• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sharia Law in Canada?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MAJOR_Baker
  • Start date Start date
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?  :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
(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
 
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.
 
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.
The arbitration agreement is a contract between the parties, and it is enforceable at law to no greater extent than any other contract. This is clear from the grounds on which a court can refuse to stay litigation, or can set an award aside: that a party entered into the agreement while under a legal incapacity (such as being under age,or subject to duress, or mentally incompetent), or that the agreement is invalid for another reason of law.25
For this reason, an arbitration agreement cannot bind children; they are not capable of contracting, i.e. agreeing to arbitrate. It may bind parents in matters concerning their children, but as noted below, the courts will always maintain their right to ensure the best interests of the child, whatever the parents have agreed to directly or through an arbitration.
Likewise, an arbitrator can decide only the questions that the parties have agreed to refer to arbitration. The contract fixes the scope of the arbitrator's power. A court may refuse to let an arbitration proceed if the arbitrator purports to deal with matters that the parties have not agreed to arbitrate, and the court may set aside an award made in excess of the agreement.26
Another legal limit, one that makes an arbitration agreement less enforceable than other contracts, is that the subject matter of the agreement must be "capable of being the subject of arbitration under Ontario law". Most civil (i.e. between private parties) disputes may be arbitrated. However, criminal offences are not disputes between parties but matters between the state (the Crown) and the offender. They cannot be arbitrated. Likewise matters that involve a public recognition of civil status cannot be altered by a private arrangement. The parties can decide through an arbitrator only their own private affairs. For example, the registration of a patent, the recognition of parenthood (affiliation), or the status of marriage cannot be arbitrated. Therefore, arbitrators cannot grant a civil divorce. Only a public body, a court, can make an order affecting this public status. This does not affect the authority to grant a religious divorce. This power may be exercised as religious authorities determine. Civil divorce occurs only under the Divorce Act (Canada) and is not arbitrable. An award purporting to have such an effect can be set aside, or simply ignored.

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

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

 
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.
 
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)

 
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".

 
And now for the backlash

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