McGuinty rejects Sharia law

[CHIMO]

Ontario will not become the first Western jurisdiction to allow the use of a set of centuries’ old religious rules called Sharia law to settle Muslim family disputes, and will ban all religious arbitrations in the province, Premier Dalton McGuinty told The Canadian Press on Sunday.

In a telephone interview with the national news agency, McGuinty announced his government would move quickly to outlaw existing religious tribunals used for years by Christians and Jews under Ontario’s Arbitration Act.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough,” he said.

“There will be no Sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.”

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1126457046775&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

Guess that if you don't want to support the method you ain't gonna have the right to have it.

Plain and simple.

[barbaraann]

1. Excellent.

Sharia is a form of terrorism, IMHO.

[CHIMO]

2. Waiting

To hear from the other religious affected groups. Should be interesting.

[noahmijo]

5. Agreed and I don't care if it sounds insensitive

ANY LAW THAT STEMS FROM RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS TERRORISM. PERIOD.


(To be clear, if your argument is "well what about thou shalt not kill" I say well how about we just say "murder is wrong killing is wrong" why do we need religious references in any laws?)

[iverglas]

22. insensitive? Oh, how 'bout nonsensical, irrelevant ...

(To be clear, if your argument is "well what about thou shalt not kill" I say well how about we just say "murder is wrong killing is wrong" why do we need religious references in any laws?)

Oh, how about we just say "adultery is wrong". Got a problem?

Nobody has any authority for anything s/he says is wrong. We just all agree that certain things won't be allowed.

But the main thing is -- what's your point?

Why would you ask "why do we need religious references in any laws" when, in the situation in issue here, THERE WERE NEVER GOING TO BE ANY RELIGIOUS REFERENCES IN ANY LAWS?

Do YOU have any clue what is being discussed?

[noahmijo]

27. My point is that religion or religious references should never be used

as a basis for law or government.

Given the sensitive nature I was just reaffirming that although some religious references such as killing being a sin ect we can all agree on, however it is still silly to have to resort to said religious reference as opposed to simply outlining a doctrine which states that killing or murder is wrong.

So you can take your snooty comments elsewhere I know what the hell I'm talking about.

[iverglas]

28. and why do you keep thinking that this is a point?

My point is that religion or religious references should never be used
as a basis for law or government.

Quite apart from whether anyone might agree with you, why are you making this point here and now?

What does it have to do with this issue?

If all you objectors know so very much about what you're talking about, why won't you share any of that knowledge?

What is it about the proposal under discussion, now abandoned, that you found so offensive?

How 'bout: name one thing.

[noahmijo]

32. Okay lemme break it down to you the way I'd break it down to a 5 year old

I found nothing offensive in the post.

I replied to post to show my agreement that sharia law or ANY religious law should be never be imposed onto a government.

Once again I said in the post that I don't think religious at all should be a basis for law or that any law based on any religious belief should be imposed.

A blanket statement such as the one I made be misinterpreted or deemed "insensitive" to those with strong religious beliefs

At DU we have very religious people here who unlike the cons use their religion in attempt to do good, however nonetheless do not take kindly to any sort of statement that even remotely banishes religion from conversation.

Now put two and two together.

I found nothing offensive. I was just saying how religion should never be a basis for law or governance.

No further discussion of this should be necessary and would make as much sense as cutting peas in half before eating them.

[iverglas]

35. (insert less sarcastic header)

I was just saying how religion should never be a basis for law or governance.

And since no one was saying that religion SHOULD be a basis for law and governance, and since there was no proposal on the table for religion to BE a basis for law and governance, your comment HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE ON THE TABLE.

Accordingly, one looks for other reasons why someone might say something -- since there was NO REASON to say it in relation to the issue on the table.

I'm very sorry if you don't understand any of this. If you don't understand what the proposal on the table was, and if you don't understand why your comments are irrelevant to it. That's unfortunate, if it's the case. But you're the one choosing to talk about it even though you don't understand it, if it's the case.

At DU we have very religious people here who unlike the cons use their religion in attempt to do good, however nonetheless do not take kindly to any sort of statement that even remotely banishes religion from conversation.

Well, that's fascinating. Me, I'm an atheist. So ...

A blanket statement such as the one I made be misinterpreted or deemed "insensitive" to those with strong religious beliefs

the basis on which I find ALL these sorts of statements offensive has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, since I don't have any.

It has to do with two things:

- I find it offensive that anyone would suggest publicly that a province of Canada was about to incorporate rules that disadvantage women into its laws ... let alone rules that allow for the stoning or beating of women

- I find it ... strange ... that so many voices would be raised so loudly about things that the speakers are so ignorant of ... and that the things in question just happen to involve Muslims


Oh, hell. I understand your desire that law not impose religion.

The fact is that most laws will be consistent with, if not identical to, the rules of most religions no matter what we do. Very few religions don't tell their adherents not to kill each other, or steal, or cheat customers.

What laws should not do is tell people that they must organize their *private* affairs in a way that is contrary to their own religions, or that makes them act as someone else's religion says to do when they don't want to.

And the thing is, that's exactly what the laws of Ontario do now to some Muslims.

They require that Muslims organize their private affairs in a way that is *contrary* to their religion (simply going to court for *anything* is contrary to their religion), and *that* is what I would expect to see people who object to religion in laws objecting to.

So the problem is that by making statements about laws not reflecting religion, in this context, you make the situation look like something it isn't.


Edited to make the header less oppositional. ;)

[iverglas]

6. gee

That's quite the statement.

Got something to back it up with?

Know ANYTHING about Shari'a?

[barbaraann]

11. Yup.

I spent a few hours researching it on the web. How do you feel about burying a woman up to her head in sand and stoning her to death for adultery?

[CHIMO]

13. Except

We were going to bury people in snow when it was really, really cold. And then let the polar bears go to work!

How's that for a history lesson that wasn't on the internet.

[iverglas]

15. why the fuck are you STILL asking this bullshit question?

How do you feel about burying a woman up to her head in sand and stoning her to death for adultery?

What the FUCK does this have to do with anything under discussion here?

Why would you even consider portraying a government in Canada -- even a Liberal government -- as even considering permitting such practices?

Why would you portray what that government WAS considering as being even a fifth cousin seven times removed of such practices?

If you have "spent a few hours researching it on the web" how could you possibly still seem so ignorant?

Have you spent any time researching what the Jewish or Christian codes have to say about punishment for various sinful behaviours? Would you drag those scriptures out as an argument against enforcing the decisions of Jewish or Roman Catholic tribunals in respect of a dispute over a property matter? If not, why not? If so, WHY HAVEN'T YOU?

WHY ARE YOU STILL PRETENDING THAT THE ONTARIO PROPOSAL WAS IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE PUNISHMENT OF ANYONE FOR ANYTHING?

You have had every opportunity to learn that there was no such proposal, and yet you keep on acting as if you think there was. It's not just unfathomable, it's inexcusable.

[barbaraann]

16. That can happen under Sharia.

Amina Lawal, 30, has been sentenced to death by stoning - a fate which would involve being buried up to her neck in sand and have rocks thrown at her head. However, the Islamic court has ruled that the penalty cannot be carried out until Lawal has finished breastfeeding her baby daughter, Wasila, which the judge said would not be before January 2004.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,777972,00.html

And the Christian Reconstructionists are trying to put the US under the rule of Old Testament law, with similar results.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ChRecon.html

[CHIMO]

17. Ah'm

Canada is not floating somewhere in the desert. If you take a look at the map of North America, Canada sits north of the United States of America.

We have a rule that governs broadcasting that doesn't allow so called religious bigots to receive tax deductible contributions to front for the government's objectives.

We also try, to the best of our abilities, to limit our contributions to the UN from being a front for the religious groups promoting an "Our Empire" view of the world.

So stop with the crap here, and as the saying goes "go back to the gun dungeon" where the key words are understood and everyone can wrap themselves in the flag and god, while all the while proclaiming separation of church and state.

[barbaraann]

18. The drive toward the brutality of theocracy is insidious.

I speak from experience.

[iverglas]

20. you may speak from experience

but it would be really nice if something you said made sense occasionally.

[barbaraann]

21. It does.

:-)

[CHIMO]

24. How

Come you think that this was about theocracy?

Did you ever think that it might be against a group?

How come you are still around to discuss things if your claim is about being stoned?

If as you say you are against theocracy then why is it allowed without objection or any resistance. It seems to be a key word that is used as long as it only is used against certain groups.

You are making statements that you have assigned to legislation and using analogies that have no relevance.

Further your implied assumption that a set of rules that have evolved over centuries are no good while the Judeo-Christian rules that have been used in the west are not only accepted but it is not even understood that western society and laws reflect these rules and beliefs. Yet you are stating that they are insidious.

[barbaraann]

30. The Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Children of God, etc.

There are many, many examples of religious brutality in history. When you Google for religious abuse you get more than 19 million hits and there are problems all over the world in every religion.

I realize that there is prejudice against certain societal groups that is unfair but my bottom line is human rights for everyone EQUALLY, no matter what a person's religion is.

[CHIMO]

33. Well

I think that we all can agree with that.

And we also can agree that when governments break down and don't represent their people that bad things can come about.

But to take that situation and to attack a system that is trying to help their constituents, one can see that the instigators are turning the tables and perhaps are getting the vulnerable to attack possible solutions.

It seems that everyone is giving a gut reaction to something that is a headline.

I, and I am certain that others who are suggesting that we look at what is happening, are just pointing out that what people think they are seeing is not what is happening.

Now if I am wrong, then it would seem that the situation has not been fully explained, or in fact the basis for the legislation was wrong.

Then we have to go back to the drawing board and fix it. But taking the attitude that religion is bad is not going to solve the problem. This proposed legislation was not about religion.

Recognizing law breakers for what they are and bringing justice to the situation doesn't mean that one is justified to say that religion has no relevance. I am sure that most here want to keep religion and government in separate camps.

But again, this is not about religion.

[iverglas]

19. lord bleeding jeezus

"That can happen under Sharia."


What do you think I am, stupid? Do you think I am unaware of the oppression of women in all the forms it takes in all parts of the world?

What I still want to know is why you, or anyone else, thinks that this is RELEVANT TO THE ONTARIO PROPOSAL.

The Ontario proposal related to the RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES -- ***NOT*** to the punishment of conduct.

The punishment of conduct -- other than in minor matters like highway traffic -- isn't even under the jurisdiction of the government of Ontario. How could the government of Ontario have possibly even considered making law that would permit someone to be stoned to death, when that sort of thing is under federal jurisdiction?

There was NO PROPOSAL for ISLAMIC COURTS in Ontario.

Let's try to get that one into our brains.

There was NO PROPOSAL for
ISLAMIC COURTS in Ontario.

There was NO PROPOSAL for
ISLAMIC LAW in Ontario.

There was a proposal for the decisions of ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS that applied the rules of Shari'a to PRIVATE DISPUTES be made enforceable in the courts.

This DID NOT MEAN that if some rogue clergyperson somewhere decided to issue a ruling that someone should be stoned, the Ontario courts were going to throw up their hands and say "have at it, boys".

What can you people be thinking??????


And the Christian Reconstructionists are trying to put the US under the rule of Old Testament law, with similar results.

NO ONE is trying to put Canada or Ontario OR MUSLIM WOMEN under the rule of any law other than the laws of Canada and Ontario.

I really can't think of any way that any of this could possibly be made any clearer to any of the people who keep saying these bizarrely irrelevant things.

NO ONE would ever have been required, by law, to settle their disputes outside the courts or by any set of rules whatsoever.

NO ONE would ever have been at any risk of being legally stoned to death, for the love of sweet reason.

What agenda could possibly be driving anyone who would keep trying to say that any of this would have been possible?

I'd suggest reading the article that CHIMO linked to, for some possible answers.

[barbaraann]

23. It would be like putting a Ten Commandments monument in a

US Court Building--a tiny step in the wrong direction. There's a reason people are fighting the Ten Commandments monuments and that reason is that the theocrats WILL NOT STOP THERE.

[iverglas]

25. uh ... no it wouldn't

But heck, you can say that an apple is like a football, and nobody can stop you.

It would be like putting a Ten Commandments monument in a
US Court Building--a tiny step in the wrong direction.

No, it wouldn't. It would be much more like preventing people from putting the Ten Commandments in their kitchens, and preventing people from using the Ten Commandments to settle arguments between their children over who gets which piece of cake. In fact, it would be considerably more like that.

What aren't you understanding? Please try to make it clearer, and I'll keep trying to help you.

The Ontario government was not considering putting the rules of Shari'a in Ontario law.

See?

The Ontario government was considering allowing people to resolve their own disputes by applying some of the rules of Shari'a, by allowing them to enforce the decisions that they had agreed to have made.

See?

Maybe if some of you folks who keep saying the bizarre things would just state what you think the Ontario government's proposal was, we could see what the problem is, and help you solve it.

[barbaraann]

26. I understand all of that but I happen to believe that the road to

a brutal theocracy is a slippery slope that should be avoided.

It's not just Islam:
http://www.nospank.net/revalen6.htm

[iverglas]

29. I've run out

I can't think of anything else to say to someone who refuses to address the issue at hand.

[barbaraann]

31. Sorry.

Perhaps I have too visceral a reaction to Sharia because I am a woman. I have the same reaction to the oppression of women by any religion. The Bush administration is trying to destroy women's rights in this country and I know how those rights can slip away in tiny increments and make people who worry look silly.

[Burning Water]

3. This is good news,

indeed. For women, for progressives, and, quite frankly for the Muslims in Ontario.

[CHIMO]

4. Interesting

To find out how this will affect other forms and rules for arbitration.

[Burning Water]

7. Seems like

they will be eliminated, too. That's fine by me.

[CHIMO]

9. I

Am not restricting my comments to religious groups.

My comment refers to all forms af arbitration. That includes decisions that happen in other countries that could and can affect the taxable assets of Canadian corporations.

Sometimes these types of decisions that appear to be obvious come back to bite the ass off the instigators.

Just some thoughts on things. And there are a lot more when Pandora's box has been opened up.

[iverglas]

10. do you have ANY CLUE what you're talking about?

Google "arbitration clause" or something, anything.

The elimination of "other forms and rules for arbitration" would bring much of the business world to a grinding halt.

http://www.adrontario.ca/aboutus.html

[iverglas]

8. and interesting

how someone who is presumably not a Muslim in Ontario seems to know so well what is best for them.

Too bad so few people ever actually bothered to figure out what this is actually all about, but nobody can say you or I didn't try to help them.

And your question

Interesting
To find out how this will affect other forms and rules for arbitration.

is a very good one.


Frankly, if family law was what everyone was so upset about (and NOT ENTIRELY without some valid reason for concern), there's no reason why it could not simply have been excluded from the subject matters for which the decisions made by arbitrators would be enforceable.

The fact is that this arbitration can and undoubtedly will go on, as it has undoubtedly been going on, regardless of what the govt. of Ontario does -- the decisions simply will not be enforceable in the courts. The exact same pressures that may have existed on women, whether from husbands, clergy or the community, will continue to exist. And women who wish to abide by the rules set out by their religions will continue to do so.

[CHIMO]

12. Well

Sometimes, in spite of everything, things can end up being for the better.

Since I don't have a crystal ball I can't see where it will all end up.

But every door that closes, opens up new ones. And if the intent of the original legislation was flawed then one has to come back and have a look at everything again.

So it seems to me that since we all are much more aware of our Canadian Rights legislation it may be time to go back and look at just how things are decided. It could now present a lot of new opportunities.

I read Siddiqui's article this morning before I came to DU, and it seems in retrospect, that he was sort of expecting this decision.

Sharia issue trumps media and McGuinty
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1126302612043&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

[iverglas]

14. good article n/t

[Pierre Trudeau]

34. it seems Siddiqui's wish was granted...

... but perhaps not in the way he expected:

"McGuinty not only has to do the right thing but he has to find the right words to say so, declaring that his Liberal government will not treat one group of citizens any differently than others."

Back to the drawing-board, I guess.

[iverglas]

36. or ... not

not treat one group of citizens any differently than others

So now members of the majority will still be free to settle their disputes in a way that is not inconsistent with their religious beliefs and enforce the outcomes ... and members of some minorities will not.

Yup, there's yer whole problem in a nutshell, eh?

[SixStrings]

37. An example please...

"So now members of the majority will still be free to settle their disputes in a way that is not inconsistent with their religious beliefs and enforce the outcomes ... and members of some minorities will not."


In what way will 'members of the majority' be able to settle their disputes in their own religious context? A few examples please. Are you stating that because their is a penaly for committing murder, the only reason there is that penalty is because of religion? - not common sense?

[iverglas]

38. what are you babbling about?

Are you stating that because their is a penaly for committing murder, the only reason there is that penalty is because of religion? - not common sense?

What in the bleeding hell does that have to do with SETTLING DISPUTES? Is there some reason you want to portray me as having said something I never said? Is there some reason you wouldn't want to know what is being discussed before representing what someone else said about it?

Why would you even SUSPECT that I was stating this? If you didn't suspect that I was stating this, why would you ask me whether I was?

Note that I'm not in any way agreeing with you that "common sense" is the basis of laws -- I'm just saying that I had said nothing on the subject at all. Because it's completely irrelevant to the discussion, once again.


In what way will 'members of the majority' be able to settle their disputes in their own religious context?

I dunno ... why would you ask ME such a question? Maybe because you want to pretend I said something I didn't say?

Here's what I did say -- with some emphasis to assist you:

So now members of the majority will still be free to settle their disputes in a way that is not inconsistent with their religious beliefs and enforce the outcomes ... and members of some minorities will not.

Maybe you weren't aware that it is inconsistent with Muslims' religious beliefs to air their private disputes in public -- which is pretty much what taking them to the courts requires.

If you want to know more, maybe you should lift a finger and educate yourself, at least before speaking about the subject in public -- and certainly before challenging what I've said. The danger of misrepresenting what others say is always high if one doesn't know what they're talking about.

[SixStrings]

39. Why be such an asshole?

for fuck's sake just answer the question. Get off your high horse already. In no way did I deserve a response like that - grow up already.

"Here's what I did say -- with some emphasis to assist you:

So now members of the majority will still be free to settle their disputes in a way that is *not inconsistent* with their religious beliefs and enforce the outcomes ... and members of some minorities will not."

So you are saying that "now members of the majority will still be free to settle their disputes in a way that is *consistent* (double negative) with their religious beliefs and enforce the outcomes ... and members of some minorities will not."

Correct me if I'm wrong (don't bash please, there is a reason I don't have children yet, I don't need to come here and listen to them), it sounds like you are saying that non-muslims have been 'settling their disputes' forever WITH their religious beliefs - and muslims, oh 'minorities', do not have that right? Is that what you are saying?

[iverglas]

40. because I am sick to death

of this issue being misrepresented here at DU and all over the damned world, and of being misrepresented myself as having said bagloads of things I have never said, or as believing bagloads of things there is no reason for anyone to think, let alone say, I believe.

And I am sick to death of people who are totally ignorant about the proposal that was being considered, and in many cases evidently worse than totally ignorant about Islam and Muslims, blabbing away as so many have been doing.

Gander away:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1765381&mesg_id=1765381

So you are saying that "now members of the majority will still be free to settle their disputes in a way that is *consistent* (double negative) with their religious beliefs and enforce the outcomes ... and members of some minorities will not."

What earthly meaning does that "double negative" comment have? There is no double negative in what I said.

Some people will be free to settle their disputes in a way that is consistent with their religious beliefs. Can you explain what your difficulty in understanding that might be? I'll try to help, if you do.

it sounds like you are saying that non-muslims have been 'settling their disputes' forever WITH their religious beliefs - and muslims, oh 'minorities', do not have that right? Is that what you are saying?

Unless I should be reading some omitted words into that -- so that it says:

it sounds like you are saying that non-muslims have been 'settling their disputes' forever in a way that is consistent WITH their religious beliefs - and muslims, oh 'minorities', do not have that right?

then I'd have to say: NO, that is not what I'm saying. Why would you change what I am saying into something else altogether, and say that it sounds like what I am saying?

It is NOT CONSISTENT with Muslims' religious beliefs to make their private disputes public, which is what they must do if they wish to seek binding decisions regarding them under the present system.

It is CONTRARY TO their religious beliefs to air their dirty linen in public.

You apparently don't know this. You should, if you're going to talk about it.

It is not contrary to the majority's religious beliefs, or in any other way offensive to the majority, that they must make their disputes public if they wish to obtain binding decisions regarding them.

There is nothing "good" or "bad" about either belief.

That is ONE ASPECT of what the proposal would have permitted. There are indeed other aspects. But IN THIS ASPECT, Muslims (and anyone whose religious beliefs might be similar on this point) are being treated differently -- since the rules that apply to everyone affect them negatively but do not affect most others negatively.

There are also substantive rules that they adhere to that differ from the majority's, including in the area of family law. Under the proposal, they would have been able to AGREE to have their disputes settled according to those rules. They would not have been REQUIRED to have their disputes settled according to those rules. NO ONE would have been required by law to take their disputes to arbitration rather than to the courts, or to accept any set of rules that they did not agree to.

[Canadian_moderate]

42. Quit beating a dead horse.

Canadians do not support binding religious tribunals to resolve family law decisions.

The will of the majority of Ontarians has been honoured. Now let's put all binding religious tribunals and family family dispute mechanisms on the trash heap of Ontario's legal history.

Good riddance and welcome to equality for all Ontarians.

[iverglas]

43. okey dokey -- if you and your ilk quite misrepresenting me

Canadians do not support binding religious tribunals to resolve family law decisions.

So? Canadians probably don't support pulling the wings off flies, either. Got a point?

The will of the majority of Ontarians has been honoured.

Really? Got some evidence? I mean, does McGuinty have a majority mandate or something?

Or maybe we should govern by opinion poll ...

Now let's put all binding religious tribunals and family family dispute mechanisms on the trash heap of Ontario's legal history.

Yeah, if you can find some, you feel free to do that.

Though dog knows what a "binding religious tribunal" might be, and how you might recognize one if you found it.

Good riddance and welcome to equality for all Ontarians.

And long live ... oh, you know the words to insert here.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

46. ah yes, I'm just an hysterical female

What problem do you have with one (equal) justice system for all Canadians?

I can't imagine ... but I'd sure like to know why you'd still be asking me this bullshit question.

It's funny how in every thread where you disagree, you end up insulting people with your legal jargons and moral superiorty B.S.

Oh look, rational argument. So nice to see.

I'm sorry, but you tend to come off as an arrogant pr*ck. I'm sure many others here on this forum agree with me.

Yes. How too bad that they won't get to see you saying it en direct, as it were.

Most left-leaning and progressive Canadians do not support sharia-like family dispute resolution tribunals or any other religion-based tribunal for that matter.

Hey, here's a clue for you.

Many left-leaning and progressive Canadians do not support abortion, either.

BUT THEY STILL AREN'T WANDERING THE INTERNET DEMANDING THAT WOMEN NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ABORTIONS IF THEY CHOOSE TO.

It's nothing against Islam, but people do not like the impact of religions on our laws.

And hell, it's nothing against Canadian Tire, but I don't like my orange kitchen floor, either. Strange, how I don't have an orange kitchen floor ... but how anybody can string words together with punctuation to make a sentence that someone else might believe contained some element of fact.

[Pierre Trudeau]

47. huh?!?

If some members of a "minority" want to settle their disputes outside the legal system, perhaps by playing rock, paper, scissors, they are still free to do so.

But when it comes to legally-binding arbitration, the rules are the same for everyone. What's wrong with that??

Your argument basically amounts to this: even though everyone is now treated the same, some "minorities" won't like it... and that's so unfair! boo hoo!

As a surrealist, I should insist that whenever I appear in court, the judge must be naked with a pancake on his head, in order to satisfy my sensibilities.

The whole idea of the Law is that there is one law for everyone. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that there should be a different set of laws for each religious group.

[iverglas]

48. Explain, please

But when it comes to legally-binding arbitration, the rules are the same for everyone.

What does this mean? Please illustrate with examples.

Your argument basically amounts to this: even though everyone is now treated the same, some "minorities" won't like it... and that's so unfair! boo hoo!

Well boo hoo to you -- because that argument happens to be precisely the argument recognized in Canadian constitution, law and policy.

Treating everyone the same IS NOT necessarily "equality", and you and a lot of others really ought to know this.

Here's an illustrative example for you: neither women nor men are permitted to claim UI benefits for childbirth. Women and men must be treated equally, therefore nobody gets maternity benefits. Shall I assume that you like the idea?

How 'bout those Sikhs wearing turbans at Legion functions? Guess we'd better put a stop to that one.

And I could, really, go on.

As a surrealist, I should insist that whenever I appear in court, the judge must be naked with a pancake on his head, in order to satisfy my sensibilities.

Or you could just argue for a policy permitting you to submit your disputes to arbitration tribunals composed of naked pancake-decked arbitrators, and then be permitted to enforce their orders.

If certain conditions are met, you won't get any argument from me.

The whole idea of the Law is that there is one law for everyone.

And if you or anyone else could come up with some reason to continue saying this, I'm sure you would have done so by now.

The law permitted some individuals to submit their private disputes to arbitration and to enforce the arbitral awards in the courts. The laws was "for" them, and for no one else.

As CHIMO has observed, we'll have to wait and see who besides those dreadful religious fanatics might find what McGuinty is now proposing to be a tad not to their taste.

The LAW FOR EVERYONE has long permitted people to submit disputes to arbitration, and enforce those orders in the courts. What on earth do you imagine that labour law is all about? just for starters.

[Pierre Trudeau]

49. oh, you're so contrary

Me: But when it comes to legally-binding arbitration, the rules are the same for everyone.

You: What does this mean? Please illustrate with examples.

No examples are required. I was being unabashedly abstract.

But perhaps you should take up your dispute with Premier McGuinty. After all, HE'S the one who said "There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.”

Evidently he thinks that's a significant point. I guess he's not privy to your overwhelmingly superior yet insufferably vague wisdom.

How 'bout those Sikhs wearing turbans at Legion functions? Guess we'd better put a stop to that one.

Well, if you recall, we did exactly that for awhile. Until most people realized that, aside from the odd James Bond movie, few people are actually harmed by hats.

Incidentally, in Quebec, Sikhs are still not permitted to wear their kirpans (ceremonial daggers).


Don't be so disingenuous. Obviously I do understand about minority rights... otherwise my choice of username would be a little strange.

But we DO draw the line somewhere. Would you give the thumbs up to ritual female genital mutilation? Some people do consider that part of their religious tradition. Polygamy is still illegal too... is that a violation of minority rights?

How far do you think I'll get with my campaign demanding that the government recognize my tribunals of naked pancake-bedecked arbitrators for members of my surrealist sect? (I haven't yet mentioned the necessity for yodelling ballerinas to hop in on pogo sticks to pour maple syrup on said arbitrators, in keeping with our ancient traditions).

I'm not entirely sure this is even an issue of minority rights. In theory, arbitration law should be able to accommodate a wide spectrum of cultures and religious backgrounds, but ultimately it has to be subject to one universal legal code. I gather that the point you're trying to make is that such was already the case with the religious-based tribunals. But it's not so crystal-clear to the rest of us.

Ultimately it's probably a matter of perception: the nature of Sharia is poorly understood here, but rightly or wrongly, it is perceived by many as a separate and self-contained body of law. Understandably, a lot of people probably feel uncomfortable with the notion of parallel legal systems for different religious communities. Perhaps the Premier took the easy way out and threw the baby out with the bathwater. I wish I knew more about the fascinating realm of Ontario arbitration tribunals... but I can't say I'm overly surprised by his decision. Either every different religious group should be entitled to their own religious tribunals (including satanists, wiccans and Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterians) or none of them should be. Excluding only Muslims while permitting it for Jews & Christians would be unacceptable, in my estimation.

[Canadian_moderate]

41. Thank God!!! ;o)

This is great news for Canadian equality. The is a huge blow to religious special interest groups who do not respect the concept of one set of laws for ALL CANADIANS.

I love multi-culterism and racial diversity, but I cannot accept that certain religious and ethnic groups feel the need to have their own binding family law tribunals.

Thank you to Quebec for showing Ontario the way to deal with this!

[iverglas]

44. yeah, it would be

The is a huge blow to religious special interest groups who do not respect the concept of one set of laws for ALL CANADIANS.

If you could name one. Wanna name one?

I love multi-culterism and racial diversity, but I cannot accept that certain religious and ethnic groups feel the need to have their own binding family law tribunals.

And they, or anybody else, should care what you can or can't accept ... why was that?

And you choose to ignore every other aspect of the proposal because ... why is it?

You "love" 'em all as long as they do stuff you like. I feel a song coming on ...

Artist/Band: Ochs Phil
Lyrics for Song: Love Me, I'm a Liberal
Lyrics for Album: There But for Fortune

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

[Lithos]

50. Locking

This has become too inflammatory and personal.

Lithos
States Forum Moderator