| Submit your comments on this article |
| Great White North |
| Will Canada introduce Sharia law? |
| 2004-08-27 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #48 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Jewish Beit Din only has jurisdiction over religious matters, including religious marriage and divorce, but even then is subject to US/Canadian civil and criminal law A jewish beit din, IIUC, has jurisdiction over any disputed matters covered by halacha (jewish law). Halacha covers the full range of civil matters, including torts, commercial transactions, etc. If two halacha observant jews have a dispute over a civil matter, it would be appropriate for them to go to a bet din to resolve it. I have only heard of this being done by Ultra orthodox Jews, and then im not sure how consistently. Of course you could do this without a formal arbitration agreement - you could just agree orally to follow the bet dins ruling, although in that case youd have problems if the other guy proved faithless and went to civil court after losing in the bet din. You ARE correct that in general halacha requires acknowledgement of the authority of civil law. This is called "dina de malchuta dina" IE the law of the state IS law - the rabbis wanted Jews to live in peace with their gentile neighbors and didnt want them to violate civil law. Ergo lets say a jewish man enters a civil marriage with a gentile woman, and then without getting a civil divorce, wants to marry a jewish woman - he cant, even though halacha alone would allow it. On the other hand the principle is used only restrict someone, NOT to grant them rights they otherwise wouldnt have - eg just cause a jew has a civil divorce from the jewish spouse, doesnt allow them to remarry without a halachic divorce (though some REFORM rabbis said precisely that it did - one of the less learned things that even Reform rabbis have ever said :) ) Polygamy is forbidden to all ashkenazic jews since 1000 CE, per the decree of R. Gerson. Theres a ritual that allows one to forego the levirate marriage you describe. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 3:10:40 PM |
| #47 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Jewish Beit Din only has jurisdiction over religious matters, including religious marriage and divorce, but even then is subject to US/Canadian civil and criminal law A jewish beit din, IIUC, has jurisdiction over any disputed matters covered by halacha (jewish law). Halacha covers the full range of civil matters, including torts, commercial transactions, etc. If two halacha observant jews have a dispute over a civil matter, it would be appropriate for them to go to a bet din to resolve it. I have only heard of this being done by Ultra orthodox Jews, and then im not sure how consistently. Of course you could do this without a formal arbitration agreement - you could just agree orally to follow the bet dins ruling, although in that case youd have problems if the other guy proved faithless and went to civil court after losing in the bet din. You ARE correct that in general halacha requires acknowledgement of the authority of civil law. This is called "dina de malchuta dina" IE the law of the state IS law - the rabbis wanted Jews to live in peace with their gentile neighbors and didnt want them to violate civil law. Ergo lets say a jewish man enters a civil marriage with a gentile woman, and then without getting a civil divorce, wants to marry a jewish woman - he cant, even though halacha alone would allow it. On the other hand the principle is used only restrict someone, NOT to grant them rights they otherwise wouldnt have - eg just cause a jew has a civil divorce from the jewish spouse, doesnt allow them to remarry without a halachic divorce (though some REFORM rabbis said precisely that it did - one of the less learned things that even Reform rabbis have ever said :) ) Polygamy is forbidden to all ashkenazic jews since 1000 CE, per the decree of R. Gerson. Theres a ritual that allows one to forego the levirate marriage you describe. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 3:10:40 PM |
| #46 TW - Jewish law of course does cover the entire range of civil law. AFAIK only a few Ultraorthodox jews will actually use a bet din in a normal business conflict. B - Suicide is of course illegal in the US and a contract to perform an illegal act is invalid. giving up your share of an inheritance is NOT illegal. RC - there is a violent movement to establish full Jewish law in place of secular law (IE not JUST family law) - its called the Kahanists. However AFAIK they are only interested in doing this in Israel, they are a tiny minority compared to larger movements in the Islamic world, and most of their violence has been focused on other issues. So broadly you are correct, though a quibble could be made. Certainly the general rule in the diaspora is "dina de malchuta dina" the law of the (gentile) state IS law - thus you cant as a general rule use a jewish law as the basis for violating a secular one. Ergo if I have a Jewish divorce, but NOT a civil one, and civil law REQUIRES a civil divorce, it would be improper to remarry. However this does NOT mean it would be wrong to lobby for civil law to be changed to acknowledge a Jewish divorce (as in the middle ages, when most jewish communities were legally autonomous - of course most jews DONT want to go back to the Jewish status of the middle ages) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 2:00:47 PM |
| #45 TW - Jewish law of course does cover the entire range of civil law. AFAIK only a few Ultraorthodox jews will actually use a bet din in a normal business conflict. B - Suicide is of course illegal in the US and a contract to perform an illegal act is invalid. giving up your share of an inheritance is NOT illegal. RC - there is a violent movement to establish full Jewish law in place of secular law (IE not JUST family law) - its called the Kahanists. However AFAIK they are only interested in doing this in Israel, they are a tiny minority compared to larger movements in the Islamic world, and most of their violence has been focused on other issues. So broadly you are correct, though a quibble could be made. Certainly the general rule in the diaspora is "dina de malchuta dina" the law of the (gentile) state IS law - thus you cant as a general rule use a jewish law as the basis for violating a secular one. Ergo if I have a Jewish divorce, but NOT a civil one, and civil law REQUIRES a civil divorce, it would be improper to remarry. However this does NOT mean it would be wrong to lobby for civil law to be changed to acknowledge a Jewish divorce (as in the middle ages, when most jewish communities were legally autonomous - of course most jews DONT want to go back to the Jewish status of the middle ages) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 2:00:47 PM |
| #44 TW - Jewish law of course does cover the entire range of civil law. AFAIK only a few Ultraorthodox jews will actually use a bet din in a normal business conflict. B - Suicide is of course illegal in the US and a contract to perform an illegal act is invalid. giving up your share of an inheritance is NOT illegal. RC - there is a violent movement to establish full Jewish law in place of secular law (IE not JUST family law) - its called the Kahanists. However AFAIK they are only interested in doing this in Israel, they are a tiny minority compared to larger movements in the Islamic world, and most of their violence has been focused on other issues. So broadly you are correct, though a quibble could be made. Certainly the general rule in the diaspora is "dina de malchuta dina" the law of the (gentile) state IS law - thus you cant as a general rule use a jewish law as the basis for violating a secular one. Ergo if I have a Jewish divorce, but NOT a civil one, and civil law REQUIRES a civil divorce, it would be improper to remarry. However this does NOT mean it would be wrong to lobby for civil law to be changed to acknowledge a Jewish divorce (as in the middle ages, when most jewish communities were legally autonomous - of course most jews DONT want to go back to the Jewish status of the middle ages) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 2:00:38 PM |
| #43 TW - Jewish law of course does cover the entire range of civil law. AFAIK only a few Ultraorthodox jews will actually use a bet din in a normal business conflict. B - Suicide is of course illegal in the US and a contract to perform an illegal act is invalid. giving up your share of an inheritance is NOT illegal. RC - there is a violent movement to establish full Jewish law in place of secular law (IE not JUST family law) - its called the Kahanists. However AFAIK they are only interested in doing this in Israel, they are a tiny minority compared to larger movements in the Islamic world, and most of their violence has been focused on other issues. So broadly you are correct, though a quibble could be made. Certainly the general rule in the diaspora is "dina de malchuta dina" the law of the (gentile) state IS law - thus you cant as a general rule use a jewish law as the basis for violating a secular one. Ergo if I have a Jewish divorce, but NOT a civil one, and civil law REQUIRES a civil divorce, it would be improper to remarry. However this does NOT mean it would be wrong to lobby for civil law to be changed to acknowledge a Jewish divorce (as in the middle ages, when most jewish communities were legally autonomous - of course most jews DONT want to go back to the Jewish status of the middle ages) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 2:00:38 PM |
| #42 TW - Jewish law of course does cover the entire range of civil law. AFAIK only a few Ultraorthodox jews will actually use a bet din in a normal business conflict. B - Suicide is of course illegal in the US and a contract to perform an illegal act is invalid. giving up your share of an inheritance is NOT illegal. RC - there is a violent movement to establish full Jewish law in place of secular law (IE not JUST family law) - its called the Kahanists. However AFAIK they are only interested in doing this in Israel, they are a tiny minority compared to larger movements in the Islamic world, and most of their violence has been focused on other issues. So broadly you are correct, though a quibble could be made. Certainly the general rule in the diaspora is "dina de malchuta dina" the law of the (gentile) state IS law - thus you cant as a general rule use a jewish law as the basis for violating a secular one. Ergo if I have a Jewish divorce, but NOT a civil one, and civil law REQUIRES a civil divorce, it would be improper to remarry. However this does NOT mean it would be wrong to lobby for civil law to be changed to acknowledge a Jewish divorce (as in the middle ages, when most jewish communities were legally autonomous - of course most jews DONT want to go back to the Jewish status of the middle ages) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 2:00:22 PM |
| #41 TW - Jewish law of course does cover the entire range of civil law. AFAIK only a few Ultraorthodox jews will actually use a bet din in a normal business conflict. B - Suicide is of course illegal in the US and a contract to perform an illegal act is invalid. giving up your share of an inheritance is NOT illegal. RC - there is a violent movement to establish full Jewish law in place of secular law (IE not JUST family law) - its called the Kahanists. However AFAIK they are only interested in doing this in Israel, they are a tiny minority compared to larger movements in the Islamic world, and most of their violence has been focused on other issues. So broadly you are correct, though a quibble could be made. Certainly the general rule in the diaspora is "dina de malchuta dina" the law of the (gentile) state IS law - thus you cant as a general rule use a jewish law as the basis for violating a secular one. Ergo if I have a Jewish divorce, but NOT a civil one, and civil law REQUIRES a civil divorce, it would be improper to remarry. However this does NOT mean it would be wrong to lobby for civil law to be changed to acknowledge a Jewish divorce (as in the middle ages, when most jewish communities were legally autonomous - of course most jews DONT want to go back to the Jewish status of the middle ages) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 2:00:22 PM |
| #40 Rafael, Knowing you are from Poland, I almost wrote you a follow up before your response. But I had to leave the office. Eastern Europe's subjugation was partly US fault. Though the western allies might have reached Berlin before the Russians, the dividing line was decided at Tehran and Potsdam. As I stated, it is imperative for the citizens to fight, and it imperative for the US to provide them the means. They are linked. It is stupid to expect men to fight tanks and airplanes with nothing. The Poles fought with what they had and were instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Empire. By agreeing to the division of Europe, the US sold out Eastern Europe. And yeah, Poland is one of the few countries in Europe whose bravery I respect. I am directing my anger at those who easily gave up their counties and flee to the sheltering arms of the west. The US and other western countries makes it easier for these people since they know we will take them in. But in the long run, it is a losing propostion for the US since we take on the burden and costs of containing or fighting them. Iran's regime gave up (Carter also did nothing to back the Shah) in the wake of religious protest and now 1 million Iranians have fled and live the the US. How many others live in Canada and Europe? That's bullshit. They had the weapons and soldiers, and upper and middle classes who knew what Khomemei was up to. They listened to his sermons. Instead they let a tyrant take over, oppress, pillage and ruin the country, and waste a million lives stupidly trusting in Allah instead of sound generalship. When they found their lives inconvenienced, instead of fighting to prevent or later overthrow the tyranny, they fled to the west. This has left the field wide open for the mullahs to attack the US and the west, now forcing the US to overthrow them. The butcher's bill to do this may require under a few hundred thousand dead, or it may require millions dead. Thanks a lot you cowardly fleeing Persian aholes. Cuba's corrupt government was overthrown by a band of guerillas. The Now 20-30% of the Cuban population has fled to the US. Bullshit. If that many can risk their lives to flee, then they can risk their lives to fight for democracy in Cuba. If they don't want to, then they can go live in Haiti. Round them up, train them, and counter invade. There's no way a thug regime can survive if 10% of the population rises up and is supplied with weapons. But hey the Americans just to the north live a lot better and don't do that oppression thing man (Tommy Chong voice). In the near future, refugees will be streaming out of Venezuela. Don't let them settle in the US. Organize and arm them to take back their country from Chavez and his Cuban and Muslim thugs. Same for the Philipines in 2 or 3 decades. Any people who allow (or desire) their country fall under fundamentalist Islam can either rot or fight to overthrow it. Just don't expect to come to the US and preach that crap. So back to the original topic. If Canada falls, whose fault is it? What obligation do other countries have to take those who no longer want to live there? What will happen if America decides it is no longer worth fighting and falls. Who will be left to take us in? Looks like Americans don't have the option of quitting and fleeing. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-08-27 7:03:00 PM |
| #39 On reread, that doesn't sound good. I'm talking about inheritance... :) |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-08-27 6:16:12 PM |
| #38 #s34-37-Thanks. I'm getting a whole new take on why Muslim women really support suicide bombings-no husband, no brothers, no uncles, no sons....hmmmm! |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-08-27 5:49:56 PM |
| #37 #30-Jules 187 A Islamic wife might get money from inheritance, if she has no brothers, that is. . . |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-08-27 5:28:32 PM |
| #36 I'm guessin' the wimmin can keep only the change they find in the back seat of the car, the front seat bein' haram and all... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-08-27 5:21:44 PM |
| #35 Who gets to look under the seat cushions of the couch, huh, Abu? Everybody knows this is the entrance to the parallel universe for valuables. Only socks go there via the dryer, pfeh. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-08-27 5:18:37 PM |
| #34 Jules: Moslem women are allowed the change from the male shaheeds pockets of death. The takings from the infidel washer and dryer are also allowable. |
| Posted by: Abu Soros 2004-08-27 5:07:00 PM |
| #33 Immigration is a complex and touchy subject. People here bring up some good points and their concerns for the most part are valid: make a difference where you're at The good news is that immigration is a vetting process in itself. Some people expect to live like kings, become disillusioned rather quickly and return to whence they came. The ones that stay are usually hard working, skilled, and become prosperous. I said usually because some new arrivals get hooked on various welfare programs and stay there for the rest of their lives. But there is a worse form of immigrant yet: they stay, become relatively prosperous, but for various reasons they despise their adopted home and long for the old country and the tyrannical regime. This is the one that gets my blood boiling when I meet them personally. if you can improve things in the "old country", even better Depends on what you mean by improve. If this means being a source of information, humanitarian support, and an advocate of democracy, peace and freedom, then that's fine. If by improve you mean that uncle Zbigniew can drive a new BMW thanks to the donations he receives from his brother who lives in the west, then that's a whole different story. You have no idea how much money flows east from people who support their families in the old country. Money that could have been spent here. I have nothing against supporting an ailing grandma living on her own, but I know of cases where entire families are supported from money earned here. Again, this is a far more complex issue, but consider whether someone here should support an uncle that lost his arm fighting a holy war for a black turbaned holy cleric somewhere. This is not the sort of improvement that should be encouraged :) Allegiance to your new chosen home is the important thing Agreed. Speaking to a lot of recent arrivals here, and to some that have been here a long time....I sometimes wonder. People will say and agree to anything to get the passport, but in the same instance will crap on their new home without hesitation. Unbelievable. OK, enough of this ranting... |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-08-27 2:47:02 PM |
| #32 That is because women's outgoings are less than men's as the man must always support every woman in his family, so it is fair he gets more ," I was told by a chorus of female voices. In Islam whatever money the husband has it is for the family. He has no right to deny it to his wife or children, even if he was a pauper and his wife a millionaire. On the other hand a wife may keep her money. Her husband has no right to touch, or to demand that she spend it on herself. Sounds like a good old fashioned Oklahoma divorce. :oD |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-08-27 1:52:17 PM |
| #31 agreed, Raphael: make a difference where you're at and if you can improve things in the "old country", even better. Allegiance to your new chosen home is the important thing, otherwise you are an agent, not a citizen. From your comments, I'd welcome you as an American |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-08-27 1:47:47 PM |
| #30 Gentle-How does a wife get "her" money? |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-08-27 1:46:38 PM |
| #29 Relax Raphael…we are happy you are here. Legal immigrants are welcome here. What we don’t want is people who come here and then refuse to pledge their allegiance to our laws. We’d be pretty stupid to want that. |
| Posted by: B 2004-08-27 1:42:17 PM |
| #28 I consider those who would rather flee tyranny than fight it as freeloaders. Then I am one of those freeloaders, given your description. Problem is, I don't see any way in which for the past 20+ years I have taken more than I have contributed to my adopted country. You have not considered something: why should I sacrifice my life if no one around me is willing to do the same? Maybe you do not place much value on your own life, but I certainly wish to live a long life, have a family, etc. Secondly, you have no idea how much influence immigrants can have over their old country. Just because someone has fled does not mean that they stopped their battle against tyranny. For one, these people are an important source of information for their families still living in the old country. This is one fundamental method of fighting and debunking propaganda. Granted, this doesn't happen in every case, and immigration policies need to be well thought out. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-08-27 1:35:25 PM |
| #27 That is because women's outgoings are less than men's as the man must always support every woman in his family, so it is fair he gets more," I was told by a chorus of female voices. In Islam whatever money the husband has it is for the family. He has no right to deny it to his wife or children, even if he was a pauper and his wife a millionaire. On the other hand a wife may keep her money. Her husband has no right to touch, or to demand that she spend it on herself. |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-08-27 1:06:37 PM |
| #26 Hmmm…I agree – but only if they have no desire to become Muslim Americans - rather than just Muslims in America. They come here because our country provides them Western freedoms. If you want Sharia, go back and fight for your own country |
| Posted by: B 2004-08-27 1:05:06 PM |
| #25 I realize most people who immigrate to the US (legal and illegal) come first for the economic benefits. I accept that as long they work and contribute to the wealth and strength of the US. I don't support those who go on government assistance and sap the health of America. I consider those who would rather flee tyranny than fight it as freeloaders. They give an easy victory to tyrants for a life of comfort in the west. But eventually the US will have to fight the countries they fled, sapping the wealth and lives of Americans. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-08-27 1:01:03 PM |
| #24 Given the state of things in Canada right now, it is not at all certain that anyone would rein in an out of control Sharia court. the rights of Muslims who do not want to follow Sharia Look at these two statements, and consider the state of gun control in Canada. It might be useful to settle things down if a couple of Totalitarian Wahabist Imams ended up ventilated with a couple of well placed bullets in the name of self-defense (honor Killing Attempts, etc.). The Wahabi Imams there are probably the same as elsewhere. They preach a good game about 72 virgins, but they, themselves prefer a terrestrial lifestyle. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-08-27 12:56:10 PM |
| #23 But I am opposed to granting asylum to those who have lost or fled their countries How about for economic reasons? Sounds like you want to shut down immigration altogether. In that case, Pat Buchanan is your man :) |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-08-27 12:50:58 PM |
| #22 Sorry Raf and Zara, Would love to have you guys in the US because you want to become Americans. But I am opposed to granting asylum to those who have lost or fled their countries. Fight for your country or die. To do otherwise is to tell the world they can let the barbarians take over and Uncle Sam will take care of you. I will be more than happy to send weapons, provide sanctuary while rearming, and even soldiers for those who will fight for democracy, freedom, and their country. For those who flee, nothing. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-08-27 12:39:16 PM |
| #21 Zara: and I'll be outta here in that case. You won't be the only one. There's already a brain drain to the US from Canada. This is something the folks at Immigration and the Liberals are not taking into account. This whole thing boils down to two problematic issues: a) women's rights, and more generally the rights of Muslims who do not want to follow Sharia b) the willingness of the Canadian governments to step in if Sharia law encroaches on, or supersedes Canadian law. We all know the answer to a). I am more worried by part b). Given the state of things in Canada right now, it is not at all certain that anyone would rein in an out of control Sharia court. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-08-27 12:25:19 PM |
| #20 Are Native Americans in Canada entitled to their own legal codes? Funny, I seem to recall here in the Northwest a couple of native americans beat the shait out of an (american) Pizza delivery man. And were able to be tried in tribal 'courts'. They were sentenced to 'exile' to a remote island in Alaska where they were (supposed) to be isolated. I guess they were allowed to have friends visit. Their family would bring food and such. And they would often 'sneak' back onto the mainland for weeks at a time. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-08-27 12:02:01 PM |
| #19 I dunno, this idea of introducing Sharia to Canada seems to me to be ill-advised. If these types like it so much, why aren't they residing in a place where Sharia is already being practiced? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-27 11:57:12 AM |
| #18 Let me be explicit about why I object to establishing ANY type of shariah courts in a Western country: Islamists maintain that the ONLY law a Muslim should obey is Shariah. They explicitly say that Western laws -- the "laws of man" as opposed to the "laws of God" -- are null and void as far as they're concerned. Giving them even the smallest recognition is a concession, and I do not believe we should concede ANY point. I have no problem with Beth Din, because there doesn't seem to be a large movement among Jews that maintains Jews shouldn't be subject to secular laws. There certainly doesn't appear to be a violent movement along those lines. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-08-27 11:11:46 AM |
| #17 Sharia will not work in the US because frankly remedies under Shaira law are commonly known as torts and felonies, and by common law cannot be introduced or applied to the legal system of America. There is too much presumption of women's rights for sharia to even be in the US. The left has some soul-searching to do: They can't embrace Mohammed, sharia and all that that entails without alientating their female constituency. Their ideology is at clear loggerheads with all that sharia entails. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-08-27 11:07:44 AM |
| #16 women are dogs under Sharia law. They are property. They have no rights. LH, you are basically saying that women can sign themselves into slavery. That's nice. |
| Posted by: B 2004-08-27 11:04:52 AM |
| #15 Then I guess, LH, for you it comes down to "it will be up to the Muslim women to either form a union of some kind to challenge Sharia law decisions arrived at by the courts or else change their religious community/sharia law decisions themselves"? LH-You may be right-maybe it is up to the women that willingly subject themselves to sharia law decisions to change their lives for the better. I am sad to note, though, that I have never read anything by you that indicates you recognize something fundamentally wrong in the human condition of Muslim women, certainly nothing that should spoken out against or be worth your time or concern. What is the old saying, "First they came for the Jews and I said nothing..." |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-08-27 10:58:06 AM |
| #14 I haven't had time to read all the comments - but I do want to make one point about this idea of arbitration. Ask yourself this: If a woman is willing to voluntarily sign an agreement, allowing her to be stoned to death, if - in the future unknown to her - she commits adultery...would that be ok? I'm sickened by the left these days. There is no level to which they will not stoop in order to pretend they are "sensitive". Next they will be defending genital mutilation as "cultural diversity". |
| Posted by: B 2004-08-27 10:54:55 AM |
| #13 RC - what routine in the US is to allow someone to write into a contract that any disputes under it must be settled by a designated private entity, like the American Arbitration Association. Does the AAA treat the testimony of men and women differently? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-08-27 10:49:37 AM |
| #12 Cingold, Liberalhawk, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Jewish Beit Din only has jurisdiction over religious matters, including religious marriage and divorce, but even then is subject to US/Canadian civil and criminal law (eg. Jewish law required a childless widow be married to her husband's brother, that the bloodline not be lost, but civil law forbids polygamy, that kind of thing). There is no reason a Sharia court couldn't similarly be set up subject to the laws and courts of Canada. Unlike the Indians, the Muslims are not a native community on reservation land. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-08-27 10:40:59 AM |
| #11 RC - what routine in the US is to allow someone to write into a contract that any disputes under it must be settled by a designated private entity, like the American Arbitration Association. AAA is typically more efficient than the civil courts, and depending on the jurisdiction probably less favorable to consumre plaintiffs. Whether that means its less fair or more fair is obviously a matter of opinion. Its allowed NOT because the state deems it a fair alternative, but because the parties VOLUNTARILY submit to it. Jules - I can stand back and say that workers who dont form a union, or who accept an unfunded pension plan, or work for Walmart are likely to get shafted. If Im going to step back and make judgements like that im going to have to do it for ALL unequal bargaining situations, and not just for muslim women. And I challenge the language that Sharia is "installed" just because people are allowed to voluntarily submit disputes to a religious court. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 10:40:52 AM |
| #10 Are Native Americans in Canada entitled to their own legal codes? How do those codes interact with Canadian laws? If there are different laws, expect the Islamists to complain about the "special treatment" and demand to be allowed to live under the laws In Oklahoma, several Indian tribes have their own courts, they issue drivers licenses, they collect taxes for their own use, they have their own police force; they even have compacts with several states on tobacco taxes and gasoline taxes. They enforce their laws on matters which take place on Indian lands. There are several reasons why sharia won't work and the reasons all boil down to primarily jurisdiction. The operative paradigm in dealing with Indians is that the lands they still retain are theirs to do as they see fit. An imam can't come into the US buy up several hundred square miles of property and declare sharia in effect without consulting local jurisdictions. There is only a single precedent for that and that started the American Civil War. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-08-27 10:18:12 AM |
| #9 LH-I wasn't focusing so much on the technical points, more the big picture. If you stand back and say, "based on what I know about the lives of Muslim women, what I have learned about the history of Muslim women, are they likely to get shafted and return to victimhood status if Sharia law is installed in the Canadian justice system? |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-08-27 10:16:55 AM |
| #8 I fail to see the difference between this and an agreement in a private contract to settle the contract through a private arbitration association, which is ROUTINE in the US. Is it ROUTINE in the US to measure a woman's testimony as only half as valuable as a man's? Is it ROUTINE in the US to rule that every scrap of inherited property goes to the sons? Oh, sure, in Canada it will only be used for civil matters. At least until the Islamists win their next fight -- extending its coverage to criminal matters involving Muslims. Question for Canadians -- Are Native Americans in Canada entitled to their own legal codes? How do those codes interact with Canadian laws? If there are different laws, expect the Islamists to complain about the "special treatment" and demand to be allowed to live under the laws THEY want. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-08-27 10:10:58 AM |
| #7 the answer you want i muslim wives. 1. Im not sure thats universally true (note also i didnt mention Orthodox Jews, and we could get a whole long debate about Orthodox Jewish wives 2. Some on the left would say that some classes of consumers pushed into private arbitration have no history of self-advocacy. My point being if we're going to nullify freedom of contract for muslim wives based on the assertion of no history of self-advocacy, we open up the possibility of nullifying freedom of contract on related grounds for others. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 10:08:36 AM |
| #6 LH-I like your first sentence in #5. One question for you though: Take all the players in your scenarios: Parties in a private arbitration, muslim husbands, muslim wives, reform jews, conservative jews. Which of these groups has no concept or history of self-advocacy? |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-08-27 10:01:22 AM |
| #5 I fail to see the difference between this and an agreement in a private contract to settle the contract through a private arbitration association, which is ROUTINE in the US. And if you think theres pressure from muslim husbands on wives to agree to Sharia which is more favorable to them than civil courts, theres also pressure from businesses on consumers to agree to private arbitration which is more favorable to them. In the arbitration situation we say "youre a free adult, with freedom to contract, if you dont like it dont sign it" mhw - i think youre correct - reform jews dont use bet dins, and conservative Jews rarely use one other than for a divorce or conversion(to Judaism) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 9:44:20 AM |
| #4 I doubt whether 50% of Toronto's jews use the Beth Din. Here are some possible scenarios: 1. Canada establishes Sharia courts. 2a. Courts produce mideast type decisions 3a. Canadian Moslems ignore the Sharia courts. 2b. Courts produce progressive type decisions. 3b. Wahabi Moslems criticize courts as infidels. 2c. Courts produce mostly progressive decisions at first, then harsher and harsher decisions. 3c. Progressive Moslems welcome the earlier progressive decisions, then get worried but by then the Sharia courts have jurisdictional history. Progressive Moslems try to get Canada to protect them from their own Wahabi kinfolk. No luck. Wahabi sharia becomes a new Canadian value. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-08-27 9:28:14 AM |
| #3 The ACLU in the US doesn't hate all religion, just Judaism and Christianity. Given the Canadian penchant for wating to be different Zarathustra don't discount this passing muster. Stranger things have happend. But I know how anti-religion/ignorant of religion my younger Linux friends up in Canada are. They want nothing to do with any state sponsored religious laws or religion. Can't see as I blame them. I don't think this really has legs. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-08-27 3:32:18 AM |
| #2 Sheer idiocy. Once they get their foot into door, it would be hard to close it when they would try to slip in more and more. Within a century or less, Canada would be done over if this comes to pass. ..and I'll be outta here in that case. |
| Posted by: Zarathustra 2004-08-27 3:18:22 AM |
| #1 Mr Ali puts the controversy over his plans down to what he calls post-9/11 Islamophobia. Ye old victim card...always a standard tool to shut down criticism. It is probably true that Canada's neighbour, the United States, would not entertain Mr Ali's vision. Don't count on it. Our Supreme Court justices are becoming increasingly "sensitive" to international legal precedent. Also, the ACLU would love to take on the Sharia law challenge. Fits their mandate to defend the weird, the perverse, and anything that is anti-Christianity. But there are women who speak out in support of Sharia too...In Mr Ali's front room, he introduced me to eloquent and educated Muslim women who accept that Sharia has a bad name because of how it has been interpreted. "This is a chance for us to develop a progressive and tolerant form of Sharia, one that is consistent with 21st Century notions of gender equality," so a female PHD student told me. Good watchwords Ms.[leftwing brainwashed] Muslim Moron..."progressive" and "tolerant". Go for it! Sharia law hurts Muslim masochists like you, not me. "But inheritance law is unfair," I said, "women always get less than men." "That is because women's outgoings are less than men's as the man must always support every woman in his family, so it is fair he gets more," I was told by a chorus of female voices. You can take them out of the ME cesspools but you can't change their love of being dominated by authority figures. Marion Boyd, a lawyer and former feminist activist, ie. NDP socialist flunkey, probably was an affirmative action law school candidate to boot... She hinted strongly to me that the government could not allow Jewish courts and forbid Muslim ones; that would be discrimination. Like I said Ms. Boyd is not too swift. Muslims and Jews may not always be natural allies, but on this they are united. All religious people have the right to settle difficulties according to their religion, the rabbi told me, as he sat in front of a large poster of Jerusalem. I will naturally be accused of anti-semetism by the usual professional victim/bad actors...however, the good rabbi is not too swift like Ms. Boyd. If he cannot see the differences between Judaic law and Sharia law, he is in desperate need of early retirement. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-08-27 2:15:19 AM |