(Ontario Muslims say) Sharia has no place here

[TO Kid]

Outrageous as it is, former NDP attorney-general Marion Boyd wants sharia law introduced into Ontario to resolve Muslim domestic disputes.

It's hard to think of anything with a greater potential for misery and heartache to women than sharia law. Yet it is a step closer to becoming reality in Ontario.

{...}

He's not so concerned about abuses here (there will be, but that's human nature and inevitable) but is concerned that Ontario's decision would be trumpeted throughout the Islamic world as vindication and acceptance of sharia.

"It will be presented as Canada adopting sharia law -- not just a segment of it, but all of it. And it will be used by militants as propaganda to expand its extreme principles."

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2004/12/21/792787.html

Might seem counterintuitive at first, but makes sense if one considers that most Muslims came here to get away from Islamic law.

[Ms. Clio]

1. Never let a day pass without a slam on Islam

The world might stop spinning if you do.

And this Peter Worthington sounds suspiciously like an American wing nut.

Here's a sample from one of his earlier columns, about the soldier seeking asylum in Canada:

Sounding like a poor man's John Kerry coming home after the Vietnam War and slagging U.S. soldiers still fighting, Mr. Massey has described incidents in Iraq that have been publicized before -- shooting up civilian cars that didn't stop at checkpoints, shooting civilians with their hands raised, etc. Mandatory brutality.

Kerry parlayed his post-Vietnam, anti-war diatribes into a seat in the U.S. Senate, and then used his heroism in that war as a reason why Americans should elect him president and commander-in-chief.

(snip)

The indignities by some American guards on prisoners at Abu Ghraib don't compare with the meat hooks and human shredders that Saddam Hussein introduced at that prison when he was tyrant-in-chief.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2004/12/10/775738.html

So this guy thinks that the TORTURES inflicted at Abu Ghraib were simply "indignities?" And he's still pushing the bullshit Purple Plastic People Shredder stories. I'm surprised he didn't throw in the babies tossed out of incubators, too.

I think his opinion on any subject is suspect and probably worthless.

Thanks for posting another right-wing nutter here.

[CHIMO]

2. How Do You Solve the Problem of Sharia in Canada?

This topic was discussed earlier.

Seems to have been clarified for those who wish to understand what is actually happening. There always seems to be those that want to make cheap shots.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=190x973

The paper is to the right. Always seems to have quick simple solutions to everything.

[Ms. Clio]

3. Thanks for the link--I did my own research, too

It's only a "problem" to those who insist on calling it "sharia law."

The practice would be permitted under the Arbitration Act, which allows religious groups to resolve civil family disputes within their faith, providing everyone gives their consent and the outcomes respect Canadian law and human rights codes.

(snip)

But Syed Mumtaz Ali, who made his presentation to Boyd on behalf of the institute, argues that freedom of religion as guaranteed under Canada's Constitution means not only freedom to practise and propagate religion but also to be able to be governed by one's religious laws in all aspects of one's life — spiritual as well as temporal, he noted.

Ali, a Canadian-trained lawyer, said the Muslim tribunal would use and apply only those provisions of the sharia, which do not clash or conflict with any Canadian law, particularly the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The use of the word "sharia" is a misnomer, he added.

"I must emphasize that we cannot, simply cannot, permit anyone to designate any Muslim arbitral tribunal as `sharia tribunal.' The name `The Muslim Court of Arbitration' (Darul Qada) is a registered business name. This was so registered primarily for the purpose of legally making it obligatory upon all not to call it `sharia Court,'" he explained in an e-mail response to the Star.

http://muslim-canada.org/boydstaraug282004.html

On edit: Sorry, I think I misread your post.

Is Peter Worthington considered a right wing columnist?

[CHIMO]

6. I Can't Say

If he is considered right wing as I don't read much of the Sun. I occasionally see an article from him in a post.
I would think that one could assign his work to the right of the spectrum.

Most of the right wing nut articles are in the Post. So I would think that he would be at least a bit left of that.

I have to leave it to someone else for their analysis of his articles.

[Ms. Clio]

8. His attacks on John Kerry were pretty slimy

I thought I was reading one of our homegrown rightwingers.

He is clearly trying to whip up hysteria about domestic abuse and stonings, etc., even though it is clear that nothing contrary to Canadian law could be implemented by these tribunals.

[CHIMO]

12. Didn't See The Kerry Articles

But for answers to your other question, I think that they are answered in posts 7 and 9.

[Ms. Clio]

15. I see them, thanks!

On edit: See 1 for a link to at least one column that slimes Kerry.

[TO Kid]

4. What I found interesting about it

This was not the only article to point out that most of the opposition to sharia law is coming from Muslims, and there was a lot of talk about it on local radio here. It does reinforce my belief that most Muslims here are not radical Islamists and came here to get away from it.

[Ms. Clio]

5. Quit calling it "sharia law"

That is completely inaccurate, and only shows the dishonesty of your position.

As usual.

[Jesus H. Christ]

10. Wouldn't be out of character.

nt

[Ms. Clio]

13. Nope--it would be completely consistent n/t

[Minstrel Boy]

7. So you're quoting Peter Worthington now?

Worthington is Canada's premier old school, far-right wingnut columnist.

:eyes:

[Minstrel Boy]

9. A more enlightened view from the Toronto Star:

There is room in Canada for religious arbitration and secular law, says Raheel Raza


Within 24 hours of the report being released, I've heard a slew of uninformed and biased ideas ranging from calling anyone in favour of religious arbitration a fundamentalist, to labelling Marion Boyd a white racist. The groups opposing the establishment of a Muslim tribunal have effectively fanned the flames of Islamophobia.

Since the hot debate on the establishment of a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal started almost a year ago, I've been concerned about where this is taking us.

Everywhere I've been invited to speak on Islam, concern has been expressed about Canada supporting a Taliban-like regime. The fact of the matter is that Ismaili Muslims have been successfully using arbitration and mediation for some time, just like our counterparts in the Jewish and Catholic communities.

The public doesn't focus on the fact that this is not about sharia but about religious freedom.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1103628501920&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

[Minstrel Boy]

11. "We're being very clear: This is not sharia law," Ms. Boyd said.

Under Ontario's Arbitration Act, which Ms. Boyd introduced in 1991 when she was Attorney-General in Bob Rae's NDP government, people can agree to bypass the courts to seek arbitration "based on a shared set of religious values and rules that may be different than Ontario law."

But Ms. Boyd stressed that cultural groups should not be allowed to stop people from having access to laws and court processes available to all. And she said any arbitrator would have to respect provincial and federal laws, regardless of the religious principles being used to guide the dispute.

"We are talking about the use of Muslim principles with respect to family law, within the context of Ontario and Canadian law."

Ms. Boyd also called for additional safeguards to protect people from being forced into religious-based arbitration, including a recommendation for every party to have independent legal advice before agreeing not to take the case to court.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041221/SHARIA21/TPNational/Canada

[Ms. Clio]

14. Thanks for the clarification

I knew there was a lot more to this story.