Sharia move in Canada draws anger

[ButterflyBlood]

Women's rights activists are to march in 11 cities in Canada and Europe against plans to allow Sharia law tribunals in the province of Ontario.

Islamic law could be used to settle civil and marital disputes under a proposal made by former Ontario Attorney General Marion Boyd.

Roman Catholic and Jewish arbitration tribunals already operate Ontario.

<..>

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has been examining the Sharia recommendation since December and has only promised that the government will take a decision "in keeping with the values of Ontarians and Canadians".

Ms Boyd argues that if Sharia is not allowed, all religious arbitration bodies could be abolished.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4226758.stm

OK, this is bad. What the fuck are you thinking Canada?

[Beaver Tail]

1. I have no Fucking IDEA what the Ontario Province is doing

Bunch FUck Nuts... This needs to be stopped...
Gotta kick religion outta these civil matters

[BayCityProgressive]

2. get rid of all

religious boards! This cannot be allowed to happen! This is an outrage!

[Mairead]

31. Exactly! Get rid of them all. Religion has NO PLACE in legal contexts

in a pluralistic state.

[Maple]

3. Well see, we already have

Jewish and Christian 'tribunals' and First Nations ones as well...what you would call 'Indians'. So...Muslims claim discrimination.

Plus Sharia courts have operated for over a decade already. And goodness knows what they've been doing.

This at least regulates them...gets them through a dispute faster...and ensures basic Canadian laws aren't violated.

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. I'm pretty open-minded on religion, but Sharia needs to go

It has no place in a civilized country; and no religion should be allowed to do things that go against a country's constitution and root values.


Oh, God, I sound like a freeper - but I think I'm actually right on this one. At least Roman Catholic and Jewish don't involve things like "Cut off a hand" or "Set her on fire".

[CHIMO]

7. Stop

With the crap.

Read the article in post #5.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maple]

93. Sheep herders were the ones

in the Bible who first saw the star, remember?

So let's not go sneering at sheep herders.

[CHIMO]

5. Perhaps

A little bit of knowledge about the rights of people might help before an opinion is made.

Editorial: Sharia tribunals and human rights

Protests will be held today at Queen's Park, and in 11 other cities in Canada and Europe, over a proposal that Ontario legalize sharia tribunals to arbitrate marriage, family and business disputes. Ever since it was proposed in 2003, the idea of basing arbitration on sharia, the 1,400-year-old body of Islamic laws, has sharply divided Ontario's Muslim community and prompted hot debate around the globe

Premier Dalton McGuinty's government is expected to announce a decision in the coming weeks. The dilemma it faces is that many Muslims, especially women, oppose the idea because they fear women's rights will be compromised. However, Ontario already allows other religious groups — Jews, Catholics and Ismaili Muslims — to operate voluntary tribunals that hand down legally binding decisions, provided those decisions do not violate provincial law or contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights.

That's because by its very nature, a free and democratic society must seek a balance between an individual's right to exercise his or her freedom and the state's obligation to limit that freedom should it threaten to impinge on another person's rights.

In a bid to strike an appropriate balance, Ontario law gives consenting adults the right to voluntarily settle family disputes themselves by means of an arbitration process that is subject to oversight, but not to interference, by the courts. Specifically, it allows Jews, Catholics and Ismaili Muslims to opt for faith-based arbitration rather than settle disputes in regular courts.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1126131011666&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

So has your understanding of the topic changed after reading this article?

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. Fine with me, then, so long as it's watched over by the courts

and they aren't allowed to violate any Canadian laws.

I fear, though, that the existence of it will allow a lot of women to be forced through "peer pressure" or etc. into going to the Sharia court, and missing what might be a more fair trial (as she might see it) in a Canadian court.

[CHIMO]

12. I Think

That is probably the biggest fear. Such that someone, that perhaps doesn't realize that there is the alternative to go through the regular legal system, is persuaded to give up some inherent right to the existing system.

But the government still has the option of coming back, in my opinion at least, if a person could prove that they didn't have full knowledge or were in full knowledge of their rights. I may be wrong on this but it is usually a part of an agreement.

I am sure that if it goes through that there will be lots of eyes on the decisions and follow-ups as well.

[Maple]

15. Well there's always that 'cross-over' generation

The first generation to come here tends to stick to old culture ways...their children tend to rebel, and the third generation eventually appreciates the old culture, but fits in fine with the new one.

Every immigrant group we've ever had goes through it, and it burns my butt to see it, but the 'change-over' has to take place in their own minds first.

We also have 'historical left-overs' in terms of religions, like separate schools, and so on, and little by little this has changed.

The ideal situation is a new mindset to go with the new culture, but that's easier said than done. And if you don't shine a light on these practices, they go underground.

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. And you're very right on that one

Usually the third generation sits in fine, sometimes even the second generation, if they were born and raised here.

But yeah, the natural cycle is pretty much three generations.

[PsychoDad]

114. Believe it or not: (to borrow from Ripley's)

Observant muslims practice Sharia everyday in matters ranging from dietary laws to prayer times to inheritance law.

The misconception and fostered myth that our sisters are uneducated, docile victims is quite false. Muslim women in the west are among the most educated members of society, and among the strongest and most outspoken members of our Ummah (Islamic society).

And I'm pretty sure it was a sister who coined the phrase: "It's Islam, not HISlam". A quote all Muslim men would do well to remember. :)

BTW one of the strongest precepts of Sharia is that it is required for a Muslim to follow the laws of the country he or she is resident in. Therefore any ruling by a Sharia court will be in compliance with Canadian law.

Islam, Muslim and Sharia have all become emotional buzzwords programed to elicit a particular reaction in our society, which is quite evidently the case when reading the various posts.

If you wish to argue against sharia, learn something about what it is and it isn't. If you are against it on purely religious reasons, then that's fine. But please, don't base your reaction to it purely based upon the false myths of Islam so popular in the west (which are so similar to the myths about blacks, asians, etc).

Peace.

[iverglas]

123. excuse me, but ...

You're far too polite.

;)

[geek tragedy]

19. No, Sharia is still a sexist, medieval institution. Progressive

societies shouldn't even dream of using it.

[Maple]

23. So is Christianity

So anytime you'd like to move to a totally atheistic society, be my guest.

[brentspeak]

36. This board is about Islamic Sharia, not Christianity

Besides, I don't know of too many Christian denominations that advocate, let alone practice, stoning or physically harming women.

[Maple]

43. It's about a religious tribunal

and we have them for Jews, Christians and Ismaili Muslims already.

As to what happens in Christian religions...do you know what goes on internally amongst Mormons, Amish, Reform or strict Baptist communities?

In any case, assault or murder in any form is illegal in Canada, and Canadian law is what prevails here.

[smirkymonkey]

52. Thank you!

I despise all organized religions in general, but most of them don't systematically kill women for misdemeanors.

[Bassic]

39. Indeed, but as far as legal institutions go

thats what should happen.

[iverglas]

76. aargh, posted in the wrong place - deleted

[geek tragedy]

82. I oppose Christian courts too. eom

[SemperEadem]

28. and what do you call Catholicism and Protestantism?

you've been inculcated by their teachings and therefore they don't present a threat to you as would sharia.

[brentspeak]

37. I call them

different religions, having nothing in common with sharia.

[geek tragedy]

81. I oppose the idea of Christian courts too. However, Sharia has specific

anti-woman rules/laws that have no analog in Western society.

[Maple]

83. Doesn't matter what you oppose

Canadian law is what applies.

And indeed, Christian church tribunals have many anti-women laws.

[geek tragedy]

84. Well, three cheers for the USA's separation of church and state. eom

[Maple]

85. Gee yeah, how's that going btw?

Meanwhile, we have gay marriage.

And have had a female PM.

And 4 female heads of state. :rofl:

[Qibing Zero]

135. It's going horrible, as it has for years.

That, however, doesn't further your cause at all.

[iverglas]

138. and ain't it just the damnedest thing ...

... how crowing and chest-beating about the separation of church and state in the US didn't further anyone's cause? -- assuming that the cause in question was opposition to permitting the enforcement of decisions by arbitration tribunals voluntarily sought out by people to settle their private disputes -- in Canada or anywhere else ... that being the issue on the table.

Why, you'd almost think that someone saying such things didn't know anything about Canada.

And heck, you'd almost think that someone saying such things didn't know anything about the subject on the table.

And you'd really wonder why someone else would think that anyone needed to respond to such irrelevant crowing and chest-beating in any way other than by making fun of it ...

[Charles19]

133. Mosque's and Islam are not a "Church"

A "Church" is a large institution of people who think they know better than the lowly masses so they tell everyone what to do and restrict rights.

That is exactly why there ISN'T a central church in Islam. Because Islam is against all those things.

[Bassic]

38. It still needs to go. So do Christian and Jewish tribunals.

I'm all for multicuturalism but for God's sake can we at least agree to live under a common set of laws and regulations at least within the same provinces?

[CHIMO]

41. Are You

Aware of the difference in a marriage in Quebec to that in Ontario?

[Bassic]

49. No actually I am not.

And I guess I better check it out, since I'm probablt gonna get married in Ontario.

[CHIMO]

54. Well

I would suggest that you investigate the difference in the laws. It may not seem like a big deal at the moment, but as life goes on and one should die without a will the government stipulates how the estate shall be divided. And the law is the contract that was entered into at the time. Not where one should die.

[Bassic]

63. Are you certain of that?

I was under the impression that the laws of one's province of residence would take precedence here.

[CHIMO]

70. To The Best

Of my knowledge the contract that one enters into remains in force no matter what province one is residing in. A legal contract is a contract. I suppose that it could be modified by subsequent actions.

It is not my area of expertise but that is my understanding.

[Bassic]

73. Ah then, the text of the contract says what we want it to say doesen't it?

[Maple]

44. We already

all live under the same laws in Canada.

[Bassic]

50. We live under the same criminal laws yes.

But there are differences in other areas. For example, aside from criminal law, Québec has a civil code type of legislation as opposed to a Common Law one.

My point was that these types of laws (family law and the like) should not varie from ethnic group to ethnic group.

[Maple]

53. It's a voluntary out of court settlement route

and always subject to Canadian law.

And the method is used because it's not a simple black and white world.

[Bassic]

66. I understand that

But the fact of the matter is that this would provide muslims men with strong beliefs in an iranian or saudi arabian type of Islam a way to force their wives to it by social pressure. The penalties for women will certainly not be as drastic as they can be in those countries, but it's still a way to dominate them.

[Maple]

69. The same thing applies to everyone

Devout Christian men can, and do, force their wives to obey.

[Bassic]

71. Indeed, and that is why I think

that all such tribunals should be canned. So as to limit the impact of that control should a woman want to get out of that social situation.

[Maple]

74. It's voluntary

same as any other arbitration process.

[Bassic]

107. On paper yes.

But do you believe that none of the women who go for that will have been intimidated into doing so by her social environment?

[Maple]

108. Hence the use

of judicial oversight.

[Bassic]

137. Ah yes judicial oversight

That's always very useful for making sure women don't get pressured at home and in their communities.

[Burning Water]

113. I agree.

the laws should be the same for every one in a country. What we don't need is to Balkanize our countries. (I am not a Canadian, by the way, so take what I say for what it's worth). Besides, there could be incredible social pressure for a woman to agree when she really didn't want to.

[CHIMO]

115. Why Should

I, as a Canadian have to agree to the terms of say RealAudio, which would be interpreted and decided upon under the terms in some US court, to be able to use RealAudio on my computer.

I therefore agree that the only laws that I should be required to agree to are those in Canada.

ie. Just what Canadian Laws are you referring to when you talk about laws?

[Burning Water]

116. I'm not sure

that I understand your question.

But if I have interpreted it correctly, I mean laws passed by the legislature. Not Sharia.

Sharia will be a terrible blow for women's rights. I have a hard time imagining that any progressive thinking person could agree to this, but it is obvious that I am wrong about that.

Well, as I said, it doesn't affect me. I'm male, too. But if the women of Canada let this happen, they will deserve what they get.

[CHIMO]

117. Well

I would like to get the point down to brass tacks.

You mention laws. What laws are you referring to.

I gave an example of a common type of agreement that a software company puts to everyone that wants to use their software.

So "What laws are you referring to"?

So are you saying that the legislature of Ontario should not pass Sharia Law? Is that what you are saying.

Are you saying that I am not allowed to sign a legal contract unless it is to be decided under the local jurisdiction that I reside in?

I am just asking you what laws are you talking about?

[Burning Water]

124. OK then

The legislature of Ontario should not pass Sharia law.

I realize the laws are different in Canada and the United States, and God knows that I am not a legal expert, anyway. But in the United States I don't believe that you can sign away your civil rights in a contract.

But let me ask you. Are you in favor of passing Sharia law? Knowing that it will set back women's rights to the 700s? If a woman wants to divorce according to the terms of Sharia law, why can't she settle with her husband according to those terms in a civil court settlement?

[CHIMO]

125. OK

Lets look at what is proposed in so far as I understand it.

The Ontario legislature is not going to tell the courts to use Sharia law. The courts will still use the same old laws.

The Ontario legislature is considering legislation that will allow the rules in Sharia to be used in arbitration "regarding Ontario legalize sharia tribunals to arbitrate marriage, family and business disputes".

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1126131011666&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

Now you reach a conclusion about Sharia that I don't want to get into. Leave that aside.

My question to you was "Do you know what is the issue".
The courts are not going to use Sharia law.

Look at what is the proposed legislation. Look at how it will be monitored.

Forget about the headlines that state that the courts will be using Sharia law. That is not the case.

[Burning Water]

127. I still think it is

a bad idea to give a privileged status to a religion in a modern, Western, secular, democratic state. All the beating around the bush, and all the obfuscation in the world, will not change the fact that this is what is being done. IMO.

But as I said before, I am not a Canadian, so it's really none of my business. I have an opinion, anyway, and now you know it. Support for this is not, IMO, a progressive position.

[CHIMO]

129. OK

Well let's hope that all those privileges that religions have don't end up driving the world into oblivion.

[iverglas]

132. then you need to keep learning

I still think it is a bad idea to give a privileged status to a religion in a modern, Western, secular, democratic state.

At present, in Ontario, adherents of OTHER religions DO have the option of having their disputes decided by arbitration tribunals that apply the rules laid down by their religions.

THOSE people -- Roman Catholics, Jews and Ismaeli Muslims -- are the ones who are being privileged.

And if they and others were NOT permitted to have their private disputes settled by the rules they chose, where allowing that did not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other laws, then THEY would be the ones who were being DENIED equality.

If corporations can agree that a dispute between them will be settled by an arbitrator applying the rules in the laws of the state of Hawaii, and an Ontario court must enforce that decision, why should individuals not be able to decide that a dispute between them will be decided by the rules in Shari'a?

Why should adherents of a religion be compelled to settle their private disputes by rules that they object to?

Should a condominium corporation be prevented from settling disputes among its members by a coin toss, where votes are evenly split, if that is how they agree to do it? Why would any solution someone else came up with be necessarily better, or should they have to submit to it?

If ALL members of a group decide to settle ALL disputes among themselves by rolling the dice, then that's their business. It's our business to make sure that the dice aren't loaded -- unless the parties know the dice are loaded and agree to it anyway.

Yes, it's our business to make sure that people are not being coerced into agreeing to settle their disputes by rolling loaded dice.

But if they agree to that arrangement, and they agree that the outcome will be binding, we can't refuse to recognize it unless we have a good reason.

The Ontario proposal DOES contain provisions for anyone who has agreed to arbitration to argue that the process was not fair. It's right there in the Arbitration Act, which I've reproduced more than once:

Equality and fairness

19. (1) In an arbitration, the parties shall be treated equally and fairly.

3. The parties to an arbitration agreement may agree, expressly or by implication, to vary or exclude any provision of this
Act except the following:

... 2. Section 19 (equality and fairness).

6. No court shall intervene in matters governed by this Act, except for the following purposes, in accordance with this
Act:

... 3. To prevent unequal or unfair treatment of parties to arbitration agreements.

Yes, it might be argued that the rules being applied themselves, and not just the process in which they're applied, are "unfair" -- it isn't the rolling of dice that's unfair, it's the dice being loaded that's unfair.

And yes, we have a duty to protect vulnerable people from exploitation.

But all I have seen in this thread from the objectors are vague and unsubstantiated claims about the apprehended unfairness and exploitation, and not the slightest indication that anyone objecting has a clue about the subject matter or can cite any specific thing that they are afraid will happen.

[iverglas]

126. well there ya go

The legislature of Ontario should not pass Sharia law.

And the legislature of Ontario is not likely to do such a thing in the next million years. I'm sure we appreciate your advice, though.

But in the United States I don't believe that you can sign away your civil rights in a contract.

Well, the basic problem here is that in the United States people tend to have a rather weak grasp of various concepts relating to "rights".

The rights that many societies, and the international community, have agreed are "inalienable" -- cannot be signed away, or taken away -- are normally called "human" or "fundamental" rights. The right to life, liberty and security of the person are the basics.

"Civil rights" are the rights that individuals have as members of particular societies.

People sign rights away all the time. When you sign a contract to sell you house, what do you imagine you are doing? You are signing away your property rights in the house -- your right to use it, rent it out, sell it, etc.

When spouses sign marital or separation agreements, they are signing away rights. An example would be that one party signs away his/her rights in the house s/he co-owns, and the other party signs away the right to claim half of that party's pension fund.

But let me ask you. Are you in favor of passing Sharia law?

And we're still asking you: why are you asking this irrelevant question?

I'm in favour of letting people who are legally competent to manage their own affairs do so as they see fit. If they choose to submit their private disputes to arbitration rather than going to the courts, then that's their business. And people do it all the time.

If they choose to submit their private disputes to arbitrators whom they direct to apply a particular set of rules to their dispute, that is their business. If the rules they choose to have their dispute decided under are associated with a particular religion, that's their business.

If a woman wants to divorce according to the terms of Sharia law, why can't she settle with her husband according to those terms in a civil court settlement?

I don't know; why can't she? Are you suggesting that she can't?

Have you missed the whole point -- that the purpose of arbitration is to settle disputes where the parties don't agree on a settlement?

And if they don't agree, and they go to court, are you suggesting that the courts of Ontario should decide cases by the rules of Shari'a?? I thought that was just what we were all so worried about. THAT is NOT going to happen. Let us be very clear about that.

The courts are going to continue to decide cases according to the laws of ONTARIO. But the courts will enforce the decision of an arbitrator -- just as the courts will enforce a separation agreement between any spouses. If a Muslim couple, today, signed a separation agreement that was consistent with Shari'a rules, the courts WOULD enforce it -- just as it would enforce any other separation agreement. As long as there was no evidence that a party was unlawfully coerced, or did not have access to proper advice because of some disadvantage, the courts will enforce it, because people are free to arrange their own affairs as they see fit.

Of course, you have raised what actually is the whole point -- that people separate on their own terms all the damned time. A person could settle the issues in a marriage breakdown simply by saying "here, take the kids, take the house, take everything, I'm leaving" -- even though s/he is entitled to custody and property and support. And everyone is absolutely at liberty to do just that.

Not all marriage breakdowns end up in disputes about child custody, support or property. And very certainly, not all women, of any race or ethnicity or religion, get what they're entitled to, or what a court would order, when they agree to terms simply by private arrangement with their husbands.

One big reason for that, of course, is the cost and time involved in going to court to assert one's rights. Many women are deterred from doing that precisely because they can't afford to. That's a reason why mediation and arbitration are becoming increasingly popular in marriage breakdowns -- and in many areas of life as well. The wealthy, and corporations, commonly use arbitration to resolve disputes, to avoid the time and expense of court proceedings and to keep their private affairs private.

When a corporation gets a favourable decision from an arbitrator, it can enforce that decision in the courts. If the arbitrator says that the other party must pay money, then the courts will enforce the order. What would be the point of arbitration, if it were not binding on the parties and had no effect?

NO ONE will be compelled by the law to use arbitration rather than court proceedings, just as no one is at present.

There might be pressure exerted on some women, by their husbands or the community, to go to arbitration rather than the courts. We do have to be vigilant to ensure that parties to agreements to submit to arbitration are not exploited by the other party, if the balance of power is unequal -- and if there is some reason to believe that the arbitration process is not fair to them.

That's why we have all kinds of laws, like consumer protection laws that give people 48 hours to back out of contracts with door-to-door salespeople. But we don't outlaw door to door sales, even though some people -- vulnerable people, the old and the poor and the isolated -- are still undoubtedly being exploited by door to door salespeople.

NO ONE is going to be compelled to submit disputes to arbitration by the rules of Shari'a. Why is this so difficult to understand??

NO ONE is going to be treated differently before or under the law because of his/her race or ethnicity or religion or sex. NO ONE will be denied access to the courts, by law, for any such reason.

MANY PEOPLE will continue to have no disputes at all that can't be resolved between them, privately, and then set out in written agreements if they decide to do that.

SOME PEOPLE may feel undue pressure to submit the disputes that they can't settle privately to arbitration, rather than go to the courts, when their marriages break down. SOME of those people may end up with less than they might have got in a court. And those people may well be women -- but it's funny how no one here seems to have any actual idea of what a woman would actually get under the rules of Shari'a.

But let's not forget the other possibility. At present, a woman whose husband or community is pressuring her not to exercise her rights to a share of property, for instance, by going to court, will have an extra option.

At present, she has only two options: give in to the pressure and not get what she is entitled to, but continue to be accepted by the community -- or go to court, get what she is entitled to, but be rejected by the community.

If that is the case, we can't change the facts -- we can't make an ethnic/religious community change the informal ways it treats its members. We can't make the Amish stop shunning people, or make Roman Catholics give communion to divorced people. That's freedom of religion, and the basic freedom of people to associate with whom they choose.

A woman in that position would now have an alternative -- if the opinion of her community mattered to her, she could abide by its rules and still continue to have all the benefits that membership in the community provides her with from her own perspective.

Women all over the world choose to forego the exercise of rights in order to keep their community support. The reasons they do that may not seem like good ones to us -- why would anyone want to continue to be a member of a community that offers him/her only such unfair and unpleasant choices?

Well, maybe we should look at ourselves: how much support do WE offer to people -- on their terms -- who belong to visible minorities, adhere to minority religions, speak minority languages? Why do they need the support of people who treat them badly? Don't we all wonder about Roman Catholics who stay with the church even though they are gay or lesbian or divorced or have had an abortion? How about Democrats who stay with their party even though the party won't support their right to marry their same-sex partner?

Muslim women will be FREE to exercise all the same rights as anyone else in our society. If they choose not to, it may be because they don't feel able to live with the consequences -- or, the damned thing is, it may be because they don't want to, because they believe in the basic rules of their religion just as much as Roman Catholics believe in theirs, or perhaps they want to practise their religion even though they disagree with some of its rules.

The rights in question here are indeed important, and so particular vigilance is called for to ensure that no one is being coerced into not exercising them and is consequently being harmed.

But we also have to be very careful not to characterize someone's choice, even though it seems bizarre and self-defeating to US, as oppression, simply because we do not share that person's beliefs.

[Burning Water]

128. You say

the question that I am asking is irrelevant.

I think not.

But I am persuadable. Tell me how the proposed law will ensure that the women are not coerced by their families, neighbors, etc. into agreeing to arbitration in a system that is rigged against them with social values that were maybe relevant to the 700s, but not today.

Also, your analogies are pitiful, if you will forgive my saying so. To take just one example, when you sell a house, you do not give up any rights. You still have the property, only now it is in the form of cash, not real estate. You can still do whatever you want with it, in its new form. Party, give to the poor, buy a new house, whatever.

[iverglas]

130. okey dokey

Tell me how the proposed law will ensure that the women are not coerced by their families, neighbors, etc. into agreeing to arbitration in a system that is rigged against them with social values that were maybe relevant to the 700s, but not today.

Now, first we have to acknowledge that your question is loaded -- it contains the premise that the system in question is rigged against them with social values that were maybe relevant to the 700s, but not today.

I have no reason to believe that you have any factual foundation for making that allegation. Can you cite an instance of what you are talking about? What EXACTLY are you asserting is going to happen?

And when you say "social values", can you explain what you're talking about? Whose values? Is there some body that gets to define the values that everyone must hold when it comes to their personal lives, and their religions in particular, and call them "social values"? Is there some basis on which we can authoritatively say that any particular set of values is not relevant to someone else's life?

But let me ask you something in return:

Tell me how consumer protection laws ensure that no elderly, isolated person is ever coerced by a door to door salesperson into buying a vacuum cleaner that s/he cannot afford.

How do we ever ensure that competent adults are not coerced into doing anything?

Also, your analogies are pitiful, if you will forgive my saying so. To take just one example, when you sell a house, you do not give up any rights. You still have the property, only now it is in the form of cash, not real estate. You can still do whatever you want with it, in its new form.

Uh, yes. And you no longer have the right to sleep in the house ... or sell it. You have, indeed, GIVEN UP your rights IN THE HOUSE. You may have got a good bargain for it, but you still have no rights in it.

You were apparently correct in the first place about not being a legal expert.

People exchange things that they have rights in for other things.

If people choose to exchange their houses for a handful of magic beans, we do not prevent them from doing it, not unless it is demonstrated that they were insane or had a gun held to their head.

(There actually was a case in my city of a snot-nosed little rich boy who had been given an apartment building by his daddy so he'd have something to do and, I suppose, so daddy didn't have to keep supporting him -- and who held a gun to the head of a mortgage company official to force him to sign a mortgage discharge. Yes, such things happen in the best of families. The family and man in question were Christian.)

If women choose to exchange their legal interest in, say, their husband's business for the security of acceptance within their communities, then that is their business.

What we should be worried about is why those women feel insecure without the support of their communities, I'd say. And that's down to us, not their husbands or clergy or Shari'a.

What I completely can't understand is this business of coercion by husbands into accepting Shari'a arbitration rather than going to the courts. If a husband has that much power over a woman, why the hell is he going to demand that she go to arbitration rather than just throwing her out the door and telling her not to come back? If he could "persuade" her not to go to the courts where arbitration is available, why could he not persuade her not to go to the courts where arbitration is not available?

By the way, the question you asked was:

Are you in favor of passing Sharia law?

Have you grasped, yet, that NO ONE is in favour of, let alone proposing, "passing Sharia law"??

Since NO ONE is proposing such a thing, your question is of the most supreme and utter irrelevance.

The proposal is that individuals who choose to submit their disputes for arbitration by tribunals that apply the rules of Shari'a to their disputes be permitted to enforce the decisions of those tribunals.

That would mean that if a tribunal DID order a woman to sign over her half of the family home, after she agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration, the husband could force the sale of it.

AND VICE VERSA.


(edited to clarify a statement)

[Burning Water]

131. OK

We'll just have to disagre about this one.

[iverglas]

119. THE LAWS ARE THE BLOODY SAME

What IS it about this that no one will understand/acknowledge????

The law PERMITS people to settle their private disputes BY ARBITRATION.

The law PERMITS people to choose the rules that they wish to apply to the arbitration of their private disputes.

The law PERMITS people, if certain conditions are met, to ENFORCE the decisions made by the arbitrators in respect of private disputes.

If YOU or I wanted to settle a dispute by Shari'a rules, we could have done so last year, or ten years before that.

We could ALSO have appointed an arbitrator and directed him/her to decide our dispute by Shari'a rules, and agreed to abide by the decision.

The difference now is that those decisions will be capable of ENFORCEMENT by the usual means -- just as the decisions obtained by Jews, Catholics and Ismaili Muslims who opt for arbitration under religious rules may be enforced now.

The decisions may NOT violate the law. The Ontario government may NOT enact legislation that violates the Charter by denying anyone equality, and there is nothing in this proposal that violates the Charter. NO ONE is compelled by law to accept arbitration by Shari'a rules.

ANYONE may VOLUNTARILY choose not to exercise a legal right. A Canadian-born, white, English-speaking, Christian man or woman may agree not to claim spousal support, or child custody, or a division of family assets, for whatever reason s/he may have.

A Muslim woman in Canada could VOLUNTARILY choose not to exercise any of those rights -- or be coerced into not exercising any of those rights -- without any tribunal or court being involved at all.


Why in the bleeding hell is anyone so eager to believe that the province of Ontario is about to create a separate and unequal legal system for Muslims??? What conceivable rational basis is there for such a belief?

There are arguably concerns about what the effect of this arrangement will be, and whether women are vulnerable to exploitation because of spousal or community pressure to forego their rights -- but it is just as arguable that a young white woman with a grade 10 education who marries the owner of a big corporation and signs away all rights to share in the ownership of the business she helps him build, in a pre-nuptual or separation agreement, has been exploited.

If she's an adult, and she had the opportunity to do something different, and unlawful coercion was not brought to bear against her, we do not interfere. But we no more know whether she was unlawfully coerced than we know whether any Muslim woman has been or will be coerced. We do not assume coercion in the case of adults under no legal disability.

Is it fair to a large number of people who want to be free to arrange their private affairs according to their beliefs to deny them that opportunity because someone might be exploited?

Sometimes it is, because the risk is high and the potential harm serious. But what makes this case so worrisome, and not so many other situations in life where people are at significant risk of exploitation, and the potential harm to them serious?

Why is Benny Hinn still allowed to leech money from poor people over the Canadian airwaves by promising miraculous healings?

[iverglas]

40. thank you

I get tired of doing this ...

Most people in North America do not have a fucking clue what "Shari'a" means. Not the first fucking clue. And yet they have no hesitation denouncing it as this, that or the other thing.

Dog almighty, every time this subject comes up we get screeches about stoning and hand-cutting-off, when the proposal has absolutely nothing to do with criminal law in the first place.

Gosh. Bigotry, anyone? Does it sound freeperish? Yeah, it does.

I have concerns. I am not at all persuaded that Shari'a or any religious code should play any role in family law, where there is an inherent imbalance between the parties at the best of times that may, indeed, be exacerbated by some cultural/religious biases and pressures.

But apart from that, Shari'a would provide a code for arbitration of disputes in exactly the same way that various other codes are used for private arbitration of civil disputes. Parties to commercial contracts may specify that disputes between them will be arbitrated and not taken to the courts, and that agreement is binding.

Parties to contracts who wanted to specify that Shari'a law would be the applicable law, and Shari'a tribunals would have jurisdiction to arbitrate disputes, would be free to do that, with both parties' agreement only.

The reasons that people choose arbitration over judicial proceedings include the speed of the process, the expertise of the arbitrators, and the lower cost.

Muslims also assert that they prefer their disputes to be settled with more privacy than the judicial system provides. There's nothing inherently unreasonable or wrong about that.

Now, when the Star says this:

That's because by its very nature, a free and democratic society must seek a balance between an individual's right to exercise his or her freedom and the state's obligation to limit that freedom should it threaten to impinge on another person's rights.

... it is expressing the liberal approach, but not necessarily the social democratic approach which is characteristic of Canada.

Liberty is simply not the only thing we consider; we also consider security. And we recognize that people who are especially vulnerable are especially deserving of protection. That is why we have laws that assign rights to parties to marriage or other spousal relationships, for instance, that override any private arrangements the parties might wish to make. Those laws were determined, some 30 years ago, to be needed because of the unique vulnerability of women. Women who had worked for decades in family businesses, for instance, were denied any share of the business on separation; women who had bought the groceries while their husbands paid the mortgage were denied any share of the family home; women who reared the children while the husbands built up professional practices were denied the benefits of what they had obviously contributed to. Women were commonly exploited by their partners, and were vulnerable to that exploitation.

This is what the opponents of the proposal are saying:

Still, they are demonstrating on behalf of other Muslim women who may not understand their rights under our laws. They argue such women may be coerced by their families and communities into agreeing to a process that may treat them unfairly.

... and I'm not persuaded that they don't have a point.

Women in general are vulnerable to economic exploitation, and to the tactics that some men use (including violence) to coerce their acquiescence in that exploitation. Some Muslim women are indisputably especially vulnerable to it.

But I would also expect that the Muslim community, and Shari'a tribunals, would be rather sensitive to their image in this respect. I might even not be surprised to see pressure exerted on men like that not to tarnish the community's image. But then maybe I'm just a sunny optimist.

And there is always the big question: where do we draw the line between protecting vulnerable people and imposing so many restrictions that others' freedom of choice is too seriously impaired? When do we say that while someone is vulnerable, s/he also has a responsibility, and now has adequate opportunity, to protect him/herself?

Canada strives very hard at what is actually a rather devious enterprise. We don't require that newcomers integrate into mainstream society and abandon their own cultures and customs. We "tolerate" the practice of those cultures and customs, within certain limits. We overtly celebrate it. And yet, the effect of doing this is actually to enhance adherence to the values of the mainstream culture. When people feel that their very differences are a part of that culture, they become more committed to it than if they were defined as outside it and pressed to join it. The celebration of diversity actually encourages uniformity at least in respect of fundamental values and behaviours.

There are various factors that make different communities more or less susceptible to this transformation, from outsiders into members. Some communities are more intent on maintaining the divisions and differences than others, and in some respects this can be injurious to the bedrock of the society, and contrary to the welfare of vulnerable members of those communities.

But the fundamental Canadian premise is that the communities' customs and cultural practices will be recognized as legitimate to the greatest possible extent, that is, as far as possible without permitting our fundamental values, of which equality is perhaps the most fundamental, to be violated.

We have a very difficult task in that respect -- determining whose culture and practices cross the line and whose don't. It is simplistic to say that if one group is permitted to have its own rules for "X" then so must another group, if one set of rules is consistent with fundamental values and the other isn't. But if one is to be permitted and the other not, a good reason must be given.

And without knowing how Shari'a law will be applied by Shari'a tribunals, it's difficult to present a good reason. Reasonable apprehension of a serious risk that vulnerable people will be disadvantaged by the system can certainly be good reason, but I'm not persuaded that we have good enough reason for that apprehension at present.

[smirkymonkey]

51. No, because I firmly believe that no religious "laws" should be

tolerated in a democratic society, other than to inform the moral values of the individual practicing it. However, it should never supersede the rights granted to EACH indivdual (women included) under the laws of the nation in question.

[iverglas]

55. get a bloody clue

Enough have been offered in this thread.

Usually, for those found "guilty" under Sharia Law are punished by death, even for the most minor infractions.

What might you think that this has to do with the Ontario proposal?

I'm genuinely curious, and hope you will explain.

[smirkymonkey]

68. Since when are you a defender of those who seek to diminish

the rights of women?

I suppose it will play out differently in Canada than it does in the Middle East or even England where girls and women are murdered for "dishonoring" thier families, right?

[Maple]

75. That is cultural, not Islamic

Islam regards life as sacred.

White English Anglican women get murdered by white English Anglican husbands every day.

It's not specific to Muslims ya know

[iverglas]

78. get a bloody clue

Enough have been offered in this thread.

I suppose it will play out differently in Canada than it does in the Middle East or even England where girls and women are murdered for "dishonoring" thier families, right?

What might you think that this has to do with the Ontario proposal?

I'm genuinely curious, and hope you will explain.

It's seeming that you're not going to, and are simply going to continue making bizarrely false claims about the potential impact of the Ontario proposal, about which you quite plainly know absolutely nothing and have apparently chosen to remain ignorant ...

[smirkymonkey]

80. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again, but I have yet to

hear you explain why you think it will be different. YOU are the one railing against the sentiment of the original article - YOU should be the one to defend the practice in question. Are you Muslim? Do you have inside knowledge on this situation or are you getting it from a book or an article that you once read supporting Sharia?

And I don't consider your other posts a defense, just a lot of pseudo-intellectual babble that sounds like it was lifted from the pages of a text. It seems like you are the one being defensive and I am sick of your arrogant, condescending tone.

You claim to have "superior" knowledge and insight into this situation, but so far I have seen nothing but rhetoric. I am basing my posts on what I have seen of Sharia Law IN PRACTICE. Your defense is completely abastract and based on "theory" Christianity sounds really nice in theory too, but we all see how that plays out.

[iverglas]

86. my posts are most certainly not a defence

against anything you've said, for sure. 'Cause I haven't seen any need for any such thing.

You've said things like what started this exchange (now edited out):

Usually, for those found "guilty" under Sharia Law are punished by death, even for the most minor infractions.

I asked you what that might have to do with the issue under discussion here; you haven't replied, but I gather you may have realized that it had NOTHING to do with the issues under discussion here.

You then yammered on about honour killings of girls and women in the UK, which have NOTHING to do with the issue under discussion here, or in fact with Shari'a law, since Shari'a law is not in effect in the UK.

You have not given any indication of having the first clue what the issue under discussion is here.

Are you Muslim? Do you have inside knowledge on this situation or are you getting it from a book or an article that you once read supporting Sharia?

The "inside knowledge" that I have is the basic knowledge that anybody who chooses to make noise in public about any issue ought to have: knowledge of WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, which in this instance happens to be the current proposal in Ontario to recognize (i.e. give enforceable effect) to decisions made by arbitration tribunals that apply Shari'a in certain narrow areas of the law.

You claim to have "superior" knowledge and insight into this situation

I do?? Funny how you put quotes around something I never said, and at the same time quote nothing I have said.

Your defense is completely abastract and based on "theory"

My COMMENTS are based on the actual facts of the situation, which I happen to know pretty well from practising law in Ontario for over a dozen years, specifically immigration and refugee law, and close association with Muslims and Muslim organizations of various kinds. For instance, I gave seminars on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to leaders of ethnocultural groups -- which included Muslim men -- and presentations on equality rights in the private sector to multicultural women's groups -- which included Muslim women. Oh, oops, gosh, look, I'm not actually speaking out of my ass about something I don't know anything about.

I was in law school when Ontario family law was revised to impose rules for things like the division of property and inheritance, to protect economically vulnerable women, quite a while ago now.

So any "theory" that my observations are based on just happens to be the "theory" found in the Canadian constitution, the laws of Ontario, and a few things like that, and fairly intimate acquaintance with a variety of elements of the immigrant and minority populations.

Of course, I'm also intimately acquainted, academically and professionally, with the actual theory of multiculturalism as it is practised in Canada, and with the history of Canadian pluralism. Some may like to call that "pseudo-intellectual"; others call it knowing what you're talking about. And when what you're talking about is other people, and when what you're attempting to do is influence policy about their rights and freedoms, that's just a damned good thing to do.

I have no idea what you have "seen of Sharia Law IN PRACTICE". On television, maybe? And do you imagine that you actually have some serious reason to believe that Canada would be permitting the institution of some process that would legitimize the physical harming of women, or even the economic exploitation of women?

You quite plainly don't have a clue what the proposal in Ontario actually is. All I've suggested is that you get that clue before making hysterically bizarre claims about what will come of it.

[smirkymonkey]

87. Sorry, I am really pissed off today and wrongly took it out on you.

and I admit that I did not take the time to research and back up my suppostions, but I am just really sick and tired of all the injustice in the world - particularly toward women.

Also, I still really hate religion and I fear that when religious "laws" get a foothold in a democratic society there is no telling how far it can go. Case in point: Christian Dominionists in America. It just seems to me that the more "religious" a society is, the more unjust.

I have no clue as to what is going on in Canada. I just can't bear to see the creep of fundamentalism anywhere.

[iverglas]

89. I am with you on the basics

The clash of claims based on race/ethnicity and claims based on sex/gender has been in some evidence here of late, and I have been distressed by positions taken in that respect myself.

My other post should make this situation a little clearer.

I am a feminist and also a firm believer in equality of all kinds. I also work rather hard to understand the very complex mechanisms of what might be called cultural cohabitation, and the accommodations that are and have to be made in order for it to succeed.

There are valid reasons for people wanting to settle their private disputes by the rules that they recognize as appropriate to govern all aspects of their lives. Muslims, for instance, reject the concept of interest on money. A Muslim who was a party to a contract in respect of which a dispute arose and was ordered by a court to pay interest on the disputed payment, say, would be offended, and his/her adherence to the values of the society would be undermined because of its disrespect for his/her values -- which are not wrong, even by our standards.

There are also just different approaches to the way that disputes should be settled, e.g. publicly or privately, that also are not wrong by our standards, and do not necessarily imply that anything evil is being done behind closed doors.

I don't disagree that there are legitimate concerns. But I do think that Canadian society is open enough, and provides enough avenues for individuals to assert and exercise their rights, that it is unlikely that secret star chambers of mullahs would be able to routinely strip women of their children and property and income, even though there may indeed be a few who would like to.

Being an immigration lawyer had its conflicts. I knew that some of the people I represented, who did include clergy of religions whose misogynist premises I found abhorrent, were bringing attitudes to Canada that made me nervous. I also believe that example is the best teacher, and that setting that example in both my professional and personal life (I live in a very multicultural neighbourhood), the example of tolerance and respect ... and take no shit feminism ... was the best thing that I could personally do to influence outcomes.

And the week ends, finally.

[CHIMO]

90. Just Jumping

In here.

For anyone that is interested there has been an attempt to try and make things a bit better rather than having a "hanging judge" type of attitude.

It is an attempt to help things.

Sentencing Circle : a General Overview and Guidelines

Introduction
The sentencing circle is a method of dealing with members of the community that have broken the law. A sentencing circle is conducted after the individual has been in the present western justice system and found guilty or if the accused has accepted guilt and is willing to assume their responsibility. This sentencing method encourages the offender and the community to accept responsibility and acknowledges the harm they have done to society and to victims.

A sentencing circle's aim is to shift the process of sentencing from punishment to rehabilitation and responsibility. It provides a new alternative for courts to incarceration. The sentencing circle proves an opportunity to start the healing process for both the offender and the victim. The offender is presented with the impact of their actions in front of respected community members, elders, peers, family, the victim and their family, stimulating an opportunity for real change.

http://www.usask.ca/nativelaw/publications/jah/circle.html

Perhaps something that one can think about in regards to a "belief" that there is only one way to do things. I think that this was brought about to try and address the incidence of a high number of natives in the correctional system and that the system was apparently not working.


Edited to clarify. Hope I didn't dig a deeper hole.

[iverglas]

91. there is a host of ways of dealing with all sorts of problems

"Ours" has developed in a particular direction as a result of all sorts of influences -- the origin of the concept of property itself and all of the economic structures built on that concept, the kinds of human relationships that developed in the kinds of societies we built, infusions of particular theological/ethical concepts, the success or failure of particular political ideologies (like liberalism), colonial exploration and development, and on and on.

It is highly unlikely that any one legal system contains the best of everything, since none of our present-day societies is the best of all possible worlds.

The fact that an approach to solving any particular problem is different doesn't make it necessarily worse -- but it doesn't make it necessarily as good -- but all of that is a matter of opinion anyhow. The standard against which any legal system has to be judged at present is no more absolute than it ever was; the ten commandments were just somebody's notions writ down, as is our constitution, although it is far more sophisticated and, importantly, far more coherent, as are our prevailing moral/ethical standards (e.g. an individual is not a non-person simply because of sex or colour, which makes no damned sense).

And the goodness or badness of any rule will to at least some extent depend on the circumstances in which it is applied. Some things that we find rather distasteful about other people's rules might actually be essential to the survival of another people, just as some things they find distasteful about ours might be essential to our own vision of how life should be lived.

The only thing that can be done is to establish agreement on the fundamentals, and recognize that that agreement is a process and not a product. That, after all, is why *our* constitution *is* a living tree. ;)

[iverglas]

88. okay, here's a clue: what this is actually about, for anyone who cares

The proposal in Ontario relates to legal disputes that may be settled by arbitration.

Arbitration has NOTHING TO DO with criminal law, and therefore any references to anything in Shari'a relating to criminal law are utterly irrelevant to the Ontario proposal.

The arbitrations in issue will take place under Ontario's Arbitration Act:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/91a17_e.htm

2. (1) This Act applies to an arbitration conducted under an arbitration agreement unless,

(a) the application of this Act is excluded by law; or

(b) the International Commercial Arbitration Act applies to the arbitration.

6. No court shall intervene in matters governed by this Act, except for the following purposes, in accordance with this Act:

... 3. To prevent unequal or unfair treatment of parties to arbitration agreements.

7. (2) However, the court may refuse to stay the proceeding <i.e. a proceeding brought in the court to prevent the arbitration from proceeding> in any of the following cases:

3. The subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of being the subject of arbitration under Ontario law.

Divorce itself is not capable of being the subject of arbitration under Ontario law. (It's a matter under federal jurisdiction, to start with.) No arbitration tribunal could prevent a spouse from obtaining a divorce under Canadian law, e.g.

Criminal charges are not capable of being the subject of arbitration under Ontario law. (Criminal law also is under federal jurisdiction anyway.) No arbitration tribunal could order a punishment of any kind, whether a monetary penalty, deprivation of liberty or interference with physical security of the person.

Any law that violates the constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, may be declared invalid by a court. In an Alberta case, the provincial statute prohibiting discrimination in the private sector was found to be in violation of the Charter because it failed to prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Beat that. The Canadian courts actually take quite a dim view of rights violations, and are widely trusted by Canadians to protect their rights and liberties.

A provincial law that allowed any process to be carried out privately and the result then enforced by a court (which is the actual effect of the current proposal -- there has been nothing all along to prevent any parties from asking their clergyperson, or their psychologist or Great Aunt Tilly, to settle their disputes), where the process or result violated the legal rights of a party, would have to be interpreted as prohibiting such enforcement. For instance, if the parties to a contract of employment had agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration under a set of rules that allowed the employee to be ordered to work for no pay, and the arbitrator made an award so ordering, no court in Canada could enforce that award. It would be contrary to the minimum wage laws of every province and the federal government.

I hope this is a little clearer now to anyone who might want to express an opinion.

[Maple]

56. It doesn't

supersede anything. It is always subject to Canadian law.

[smirkymonkey]

60. In the De Jure sense, perhaps, but I don't think there is any

guarantee that it will play out that way in actuality.

[Maple]

64. Well it has for years

If you forbid it you know, they'll just do it anyway, and then we'll have no oversight.

[CHIMO]

62. Well

You are always permitted to believe what you wish.

[Redstone]

94. They shouldn't allow ANY "religious tribunals."

Without CIVIL law, first and last, civilization (as we know it in the sense of fair treatment, or at least consistent treatment, for all) is doomed.

Redstone

[iverglas]

95. dear me

"Liberalism" just goes out the window so fast sometimes ...

[Maple]

96. Canadian law prevails

this is merely an out of court settlement procedure, and voluntary

[Redstone]

97. Ah, but (especially in the case of sharia), how do we know

that both parties are REALLY entering into it voluntarily?

Abused women, for examples, can be frightened into claiming that they do things "voluntarily" that they damn sure aren't actually volunterring for.

If you've had any experience with battered women, you'd know that's true. Yes?

Redstone

[Maple]

98. Well see, that's what the regulation would be for

They've been doing it quietly for a decade...bringing it into the open and monitoring it would solve any such problem.

[Redstone]

100. No, it wouldn't. You don't have any experience being

or working with battered women, do you?

If you did, you'd know that many of them get beaten into a mindset that makes them do what they're told.

And if the son of a bitch who beats them into that mindset feels like he'll get a better deal at one of these "tribunals" than he would in a civil court of law, you can bet your last dollar that he'll MAKE her "voluntarily" agree to go along with the program.

Trust me on this. Or ask anyone who has had any experience with the situation I described.

Redstone

[Maple]

101. Yes, that's exactly what it's for

which is how we've managed to have Jewish, Catholic and Ismaili Muslims tribunals all this time. All we are doing is adding one more to the list.

Battered women, of any religion, can be forced into anything.

Which is why there is a regulating and monitoring system.

Avoid bringing it into the light, and it will simply exist underground anyway.

[Redstone]

102. Giving the sons of bitches who beat their wives

any advantage isn't right.

Period.

Adn I doubt that your "regulating and monitoring system" does a damn bit of good in protecting them.

Religious courts have NO place in a civil society, not matter the platitudes you want to use to excuse them.

Redstone

[Maple]

103. It's not an advantage

and our regulating and monitoring system has done just fine for years.

The US has religious courts ya know. You monitoring them?

[iverglas]

112. I do

And I'm finding it quite impossible to understand why you think that the son of a bitch who beats them into that mindset WOULD BOTHER GOING TO *ANY* TRIBUNAL OR COURT to get what he wants when all he has to do is take the kids, take the money, throw her out of the house and slam the door.

If he DOES go to an arbitration tribunal under this proposal, how could he possibly get any MORE than he could by just beating her???

In order for the matter to go before an arbitration tribunal, SOMEONE HAS TO TAKE IT THERE.

If the husband in your scenario does, he's a complete fool.

If the wife in your scenario does -- if she chooses to go to a Shari'a tribunal instead of to a court -- THAT'S HER DECISION.

It would be really very difficult to live in Canada for any time at all and not know that there are courts that handle these things.

The ONLY thing that this proposal is going to do is make awards by arbitration tribunals in these cases ENFORCEABLE.

A man who has sufficiently intimidated a woman that she will do anything he wants doesn't have to WORRY about enforcement. The woman is not going to bloody stand in his way if he simply TAKES what he wants.


In point of fact, the women who may be subjects of more genuine concern are women who are NOT beaten and abused, but women who are simply susceptible to external pressure to conform. THOSE are the women who are going to be asserting their rights -- by NOT doing what their husbands would like to make them do, and by asking for the dispute to be settled by a third party -- and who might be pressured into asserting their rights under Shari'a rather than under provincial family law.

Again -- I am not seeing the difference between the way things are now and the way they would be under the proposal. Those women are subject to the exact same pressure NOW not to go to the courts.

But there are two different reasons for this.

One might well be that they are being pressured not to assert their rights.

The other is that the Muslim community regards it as dishonourable to drag one's personal problems into public, and regards someone who does so as shaming the community.

This proposal actually REMOVES that source of pressure. It provides women to whom community disapproval is important with an alternative route for settling private family disputes.

It is THAT source of pressure that is in fact most oppressive for women in closed communities that operate under rigid social rules different from the broader society's.

Google agunah. See what life has always been and still is like for fundamentalist Jewish women who are civilly divorced but cannot remarry within their religion.

Or ask some older women in conservative Roman Catholic ethnocultural communities what it was like to live with abusive husbands, because leaving them and divorcing them and getting on with their lives would have meant being rejected by the church that was the authority and focal point in those communities.

Ask members of various closed/rigid Christian religious communities in your own country about shunning -- ask a Jehovah's Witness, or an Amish person.

Or I could put you in touch with a woman in one of those southeastern US states where Christianity is big, who works with abused Christian women whose religion is, for them, a barrier to seeking help, and who focuses on trying to educate their clergy about the problems of spousal abuse within their congregations and the need for them to assist the women in their congregations ... and is met with little interest.

One of my favourite bizarre ecumenical stories is about a Zoroastrian Iranian woman, whose Ethiopian Christian husband had long been viciously abusing her and her children, who was recently arrived in Canada and had no "community" at all, who called a fundamentalist Christian prayer line from the TV and was referred directly to the local feminist women's shelter (and thence to me). There are good and bad people absolutely everywhere.

It may well be true that a woman who adheres to one of several religions who is susceptible to community pressure not to go to the public courts, and not to claim the rights available to her under provincial law, would get a worse deal before a religious tribunal. And it may be that the availability of those tribunals would increase the pressure that she is susceptible to, because those exerting the pressure could point to what she would do if she were truly faithful. But it would still be her choice, and the pressure in question would not be coming from an abusive husband.

Simply put, you really don't seem know what you're talking about, from anything I've seen -- you neither know what the Ontario proposal is nor know about the Canadian laws that govern the situation, nor do you know much of anything about ethnocultural/religious communities in general, or in Canada in particular.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

104. A good link, but...

CHIMO Perhaps

A little bit of knowledge about the rights of people might help before an opinion is made.

I totally support you posting that link, CHIMO. Hopefully it will correct any misguided arguments about "Sharia law" versus any other "faith-based law" being considered in Ontario.

In my opinion, no religious tribunal has as place in Canadian law. The article you linked to nailed my concerns precisely (although obliquely) in this phrase: "In a bid to strike an appropriate balance, Ontario law gives consenting adults the right to voluntarily settle family disputes themselves by means of an arbitration process that is subject to oversight, but not to interference, by the courts." (emphasis mine)

"Consenting adults" != "Women are second-class citizens"

I haven't read as much about the other "faith-based laws" for two reasons:
1) "Sharia law" is currently getting more attention in the Canadian press.
2) I live in a "reality-based" continuum and poo-poo any "faith-based law" (which I consider to be an oximoron -- hence the overuse of scare quotes).

[CHIMO]

105. That's Fine

But I think you will have a hard time finding a basis for "reality", as you say.

I would like to know on what foundation you draw your basis.(My shadow may be sharper than yours. Or, then again maybe yours is.) How do we tell?

[BiggJawn]

6. Ms Boyd wants the Catholic and Jewish tribunals OUT.

This is what's known as a "Poison Pill".

This is the key point:
"Ms Boyd argues that if Sharia is not allowed, all religious arbitration bodies could be abolished."

She's saying you have to take THIS religious court, even though its practices are repugnant to most non-Muslims or you get rid of all of them.

[salib]

13. Good.

Get rid of "religious courts."

Does anyone here see what an oxymoron this is?

[CHIMO]

14. So

Are the laws to be written to approve every religious marriage contract the way the marriage contract is written?

[smirkymonkey]

57. I agree!

Religious courts have no place in modern society.

[Maple]

59. That depends on the religions don't you think?

And since freedom of religion is a guaranteed right in Canada, how they settle disputes amongst themselves is up to them.

They simply can't violate the laws of Canada while doing it.

[iverglas]

42. thanks for your interpretation

of things that you, sadly, know nothing about. Canadian culture seems to be one of them, and Marion Boyd another.

[BiggJawn]

79. Well, EXCUSSSSSSSSSSE! ME!!!!

As Steve Martin used to say.

With a snarky response like yours, I'm not so sure I'd CARE to learn anything about Canadian "culture", either.

Hockey sucks, BTW.

[fujiyama]

8. This is stupid

Laws should be secular, even those regarding marriage and divorce.

I don't care how the church or mosque or temple deals with the laws themselves. Perhaps the Catholic Church doesn't recognize a divorce. Even if they didn't it shouldn't matter because a civilized society shouldn't be driven by religious institutions.

[CHIMO]

9. What Laws

Are you refering to?

[Maple]

10. Yeah tell us all about that

[Adrian Luca]

17. Dual Legal Systems don't work

Here in Australia we recently had a case where a 50+ year-old Aboriginal man was slapped on the wrist in a court for anally raping and beating a 14 year-old Aboriginal girl who was his second "arranged" bride.

Some aboriginal activists (mostly men) claimed that the court's decision was just because under aboriginal law the girl was obliged to obey her husband.

Other aboriginal activists (mainly women)claimed the court's decision basically gave aboriginal men the right to rape and bash girls.

[Maple]

18. They have here for a century

because Canadian law remains supreme.

This is simply an out of court settlement system, that must be agreed to by all parties.

And even then, can be taken to regular court.

A time saving measure, nothing more.

[applegrove]

21. Canada has had dual legal system since 1763. Quebec civil law is

more French. Rest of Canada has British based law.

[Maple]

22. Quebec has the Napoleonic Code

So does Scotland and many other countries.

And this has nothing to do with Sharia, just local politics.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. While Scots law does differ from English law

you can't call it "the Napoleonic Code". It has influences from the 'civil law' approach, but these date from before Napoleon.

[Maple]

32. After all this time

Scotland's laws have become a blend, but:

'Civil or civilian law is a legal tradition which is the basis of the law in the majority of countries of the world, especially in continental Europe, but also in Quebec (Canada), Louisiana (USA), Japan, Latin America, and most former colonies of continental European countries. The Scottish legal system is usually considered to be a mixed system in that Scots law has a basis in Roman law, combining features of both uncodified Civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis and common law with medieval sources, further influenced by English law after the Union of 1707.

In the United States, civil law is formally the basis of the law of Louisiana (as circumscribed by federal law and the U.S. Constitution), although in western and southwestern parts of the U.S., laws in such diverse areas as divorce and water rights show the influence of their Iberian civil-law heritage, being based on distinctly different principles from the laws of the northeastern states colonized by settlers with English common-law roots.'

'Civil law is primarily contrasted against common law, which is the legal system developed among Anglo-Saxon peoples, especially in England.'


'Sparked by the age of enlightenment, attempts to codify private law began during the second half of the 18th century (see civil code), but civil codes with a lasting influence were promulgated only after the French Revolution, in jurisdictions such as France (with its Napoleonic Code), Austria (see ABGB), Quebec (see Civil Code of Quebec), Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (see BGB). However, codification is by no means a defining characteristic of a civil law system, as e.g. the civil law systems of Scandinavian countries remain largely uncodified, whereas common law jurisdictions have frequently codified parts of their laws, e.g. in the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code. There are also mixed systems, such as the laws of Scotland, Namibia and South Africa.'

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Civil-law-(legal-system)#Civil_vs_Common_law

[iverglas]

45. actually, legal systems have a great deal to do with culture

and your mention of Quebec's civil law is very much on point. Quebec regards its civil law as a cornerstone of its society and culture. (I'm very familiar with it and think it's a complete dog's breakfast, but that's just me.)

What has enabled Canada to become what it is today is precisely the pact that was made, well before 1867, that permitted the conquered people of Quebec to maintain their language, religion and legal system under the British crown -- something that had really never happened before.

The recognition of the legitimacy of difference is fundamental to Canada.

[TygrBright]

34. But "marriage" is a dual institution by nature

There is the "marriage" recognized by each religious sect, and the "marriage" recognized by the state.

Now, states may CHOOSE to allocate the same set of rights afforded to couples married under state procedures, to couples married in sectarian rites, but that does not make them one and the same.

The rights, privileges, and responsibilities conveyed by sectarian authority in recognizing a marriage can ONLY be revoked or rescinded by the same sectarian authority.

The rights, privileges, and responsibilities conveyed by state authority in recognizing a marriage can ONLY be revoked or rescinded by the state authority.

The problem comes when these rights, privileges, and responsibilities overlap. For example, the commonest overlap in Judeo-Christian sects in the prohibition against bigamy: That is, once married, neither party to the marriage may enter into the same contract with another party unless/until the original marriage contract is voided. Most western states have exactly the same prohibition.

So when a Catholic individual undergoes marriage under the authority of the Church, and the state chooses to recognize that marriage, a second contract-- a civil contract-- automatically comes into being. That civil contract can be voided by the state and the individuals involved are legally free to contract another marriage under the authority of the state, but they MAY NOT contract another marriage under the authority of the Catholic Church, which does not recognize divorce.

The problem with religious arbitration tribunals like this is that the state is, essentially, ceding its authority over state-recognized contracts to the sectarian authority to resolve. VERY bad precedent indeed.

I'm not saying that individuals should not be allowed to resolve any differences they have in their SECTARIAN marriage contract in a sectarian tribunal-- after all, Catholics have recourse to the Rota for annulments, which nets out to the same end-- but the judgments of those tribunals should properly have NO FORCE WHATSOEVER in civil law.

In other words, if under civil law a divorcing wife is entitled to half of the marital assets, and under the sectarian rule a husband is entitled to keep everything, the civil law must control. Civil law in western nations, flawed and discriminatory though it still may be, remains infinitely superior in regard to the rights of women over any sectarian code I know of.

adamantly,
Bright

[applegrove]

20. Both parties have to agree. Criminal law & Family law court still

apply. You cannot harrass anyone for not doing what you like. It is voluntary. You cannot cut off someone's hand.

[Maple]

24. Yup, strictly voluntary

Totally appealable, and it cannot violate any of the laws of Canada

[Canadian_moderate]

26. in theory, Canadian laws cannot be violated.

but in practice Muslim women will get screwed over big time. Canadian laws do not protect these women from the people in their communities who will treat them like dirt.

They will be ostricized in their communities if they do not agree to Sharia tribunals. Muslim women may not receive recognition of divorce by their faith unless they submit to the demands of these sexist and unfair sharia tribunals.

I say scrap all tribunals and leave religion out of legal matter and legislation. There should be one set of laws (and one charter of rights) for all Canadians.

[Maple]

33. Muslim women

have the same protections as all other Canadians.

There IS only one law for all Canadians. This is a method for out of court settlements. It's strictly voluntary, and if they don't like the decision they can go through the regular court system.

No, you can't force women to use either method, anymore than you can force a woman to call for help if her husband beats her.

A browbeaten woman of any faith wouldn't take her husband to ANY court or tribunal.

The government can't do everything. It can only intervene where there is a complaint. The government can't lurk about in people's homes and spy on them.

This is precisely WHY we want to shine a light on Sharia, and regulate it. To cut down on, as much as is humanly possible, any attempt to harm women.

It's already operated for some years you know, without anyone being aware of it.

If they know they are being watched for violations, it's less likely to occur.

[iverglas]

47. looked at another way

They will be ostricized in their communities if they do not agree to Sharia tribunals.

At present, there might be no oversight at all of the arrangements between the parties in a marital breakdown. A husband could simply coerce a wife into complying with his wishes for the division of property and custody and support of children, for instance, because the consequences of the shame that the woman would be regarded as bringing on the community by taking him to a civil court would be sufficient to prevent her from asserting her rights.

The Shari'a tribunals would offer women in truly difficult situations an alternative, and a doorway into the light of public scrutiny.

[1932]

27. This is really interesting. Alternative Dispute Resolution is usually

used by RW'ers to get two unequal parties (a corporation and a consumer or employee) to reduce their legal problems down to an agreement which is a binding contract.

Ontario is allowing equal bargaining strength parties to do the same thing so that, if they want, they can agree to settle conflicts according to their religion.

I like this, so long as both parties are free to chose whether they want to do this.

[Canadian_moderate]

29. Do you really think that...

Muslim women will have a choice?

Maybe some husbands won't go for sharia tribunals, but I suspect that when things get nasty, many Muslim women will be forced into this against their will by their imam or the Muslim community they live in.

[1932]

30. There are some cultural presumptions here that might not

be warranted.

I suspect many muslim women might chose to put their faith before the laws of Ontario voluntarily.

Also, I've actually done work on a Sharia divorce in which the woman had the man over a barrel. Sharia law does have some elements of it which aren't oppressive for women.

[Bassic]

35. The correct question would be

What the fuck are Ontario judges thinking?

This is really one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.

[Maple]

46. It's been in operation

for years, and has worked well for Jews, Catholics and Ismaili Muslims.

[Bassic]

48. I know it's been in preparation for years

And I've been opposed to it for years. And I thknk the same applies to the Christians (of which I am) and the Jews.

[Maple]

58. No, it's been in operation for years

and works just fine.

[Bassic]

61. Sorry misread you, but

Wether it works fine or not it not the point. The point is that chruch and state need to be seperate even here in Canada.

Wether muslim, christian, jewish or Flying Spagetthi Monster worshipping, religious law is just not an acceptable option for a society like ours.

[Maple]

65. Religious people

are still the majority.

This is simply an out of court dispute mechanism...the same kind of arbitration methods available to everyone. You are not required to use them.

[Bassic]

67. Yes, I know that

But the, again, this would provide the oppotunity for people of iranian or saudi arabien origin, for example, to try to control their wives via social pressure within their communities. That is not good.

[Maple]

72. And again

devout Christian men can, and do, force their wives to obey.

The difference in Canada is that they are aware society as a whole forbids that...something that doesn't occur in theocracies...and they have an out if they choose to take it.

'Social pressure' is the norm in any society. We are all brainwashed from birth, or 'socially engineered'. One of the most difficult things to do in life is to get past the brainwashing.

Especially since it requires the full agreement and active cooperation of the brainwashed.

[iverglas]

77. and now, for those who care to have a clue before making noises

I got bored before long, but here's a taste.


http://www.hart.oxi.net/bookdetails.asp?id=606&bnd=0
Commercial Arbitration in the Arab Middle East: Shari'a, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt
Second Edition: Foreword by V.V. Veeder QC

Oh look, an entire book about Shari'a arbitration that has nothing to do with stoning women or cutting anyone's hand off.


http://www.soas.ac.uk/Centres/IslamicLaw/IslFinIntro.html
Islamic Law and Finance
Introduction: Islamic Law And Financial Transactions In Contemporary Perspective
"The first paper in this book is on 'Financial Transactions and the Islamic Theory of Obligations and Contracts'"

and another one.


http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/twibell.html
Implementation of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods (CISG) under Shari'a Law: Will Article 78 of
the CISG Be Enforced When the Forum Is an Islamic State?

... Nope, nothing about stoning and cutting off there.


http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:ZmXRbw88Cf8J:www.gtnews.com/article/5914.cfm+shari%27a+commercial&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
This article provides an in-depth analysis of the background and principles of Islamic finance. It covers financing techniques, Islamic primary market instruments, banking services, and the legal framework and regulations for establishing an Islamic bank.

How boring. Interest, financing ...


http://www.euromoneyplc.com/default.asp?page=4&productID=3585&VS=
Islamic Asset Management: Forming the Future for Shari'a-Compliant Investment Strategies

It just gets more vicious ... or boring ...


Hmm, how about
http://members.aol.com/yalnet/forest2.html
Trees and nature in the Shari'a (Quran and Hadith).


http://www.geocities.com/khyber007/anot.html

Goals Of The Shari'a

The supreme goal of the Shari'a is the welfare of the people in this world and in the hereafter. Broadly speaking, the needs of the community are classified into dire necessities, ordinary necessities and complementary needs (that make life more enjoyable), in this order of significance. Topping the list is the first category which comprises the widely known "Five Aims of the Shari'a" whose objective is the preservation and protection of: (1) Life, (2) Mind, (3) Religion, (4) Ownership and possessions, and (5) Procreation and preservation of the species. Each of these is divided into sets and branching subsets until seemingly small details are reached, and each is serviced by appropriate moral and/or legal rulings. Resisting all temptation to step into the deep waters of this immense subject, we can glean the essential ideas from each category to hopefully clarify the picture.

... 4. Ownership and Possessions

The right of ownership is inviolable and there is no objection or limit on the amassing of wealth provided it is secured by lawful ways. Unlawful ways of collecting wealth are delineated, including usury, cheating and fraud, stealing, monopoly, etc. The rights of capital are coupled with its duties including taxation and contribution commensurate with the needs of society.

The Zakat tax is mandatory and roughly equals 2.5% of money hoarded over the span of one year, with other formulas for earnings from agriculture, animal husbandry, real estate or industry. Every individual is the joint responsibility of the whole community and no one can behave like an isolated island. Rules of commercial dealings and exchanges are delineated.

Evil, pure evil.

[applegrove]

99. The fact it is happening informally also begs the question..if you

fund it you can have some minimum standards and qualifications and oversight.

It is not as if the criminal law has not been hunting down people who female circumcise for years or people who harass their wives or their kids because these people make choices. The cops are on the job. Domestic violence is considered a severe crime in this country.

Once again - you cannot break the laws of the land.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

109. ya think?

You are being presumptive (or maybe just a troll).

# 2 -- Gee, funny how nobody's figured that out in all this time.

# 1 -- The word you want is "presumptuous", and it means this:

unduly or overbearingly confident and presuming

Your problem is that I was confident for very good reason and therefore not at all "unduly", anyone who found my confidence "overbearing" can deal with his/her own problems, and I presumed absolutely fuck all.

The post to which you responded was also written before you posted in this thread, so obviously I presumed nothing about you in any event.

If you've read the post you responded to, you know know what the use of "Shari'a law" in Ontario means.

It means that the rules of Shari'a may be applied by arbitrators, with the consent of the parties to certain kinds of transactions, to settle disputes between them, and that the courts will enforce those arbitral awards on certain conditions being met.

Parties are free to agree to settle their disputes by flipping a coin, if it makes them happy. The courts might not enforce the outcome of a coin flip, though.

The same has ALWAYS been true of every kind of dispute that it would now be possible to settle according to the rules of Shari'a -- the parties have been free to agree between themselves that their dispute will be settled by having it decided according to the rules of Shari'a. The ONLY difference now is that the decision will be enforced by the courts -- IF the process leading to the decision meets the requirements of the law.

And it has ALWAYS been the case that if one party to a transaction of some sort wanted to try to bully the other side into doing what the first party wanted, it would be possible if the second party did not do something about it. Employers bully employees into working in illegally unsafe working conditions; merchants bully customers into not seeking redress for defective goods; husbands -- nice, white, English-speaking, Christian husbands -- bully wives into giving up custody of children or withdrawing support claims. All without benefit of Shari'a.

So a comment like one poster made:

Abused women, for examples, can be frightened into claiming that they do things "voluntarily" that they damn sure aren't actually volunterring for.

can only be based on an assumption that Muslim men are more likely to abuse women, and Muslim arbitrators are more likely to tolerate abuse of women and treat women unfairly, than the rest of "us" are. Because the fact is that if no one knows a woman is being abused, and therefore has no opportunity to assist her so that she is not exploited, any woman of any race or colour or ethnicity or religion can be bullied into giving up anything she has a right to, anywhere and at any time.

Because ...

And if the son of a bitch who beats them into that mindset feels like he'll get a better deal at one of these "tribunals" than he would in a civil court of law, you can bet your last dollar that he'll MAKE her "voluntarily" agree to go along with the program.

... said son of a bitch does not at present have to go to ANY tribunal or ANY court, and need only hand the woman a pen and say "sign this or ...", and it's done.

I can't imagine what you thought I was "presuming". That people here had said ignorant and arrogant and ethnocentric things? Ha!! And by the way, the ignorance and arrogance and ethnocentricity I'm talking about isn't actually in the attitudes expressed toward Islam or Muslim men or Muslim clergy -- it's in the attitudes expressed toward Canada.

The notion that Canada would be permitting the institution of some sort of parallel legal system in which disobedient wives could be punished by being stoned or even just summarily divorced, or thieves' hands could be cut off, or whatever savage images were dancing before the eyes of some of the people here, is the height of ignorance, arrogance, ethnocentricity and just plain stupidity, but also just plain rudeness.

The Canadian constitutional, political, judicial, social and legal framework provides, overall, a considerably higher degree of liberty, security and equality than is found in the U.S. The notion that a province of Canada would be doing something like what was decried by so many people here is fantabulous and chimerical.

Although Shari'a is referred to as "law", it will not be law in Canada. It will be a SET OF RULES that individuals may VOLUNTARILY agree will be applied to disputes between them. EXACTLY as individuals may voluntarily agree that disputes between them will be settled by flipping a coin, or in accordance with the laws of the state of Hawaii, if that is what they want -- the difference being that the courts will not enforce the outcome of a coin toss (I assume, based on that being a gambling debt), but will enforce an arbitral award regarding a contract that stipulates that the "applicable law" is the law of some other jurisdiction, for instance.

Take a look at some of the things said; I'll not bother repeating the adjectives I would use to describe them (and I should note that some of them were withdrawn after the speaker understood the actual facts):

no religion should be allowed to do things that go against a country's constitution and root values.
(What straw person have we here? What is going to be done that is contrary to any constitution or values?)

Sharia is still a sexist, medieval institution
(The prohibition on charging interest on debts may be medieval, but sexist?)

I don't know of too many Christian denominations that advocate, let alone practice, stoning or physically harming women.
(Somebody needs to get out more; nonetheless, this is just another great big huge obnoxious straw person, since as far as I know there are not too many Muslim organizations in Canada that advocate such things either ... quite apart from the fact that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the proposal in Ontario)

I despise all organized religions in general, but most of them don't systematically kill women for misdemeanors
(Again, I'm not seeing anything that relates to the proposal in Ontario)

(in response to: And indeed, Christian church tribunals have many anti-women laws.)
Well, three cheers for the USA's separation of church and state.
(Give me a great big fucking break. How can someone in the US -- NYC, no less -- who chooses to enter a discussion of this nature not know about the practice of dispute settlement by religious tribunals in the US? Not to mention the social disadvantage women are at in the case of family law matters under religious laws administered by religious tribunals there. Never watched Law&Order, maybe? The height of completely uninformed ethnocentricity, here.)

(Of course, there are Canadians who fit the bill)
My point was that these types of laws (family law and the like) should not varie from ethnic group to ethnic group
(Oddly enough, they won't.)

However, it should never supersede the rights granted to EACH indivdual (women included) under the laws of the nation in question
(Oddly enough, it won't.)

Adn I doubt that your "regulating and monitoring system" does a damn bit of good in protecting them.
(A doubter among the crowd that knows nothing about the subject it is speaking of -- Canada, Canadian society and Canadian law.)

She's saying you have to take THIS religious court, even though its practices are repugnant to most non-Muslims or you get rid of all of them.
(I wish one practice that someone found repugnant had actually been named.)

Perhaps the Catholic Church doesn't recognize a divorce. Even if they didn't it shouldn't matter because a civilized society shouldn't be driven by religious institutions.
(And yet no one is compelling the RC Church, acting as an agent of the state, to marry divorced individuals.)

in practice Muslim women will get screwed over big time. Canadian laws do not protect these women from the people in their communities who will treat them like dirt.
(Another Canadian ... who must be aware of some Muslim women being treated that way at present, since the tribunals have nothing to do with what how individuals or communities treat anyone ... and who seems to think that only Muslim communities are misogynist.)

What the fuck are Ontario judges thinking?
(I don't know, and I don't know why we'd ask; the judicial branch of government has nothing to do with this proposal.)

I'm quite simply appalled ... but not shocked, of course.

And back to your own words:

Being against someone raising some testicle-centric, invisible-flying-spaghetti-monster-in-the-sky woo-woo nonsense to the level of provincial law doesn't mean one doesn't "have a clue".

Perhaps not, but characterizing the Ontario proposal as you have done just might.

I don't care if it's based on the Quran, Torah, Bible or the menu at Vinnie's: it does not belong in provincial law, especially if it treats women like chattel.

And I don't particularly care how you might characterize me, I'll add you to the list of people who apparently don't have a clue and yet choose to say rude things about other cultures (by which I mean mine: Canadian) anyhow.

[iverglas]

110. ... and as long as we're discussing ignorance

On a related point, we had things like these:

Well, three cheers for the USA's separation of church and state.

It still needs to go. So do Christian and Jewish tribunals.

They shouldn't allow ANY "religious tribunals."

The point is that chruch and state need to be seperate even here in Canada.

Does no one, even in the great nation to the south where these phrases are learned at the grade one teacher's knee, know what "separation of church and state" MEANS?

It means that the state is not permitted to interfere in the practice of religion, by regulating it, prescribing it, proscribing it, favouring or disfavouring it, etc. etc.

Well, duh. Let's all open our eyes, now.

If the state PROHIBITED people from settling their private disputes by applying the rules that their religion directs them to live by, what might the state be doing?

If two Muslim businesspeople had no option, for settling a business dispute, but to go to court, the state would be interfering in their practice of their religion, because their religion directs them to settle disputes in a particular way. Offering a businessperson, who had been, say, cheated out of payment for a service, no choice but to swallow the loss (and perhaps go bankrupt?) or act contrary to his/her religious beliefs is, in modern rights theory, a violation of that person's right to freedom of religion.

If there is no overriding reason to deny such people the opportunity to settle their disputes according to the rules they choose, be they rules prescribed by their religion or by the law of some other jurisdiction or by a union-management collective agreement or whatever, then the state has no basis for interfering.

There IS an issue. There IS the question of whether there is an overriding reason not to permit the use of religious "law" as the rules applied in an arbitration. It arises particularly in family law matters, because of the possibility of oppression and exploitation.

That issue arises NOT only in respect of Islam. It very definitely arises in respect of Judaism, just for starters. Has no one here ever heard of a get?? Ask google!! In about a minute, you should have all the information you need to persuade you that the practice of Jewish men refusing to agree to a "get" -- a religiously-ordered divorce -- when his wife divorces him under public law (which a woman may not do under Jewish religious law) should be outlawed, because of the coercion and exploitation that women who want a "get" are subject to and because of the ostracism they will endure if they remarry without a "get", for instance.

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/get_law1.html
Heh, cute; it may be that physical force may be used against a husband to compel the giving of a get, under Jewish "law" ("law", because "Jewish law" is no more law in the US than Shari'a would be in Ontario).

http://www.ukar.org/martin/martin12.html
Some of the, er, disadvantages women suffer under Jewish religious law, including examples in New York State.

But these people choose their religions. Jewish women, for instance, KNOW what the situation is regarding religious divorce. WE can't change the rules of THEIR religion. WE can't stop THEIR communities from ostracizing them. WE can't prevent THEIR husbands from withholding a "get" as a bargaining chip to coerce them into giving up custody, abandoning a support or property claim, etc. WE can only attempt to DISSUADE them from doing so.

Although ... interestingly, Canada has enacted legislation to protect women in such situations. (Divorce is under federal jurisdiction here; I have an idea that such legislation has been proposed or enacted in some US state jurisdictions, but don't know details -- yes, New York, e.g., has indeed enacted legislation to prevent a husband who refuses a "get" from obtaining a civil divorce.) In 1990, this section was added to the Act:

21.1 (2) In any proceedings under this Act, a spouse (in this section referred to as the "deponent") may serve on the other spouse and file with the court an affidavit indicating

... (c) the nature of any barriers to the remarriage of the deponent within the deponent's religion the removal of which is within the other spouse's control;

(d) where there are any barriers to the remarriage of the other spouse within the other spouse's religion the removal of which is within the deponent's control, that the deponent

(i) has removed those barriers, and the date and circumstances of that removal, or

(ii) has signified a willingness to remove those barriers, and the date and circumstances of that signification;

(e) that the deponent has, in writing, requested the other spouse to remove all of the barriers to the remarriage of the deponent within the deponent's religion the removal of which is within the other spouse's control;

... (g) that the other spouse, despite the request described in paragraph (e), has failed to remove all of the barriers referred to in that paragraph.

(3) Where a spouse who has been served with an affidavit under subsection (2) does not

(a) within fifteen days after that affidavit is filed with the court or within such longer period as the court allows, serve on the deponent and file with the court an affidavit indicating that all of the barriers referred to in paragraph (2)(e) have been removed, and

(b) satisfy the court, in any additional manner that the court may require, that all of the barriers referred to in paragraph (2)(e) have been removed,

the court may, subject to any terms that the court considers appropriate,

(c) dismiss any application filed by that spouse under this Act, and

(d) strike out any other pleadings and affidavits filed by that spouse under this Act.

That's all that the SECULAR authorities can do -- refuse to grant an individual, who is using religious rules to coerce or manipulate or exploit the other party, access to the secular courts for his/her own claims against the other party, whether to obtain a divorce or to obtain other relief in a divorce.

See what I might be meaning about ethnocentricity? For some reason, Canada is depicted as some backward, negligent nation in which nasty foreign men are to be permitted to exploit and coerce their wives, with violence if necessary, with the approval of our governments and courts. And yet, Muslim women are far from the only ones who are disadvantaged by religious rules, and Muslim religious tribunals are far from the only ones that apply rules that disadvantage women, and Canada acted more promptly than New York State to counter a particularly egregious example of such behaviour ... that had nothing to do with Muslims.


You may now add me, DUer since 2001, somewhat over 11,000 posts ahead of you at present, to your own "DUers I'd most like to have a drink with" list, or go hang out and say nasty things about me with all the folks at the various places on the net where folks who get ulcers when they think about ultra-left, ultra-feminist, ultra-internationalist moi hang out.

Cripes, as critical as I am of things that the US does, I never actually say things like

In my opinion, no religious tribunal has as place in Canadian law.

about how people in the US should arrange their own legal order ... not least because I actually am better informed about things USAmerican that I choose to talk about in public than to say such silly things.

Of course, if you wanted to actually read what was in the post of mine you responded to, and explain why you're still saying things like that after doing so, there's always the possibility that we could discuss something. Unless I'm just a troll.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

120. to sum up our differences

To sum up our real differences: you think that all particpants in such religious tribunal do so "voluntarily" and I don't.

What I think is based on knowledge and fact, and what you think appears to be based on something quite different.

That's apart from the fact that you have falsely characterized what I have said, since I have never said any such thing, and you have no other way of knowing what I think that you could be drawing on for this conclusion.

I also direct what I say to things that are relevant, as a general rule, and what you have just said does not appear to be relevant to any point in issue.

I already stated my position about the inclusion of any religion into Canadian Family Law -- not just Islam. Citing other religions and "criminal law" is irrelevant and speaks more about you than me.

Too bad, when you're speaking about me, you aren't actually speaking about anything I've said, so far as I can tell.

It really doesn't matter a pinch of poop what your position about "the inclusion of any religion into Canadian Family Law" might be, since

(a) no religion is being included in Canadian family law
and
(b) the fact is that adherents of some religions are currently permitted to enforce decisions made in accordance with the rules of their religion, while others are not.

You see how you have failed to direct what you said to any point in issue?

You mistakenly think that I am an American. You are wrong. I am a Canadian Permanent Resident since 1991, happily living in downtown Toronto near St. Jamestown. Your anti-American slurs are misplaced (but awfully telling).

I'm failing to see where I indicated that I thought you were USAmerican ... but I guess if I did think or say that, I was right.

And your scurrillous characterization of what I said, without quoting anything that qualifies for that characterization, is just argument against the speaker, and of no never mind.

You have over 11,000 posts ahead of me at present. Whoop-de-fricking-do.

Yup. And you had suggested that I was a troll. 11,000 posts over four years will be pretty good evidence to the contrary, I'd say, which is why I brought them to your attention ... so that, having acquired the needed knowledge, you could withdraw the allegation as is called for in civil discourse, and heck, maybe even apologize, as is called for in polite discourse. But you can pretend not to know that if you like.

Thanks for the correction or Dictionary Flame about my use of "presumptive". You are absolutely right that I should have used the word "presumptuous" instead. I chose the wrong euphemism for "an asshole".

And now my post will stay, and yours will go, but live on here in infamy nonetheless.

But heck, if you ever want to present a fact or argument that is relevant to the discussion, and in particular to anything I've said, y'all c'mon back now, y'hear?

And doncha worry about my time. I've got loads.

[iverglas]

122. thank you, btw

"Wow, you put a lot of effort into those responses..."

Yes, I do, and your recognition of that is appreciated. Of course, it isn't really *a lot* of effort, since I already know most of what I'm saying and I type really really fast and accurately. Occupational hazards, both factors.

But I do put some little effort into them, at least, because I believe that this is the decent thing to do

when one is speaking/writing to other people, out of respect for the listener(s)/reader(s), and

when one is speaking about public issues that involve other people's rights, freedoms, and interests, out of respect for the people whose rights, freedoms and interests might be affected by any influence I might have on decisions in their regard.

Nice to know someone notices.

Of course, if anyone had thought that s/he was the first to comment on time, pixels, bytes, bandwidth, and perhaps thought that such commentary was going to bite to the bone ... well, sorry.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

121. Religious arbitration bodies,

:party:

[Spiffarino]

134. I just don't see the problem

As long as they are adhering to Canadian law what's the difference? Let them practice their religion in the context of a constitutional democracy. Arbitration or mediation generally works far better than the legal system. And, if one of the parties doesn't want to go through the Sharia mediation process, they can go to court same as anybody else.

I see this as an issue of religious liberty. If they want to take Sharia law to the extreme and cut off limbs and heads they should move to a country like Saudi Arabia. If they want to practice Islam freely under a more humane legal system, why stop them?

[Maple]

136. THE ARGUMENT IS OVER FOLKS

Premier McGuinty has decided to rescind the original NDP act of 1991 which allowed it, effectively cutting out Jews and Christians as well.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/09/09/sharia-protests-20050909.html