Sharia Law in Canada?

[48Highlander]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[KevinB]

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]

Book a few seats  

Never mind their gun laws SUCK.

truly, but you can hunt donkeys and kangaroos!

 

[KevinB]

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]

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]

    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]

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. :

!السلام عليكم

 

[Redeye]

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]

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]

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

 

[-rb]

[Amusing but inappropriate graphic removed by Moderator]

Point taken...no offense meant. ;D

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Here is the problem: Jews have being using religious 'courts' as arbitrators for years â “ 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]

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.