Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Moslem religious law to be imposed by Canadian courts !!!!
ariel70 -- the wedge analogy may be a good one but some background must
be known before delving into this issue. First off, the use of Sharia as a means of arbitration in non criminal cases is not a precedent in this country, not by a longshot. Other identifyable groups such as our Native Americans, Jewish Groups and a number of other ethnic communities have implemented this portion of our legal system for over a century. The argument that contends that this is but a tip of the iceburg may be valid but it may well be too late now. There are other aspects that cannot be ignored as well. It is voluntary, it's use must be agreed upon by both parties. Decisions must be ratified by a court moderator to insure that Canadian law is not breached. Court costs are treated a bit differently in that anything deemed above and beyond normal court proceedings are charged back to the parties involved. Once all of these points are known, those using Sharia are just another group of many, utilizing an already existing arbitration system, picking up the extra costs themselves, while sticking to the laws of the land. In these realities I do not see the contention you imply of a democratic country having differing sets of laws for different groups.
posted by
gomedome
on August 4, 2005 at 5:02 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
Let me understand what your view is on this matter ; are you saying that it's acceptable for two - often radically different - systems of law to operated in a single country? Surely, in a democracy, every citizen is equal under the law ; the single law of that country, which must surely apply to all.
Recognising, and enforcing, the judgements of a sharia courts is perverse, and a highly precedent ; it is moreover totally unnecssary. By all mean permit Muslims, Jews et al to be bound by the decisions of their imams rabbis etc ; but to then enforce them in non-sharia law? What can this do but widen further the already gaping chasm between ethnic groups ; add the existing divisiveness?
And it is the small end of a very significant wedge, for given this precedent any way-out groups with prentensions to being a separate religion can have its own law enforced. Whether this happens or not is irrelevant ; it's a damned fatuous, divisive and dangerous proposal
posted by
ariel70
on August 4, 2005 at 2:43 PM
| link to this | reply
ariel70 - I thought I covered the civil aspect versus criminal in this
posting but see that most of the elaboration on this important point got edited out. Still, for those who can get past the word "Moslem" we are talking simply about another community group using our already existing arbitration laws for non criminal matters. This issue still has some people up in arms and I am sad to say even some right here in Canada who have the opportunity to know better. If they would just pay attention.
posted by
gomedome
on August 4, 2005 at 2:29 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
I like your posts very much. One minor point tho' ; the Canadian, ( and Dutch )governments are considering introducing sharia civil law, not criminal sharia law, so one will not see judicial amputations, beheadings or stonings to death. Although, in view of the savage murder of Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim fanatic, and other atrocities, one suspects that both governments will do a rapid back pedal on this issue.
Isn't it infuriating that Christians arrogate to themselves what are not religious but human virtues? They just can't seem to grasp that one can be an animist, atheist, a white witch or whatever, and still be a good, virtuous person.
Carry on the good work of propagating the secualr, humanist message!
posted by
ariel70
on August 4, 2005 at 2:20 PM
| link to this | reply
You guys are a riot. No, I really mean it.
(Actually, I do!).
Now what happens if a Muslim's car is totalled in a parking lot by a speeding Buddhist? (Oi, my aching head! Gevuhlt!).
I think it is great that two countries with a porous border have such differing yet parallel systems. Makes for a healthy exchange of malcontents carrying fresh views and skills...sort of like how we got established in the beginning, no?
posted by
majroj
on August 1, 2005 at 9:30 PM
| link to this | reply
mightyholywarrior ---- it must be -- how else could we get them to sign
NAFTA?
posted by
gomedome
on August 1, 2005 at 6:49 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, what ruffles our feathers down here is that Canada keeps
forgetting that it's our 51st state.
posted by
Feenix
on August 1, 2005 at 6:47 PM
| link to this | reply