I presume that Meccan authorities don't recognize a slave owner's "property rights" in a slave.

[Boojatta]

In other words, I presume that, today, if a slave owner were so careless as to travel to Mecca with the slave, then:

1. the slave could seek and obtain sanctuary
2. if the owner tried to enforce his or her "property rights" in the slave, then the owner would face a real risk of prosecution for some crime or crimes recognized under the Meccan legal jurisdiction, depending on how much evidence the authorities can gather. For example, the crimes might be called "assault and battery", "uttering threats", or "conspiracy to kidnap", or other names but similar concepts.

Now, my questions are:

First, ignoring historical records and opinions about the past, is it reasonable to postulate a possible connection between what I will call "the unknown truth about the past" and the religion associated with Mecca? If at all times from 1700 to 2008 a presumption as described above was correct, then Mecca compared favorably not only with America, but also with Canada. Unless I'm mistaken, legislation abolishing slavery in Canada didn't come into force until August 1st, 1834 (Technical historical note: what is today called "Canada" was probably called something else in 1834, such as "British North America.")

Second, am I right in making the presumption stated at the beginning of this message?

[Slagathor]

1. The Renaissance Venetian City State does not equal modern Italy

and claiming that the colonies in 1834 = Canada is utter idiocy. Canada has NEVER had slavery.

[MaryCeleste]

2. What was the Canadian position during slave owning times is a slave was brought to Canada

by their master? Were they automatically freed?

[Slagathor]

5. Uh... Canada's position was the last stop on Underground Railroad

hello?!!! did you pass civics class?

[Boojatta]

11. I recall reading that a man escaped from slavery in Canada

and became a free man in a northern state.

[MaryCeleste]

12. Yes I did...and for a while Canada (or what would be CA) allowed/tollerated it (as in the 1600s)

By the mid 1800s its was a automatic freedom. I am curious about the timing of the transition and how they handled bounty hunters etc.. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

Interesting article here about that: http://history.cbc.ca/history/?MIval=EpContent.html&series_id=1&episode_id=8&chapter_id=1&page_id=3&lang=E

[atreides1]

3. You need to check your history

In 1793, the administration of Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe passed the Act Against Slavery in Upper Canada that allowed for gradual abolition: slaves already in the province would remain enslaved until death, no new slaves could be brought into Upper Canada, and children born to female slaves would be freed at age 25. This ensured the eventual end of slavery in Upper Canada, although as it diminished the sale value of slaves within the province it also resulted in slaves being sold to the United States. Some slaves in Upper Canada also ran away south to the free states, thus gaining their liberty. By 1797, courts began to rule in favour of slaves who complained of poor treatment from their owners. These developments were resisted in Lower Canada until 1803, when Chief Justice William Osgoode ruled that slavery was not compatible with British law. This historic judgement, while it did not abolish slavery, set free 300 slaves and resulted in the rapid decline of the practise of slavery. However, slavery remained in Upper and Lower Canada until 1834 when the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act finally abolished slavery in all parts of the British Empire.

[Slagathor]

4. Nice work plagiarizing wikipedia, shame you didn't understand it

UPPER AND LOWER CANADA =/= CANADA

[Pab Sungenis]

6. The nation of Canada, no.

Nor, properly, the Dominion of Canada that preceded it. However, it is accurate when referring to the region that became Canada.

The United States didn't exist, in the eyes of most of the world, until 1783, yet we had slavery going back to 1607.

[Slagathor]

9. Yeah, and when you discuss slavery in the United States

You discuss slavery in the United States during its actual existence. Otherwise you discuss either slavery in the colonies or slavery's transition from colonial America to the United States. These are NOT monolithic and uniform topics... EG what about Rhode Island? what about territories that never had slavery?

[Boojatta]

8. "If at all times from 1700 to 2008 ..." is what's in the Original Post.

Got any info about the slavery-hating and freedom-loving policies in Canada between 1700 and 1793?

[Boojatta]

7. Why is it utter idiocy?

I refer to "Canada" in order to be understood, not in order to make a claim. When did Canada establish independence from the legislative and judicial authority of the UK? If independence is irrelevant, then why is it irrelevant and what are the relevant issues?

[Slagathor]

10. Just because national entities inhabit the same physical landscape

doesn't mean anything. And looking to the past to draw any sort of lasting lesson is a dangerous thing to do. The past only really gives us a flawed knowledge of the past. It doesn't tell us anything about the present or future. All that nonsense you've heard over and over again about "those who... are doomed to repeat it" is actually pretty stupid. For one, we NEVER know what the past really was as its documentation is the product of political structures who we may or may not properly understand and it is always filtered through our political existence.

I'm stating that your question, to a historian, is meaningless.

[Boojatta]

13. Maybe to a historian it's meaningless, but I didn't post in a forum specifically for historians.

If your point is that the period from the year 1700 to the year 2008 is a relatively small amount of time that excludes the first thousand years of Islam and that maybe we shouldn't ignore the first thousand years unless there have been some significant changes to the documents that define Islam or at least significant reinterpretations of the documents that define Islam, then I agree that your point is worth making.

Alternatively, you might argue either that there's no basis for connecting Islam and any kind of law or that there's no legitimate basis for assuming that Mecca has any true connection to Islam.

[Boojatta]

14. Surely they do not merely inhabit the same physical landscape.

Did all the people who were there in 1866 move out and get replaced by new people in 1867?

[Slagathor]

15. I'd say partially, yeah

Serbians are not Yugoslavians, are they?

[Boojatta]

16. Does the truth only give us a flawed knowledge of the truth?

You could have probably expressed yourself better, depending on what you meant. However, I'm wondering why you would preach to me about the need to be cautious in evaluating evidence about the past. Did you happen to notice the following?

First, ignoring historical records and opinions about the past, is it reasonable to postulate a possible connection between what I will call "the unknown truth about the past" and the religion associated with Mecca?

[nacdemocrat18]

17. What?

How can you even discuss this? There is no comparison between the Eastern world and the Western world on the issues of human rights. Even Israel, one of the only "Democracies" in the East has special rules regarding citizenship and voting. Until everyone is equal before the law, which is not a value shared by the East, you cannot even begin to discuss rights less fundamental. Slavery was and is an evil that is still unofficially practiced in the East. There is nothing favorable about the East after they stopped evolving as a culture. When they fell behind the West in basic human rights they never attempted to catch up. Read a little about the Enlightenment in France. Then perhaps you will understand not only where America came from, but where the west left the East behind.

[Boojatta]

18. "Until everyone is equal before the law, which is not a value shared by the East"

If it's not a value shared by "the East" then member nations of the UN that belong to "the East" should openly disavow rights associated with equality before the law that are listed in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.