep 2005)

with all due respect, I'd suggest you dig a little deeper


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Sep 2005)

Sapper Bloggins said:
			
		

> In theory, their decisions aren't supposed to conflict w/ Canadian civil law.



In theory or not, I don't want it allowed period. All they need is a toe hold (maybe its too late now??), and once this happens, given an inch they'll take a mile. If any of 'them' want Sharia law, they can go back to where they bloody well came from. 

I am sick and tired of our countries being raped and robbed of our own customs and traditions. Sharia law is nothing but pure savagery backed by fear, and retribution, and belongs in the dark ages, or at least in the ME shitholes where it belongs in the culture of violence and hatred beyond our belief.

Sorry, but thats how I see it, and aside from not being PC about facts, and hiding behind an excuse of 'wishing not to offend', many will agree here.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Sep 2005)

Well you can rest easy, then, because nothing nefarious is being "allowed". Unless Sapper Bloggins can explain by what tortured logic he came to that conclusion.


----------



## 48Highlander (9 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> Arbitrators cannot pass binding judgements which are illegal. If your arbitrator tells you not to pay taxes for next year, you think the gummint is going to stand by idle?
> 
> Are you even vaguely familiar with the due proccess leading up to an agreement to arbitration?



Not legaly binding, but that's not what he was refering to.  Are you being deliberately obtuse?  If a Sharia court passes judgement that a muslim woman may devorce her husband, but that he will receive all their posessions, do you really suppose she'll get offended and take it to a different court?  Or is it more likely she'll cave to social pressure?  While the findings of these courts may not be enforced by the Canadian legal system, they will be enforced by cultural/social pressure.  Certainly, that pressure already exists, however, by officialy reckognizing Sharia law as an alternative to our own civil courts, we're giving it legitemacy and making it even harder for these individuals to integrate into our society.


----------



## Mojo Magnum (9 Sep 2005)

"In theory or not, I don't want it allowed period. All they need is a toe hold (maybe its too late now??), and once this happens, given an inch they'll take a mile. If any of 'them' want Sharia law, they can go back to where they bloody well came from."

BINGO.


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Sep 2005)

Have any of you actually witnessed an appeal to arbitration before? Because I feel that you're still missing the entire point. 



> If a Sharia court passes judgement that a muslim woman may devorce her husband, but that he will receive all their posessions, do you really suppose she'll get offended and take it to a different court?




Why not? Seeing as how this is Canada, not Iran. What "Islamic court" are you talking about? There is no proposal to set up islamic courts in Canada.



> Or is it more likely she'll cave to social pressure?



If one is going to "cave to social pressure" then why go into arbitration to begin with?



> While the findings of these courts may not be enforced by the Canadian legal system, they will be enforced by cultural/social pressure.  Certainly, that pressure already exists, however, by officialy reckognizing Sharia law as an alternative to our own civil courts, we're giving it legitemacy and making it even harder for these individuals to integrate into our society.



Sharia law is NOT al alternative to our civil courts, wasn't this explained to you in like the third post of the thread? If your oil company and my oil company had a disagreement regarding some technical matter related to the oil industry, we go to an arbitration board composed of experts in the oil industry. This happens every day, it's stipulated in most contracts. Are we substituting "Oil industry law" for the CCORF?  This comparison is ludicrous, the ONLY reason why this is even news is because it involved *gasp* Muslims.  :


----------



## paracowboy (9 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> the ONLY reason why this is even news is because it involved *gasp* Muslims.


speaking strictly for myself, the only reason I'm taking an interest at all is because of the number of Muslim groups that are dead-set against it. Makes me go "hmmm".


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Sep 2005)

I've been in front of many arbitration boards. Can't say they are all bad as they generally make their own rules with respect to procedure- which often [but not always] provides more fairness than before the courts. I fear Sharia will fall into the "not always" class of boards.   

I'm uncomfortable with the use of the term arbitrator in this case. The courts generally hold out a fair bit of deference for arbitrators, as opposed to something "less"- for example it is very rare a labour arbitrator is overturned. What is more, a statute will be created to permit this sort of activity, and the statute will contain the route of appeal for any decision- but I would hope it contains a weak privity clause which might allow the instant and automatic stay of the arbitrators decision pending determination of the appeal. There should be a long window of opportunity to appeal- say several years. There must also be very broad grounds for the appeal- not just the typical administarive law grounds, but also grounds such as those found in contract law - "duress", "illegality" etc.

Arbitrators also have powers to subpoena, to asssess credibility of witneses and other evidence. It seems to me the Ontario Evidence Act ought to prevail, and I would be hesitant to permit a religious fundamentalist the power to subpoena either testimonial evidence or other evidence. 
   
I would also like to see provision for third party intervention into all appeals so that women are not prevented from appealing due to lack of financial capability. Where a court overturns an arbitrators decision, I would like to see the arbitrator responsible for all legal costs of the appeal on a substantial indemnity scale.    There should also be instant and automatic blanket injunctive relief granted to women appealing Sharia decisions which restrain family members and religious groups from pressuring women to drop the appeal. 

But what I would really like is for the issue to go away and an outright ban on any non-progressive foolishness such as Sharia and other such non-essential religious accommodation in the judicial system.   Marion Boyd ought to be ashamed of herself- but IMO she never really had any sense of respect for the configuration of the justice system to begin with. Thats just my opinion, and of course many others hold her in very high regard.      McGuinty will probably have PMPM appoint her to the bench, maybe even the court of appeal.


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Sep 2005)

> what is more, a statute will be created to permit this sort of activity, and the statute will contain the route of appeal for any decision- but I would hope it contains a weak privity clause which might allow the instant and automatic stay of the arbitrators decision pending determination of the appeal.



Why a new statute? Why not just use the existing Commercial/Divorce Arbitration Acts? They are all as secular as we could want. In fact, I think that this would be counter productive and appear to give Muslim arbiters special treatment, I'm definitely against that. 



> I would also like to see provision for third party intervention into all appeals so that women are not prevented from appealing due to lack of financial capability.



Hmm, who determines the criterea for this? I'm not against this in principle but it seems rather difficult to implement. By the same reasoning, you should also extend the provision to intervene in arbitration between individuals and large corporations then? I'm a little hazy on the details here, is there such a provision in place, beyond the usual "duress" stuff?  



> Where a court overturns an arbitrators decision, I would like to see the arbitrator responsible for all legal costs of the appeal on a substantial indemnity scale.



Sounds good.




> But what I would really like is for the issue to go away and an outright ban on any non-progressive foolishness such as Sharia and other such non-essential religious accommodation in the judicial system.



Sounds good too. I'm not really sure if anything is even changed here. On the other hand, private arbitrations are still private, if both parties agree to a Mullah for an arbitrator, is it the gummint's role to determine the fitness of the arbitrator? Wouldn't this be discrimination on the basis of religion?


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Why a new statute? Why not just use the existing Commercial/Divorce Arbitration Acts? They are all as secular as we could want. In fact, I think that this would be counter productive and appear to give Muslim arbiters special treatment, I'm definitely against that.



Actually, I think this is going to be an amendment to the Family Law Act. Currently the Act provides for mediation, not arbitration. I am not sure of the applicability of the Arbitration Act* to family law, but I don't think it is specifically excluded. [don't know, not involved in family law at all] 



> Hmm, who determines the criterea for this? I'm not against this in principle but it seems rather difficult to implement. By the same reasoning, you should also extend the provision to intervene in arbitration between individuals and large corporations then? I'm a little hazy on the details here, is there such a provision in place, beyond the usual "duress" stuff?



The intervention would occur in the judicial process, not the arbitration process. Intervenor status is provided for in Charter cases, however   I think it ought to be broadened where religious principles are engaged vis fundamental human rights.




> Sounds good too. I'm not really sure if anything is even changed here. On the other hand, private arbitrations are still private, if both parties agree to a Mullah for an arbitrator, is it the gummint's role to determine the fitness of the arbitrator?  Wouldn't this be discrimination on the basis of religion?



Typically, qualified arbitrators for labour etc. are appointed to a roster by the AG or the respective line ministry of government.   Often, it is a patronage appointment. Arbitration authorized by statute and regulated by government has the force of law subject to judicial review. Unauthorized or unregulated private arbitration does not have the force of law- such private events are commonly referred to as alternative dispute resolution. What the government and Boyd are attempting to do is give Sharia the force of law in Canada, and that is a very dangerous precedent which could result in courts attempting interpret Sharia law, and perhaps eventually applying certain aspects of Sharia into other areas of family law by stealth or inadvertence.

* Ack... the proposal also involves a modification to the Arbitration Act. As a result, the parties may select or designate their own qualified arbitrator.


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Sep 2005)

OK, first, Boyd says the same thing I was saying:



> In initial comments to the media in late 2003 Syed Mumtaz Ali, president of the IICJ(Islamic Institute for Civil Justice), stated, "[n]ow, once an arbitrator decides cases, it is final and binding. The parties can go to the local secular Canadian court asking that it be enforced. The court has no discretion in the matter. The...impracticality [not being allowed to use Sharia] has been removed. In settling disputes, there is no choice but to have an arbitration board."2





> ...Syed Mumtaz Ali's statements, and the statements of members of the Muslim community who took a position supporting the IICJ proposal, suggested that the government had given some form of special permission to the IICJ to undertake its project. The idea that government had
> approved the use of Sharia began winding its way into the public consciousness. The mistaken belief that the government had recently made changes to the law on arbitrations was widely disseminated through the public press and electronic media.4
> The idea that the IICJ legitimately held some form of coercive power which would allow it to force Muslims in Ontario to arbitrate according to Islamic personal law instead of using the traditional court route to resolve disputes was formed as a direct result of the pronouncements of the IICJ. That this declaration appears to have been taken at face value by both the Muslim community and the broader community is particularly troublesome.





> ...It bears repetition that, in spite of perceptions to the contrary, the government had not amended or introduced any legislation or regulations that allowed the IICJ to conduct arbitrations according to Islamic personal law. Rather, the structure of the Arbitration Act itself created this possibility. *In fact, the government had never been in contact with or heard of the IICJ until early 2004.*




Now.....



> Actually, I think this is going to be an amendment to the Family Law Act. Currently the Act provides for mediation, not arbitration. I am not sure of the applicability of the Arbitration Act* to family law, but I don't think it is specifically excluded. [don't know, not involved in family law at all]



Apparently. the Arbitration Act applies to family law and inheritence as well. I don't know how widely it is used for such, because I've never heard of it before this either, but then again I'm not Catherine Bell.  



> The intervention would occur in the judicial process, not the arbitration process. Intervenor status is provided for in Charter cases, however  I think it ought to be broadened where religious principles are engaged vis fundamental human rights.



Maybe I'm misinterpreting here, but when did religious principles _ever_ engage vis The Charter? In simple terms, if the female party of a divorce arbitration feels that she has been handed an unfair ruling based on her gender, which is protected by the Charter, and can prove as much, the whole arbitration is illegal, is it not?




> Typically, qualified arbitrators for labour etc. are appointed to a roster by the AG or the respective line ministry of government.  Often, it is a patronage appointment. Arbitration authorized by statute and regulated by government has the force of law subject to judicial review. Unauthorized or unregulated private arbitration does not have the force of law- such private events are commonly referred to as alternative dispute resolution.



_The Arbitration Act_ has no provision over labour arbitration or international commercial arbitration. Those are covered by different statutes. (Do I get a cookie? )




> What the government and Boyd are attempting to do is give Sharia the force of law in Canada, and that is a very dangerous precedent which could result in courts attempting interpret Sharia law, and perhaps eventually applying certain aspects of Sharia into other areas of family law by stealth or inadvertence.



So you are saying that the courts will eventually start using Arbitration rulings as precedent for court cases? Can you elaborate on this? If this is true, then it is a truly remarkable proposal which would be unconstitutional in about 100 different ways.  I'm afraid I cannot find any mention of such in Boyd's report.


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Sep 2005)

> Maybe I'm misinterpreting here, but when did religious principles ever engage vis The Charter? In simple terms, if the female party of a divorce arbitration feels that she has been handed an unfair ruling based on her gender, which is protected by the Charter, and can prove as much, the whole arbitration is illegal, is it not?



OK, I've done some more reading, and as far as I can tell, there is merit to both sides of the arugment for this one. Boyd is saying that since private arbitration is an agreement between private parties and not ground in statute, The Charter does not apply. Critics say that since arbitration rulings are ultimately enforced by the courts, The Charter still should. 

I'm kind of leaning towards siding with Boyd and Libertarianism, but I'll have to read some more.....


----------



## Sapper Bloggins (10 Sep 2005)

Glad you've taken some time to do a little more reading Britney Spears :-* 

Let me be clear, that the rights of women are being sacrificed for the sake of multiculturalism.
I do not agree that there is a "substantial difference" between authorizing sharia-based mediation services and implementing sharia law for matters cognizable by the mediation. The Muslim activists impelling this development are clear that _their idea_ of sharia is what will hold sway, not what non-Muslims think sharia is.


----------



## TCBF (10 Sep 2005)

An overriding cultural issue is the illusion of voluntary participation in a closed patriarchal society.  You bet all of those women are going to "volunteer" to be under Sharia.  Right.  sign the form, baby, or no one in your tribe will ever pass you without spitting on the ground, and your cousin back in Medina might encounter "difficulties."  Too bad you can't hide in a safe house since you don't speak ENGLISH.

I can't wait until OHIP covers ritual female genital mutilation.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (10 Sep 2005)

If some folks are so eager to see the Shari'a, why don't they move to an Islamic Republic?


----------



## TCBF (10 Sep 2005)

Or sit right here and WAIT.

Tom


----------



## TCBF (10 Sep 2005)

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/viewtopic.php?t=79855

Another couple of years, and these two links may have to merge.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (10 Sep 2005)

I'm serious here - I'm just a bit mixed up.   The Shari'a has no precendent in our legal history; it is based upon a completely foreign idea of Islamic law which has had near zero input on traditional Western notions of justice, legality, and morality.

I would think that many Muslims come to Canada to get away from imposition of the Shari'a in many countries (Afghanistan, Iran, etc, etc); yes, there are other reasons for emigrating from Islamic states, but Muslims I know have done so for this reason.   If the lack of its use here represents a serious hampering of their lifestyle, then wouldn't they want to head back to a place where its use is the norm for that particular society?


----------



## Spr.Earl (10 Sep 2005)

Aint Mult.i Cult. great?


----------



## paracowboy (10 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If the lack of its use here represents a serious hampering of their lifestyle, then wouldn't they want to head back to a place where its use is the norm for that particular society?


you forget the responsibility to convert dar-al-harb, and the fact that immigrants, for the most part, don't want a different lifestyle, they want a higher standard of living while continuing to live as they were raised in their home country.
This holds true throughout all of history. Look at the various "chinatowns," "little Italy's", etc. They left to make more money and have a better lifestyle, but they stayed in small communities where they continued to live as their parents had "back in the old country". It works the same no matter how far back you go, or where on the globe. Normandy is called such because a bunch of Norsemen settled there, and imposed their culture on the Gaullic people's already in place.
It isn't until 2 generations or more that particular ethnicities begin to feel an affinity for their "new" country's culture. But, we have decided to actively enforce the differences through our bizarre cult of "everybody's culture is better than ours", thus slowing down and actually preventing assimilation.
These are generalizations, but fairly accurate (as any general idea can be, if you leave it vague enough   )


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Sep 2005)

> Glad you've taken some time to do a little more reading Britney Spears Kiss



Well, now that I've done it so you don't have to, why do you still insist on being wrong?


----------



## Sapper Bloggins (10 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Well, now that I've done it so you don't have to, why do you still insist on being wrong?



Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.
Even if you win, you're still retarded. 

nuff said,out to you.


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Sep 2005)

> Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.
> Even if you win, you're still retarded. Wink
> 
> nuff said,out to you.



Sure, take a break, do some reading. Come back when you've got something to contribute and/or actually understand the issue and we can carry on, no hard feelings, Okay?


----------



## Tornado (10 Sep 2005)

A great deal of information to digest in this thread.  Forgive my only skimming some of the longer posts.

It seems to me that the courts have left a legal loophole by indicating that any decision must be "acceptable".  The real issue is belief systems.  What anyone believes tends to become hardwired, given enough time.  As was mentioned earlier, social and cultural pressure is very real, regardless of the laws which govern you.  I discussed this sort of concept with a cop in Edmonton once.  I was trying to wrap my mind around recruiting quotas for minorties.  He introduced a rather enlightening scenario of which he had been a part.

He was answering a domestic disturbance call to an area in Mill Woods.  This particular suburb in Edmonton has a large ethnic population and the section he was headed to was where many Sikhs were residing.  Being unfamiliar with the culture, he made a quick call to the local detachment who then dispatched a Sikh cop to his location.  Now, I don't know what the disturbance was about however, the the Sikh officer was able to quell the situation in a few minutes by bridging the cultural chasm.  The officer was able to explain Canadian law and standards in a way which was easily understood by the parties involved.

I can't presume to know much about "Sharia Law" in the Muslim culture however it sounds like; A) a forum for dealing with civil disputes in Canada in a culture unfamiliar with our own or, B) a quick and easy way to keep more disputes from even making to the courts in order to save a buck for the Ontario Govt.

Being a pessimist, I suspect the latter was how the idea was sold.

Just my 5 cents.  <shrug>

Take Care


----------



## TCBF (10 Sep 2005)

"Normandy is called such because a bunch of Norsemen settled there, and imposed their culture on the Gaullic people's already in place."

- Too bad that wore off.

Tom


----------



## Sapper Bloggins (10 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Sure, take a break, do some reading. Come back when you've got something to contribute and/or actually understand the issue and we can carry on, no hard feelings, Okay?


 lol :

'I scorn you, scurvy companion.
What, you poor, base, rascally, cheating, lack-linen mate! Away, you moldy rogue, away!'

-William Shakespeare, Henry IV, part 2


----------



## Zio (10 Sep 2005)

Whiskey601, there were a great many recommendations submitted during the development of Boyd's report.  In regards to arbitration The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) requested eight safeguards which you might find interesting.

 The eight safeguards recommended by LEAF consist of: (1) the Arbitration Act must be amended to provide that family arbitrations apply to Ontario's family law regime (other principles, such as religious precepts, may also be applied, but only to the extent that they do not conflict with Ontario family law); (2) consent to arbitration must be made contemporaneously with the decision to arbitrate; (3) independent legal advice must be sought prior to the signing of an arbitration agreement; (4) legal aid or some other public funding must be available to all parties in order to obtain independent legal advice and to retain lawyers for arbitration (funding must also be provided to fund family law arbitrators, not religious arbitrators); (5) family arbitrations must only be conducted by persons who are lawyers and have training and experience with the Ontario family law regime and there must be a complaints mechanism through which the qualifications of arbitrators may be reviewed; (6) parties must not be able to contract out of their appeal rights; (7) arbitral awards must contain a statement of the issues in dispute, a concise description of the evidence tendered and a determination by the arbitrator, with reasons must be filed anonymously in a central registry; and 8 a legislative review must be mandated on a periodic basis examining the impact of religious arbitration on women, followed by a report on the extent and nature of family law disputes being arbitrated, on compliance with Ontario family law, and on possible concerns for vulnerable women.

Generally their take on this was such that in their opinion "Ontario's family law regime is flexible enough to allow religious groups to still create imaginative family law resolutions within religious law boundaries while retaining significant judicial oversight. "

There are various other forms of "safeguards" proposed by other groups these however are in my opinion the most practical, and contrary to Boyd I believe that Legally "time consuming processes" are not to be avoided rather encouraged as a check.


----------



## TCBF (10 Sep 2005)

Thank you for that.  Those are good points.

Only time will tell if politics will once again triumph over democracy, human rights, and common sense.

Tom


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Sep 2005)

I suppose it's amusing to see all you supposed libertarians screaming for more bureacracy and goverment in the bedroom, when Boyd, an NDP member, is calling for less.


----------



## TCBF (10 Sep 2005)

Ahh, you mis-interpret her vision.

She wants to provide a Liberal voting block the ability to apply the force of our institutions without recourse to our western civilization's  legal oversight and redress procedures. 

Back door fascism, democratically funded.

Tom


----------



## George Wallace (10 Sep 2005)

I was going to monitor and stay out of this, some of these statements got to me.


			
				Zio said:
			
		

> The eight safeguards recommended by LEAF consist of:
> 
> (1) the Arbitration Act must be amended to provide that family arbitrations apply to OntarioâÃ‚ Ã‚â„¢s family law regime (other principles, such as religious precepts, may also be applied, but only to the extent that they do not conflict with Ontario family law);



Then why waste anyoness time and efforts if Ontario Family Law is the be all end all?



> (2) consent to arbitration must be made contemporaneously with the decision to arbitrate;
> 
> (3) independent legal advice must be sought prior to the signing of an arbitration agreement;


Again....If Independent legal advice must be sought, why even bother with this act?



> (4) legal aid or some other public funding must be available to all parties in order to obtain independent legal advice and to retain lawyers for arbitration (funding must also be provided to fund family law arbitrators, not religious arbitrators);


And again; if this is stipulated, why even waste the time with any Act?



> (5) family arbitrations must only be conducted by persons who are lawyers and have training and experience with the Ontario family law regime and there must be a complaints mechanism through which the qualifications of arbitrators may be reviewed;


 This sort of goes against what they want, and again we have Laws and Acts in place to cover this already, why create new ones?



> (6) parties must not be able to contract out of their appeal rights;
> 
> (7) arbitral awards must contain a statement of the issues in dispute, a concise description of the evidence tendered and a determination by the arbitrator, with reasons must be filed anonymously in a central registry; and
> 
> 8 a legislative review must be mandated on a periodic basis examining the impact of religious arbitration on women, followed by a report on the extent and nature of family law disputes being arbitrated, on compliance with Ontario family law, and on possible concerns for vulnerable women.



All of these are stating that existing Ontario Laws and Acts have power over this Legislation.   If so, why waste our time by passing it?   Or is the real reason, as someone stated earlier, to allow the Islamic Laws to creep into our Legal and Legislative Systems and slowly take over in time due to the Liberal Left of today not having the foresight or moral fibre to stand by our existing System.


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Sep 2005)

Come on now, same question I asked Sapper Bloggins: How do you figure?  Hopefully you're a little more articulate than he was.



> There are various other forms of "safeguards" proposed by other groups these however are in my opinion the most practical, and contrary to Boyd I believe that Legally "time consuming processes" are not to be avoided rather encouraged as a check.



I'm more partial to a proactive approach rather than a reactive set of legal safeguards. Instead of making arbitration more complex and time consuming, which is contrary to its intended role of a FAST AND CHEAP form of resolution, how about taking that money and using it to subsidize progressive women's organizations, perhaps Muslim ones, and ensuring that Muslim women are informed about the existing legal remedies. Perhaps this could be done at the point of entry for immigrants. Make every one of them watch a video or some such. I think this would also strengthen the impetuos for Muslim communities to become more progressive from within, and eventually even export our values back to their home countries. 

I mean, if we HAVE to do something about this "Muslim Menace".


----------



## TCBF (10 Sep 2005)

Another sentence like your last, and I may have to reconsider my vote.

Tom


----------



## Zio (10 Sep 2005)

Britney, from what I can tell you make much the same argument as Boyd.  Namely that arbitration is a private matter with authority of the arbitrator deriving solely from the agreement of the parties involved.  And as a such it is outside of (or at least should not be in) the jurisdiction of the government whether this is provincial regulation or even as Boyd states Charter scrutiny.  While I find myself in the awkward position of defending government intrusion into family affairs I believe certain fundamentals of government have to apply:

The state has to protect the rights of traditionally discriminated groups (in this case women/minority women), in so far as no legislation should be tabled which relieves the state of this duty.  Moving family law into a strictly private sphere does this; if this legislation would pass as is many conventional redresses, which you yourself have advocated in previous posts, would be unavailable.

I do not believe that other programs would accomplish what the Ontario government was intending.  Providing alternate forms of dispute resolution does not have to be antagonistic to our current legal system.


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Sep 2005)

Zio: 

Sorry, I was only putting out what Boyd's arguments were (hence the similarity). I don't neccesarily agree with her. In particular, the point about the charter having no juristiction in private arbitration I'm not so hot about, so actually I kind of agree with you.



> The state has to protect the rights of traditionally discriminated groups (in this case women/minority women), in so far as no legislation should be tabled which relieves the state of this duty.  Moving family law into a strictly private sphere does this; if this legislation would pass as is many conventional redresses, which you yourself have advocated in previous posts, would be unavailable.



By redresses do you mean appeals to the Charter? If so, then I agree, and it would be the reason why I am opposed to this particular point. But on the other hand, one can make an equally compelling argument to the contrary. For example, is there any actual evidence or prescedence to support this conjecture (that private arbitration must neccesarily result in abuses)?   In LEAF's list of recommendations, I presume Number 1 is basically arguing this point? I also note that in LEAF's list, no mention is specifically made regarding Sharia Law or Islam. Are they then saying that these limitations will apply to ALL faith based arbitrations? 

As I mentioned in my previous post, I would not be opposed to this (application of charter to arbitration) IN PRINCIPLE, but where do you draw the line? Would this not leave the door open for all kinds of frivolous "sexual harrasment" style appeals? Even if the current proposed legislation more specificly referred to Ontario Family Law and not the charter,, there would be a precedent set for goverment intervention in non-family law cases.

Also, do you know what whiskey meant when he said that Boyd was attempting to give arbitrations the power of law? I asked him but he hasn't been around for quite a while.....



Tom, George:

I don't think we are on the same net here.  Have you guys read Boyd's report? I quoted large sections of it in a few previous posts.


For anyone who hasn't,  it is available <a href=http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/boyd/fullreport.pdf>here</a>.  Please at least go over the introduction before commenting. FWIW, I'm not _sure_ I agree with Boyd's analysis and verdict, and this is what I am discussing with Zio and Whiskey, but some of the posts here really belong on militaryphotos.net in terms of reading level.


----------



## Zio (11 Sep 2005)

Re: Arbitration and the Law- Arbitration is essentially a private affair, as I alluded to earlier, the parties give authority to the arbitrator.  It is the parties' agreement to be bound by the arbitrator's decisions, which empowers the Arbitration act, not the other way around.  Thus no.1 of LEAF's safeguards wants an amendment allowing arbitration into Ontario family law. (Giving it the power of law, able to be applied by the government) I believe that this is what Whiskey was referring to when he spoke of proposed changes.  

In regards to whether or not private arbitration will result in abuse of minority interests, in this case women/minority women we must remember that what protects them now is the fact that they have official courts which are bound by and act in accordance to the laws of our country, to address perceived or actual wrongs.  Again removing these safeguards may lead to abuse, particularly in a society where there still remains systemic discrimination against women in the workplace let alone within the confines of a Islamic culture and (proposed) arbitration.


----------



## Britney Spears (11 Sep 2005)

> Re: Arbitration and the Law- Arbitration is essentially a private affair, as I alluded to earlier, the parties give authority to the arbitrator.  It is the parties' agreement to be bound by the arbitrator's decisions, which empowers the Arbitration act, not the other way around.  Thus no.1 of LEAF's safeguards wants an amendment allowing arbitration into Ontario family law. (Giving it the power of law, able to be applied by the government) I believe that this is what Whiskey was referring to when he spoke of proposed changes.




Okay, the report says:



> LEAF's objection is not the use of religious precepts to resolve disputes, per se, but to *the fact that the current Arbitration Act effectively gives these principles-which are not reviewable under the Charter-the force of law.* The state is required to protect and promote women's equality, and it has done so through the Ontario Family Law regime. Women may choose to opt out of this protection, but the state abrogates its Charter responsibility if it agrees to enforce such contracts. It is trite law that parties are not entitled to contract out of human rights legislation, and the state likewise cannot say to women, "we will protect you, but only if you want to be protected". This is directly contrary to the basic principle that the Charter is the supreme law of the land and must be upheld by the government in all instances, regardless of the desires of a specific individual or even a democratically elected legislature. LEAF submits that the Arbitration Act cannot be used as a backdoor way of giving Charter-proof principles legal effect. Only the Ontario Family Law regime can be reviewed for compliance with the Charter, so only this regime can be given effect by the state.297



Am I getting confused by the semantics?

In any case, LEAF's proposal makes sense now. I think I would be for moving divorce and inheritance arbitration to The Family Law Act.


----------



## Zio (11 Sep 2005)

Not really, basically without an amendment to the proposed changes any cases before this process would be arbitration as it is currently standing.  That means that if two people agree to use this new system the results are enforced by the Arbitration act and are not reviewable by the courts. Much the same as what occurs between you and your employer when going to arbitration. Because they both agreed to submit to the process and by extension the judgment in what the government deems a private matter, the Arbitration Act would then be in the position of enforcing a religious decision.   Thus effectively giving these ruling the "force of law".  LEAF is arguing for the inclusion of this into Ontario Family Law so that it would then be (like all other laws) subject to review.


----------



## Britney Spears (11 Sep 2005)

yeah, that's what I thought. It was this that was throwing me off:



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> What the government and Boyd are attempting to do is give Sharia the force of law in Canada, and that is a very dangerous precedent which could result in courts attempting interpret Sharia law, and perhaps eventually applying certain aspects of Sharia into other areas of family law by stealth or inadvertence.


----------



## TCBF (11 Sep 2005)

I had read an interview with Humera Abrahim, and it left me with the impression that if Muslim women in Canada - the canaries in the mineshaft of this initiative - found cause for concern, then it was probably understated.   

In Canada, people act and react in their daily lives not so much in accordance in the knowledge of the law, but in their belief (or disbelief) in the law.   Ignorance abounds (our national belief in our inability to use lethal force in an act of self defence, for example), and greater ignorance will result in poor, immigrant women living in a tribe geographically removed but culturally constant with their homelands.   Often with little or no English, their lives in our urban 'Bantustans" will not be protected by the goodwill and noble gestures of Marian Boyd or her successors, if their community guides their actions by IT's opinion of the law.

Other than an envisioned end state of Sharia law, I have neither heard nor read any benefit to accrue to Canadian Muslims with this initiative.

Is our democracy that flawed?   If so, will Presbyterians like myself be allowed to use this new shiny tool for family justice?

Could American immigrants ask that the US Constitution be used under the arbitration act related to family law?

How would this impinge on commercial partnerships - say, a company owned by Muslims and seculars - when an issue under this initiative results in a new disposition of that property?

I am a progressive in the sense that I will steal anyone else's good ideas.   I am also in agreement with much of the family traditions regarding responsibility to one's kin that are prevalent in Islam. My right flank neighbours are Islamic, and we have had interesting discusions (though not yet on this).

Who knows?   Tomorrow, he may convince me otherwise, but for today, I vote No.

Britney, thanks for the handy link.   You give us no excuse to be completely intellectually lazy.   Pr_ck.    ;D

Tom


----------



## Zio (11 Sep 2005)

I enjoyed this conversation; I believe we are all in agreement that forming an opinion of these proposals is far more complex than at first glance.  I will leave you with a quote from Abul A'la Mawdudi speaking about the Shari`ah:

"The fundamental principle of the Law is that man has the right, and in some cases the bounden duty, to fulfill all his genuine needs and desires and make every conceivable effort to promote his interests and achieve success and happiness- but (and its an important but) he should do all this in such a way that not only are the interests of other people not jeopardized and no harm is caused to their strivings towards the fulfillment of their rights and duties, but there should be all possible social cohesion, mutual assistance and co operation among human beings in the achievement of their objectives"

Not always the bogeyman people make it out to be!

Good Night


----------



## Britney Spears (11 Sep 2005)

Tom:

Let's be clear on the chain of cause and effect here. 

1) In 1991 _The Arbitration Act_ is passed.

2) In 2003, Syed Mumtaz Ali and IICJ announces their intention to form a tribunal to regulate and oversee Muslim Arbitrators.

3) The day after that, lots of people whine.

4) The Ontario Gov't commisions the Boyd review, to quote the report again:



> In June of 2004 the Ministers gave me a mandate to explore the use of private arbitration to resolve family and inheritance cases, and the impact that using arbitrations may have on vulnerable people. My mandate included extensive consultation with interested parties. In particular, my Review was to include an examination of the prevalence of the use of arbitration in family and inheritance disputes, the extent to which parties have resorted to the courts to enforce arbitration awards, and what differential impact, if any, arbitration may have on women, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, or other vulnerable groups. *Finally, based on my consultations, I was asked to make recommendations for addressing some of the central concerns about arbitration of family law and inheritance matters in this province*



5) Dec. 2004, the report which you've just read is out.

You will note that the LEAF proposals, which we have discussed at length in the last few posts, are included in the report, as I have quoted. However, Boyd's final recommendations start with:



> 1. Arbitration should continue to be an alternative dispute resolution option that is available in family and inheritance law cases, subject to the further recommendations of this Review.
> 2. The Arbitration Act should continue to allow disputes to be arbitrated using religious law, if the safeguards currently prescribed and recommended by this Review are observed.



So ACTUALLY, it is LEAF and the naysayers who are proposing "changes" and "new legislation". Boyd is saying that we should maintain the status quo from 1991. Mumtaz Ali and the IICJ, if they are truly committed to the enlightened and progressive interpretation of Shari'a, would not care either way.

And therein lies the issue.




> You give us no excuse to be completely intellectually lazy.  Pr_ck.   Grin



Yeah, you see, I'd rather be right than popular. So I had to risk losing your vote to get to the bottom of this mess. Where do I stand now?


----------



## TCBF (11 Sep 2005)

You still have my vote.  I may disagree with some of your positions, but you invariably check them out and back them up, which I respect.   It raises the bar in debate.  It also whups the heck out of my daily time appreciations when I have to glue myself to he devil machine (computer) for an extra few minutes and actually come up with reasonable posts, rather than the sarcastic one liners I prefer tossing off.

Perhaps people fear not the effect this initiative has had so far, but the unintended  (by us) consequences of all this down the road.  At least one man who wasa Provincial Premier has stated that when they repatriated the constitution and enshrined the charter, they certainly did NOT intend for sexual preference to be eventually listed as a factor of predjudice.  Yet now, here we are.

So, who knows what this will do to enable another supreme court 25 years from now?  

Tom


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Sep 2005)

I could care less, how the arbitration side of things go, whether it's Sharia, Hebrew, or Canadian standards. As long as the plantiffs\ defendants have the option of saying "FUCK YOU" and taking it to an independant, non partisan, and binding court (read Provincial\Federal Court) of law, who really cares? If religious arbitration and it's decisions become binding, it's time to pack it in and call "End Ex" restow the bug out gear and wait for the call.


----------



## TCBF (11 Sep 2005)

I believe THAT phase of conflict is known as "Voting From The Rooftops."

Tom


----------



## Britney Spears (11 Sep 2005)

> If religious arbitration and it's decisions become binding, it's time to pack it in and call "End Ex" restow the bug out gear and wait for the call.



 :crybaby:
It IS binding, just like any other form of arbitration, and always has been. Whether the arbiter is  a mullah or priest or you neighbourhood mechanic or anyone else. As long as you both  AGREE TO BE BOUND by it first. That's the whole point of having arbitration, so you can both save money and time and NOT go to court!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> :crybaby:
> It IS binding, just like any other form of arbitration, and always has been. Whether the arbiter is   a mullah or priest or you neighbourhood mechanic or anyone else. As long as you both   AGREE TO BE BOUND by it first. That's the whole point of having arbitration, so you can both save money and time and NOT go to court!



So you simply state you won't be bound, or agree with the decision of the mediator. " I will not accept arbitration or medaition, take me to court"


----------



## Britney Spears (11 Sep 2005)

> So you simply state you won't be bound, or agree with the decision of the mediator. " I will not accept arbitration or medaition, take me to court"



OK

Mediation: You and buddy agree to sit down in front of a neutral third party, and discuss the issue. Neutral third party gives ADVICE on how to settle it, but neither you or buddy is bound to do anything.

Most civil cases go through a mandatory mediation session. I'm not sure of the specific regulations, i think it varies by province. 

Arbitration: You and buddy agree before hand that if there is a conflict, you will take it to a neutral third party for arbitration. When that happenes, the arbitrator (neutral third party) listens to both cases, and then makes a ruling, by which you are both CONTRACTUALLY bound. The contract being the original agreement to Arbitration.

In both cases,  the third party is usually someone who commands a little respect. For us, the CO or RSM come to mind. For two oil companies, maybe a respected Oilfield Engineer. For a hubby and wife, the priest who married them.

The issue at hand here is whether the gummint should have the ability to step in on arbitrations, if one of the parties feels that the arbitrator was discriminating against them, or in our case, if one of the parties was LIKELY to be at a disadvantage: i.e. if the arbitrator was a Mullah and you were a woman. Currently arbitrators have no obligation to abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Or the Ontario provincial charter, in our case).

Do you think the gummint should have this power? Do you think Arbitrators' decisions should be open to review by the court against the Charter? Boyd says no, arbitrations are private matters and should remain so. LEAF and others say that Muslim women can be coerced into unfair arbitrations and arbitrations should comply with The Ontario Family Law Act. That was their Point Number One, and a big part of their disagreeemnt with Boyd.

The report explains it in much greater detail.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Wes is quite right, the situation in the UK is also out of control, with Muslim enclaves and entire "Parallel Systems" of rule (I hesitate to call it government). Many other countries in Western Europe are also facing the same problem of unassimilated Muslims, who, quite in difiance of multiculturalism, display open contempt for their host societies, refuse to abide by social norms and act out by attacking the home society in similar ways to the ones described by Wes.
> 
> I havn't seen any indications that the situation has gone as far in Canada, but there could be any number of explanations (including a refusal by the press to report such outrages, as being bad for the prevailing multicultural ethos). Call me an assimilationist, but if you are living in a nation, then you are part of that nation, and no hyphens either. Canada's "Cultural mossaic" seems to be the logical place for fractures along the lines discussed here; lets hope common sense sets in before it is too late.



I hope I'm not derailing an interesting and informative discussion.  I had to go back a few pages to find to hook upon which to hang this article.  This issues, it seems to me, are related: I wonder if our desire to be _inclusive_ drives us to moral and intellectual pabulum.

See for yourself, for The Times at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1775068,00.html 



> Ditch Holocaust day, advisers urge Blair
> 
> Abul Taher
> 
> ...



It is worth noting that _Holocaust Day_ is a recent invention, designed, as Mike Whine, a director of the British Board of Deputies* said, "... to remember the darkest day of modern history."  Whose history?  That's the issue.

An unnamed Home Office spokesman said the Holocaust needs memorializing because it was a "defining tragedy in European history."  Since Britain is part of Europe I suppose it makes perfect sense to emphasize this particular "defining tragedy" because it does, indeed, need sufficient memorializing to guarantee _Never again!_

How is this related to using Islamic arbitrators in Ontario?

Two issues, for me:

"¢	Is it, indeed, fair or even justifiable to exclude one religious group from _privileges_ enjoyed by others or another?  Why not Islamic arbitrators?  Rabbis have been doing it for years?  Are Jews morally superior or Muslims?  Why not Jewish schools?  There are, in Ontario, Catholic schools - fully funded by Islamic, Jewish and Protestant taxpayers, alike.  Why a Holocaust Memorial Day and not one for Armenians or to commemorate the Rape of Nanking?  Why is Good Friday a statutory holiday?

"¢	How far can multiculturalism and _inclusivity_ be allowed to go?  Do nations, even highly multicultural states like Canada, have some sort of core values - based upon the shared history of the majority?  How far should Denmark submerge those things which make it Danish in an effort to accommodate immigrants?  Does Ontario still have a dominant culture?  What about Ontario outside of Greater Toronto?  How multicultural are Almonte, Bancroft, Fergus, Orangeville, Peterborough, St Catherines and Welland?  Is there anything _quintessentially_ 'Ontario' about Elora or Sarnia or does Toronto equal Ontario?  Does it matter?

Now, personally, I would prefer as truly secular society but I realize that cannot be achieved without diluting, to the point of nonsense, 2,000 years of history - some of it brutal and evil but most of it, throughout the West, consisting of small steps out of darkness and into a 'world' a _civilization_ (in Huntington's sense of the word) in which _liberty_ is a measurable, practical _reality_ for hundreds of millions, maybe even a billion people.  I, personally, think it is important that we preserve that historic base because I don't think history is over and I don't think our, Western, contributions to it are all in the past.  It may sound odd but I do believe in a better world for my great-grandchildren's children and I believe that that we, in the West, people living right now, are most likely to provide an important part of the base upon which that better world will be built.  If our culture, our ideals, our values, our _civilization_, and its history, are diluted or washed away then, I believe the world those far off great-great-grandchildren inhabit will be a worse place.

I tend to the view that humanity and human history are both _accidental_.  I believe human life and thought is the result of a thousand trillion mostly random mutations, 995 trillion of which went nowhere or resulted in slimy, scaly, egg laying forms of life.  I do not think there is anything _special_ - no 'special providence' as Victor Davis Hanson might say - about the West; nothing except more random chances related to climate and rivers and the like which meant that we, rather than, say, the Central Asians, gave the world modern, secular liberalism.  Epictetus could, just as easily, have been a black slave.

I, personally, see a connection between aggressive, all inclusive multiculturalism and an apparent decline in values.  It is as though we _race to the bottom_ to ensure that none are left behind.  I believe this is am equally bad practice is army physical training and Western politics. 

----------
* The Board of Deputies is a Jewish advocacy group, see: http://www.bod.org.uk/bod/


----------



## Zio (11 Sep 2005)

The topic of multiculturalism is perhaps a related area of interest to this thread, however it may force the topic into areas which would better be discussed elsewhere.  That being said, in response to a number of your points (and not arguing "The Vertical Mosaic") multiculturalism has to walk the fine line between balkanizing Canada on one hand and the problems associated with assimilation on the other.  Generally, in my opinion the fact that a practical level Canadians accept immigration policy and levels (Angus Reid 1996-1998 amalgamated: only 20% of Ontarians believe immigration is having a negative effect, and a lower percentage than even that in all other provinces with the exception of B.C) combined with our constitution provide the necessary ingredients for a safe and economically successful country.  Our culture and traditions are bound to change in some respects, that does not mean it must necessarily be for the worse.  We can see from statistics that for seven years in a row China and India have topped the immigration numbers coming into Canada.  More interestingly I believe is in the provincial nominees, Manitoba (I use this province because they take advantage of this right more than any of the others) exercised their power to nominate just over 4000 persons, and who did they want in their province? People from the Philippines, immigrants from the U.K were in a distant fourth.  We should not fear the coming change to our society because it is here now and has been for 50+ years since we removed barriers restricting immigrant elements from southern and eastern Europe amongst others and have seen the positive effects these people have had on us and the country.


----------



## larry Strong (11 Sep 2005)

Well, we don't have to worry about it anymore, it's not going to happen;

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1126472943217_26/?hub=TopStories


----------



## Britney Spears (11 Sep 2005)

> In a telephone interview with the national news agency, McGuinty announced his government would move quickly to outlaw existing religious tribunals used for years by Christians and Jews under Ontario's Arbitration Act.



Yeah, better to outlaw it for everyone than let the brown people have it too. You tax dollars at work.  :


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2005)

Bitter, are we.... ???

Perhaps he is outlawing it for all, other than the brown folk?     


Anyway, from the CTV report, it appears like someone hit ole Dalton with a Smart Stick...."There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.''


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Sep 2005)

I see nothing wrong with that. Everyone is equal.

Smart stick George? More like a 12', 6"x 6" for him.


----------



## Britney Spears (11 Sep 2005)

> Perhaps he is outlawing it for all, other than the brown folk?   Shocked



I'm afraid you've lost me again.



> Anyway, from the CTV report, it appears like someone hit ole Dalton with a Smart Stick...."There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.''



Parse that sentence through what we've been discussing in this thread. It appears that he's been hit with the "Make-a-meaningless-announcement-to-placate-the-pitchfork-wielding--mob" stick. Is anyone privy as to exactly how this is going to be applied? So the tribunal's out, will there also be a blanket prohibition on all religious figures from acting as arbitrators in family law? Is marrigae and inheritance arbitration still covered by _The Arbitration Act_ and beyond judicial scrutiny?   What about people who are not priests or mullahs, but who are strongly religious, will they also be barred from being arbiters? How do you tell? 

Listening to stuff like this, ignorance truly is bliss.....


----------



## TCBF (11 Sep 2005)

Someone must have already whispered in his ear that Quebec had the same debate, and said: Non.

Still, if you and I decide we want our religious community to arbitrate for us, who is going to stop us?  The fact that it falls under no act is irrelevant.  Binding?  well, if we volunteer to arbitrate, we can volunteer to make it binding.  Failing that, there are the courts.

Tom


----------



## Britney Spears (11 Sep 2005)

> Still, if you and I decide we want our religious community to arbitrate for us, who is going to stop us?



Didn't the man just say "No Faith Based Arbitration"?



> Binding?  well, if we volunteer to arbitrate, we can volunteer to make it binding.



Not anymore you can't. That's exactly what they DON'T want you to do. If you're a Muslim woman who's to say that you weren't coerced into "volunteering"? So, because we're afraid that the brown men might browbeat the brown women into "volunteering"  NO ONE is allowed to volunteer. Rest easy, the goverment is here for your protection.



> Failing that, there are the courts.



Well, yeah, if it goes to the courts, then we've failed, because that defeats the whole purpose of arbitration. 

Look at this from the perspective of a Muslim:  In 1991, Arbitration Act passed. Jews set up arbitration tribunals, no problem. Catholics do the same, GTG. 2003, Muslims try to set up their own tribunal. Goverment(At least, when the mob shows up) says WHOA, never mind, no more faith based arbitrations for anyone, because, you know, those dirty Ay-rabs will use it for no good. What? It's been working for 15 years already? Nope, don't let facts get in the way here, Sharia Law baaaaad, must pass MORE LEGISLATION!!

Sure makes you feel welcomed and loved, doesn't it?

Ah well, I suppose we can only wait to see how exactly this is going to be implemented before we break out the pitchforks again.


----------



## TCBF (11 Sep 2005)

I suppose I was unclear.  

Why does arbitration have to be under the auspices of ANY govmint? We decide to let our tribe arbitrate, is the black helicopter then going to land in the back yard?

If this is about our ability to allow our own self defined communities solve our problems at the lowest level, why the big stick of guvmint?

Tom


----------



## DSB (11 Sep 2005)

I still can't understand why Islam is such a boogie man in the west.   The faith does preach some great things.   However, like most faiths it can and has been hijacked by men.   Christ centred states account for hundreds of thousands deaths a year; there are dark dark places in the world where Christ is supreme.

I sometimes think how much of this debate relates to Islam and how much of it is race/colour/language/ethnic based.

DSB
(I'm not Muslim by the way)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Sep 2005)

Brittany, Why don't you take your fucking racist accusations and shove them right up your ass.
It takes a long and determined wind-up to make me use profanity but you managed it.

I have no racist bones in my body and I resent your implications that I do. I, for one, didn't even know that we had them for any religious beliefs and I'm glad they will be all gone.

However, Mr Brush Painter, I have one question that I believe does belong here,...When was the last time any other religious "court" sentenced a women to get raped or stoned/killed because she was ,oh say, doing something horrible like being seen in public with a man?
This isn't racism talking here, but a realist looking at the way things are right now.


----------



## Britney Spears (11 Sep 2005)

> Why does arbitration have to be under the auspices of ANY govmint?




Sorry, I think you're still not clear on the difference between arbitration and mediation.
Arbitrations are BINDING and around here the goverment has a monopoly on the use of force, since we no longer live by "tribal" law. So Arbitration rulings are ultimately enforced by the goverment and court. If you owe me a goat and we go to arbitration(and by default, have agreed to be bound by the ruling), the arbitration upholds my claim, and you change your mind and refuse to give it up, the authorities will force you to.


----------



## TCBF (11 Sep 2005)

DSB, 

I think Britney was alluding to some of that.

Now that the decision has been made, the WHY articles in the paper may prove to be very interesting.

While we are at it, why did Quebec say no to this?

Brit, 

So if we agree to arbitrate, why must it be under the rules of the guvmint?


Tom


----------



## Britney Spears (11 Sep 2005)

> I have no racist bones in my body and I resent your implications that I do.



Where have I made this implication? Please point out where I have accused any of our posters of being a racist.



> When was the last time any other religious "court" sentenced a women to get raped or stoned/killed because she was ,oh say, doing something horrible like being seen in public with a man?



An appeal to pity which also happens to be irrelevent. Come on, sir, you're better than that. I still have faith in you.  




> So if we agree to arbitrate, why must it be under the rules of the guvmint?




THAT'S EXACTLY IT! they DIDN'T! The Arbitration Act provided that private arbitrations remain private and that the gummint had no role in it. That is, until this new rule came along. Now with the new rule your aribitrator can't be a priest( I think that's what he broadly means, obviously the exact rules haven't been written yet.) Remember how we were talking about "libertarians defending more goverment in the bedroom" a few posts ago? It just came true, you're looking at it.  Boyd, an NDP member, was actually DEFENDING the libertarian standpoint. Crazy world eh?


So, am I allowed to blame the Conservative Media(TM) for creating this whole issue out of thin air and forcing new legislation?


----------



## Cpl.Banks (12 Sep 2005)

Two words : Not happening...


----------



## larry Strong (12 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> So, am I allowed to blame the Conservative Media(TM) for creating this whole issue out of thin air and forcing new legislation?



It's a free country, and you can blame it on who ever and whatever you want. The trick will be to get people to accept your view. But I can't fail to notice that you preached the liberal mantra when things did not go your way, and started with the color card.


----------



## Britney Spears (12 Sep 2005)

> But I can't fail to notice that you preached the liberal mantra when things did not go your way, and started with the color card.



What is the "liberal mantra"? The "Goverment should stay out of people's bedrooms" mantra? 

What "color card" have I played? I'm not religious, I'm not a Muslim,  the new ruling will have no effect on me. I'm asking you all too look at this from the perspective of a progressive and liberal Muslim. Is anything I've posted factually incorrect? As always I welcome corrections.


----------



## Nemo888 (12 Sep 2005)

*I HATE LAWYERS* Now because some bozo's figured a way to work the system I have to pay Lawyers?!?!?!! 

  A system  designed in 1991 to *lower legal costs  * and make divorce/separation easier. Remember how much it cost to get divorced back then, especially if you had kids. Remember how much crap lawyers would dredge up. The more you fight the more billable hours they can charge.

But I know guys who bought good Muslim wives from some "Stan" or another and treat them like property.

I've read a fair chunk of the Koran. Not as warlike as you would imagine. It does recommend beating your wife in a number of places. My favourite was where it recommends beating your wife for no reason. If you only beat them when they are disobedient they may get uppity, so occasionally beat them just "because".

Kind of sad the law has to change, its obviously being abused.

Any idea how Catholics and Jews will be able to get remarried when the law is struck down? Without an annulment a Catholic can't get remarried.


----------



## Britney Spears (12 Sep 2005)

> Kind of sad the law has to change, its obviously being abused.



Where?


----------



## TCBF (12 Sep 2005)

(Deep Breath)... O.K...

If we become members of the Church Of Mars, and the CofM has an outreach policy where parrishers can ask for a pastor/rector/Grande Klugle/etc to arbitrate a dispute under Cof M doctrine, the gove has no say in the matter. Is it binding?  Not in a court of law.

So?

Is there a dictionary decision that demands ALL arbitration be under government control, or else be called by another name (mediation)?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Tom


----------



## Nemo888 (12 Sep 2005)

A small group men who are using propaganda and misinformation to strip vulnerable women, mostly immigrants, of the rights they deserve under Canadian Law. Though even if they go to the Canadian courts the divorce is not recognized until it is recognized by a Muslim holy man. Just like Catholics and annulment. Marriage by its nature is religious. I see your point and liked arbitration. From my point of view its great. Until its gets distorted into a device to exploit vulnerable people.


----------



## Britney Spears (12 Sep 2005)

> If we become members of the Church Of Mars, and the CofM has an outreach policy where parrishers can ask for a pastor/rector/Grande Klugle/etc to arbitrate a dispute under Cof M doctrine, the gove has no say in the matter. Is it binding?  Not in a court of law.



Yes, it is, that's what makes it different from mere mediation. Here:



> Limits to arbitration
> Although the policy of the Arbitration Act is to favour arbitrations and generally to trust the arbitral process, the law does not blindly assume that private decisions are as good as decisions of the public court system. It imposes a number of limits and safeguards on the process that can prevent a dispute from being arbitrated or an award from being enforced. These constraints are legal, procedural and substantive.
> (i) legal limits
> The main legal limit is that the arbitration must be voluntary. Private dispute resolution occurs only because the parties have agreed to it. The arbitrator gets his or her powers from the parties, with the statute playing a supplementary - and sometimes protective - role. An arbitrator has no power to order the parties to do something that the parties could not have agreed to do on their own. Likewise the arbitrator cannot order the parties to do something illegal under Canadian law (since the parties cannot lawfully agree to break the law). So, for example, the arbitrator could not allow the parties to engage in conduct prohibited by the Criminal Code, or any other statute.
> ...





> A small group men who are using propaganda and misinformation to strip vulnerable women, mostly immigrants, of the rights they deserve under Canadian Law. Though even if they go to the Canadian courts the divorce is not recognized until it is recognized by a Muslim holy man. Just like Catholics and annulment. Marriage by its nature is religious. I see your point and liked arbitration. From my point of view its great. Until its gets distorted into a device to exploit vulnerable people.



I agree, however, I am skeptical that outlawing ALL faith based arbitration is the best way of combating this problem. The LEAF recommendations, mentioned earlier in this thread and also in the Boyd report, seem to be a more reasonable and practical route. 

Now, having said that, I think I'm going to stop speculating until we see some concrete legislation coming out of the Ontario Goverment.


----------



## TCBF (12 Sep 2005)

If ALL hockey does not have to be played under the control of Hockey Canada, why does ALL arbitration have to be controlled by the guvmint?

This is driving me nuts...

Tom


----------



## Britney Spears (12 Sep 2005)

> why does ALL arbitration have to be controlled by the guvmint?



I don't understand. Can you give an example?


----------



## TCBF (13 Sep 2005)

If the guvmint says "Religious leaders cannot arbitrate." then they must be attempting to ban all non-governmental arbitration.  No?

Tom


----------



## ArmyRick (13 Sep 2005)

McGuinty is repealing the stupid '91 family arbitration act. It was announced yesterday.


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Sep 2005)

> If the guvmint says "Religious leaders cannot arbitrate." then they must be attempting to ban all non-governmental arbitration.  No?
> 
> Tom



No, you can use anyone you want as an arbitrator. here:

http://www.crnetwork.ca/directories/index.asp


----------



## TCBF (13 Sep 2005)

Then what did they say NO to?

Tom


----------



## ArmyRick (13 Sep 2005)

Brit, according to what the premier said, he is realing the 1991 law wich means these religous organizations will not be allowed to arbitrate anymore.


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Sep 2005)

> Then what did they say NO to?
> 
> Tom



Well, I would have said "priests", but according to ArmyRick(I haven't looked into it yet, but I believe him), they are repealing the whole Arbitration Act which also coveres a lot of other stuff too. I don't know if that means they are going to eliminate arbitration entirely, or something else. Perhaps we should wait and see for the specifics. Besides, this is Ontario. It will all be irrelevent once we get the Republika Alberta up and running...... 


One question that came up on the other boards. If two people voluntarily go for religious arbitration, then it must mean that both must share the belief that the religious arbiter is superior to the civil one. Given that a religious arbiter derives his authority from God, why would he need civil authorities to enforce it? Can't he just let GOD enforce his ruling? 

It's a pretty compelling argument, but I think it would not be practical given the current state of civil arbitration. Civil arbitration is by nature private, and it would go against the spirit of the system to have the arbiter adhere to an artificial system of rules. That's what we have the courts for, after all. If we needed arbitration over some issue of plumbing, are we prohibited from using a religious plumber as an arbiter, even if he is a very good plumber? A legal seperation just seems unworkable to me, despite its good intentions. I say let the market decide.


----------



## KevinB (13 Sep 2005)

Listening to the news during supper - it appeared that they refer to ZERO tolerance for Sharia Law.


 I am of two minds about this issue - since how can we accept Native Community Healing Circle judgements and yet refuse to allow religious arbetration?

 (Before people acuse of slinging shit to make ripple in the puddle - my brother worked at a Community Healing Circle in BC, and from how he explained it and cases he mentioned it seemed to be a very effective and relevant method)


----------



## Infanteer (14 Sep 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I am of two minds about this issue - since how can we accept Native Community Healing Circle judgements and yet refuse to allow religious arbetration?



Thinking on the matter, I agree with Kevin.  If Muslim 1 and Muslim 2 agree to resort to the Shari'a to settle a private, civil matter, then who am I to say "No"?

I think the real issue is our Western secular sensibilities (which I admit a very strong in my own views - see my earlier posts) being concerned that some may be disadvantaged by some underlying cultural currents (Women and the Shari'a is a common one).  However, I don't want to fall into the trap that this is "Shari'a vs Women" - many women freely and willingly put the hijab on in Canada.

Having witnessed a pretty messy arranged marriage in the Indo-Canadian community in my town, all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say "meh".


----------



## larry Strong (14 Sep 2005)

And now for the backlash

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/09/14/sharia-protests-20050914.html


----------



## Slim (29 Sep 2005)

Well, having read the article above I can understand why women especially would not want this law to be in effect here in Canada.

And, lets face it, Indian healing circle or no having a distinct sepperation between church and state is a good idea...Especially when the law that is being brought in for the arbitration was created by a society that does not view men and women as equals.

I have been against this law coming into effect here since the topic was started and I'm glad that the govt is not allowing it into our province.

Slim


----------



## Britney Spears (29 Sep 2005)

Are you guys talking about the 1991 Arbitration Act?


----------



## Glorified Ape (30 Sep 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> We all know that Muslim women are for the most part still subordinate people in the Muslim communties (even in Canada) among the stricter families, the same families that would use Sharia law (I doubt we'll see many secular Muslims using Sharia courts).



That goes for Jewish women too - orthodox Judaism isn't known for its liberal attitudes towards women. That being said, I don't see why religious arbitration, using Sharia or any other religious law, is a problem if both parties are consenting. I'm no great fan of religion in general, but as long as none of the decisions by the arbitrator violate Canadian law, where's the harm? I won't shed any tears if they just do a way with all religious arbitration, though. The less influence religion has, the better (*in my opinion*).


----------



## 48Highlander (30 Sep 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Do you think a Muslim woman from a strict muslim family (the only ones who would be likely to use these 'courts') would have any 'say' in whether or not she uses the court or not?



You know, I thought the same way untill someone (might have been Brit) pointed out that such a woman would be highly unlikely to use our existing courts.


----------



## Britney Spears (30 Sep 2005)

> You know, I thought the same way untill someone (might have been Brit) pointed out that such a woman would be highly unlikely to use our existing courts.



Supposing that this is true, and I've seen no evidence that it is, how will removing the more moderate option, faith based arbitration, compell them to use secular arbitrators and courts? Would they not be compelled to just shut up and try to live with an abusive relationship? I think that giving people  more choice is always a good thing.

I suppose I should applaud the sudden embrace by our board conservatives of what seems to me a  left wing feminist agenda.


----------



## Britney Spears (30 Sep 2005)

Here's another viewpoint:



> Having practiced family law in Ontario since 1985, I watched with some amusement the recent uproar over whether or not Ontarians should be allowed to arbitrate their matrimonial disputes using sharia law.
> 
> In their haste to condemn what they view as an unjust and undesirable body of law, opponents of sharia arbitration overlook the corollary implicit in their position:  namely, that ordinary Ontario family law-as specified primarily in the Family Law Act and the Divorce Act-is a just and desirable code for resolving matrimonial disputes.
> 
> ...



I have NO idea whether the author's diatribe about the family law is justified or not, but I do agree that the anti-Sharia movement is essentially an effort by feminists to capitalize on anti-Muslim hysteria. That's it. I'm not saying that Sharia law is better, so don't take me to task on this.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2005)

Quote,
I suppose I should applaud the sudden embrace by our board conservatives  of what seems to me a   left wing feminist agenda. 

...and once again your words make more the fool you.....I guess being a conservative I shouldn't be doing the laundry and making supper right now,.... aww. Britney, the first on the board to whine about sterotypes yet the first to do it.....


----------



## Britney Spears (30 Sep 2005)

Well congratulations, Bruce, I always knew you'd come over to the light eventually. My efforts bear fruit!  Speaking of supper, perhaps I could interest you in some delightful vegetarian recipies?


----------



## Britney Spears (30 Sep 2005)

> I guess I should stand up and say a women's place is in the kitchen. Much more conservative of me yes?  Roll Eyes



Yes.



> This is a secular country where our courts are free of religious coersions.



True.



> I do NOT support any form of faith based arbitration in this country, be it native, muslim or christian.



So, you were/are opposed to the 1991 Arbitration Act?


----------



## Britney Spears (30 Sep 2005)

> I'm not allowed to go to a Christian church and ask for a priest to decide my divorce(and imagine the noise the PC crowd would make, oh no, he's using a christian church, he must be a bigot and a womanizer) so why should Muslims be extended the same 'right'?



 ;D ;D ;D

Slim, Bruce, 48th, THIS is the reason why there will be another 10 years of good Liberal goverment.



> And as to your reply re: my woman 'comment'. Not funny.



Who was trying to be funny? My applause was genuine.


----------



## Britney Spears (1 Oct 2005)

> Check and mate. I'm going back to my corner to sober up and make some coherent arguments.  Grin



*ahem* There's no need, sir, I've done all the thinking for you already, you just need to sign here......


----------



## 48Highlander (2 Oct 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> ;D ;D ;D
> 
> Slim, Bruce, 48th, THIS is the reason why there will be another 10 years of good Liberal goverment.



Please don't ever use the words "good" and "liberal government" together in a sentence again.  Next thing you know you'll start talking about "millitary intelligence", and before you know it you'll be weaving baskets in a padded room.  ;D

Just for the record, I was actualy agreeing with you earlier.  Taking away their option to seek alternate forms of arbitration is futile at best and harmful at worst.  Especialy since reckognizing muslim faith baesed arbitration as legitemate could allow the government to place SOME limits on it, whereas now it'll go on anyway without the government having any say in it.


----------



## Britney Spears (2 Oct 2005)

Well, as long as we stop over-simplifying the matter and embrace the fact that Sharia Law in Canada is a Good Thingââ€žÂ¢, then my work here is done.


----------



## Pfc_Norup (8 Oct 2005)

I'm not Canadian, so I know I shouldn't bud in ( sorry ) But Sharia law is **** and NO people on this planet should ever have to live under a so oppressive and gender discriminating set of rules! EVER!


----------



## x-grunt (8 Oct 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I am of two minds about this issue - since how can we accept Native Community Healing Circle judgements and yet refuse to allow religious arbetration?
> 
> (Before people acuse of slinging crap to make ripple in the puddle - my brother worked at a Community Healing Circle in BC, and from how he explained it and cases he mentioned it seemed to be a very effective and relevant method)



Two different things. I'm currently serving on a Native Community Council. First, it's primarily criminal, not civil, and it's not arbitration, it's community sentencing after an appearance in court and with the recommendation of the Crown. Apples and oranges. And you're right, for the types of crimes that are referred, it is more effective in future prevention then standard sentencing.


----------

