Article

2004-06-10 Great White North

Protest rises over Islamic law in Ontario

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2004-06-10 9:48:10 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 On Sat., June 26 at 7: 30 p.m., the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada will hold a public meeting at Orial Community Centre, 2975 Don Mills Rd. On Sept. 8, a series of international demonstrations will be held in cities across Canada, and in Britain, Sweden, Germany, France and Finland, with other countries to be confirmed, says campaign co-ordinator Homa Arjomand.
I think it is high time to get proactive here, folks--we should set up a sharia awareness campaign here in the US--starting with a similar kind of protest. New York? Washington? And maybe some proposals for a bill? Any ideas?

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-10 10:26:30 AM|| 2004-06-10 10:26:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Any ideas
Shari'a law would clearly violate the establishment clause of the First Ammendment.

Posted by eLarson 2004-06-10 10:43:41 AM|| 2004-06-10 10:43:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 You can't have two systems of law, any kind of law, and expect national unity. One nation, one law. Period.

Besides, getting Sharia civil law recognized is only the first step in getting it fully recognized. Its a well known trojan horse. Ask the Nigerians. It seems harmless but it is used to establish legitamacy for Sharia. Once the first step is taken it them becomes easier to argue that other parts of Sharia are a religous obligation, that Muslim must live under Sharia to practice their religion. This is true, ask any devout Muslim and they will confirm that Islamic law must rule every aspect of their lives in a total fashion including civil government.

Following the example of Nigeria, once Sharia is established in civil law, then once Muslims gain a political majority in any province, state or city, then they will elect Muslim majority governments and then demand that they be allowed to observe Sharia in its totality.

We cannot allow them even an inch on this issue. We can't allow Islam to be practiced anywhere but strictly inside mosques and Muslim homes or we will without a doubt regret it as EVERY other country which has gone before us has already learned.

One last thing. The Hasidic example is cited as reason to allow the Sharia courts, but the Hasidim have no universal ambitions, nor do they have any interest in coverting anyone. They do not claim that their way of life and laws are ones that everyone should eventually follow nor do they consider it a good work to make their law dominant over the whole world. The case is entirely different. Either you have your own law and renounce universal ambition as the Jews do or else you have universal ambition without any law to impose as Christianity does. A religion with both law and universal ambition is fatally and diabolically flawed. That is the case with Islam if we don't legally force it to change and give up those ambitions.

Posted by peggy 2004-06-10 11:19:22 AM|| 2004-06-10 11:19:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 The attorney-general's office has repeatedly said the Arbitration Act contains safeguards; that participation must be voluntary by both parties; and that women may appeal to the civil courts if they feel a decision doesn't abide by Canadian law.

The Ontario Attorney General, a moron in good standing, has no consciousness of family ostricism, and the potential for honor killings. These honor killings, of course could be done quietly, with a wink and a nod of the PC bureaucracy there. They would simply be honoring sharia law.

PS why does one think the Conservative party is gaining in the polls there, three weeks before an election. Some Canadians are finally saying, ENOUGH OF THIS BULLSHIT! Its starting to look like 1980 was here. Lets hope Mr Harper is up to the task if he pulls it off!

Posted by BigEd 2004-06-10 11:19:47 AM|| 2004-06-10 11:19:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I thought I had a good handle on the depravity of the rabid left. I wasn't even close.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-06-10 11:48:41 AM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-06-10 11:48:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Yes, DPA, the rabid left indeed.

The endemic left, represented by the "Liberal Party" has fools like this Ontario Atterny General, and his PC approach to Facistic Muslim Sharia Law. Of course there is a constituency of the farther left NDP, and even the father left Greens. I think some of theose folks to the North of us, as I said before, have had it up to their necks in this weasley leftism.

I have been following the Canadian election coverage. Harper of the Conservatives is getting slammed in the elite media because he is suggesting the re-introduction of the Death Penalty, and undoing some of the restrictions from the Machiavellian gun laws there, as well as other issues.

Posted by BigEd 2004-06-10 12:17:45 PM|| 2004-06-10 12:17:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Shari'a law would clearly violate the establishment clause of the First Ammendment.

Given the nature of the courts currently, why do you think this would stop anything? I mean, we used to think the First Amendment protected political speech absolutely, but we've recently learned otherwise.

Remember, we had a judge decide that a school requiring students to take on Muslim practices "as part of a course" did not violate the establishment clause.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-10 2:13:36 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-10 2:13:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 This kind of thing sickens me. No point in fighting over there if they're just going to be pulling this kind of crap here.

Guess I'm not in the best of moods today . . . by the way, Robert, where did you hear that?

Posted by The Doctor 2004-06-10 2:39:45 PM|| 2004-06-10 2:39:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 a.
Here's the link, #8, for the ruling about Islam in California schools. Please note that it's the same Judge Phyllis Hamilton who ruled in favor of partial birth abortion a few weeks ago.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36118"Judicial Jihad: Judge rules Islamic education
OK in California classrooms, Dismisses suit opposing requirement students recite Quran, pray to Allah" 12/13/03
Requiring seventh-grade students to pretend they're Muslims, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Quran, pray to Allah and even to play "jihad games" in California public schools has been legally upheld by a federal judge, who has dismissed a highly publicized lawsuit brought by several Christian students and their parents...In her 22-page ruling announced Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton said Excelsior[Elementary School in Byron, CA] is not indoctrinating students about Islam when it requires them to adopt Muslim names and pray to Allah as part of a history and geography class, but rather is just teaching them about the Muslim religion...

Here's an article from JihadWatch.org on the issue
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000412.php

b. For anyone interested in keeping up with the Cdn election, Cdn news, you can get a quick fix from www.nealenews.com

It would be great for the USA if Stephen Harper won the election in Canada. The Canadian conservative party might help our own Republican Party rinos remember what conservative values/goals are all about. ie. Hatch, Frist, McCain, et al

Posted by rex 2004-06-10 3:05:05 PM|| 2004-06-10 3:05:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Here's a serious question, Big Ed. Given that Ontario law already allows for directly analagous arbitrations based on Jewish law, on what basis would you deny such procedures to Muslims? The basic idea is that a community can draw upon its own resources to assist its members to resolve their disputes. The Jewish community does this in Ontario and in many other jurisdictions. What would be the serious basis for telling Muslims they could not do the same?

Here's a parallel for you: many gun-owners are law-abiding people and responsible in their use of their guns. Some gun-owners are criminals or at least irresponsible. Many Muslims are law-abiding people and responsible in their application of the values of their religious community. Some Muslims are criminals or at least irresponsible. So here's a suggestion: hands off the law-abiding gun-owners. Put the criminal gun-owners in jail. Hands off the law-abiding Muslims who want to use the arbiration courts for civil disputes. Put the criminal Muslims in jail with the criminal gun-owners. Can you live with that?

Posted by Patrick 2004-06-10 3:42:17 PM|| 2004-06-10 3:42:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 To Patrick-A straight and curious question: How many honor killings have occurred within Ontario's Jewish community?

Also, to all--let's just pick one issue of many we could focus on for the sake of this arbitrations based on religious law vs secular state law debate.

Take the issue of polygamy. How would you reconcile that common Muslim practice with the US government's law against polygamy? Wouldn't a person defying state law but in compliance with the Quran on this question present a legal nightmare?

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-10 4:03:29 PM|| 2004-06-10 4:03:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Thanks for the links rex. i've been trying to follow this as I have a child heading into the 6th grade. I'm hoping the legal efforts continue on this. No way can we let one hardcore leftist judge determine the outcome on this.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-06-10 4:20:41 PM|| 2004-06-10 4:20:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Patrick. In the end those issues are for Canadians to decide. As an American, I only can watch, but as Canada shares a long border with us, and because of the natural exchanges that occur in that environment, it is only natural to keep a jaundiced eye on developments there. I think that there are too many unenforced gun laws and the application therof if quite capricious. We don't need more gun laws until those we have are enforced, and found wating.

I think jules 187 makes valid points and pretty much mirrors my answer.

Posted by BigEd 2004-06-10 4:48:27 PM|| 2004-06-10 4:48:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 why does one think the Conservative party is gaining in the polls there, three weeks before an election.

BigEd: I'm predicting a Liberal sweep in Toronto (again). If memory serves and according to tradition, since Ontario has elected a Liberal provincial government, they should vote Conservative in the federal election. But I think this time around this will not be the case. The best case scenario, and the most likely, is a Liberal minority government.

The problem is Paul Martin. As finance minister he got lucky in the early/mid 90s as the economy started picking up, and along with his ties to business, people think he is an economic miracle worker.

The party to watch is the NDP. Jack Layton has chosen an anti-American platform (threatens to pull out from the missile defense treaty, and other silliness). Surprisingly (or not), the NDP will gain in this election. Which is good as long as they don't get too far, because they will take votes away from the Liberals.

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-10 8:16:12 PM|| 2004-06-10 8:16:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Can you live with that?

Sure. But only if you can guarantee no coercion, intimidation, or compulsion to follow Sharia. And if such coercion should occur, then you will actively denounce it and work to stop it. Otherwise, bugger off!

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-10 8:28:45 PM|| 2004-06-10 8:28:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 If memory serves and according to tradition, since Ontario has elected a Liberal provincial government, they should vote Conservative in the federal election. But I think this time around this will not be the case.
You bet Ontario folks won't vote conservative, because this time round the conservative leader is from Alberta, not from Quebec or Ontario. Alberta=lethal enemy of the bureaucratic parasites in Torontah and Ottawah. Also, Stephen Harper is a true intellectual conservative, who is bi-lingual to boot, not a Red Tory mindless weakling like Joe Who Clark.

The problem is Paul Martin
No, the problem is Paul Martin's Svengali mentor, Maurice Strong, UN advisor to Kofi Annan, and one world government advocate extraordinaire. Strong's influence on Paul Martin could jerk Canada further to the left. Don't let Paul Martin's "businessman" posturing fool you. He and Strong are the worst examples of "nobless oblige." Maurice Strong is tight with NKorea and China. Strong was the chief architect of the Kyoto Accord.

Here's the good news though:
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=cb60db8b-233e-4033-aaca-7bfa231fb77c
"Tories set to win most seats: polls
Analysis shows Liberals trailing everywhere but Atlantic Canada"
June 10, 2004

Posted by rex 2004-06-10 8:48:58 PM|| 2004-06-10 8:48:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Don't let Paul Martin's "businessman" posturing fool you.

I'm not being fooled. Like I said, he was lucky: a booming US economy helped erase the Canadian deficit. Ever since then the Liberals were regarded as gods.

I'm still predicting a Liberal sweep in Toronto, based on personal observation. Don't know about the rest of Ontario though.

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-10 9:02:56 PM|| 2004-06-10 9:02:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Yes, I must say I was surprised that the conservatives appeared to be leading in Ontario as well as Quebec. Of course, the new Liberal premier, Dalton McGuinty, has been a major disappointment to voters, so perhaps Ontario may go conservative federally as a protest action. As for Toronto specifically...I was surprised to read that now in Toronto, 60% of residents do not count English as their first language-immigration has had such a profound change in Toronto's demographic makeup-wow!-Toronto used to be a WASP bastion 20 years ago. New immigrants will typically vote Liberal or NDP so yes, I can see Toronto specifically not going conservative.

Posted by rex 2004-06-10 9:25:04 PM|| 2004-06-10 9:25:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Either you have your own law and renounce universal ambition as the Jews do or else you have universal ambition without any law to impose as Christianity does. A religion with both law and universal ambition is fatally and diabolically flawed.

Thank you, Peggy. This pretty much says it all. Although there might be some viable avenues available in terms of voluntary opting by both parties for binding religious arbitration, I see this as the camel's nose (so to speak).

Equal protection under the law is a fundamental aspect of constitutional rights. Abrogating that, even out of respect for religious beliefs, begins to erode certain essential aspects of the judicial process.

More importantly, per Peggy's astute observation, any pandering to the frequently violent nature of Sharia law is quite simply insane. To grant credibility to one part of Sharia, even if specifically limited in its scope, will be taken by its followers as intrinsic approval for them to exercise all of it. Regardless of judicial approval or not.

Again, once the camel's nose has been allowed inside the tent, the rest is sure to follow. I cannot over-emphasize the lunacy of allowing Sharia (or any other religious law) entrÃ© into the justice system's body of law.

Canada is nigh well insane to do this and I would contribute my utmost towards the defeat of individuals who attempted such a thing in the United States.

Posted by Zenster 2004-06-10 10:19:47 PM|| 2004-06-10 10:19:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I'm obliged to add that this is exactly why I vigorously oppose the DOMA.

Posted by Zenster 2004-06-10 10:21:07 PM|| 2004-06-10 10:21:07 PM|| Front Page Top

01:57 Mark Espinola
01:22 Silentbrick
01:19 Mark Espinola
08:19 Howard UK
07:57 Mitch H.
04:18 Howard UK
00:39 Super Hose
00:24 Super Hose
23:56 painterdave
23:47 Rafael
23:35 OldSpook
23:32 Alaska Paul
23:32 Infidel Bob
23:26 Alaska Paul
23:18 RWV
23:09 RWV
23:05 Zenster
23:00 RWV
22:55 Mike Sylwester
22:52 Mike Sylwester
22:51 RWV
22:49 Bomb-a-rama
22:46 Alaska Paul
22:41 tu3031