Sharia Law in Canada?

[Colin Parkinson]

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]

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

Is this a great country or what?

 

[Slim]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wes,

I think your right.

I wonder how Mr. Harper feels about Sharia law?

 

[CDNsig]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

"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