Article

2004-09-13 Great White North

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 mhw 2004-09-13 10:57:15 AM|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 But... surely everything's OK - Muslims who don't like it can always renounce Islam and revert to secular law. Or will the death penalty for apostasy become part of the sharia, in which case...

WTF is happening to Canada?!!

Supporters of the proposal say that Canadaâs commitment to cultural diversity requires that Muslim law be accorded the same respect as other legal systems.

Official sanctioning and encouragement of multiculturalism is incompatible with western liberal democracy. If you don't like your adopted new home, get the f*ck out. Period.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-09-13 11:11:57 AM|| 2004-09-13 11:11:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 LH-Didn't you comment in the past about religious arbitration already being allowed to Jews in Canada? (If not, my mistake.) If religious arbitration is already allowed to Jews in Canada, the government is going to be hardpressed explaining why it is not available to Muslims. Wax the shoot, the slide has begun.

What are the chances our neighbors to the north would consider removing religious arbitration as an option from all religious groups? How about restoration of national law applicable to all?

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-13 11:26:04 AM|| 2004-09-13 11:26:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 IIRC - the Jewish arbitration is the same as any other - in civil cases agreed to by both parties . If you and the other party wanted your disagreement arbitrated by circus clowns, you could. The issue is, as noted above, the bullying of one party to agree to Sharia arbitration, and/or if they try to apply it to criminal cases or non-Islamists

Posted by Frank G 2004-09-13 11:36:57 AM|| 2004-09-13 11:36:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Not one iota of National law applicable to all has been eroded or requires restoration. This is strictly a matter of mutually voluntary acceptance of guide lines to be used in resolving a private dispute. Who cares what guidelines the parties use as long as the acceptance is truly voluntary?

And if it's not? Any woman who is going to be bullied into accepting a sharia based mediation is going to be bullied out of getting the fruits of a non-sharia based mediation. I'd bet in the good ol' U S of A plenty of imigrants have to go along with old world comunity standards because they couldn't survive outside that community. They came here so their children and grand children could. It's tragic for the first generation but it's not illegal and I suspect it's something every immigrant group has gone through.

What is something awful that we can do something about is the multiculturalism that dominates our schools and attenuates the process of assimilation. The sooner the kids of these immigrants become Americans (or Canadian) the better for everybody.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-13 11:37:20 AM|| 2004-09-13 11:37:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 You may be right, Mrs Davis. The main thing I am concerned about is the rights of minors in a sharia court in Canada. If an adult woman is stupid enough to sign for her own entombment in Islam, that is her problem; but a child of Muslim parents is a minor subject to the decisions of parents, like everywhere else. Under sharia, the parents can decide to force the child to live by the discriminatory practices they brought with them to Canada from the homeland. Cultural assimilation will be a stretch for those kids.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-13 11:51:17 AM|| 2004-09-13 11:51:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I'd prefer it if the title to this article read:

Canada Considers Allowing Women To Submit To Slavery.

Posted by Anonymous6417 2004-09-13 11:57:43 AM|| 2004-09-13 11:57:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Jules, Canada has not abrogated its child protection laws. As long as they are being obeyed, I hope the Canadian Government keeps its nose out of what goes on in families. As someone who has lived as a social minority (conservative) my whole life, I know how tyrannic the majority can be and why it is so important to fight for rights of other minorities.

It would also be interesting to see how those outraged by this react to the way groups like the Amish, Hutterites and Branch Davidians resolve their disputes in the U. S. today.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-13 12:25:56 PM|| 2004-09-13 12:25:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Mrs. Davis-Respectfully, I disagree. Child protection laws are meaningless for children who are under psychological and social pressure from their families and religious communities to obey sharia. I can see no good coming out of the incorporation of sharia into Canadian law. Muslims will not assimilate more easily into Canada by embracing separate but equal social policies.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-13 12:58:01 PM|| 2004-09-13 12:58:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Jules, when has anyone said anything about incorporating Sharia into Canadian law? That is not even remotely under discusion. Only mutually voluntarily acceptable use as a means of mediating private disputes.

But, if you are so concerned, what about the Canadian and American children who are under psychological and social pressure from their families and religious communities to obey the decalogue and even the Mishna? Shouldn't their male children be protected from ritual male genital mutilation? That's how easy it is for the nosy Know Alls in government to get their nose into my or your home. I don't want it and neither should you. As long as families are obeying the law, they should not be disturbed because of their religious beliefs.

Posted by Dan Rather 2004-09-13 2:14:27 PM|| 2004-09-13 2:14:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 And let us pass a law allowing people to submit themselves to slavery. Afterall, if they are stupid enough to do so, why should we care?

Posted by feeling bitchy 2004-09-13 2:17:02 PM|| 2004-09-13 2:17:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 We do, bitchy. It's called marriage. Except you can't sell your spouse.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-13 2:22:26 PM|| 2004-09-13 2:22:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 And the 'marriage' slavery is both ways and consentual.

Jules - that should also go for all muslims - most muslim minors have islam imposed on them from birth and cannot leave without literally risking their life.

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-09-13 2:26:41 PM|| 2004-09-13 2:26:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Mrs. Davis-What is a decalogue and Mishna? Do they propose ideas like a woman's testimony is the legal weight of half a man's? I need to know more about what those bodies do before I can venture an opinion. Generally, I am live and let live with religion, have no problem with school prayer, etc.. I do step up and start asking questions when religion physically alters people or approves the removal of their rights of autonomy or equal protection under the law.

As far as genital mutilation under any religion, any sex, any country, it seems to me that is a decision for adults to make for themselves, not a mutilation which believing adults feel they should have a right to perform on helpless children. If a man/woman of age wants it for religious purposes on themselves, with anesthesia in a hospital, fine. Also, though I would apply the same standard to male and female babies, I would point out that male circumcision is not the cutting off of the male genital ogran; clitoredectomy (in terms of the organ that experiences pleasure) is.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-13 2:36:51 PM|| 2004-09-13 2:36:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Not funny, Mrs. D. Comparing marriage to slavery is a slap to slaves who suffered. And implying Sharia respects "consent" is a slap to women everywhere.

Posted by feeling bitchy 2004-09-13 2:40:09 PM|| 2004-09-13 2:40:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 CF, Everybody has their parents' religion imposed on them by birth. If you kill some one you get a trial and go to jail. Do you really think this is a major or even minor problem in the US and Canada?

Sure, second generation immigrants are under tremendous pressure to stay in the community, whatever it is, Jewish, Italian, Muslim. But in how many does it really work, especially for the third generation whose parents remembers how much they resented being told, "If you marry a {substitute disfavored group] I will no longer have a son?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-13 2:43:10 PM|| 2004-09-13 2:43:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Mrs. Davis-are you saying that the legal system of a country has no rights to intervene when religion has passed beyond the marker of belief/ ritual into abuse of people? Is there any common ground between what bitchy and I are talking about and what you defend? Can Islam go too far?

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-13 2:48:46 PM|| 2004-09-13 2:48:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 What is a decalogue and Mishna?

Decalogue = term of Greek derivation for 10 commandments.

Mishna - a text of ancient Jewish law, that records rabbinic opinions on legal questions raised by the "old" testament. Oldest and most basic text of Jewish law, after the bible itself.

Note - I do NOT know the status of Jewish law in Canada. Its my understanding that two parties to a contract can write into said contract that a Jewish legal court interpret said contract, just as they can ask that the American Arbitration Association, or a group of clowns.

National law in the US at least, included freedom of contract. That INCLUDES freedom of parties to said contract to refer interpretation to private bodies.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 2:56:40 PM|| 2004-09-13 2:56:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 jules,

The Decalogue is more commonly know as the 10 Commandments. The Mishna is part of the Jewish Rabbinic Commentary on the Old Testament and issues of the day, and thus the exposition of the development of Jewish "Common Law" (and with lots of storytelling, too, as I recall). The ritual male genital mutilation referred to in this example would be cutting off of the foreskin of 8-day old Jewish males.

When I was pregnant with #2 in Germany, the obstetrician informed us that his nursing staff considered male circumcision to be barbaric, and he would only permit it to be done if I held the baby during the procedure. Thus does the majority insert itself into minority decisions, even without the force of law.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-09-13 2:57:28 PM|| 2004-09-13 2:57:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#19

The american arbitration association, with a discussion of the Federal Arbitration Act, signed by Calvin Coolidge in 1925.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 2:58:39 PM|| 2004-09-13 2:58:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 http://www.adr.org/index2.1.jsp

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 2:58:54 PM|| 2004-09-13 2:58:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 OTOH this article present a case where arbitration by a bet din didnt go smoothly, and two orthodox jewish orgs are in a suit in civil court.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=8148&print=yes

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 3:02:43 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:02:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 TW - hard to find a mohel in Germany, I guess?

and of course the Sandek, (godparent) should hold the baby :)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 3:04:16 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:04:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 whoa, whoa, whoa. You are attempting to compare two separate things here. One - a parents right to perform a cultural act to a baby.

Whether or not a baby is traumatized by circumcision is impossible to discern, and thus parent do what they believe is best.

Yet not so with genital mutilation or Sharia.

Allowing a woman to submit to Sharia is little different than allowing someone to submit to slavery.

Posted by feeling bitchy 2004-09-13 3:07:44 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:07:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 One giant step backwards for mankind.

Eh?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-09-13 3:09:09 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:09:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Mrs D. I dont think it is a problem (yet) in the US or Canada that people get killed for leaving a religion. However such has been practiced and is sometimes still practiced and the Qur'an does specify that Apostasy in Islam (and by extension strict Sharia) is the biggest crime, punishable by death. (From FaithFreedom) While this may not be put into practice in Canada or the USA (at least not overtly) no other religion I know of (outside of cults) instructs its followers to kill those who leave.

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-09-13 3:12:29 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:12:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 fb has a point - certain private contracts are not allowed, if they go too far from societal norms. However it would seem necessary to be specific about what they are. And it would seem possible to allow Sharia used in private civil matters shorn of specific features. And those norms would have to be applied equally to all contracts.

This is comparable to a minimum wage law = we DONT allow private contracts that are unconscionable. This is the heritage of progressivism and social democracy, and could be applied here.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 3:13:00 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:13:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Sorry you don't have a sense of humor. I make no implication about Sharia because Sharia is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is about protecting my freedom of relieon and rights as a parent by making sure those of others are not abrogated. If you think the rights of women in the U S or Canada are insufficiently protected, you should be proposing new laws, not discriminating against others.

The decalogue is the ten commandments and the Mishna is the codification of the body of law built around them. (I will defer to anyone who knows more about the Mishna than I.) Allowing people to settle private disputes according to Sharia does none of the things you mention, jules. If some of them are not illegal and you think they should be, change the law. Every one in the U. S. and Canada is subject to the law and no one has proposed any dispensatins for anyone.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-13 3:13:54 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:13:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 TW-Did either of you consider anesthesia? You may never agree on whether it is barbaric or not (and perhaps 20 years from now your son will say what's the big deal with it), but at least you would know you were not causing your child pain.

And before any experts chime in to say they would have been able to recall pain, if there was any, from the 8th day of life, gimme a break. We don't know. What if we find out later it was terrible pain. Does the fact that it's tradition make you feel any better about it?

For me personally, I agree with a German physician (for once)-I think it's barbaric to do it without anesthesia, and inappropriate for adults to perform it on kids. But that's just my my opinion.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-13 3:14:17 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:14:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Isn't the problem with sharia courts the granting of official legal authority to a private sect's internal governance? What if the court imposes that absurd muslim rule that allows a man to mutter some phrase three times in succession and thereby dissolve his marriage under islamic law?

Posted by lex 2004-09-13 3:14:41 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:14:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 at one time it was illegal for christians to convert to Judaism, and for Jews to accept Christian converts. In fact this was generally the case in the Christian West from the time of Constantine to the Enlightenment. I presume at least some times the penalty was death. Of course its not in the NT, but then the NT doesnt give a lot of Christian law.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 3:15:18 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:15:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Lex - jews allow divorce in similar fashion IIUC(though a rabbinic court is required to certify it)

Look it doesnt matter how absurd something is, if its in a contract. I could write a contract that says you pay me ten dollars every time i say "Barney the purple dinosaur" If you agree to sign it, thats a contract.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 3:17:54 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:17:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 the Mishna is the codification of the body of law built around them. (I will defer to anyone who knows more about the Mishna than I.)

I will take that as an invite:)

In fact the Mishna is NOT a code. On any given issue it records the opinions of rabbis on BOTH sides of a given issue. In many cases it records the consensus (R. Shmuel said X, but the sages said Y) But in many cases it records no consensus but leaves both opinions equal (R. Shmuel said X, and Rabbi Yitzhak said Y)

Later rabbis, intent on reducing all this to codes, developed certain rules of thumb, such as (If Rabbi Shmuel disagrees with one colleague go with Rabbi Shmuel).

And of course the Mishna records nothing in areas where no disagreement arose. For example the Mishna discusses the appropriate time to say the evening shma, without explaining what this prayer is or even that its required - all that is assumed. It can be considered a record of legal cases, rather than a legal code.

Legal codes in Judaism evolved later, and the most famous examples are the Mishna Torah by Ramba (NOT the Mishna) and the Shulchan Aruch, by Joseph Caro.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 3:24:26 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:24:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 excuse me, Mrs. D, but you are the one attempting to change the law here.

Maybe you need to read up on Sharia. Last I checked, beating your wife, stoning a woman for adultry or cutting off hands for stealing, were considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Allowing a woman to submit to Sharia is no different than allowing a woman to submit to slavery.

But then...I can see what a modern woman you are. Using "Mrs." for your handle tells us all we need to know about how you see yourself.

Get your own identity separate from your husband, bitch, and then maybe you'll get what's going on here.

Posted by feeling bitchy 2004-09-13 3:29:13 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:29:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 this freedom of contract is overrated. It leads only to the exploitation of workers by the capitalist class. A socialist state will not allow people to enter into contracts that are nothing but exploitation.

Posted by Karl Marx 2004-09-13 3:32:17 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:32:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 well said, Karl. Afterall, we capitalists have been allowing contracts for slavery, protstitution, drug sales, selling of our children, votes and souls ..since the beginning of our country. That's what the whole American "equality thing" has alway been about. You're so deep.

Posted by feeling bitchy 2004-09-13 3:38:27 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:38:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 FB - lets be fair - the nrothern capitalist classes DID abolish contracts for slavery, as part of their destruction of the old quasifeudal planter class, and have attempted to satisfy various quasi-progressive reform movements by limiting prostitution and other abuses. The form of free contract that is most dear to their hearts however is freedom of labor contract, the freedom of the laborer to sell his labor on unconscionable terms.

Now some of my more moderate followers and their allies beleive that using the capitalist state to limit these unconscionable contracts is adequate. Others say that the only answer is the abolition of private property. Now far beit from me to meddle between "leftists" (though it does seem absurd to rely on a capitalist state to regulate exploitation inherent in capitalism as the so called social democrats would do)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 3:46:27 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:46:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 oops = sock puppet revealed!!!!!!!!

Mwuhahah!!

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 3:47:15 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:47:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Reliving the civil war, are you LH? The evil southerners against the white knights of the north. Scoff. No doubt you see yourself as the enlightened one against the masses of those relics from the south. Thank God you are here to teach those unenlightened masses to be like you.

Other than signing up for the US military, any laborer is free to walk from conditions he finds unmanageable. And the law protects him. So get with reality and STFU.

Posted by feeling bitchy 2004-09-13 3:52:35 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:52:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Lex, thanks for the clarification.

fb. No I am not changing the law. You are not paying attention. All the Canadians have said is that in Alternative Dispute Resuolution Canacians may retain a mediator who agrees to mediate the private disagrement on the basis of Sharia provided that both parties voluntarily consent and nothing in the resolution contravenes Canadian law. Canadian divorce laws will not be invalidated or superceded.

But if Abdul says Osama owes him 50$ and wants interest but Osama objects to paying interest and the matter is in dispute because the contract was verbal, who cares if they voluntarily agree to let the local Imam mediate using Sharia as long as the issue is resolved to their mutual satisfaction without the violation of any law? It sure saves a lot of expensive court time dealing with a problem that may easily be resolved.

The sticky part in practice will be the voluntary consent. For reasons stated above I suggest that this problem is not worsened by using sharia as the basis of resolution.

But no one is imposing Sharia on onyone else and Canadian law remains supreme. Where's the problem?

By the way, you seem to be the one acting bitchy here. Please don't project your feelings of inferiority on me. By the way, it is you my husband has run off with? I notice your recent arrival seems to corelate closely with his disappearance.

If you want to get what's going on around here, I suggest you start by geting a sense of humor. It's indispensible.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-13 4:03:06 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:03:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 LH, converting between Judism and Christianity may have been illegal but it was (and is) not codified in the religious scriptures - it was 'mans' law and not 'Gods' law.
If you follow the link I provided you will see that death to people who leave Islam is not only permitted, but commanded in the holy Islamic scriptures, the Qur'an itself. The link provided show 3 different translations.

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-09-13 4:06:58 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:06:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Im not real familiar with labor law, FB - if a laborer signs a contract arent they required to fulfill it? Arent their circumstances where they can be sued for breach?

You can either say that an employer should be able to sue a worker for breach, even of an unfair contract or that they should not. If the former you should for consistency also bind a woman who voluntarily enters a contract that invokes Sharia. If not, you are accepting that its right for the government to override a contract in the name of workers rights. Youre either with sharia, or youre with the social democrats. :)

And i wasnt reliving the civil war, merely giving top of the head marxist analysis of it.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 4:11:10 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:11:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 CF, which i already acknowledged "Of course its not in the NT, but then the NT doesnt give a lot of Christian law."

The NT doesnt give detailed law. Still the laws you mention were approved, if not instigated, by the Papacy, which to Catholics was the vicar of Christ on earth, and thus effectively was gods law. You may be a Protestant, but then all youre saying is that this is not law for Protestantism.

BTW, i would also point out that for a Jew to commit idolatry was a capital crime in OT law. This doesnt apply to Christianity and Islam only cause those are not forms of idolatry. And of course there was considerable debate about whether Christianity was a form of idolatry (though by that point no jewish court was in the position to impose a sentence on any non-Jew, let alone the death penalty)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 4:19:56 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:19:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Mrs Davis-I am glad you gave an example, because it sheds a direct light on the potential problem I see there.

You said:...in Alternative Dispute Resuolution Canacians may retain a mediator who agrees to mediate the private disagrement on the basis of Sharia provided that both parties voluntarily consent and nothing in the resolution contravenes Canadian law.

Let's say one of the parties is a wife. Who provides consent for a Muslim family under sharia?

If the wife disagrees, will we ever know?

Second, what will happen to the woman who dares contradict the head of the family and proceeds with her wishes in the court anyway? Acid in the face? Wife beating? Honor killing? Is there no precedent for it happening in other sharia societies?

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-13 4:22:30 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:22:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Oh..well "Mrs My Husband is Somebody More Important Than I Deem Myself", in case you didn't notice, I'm "Feeling Bitchy", so it follows that I'd be in touch with my inner bitch.

All that aside...THANK GOODNESS that you explained to me that signing up for Sharia arbitration is simply about matters re: paying interest on loans. I didn't know!

Gosh..to think all this time I thought there was more to it than that. Thank you for your deep insight on what it would REALLY mean for a young woman to sign away her life to this code.

Hey it may be bitchy to say it, but the fact that your handle has no identity separate from your husband, effectively diqualifies you from speaking as an authority about how women feel regarding a set of laws that defines them as the property of a man.

Posted by feeling bitchy 2004-09-13 4:25:45 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:25:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Jules, I believe I addressed this point in comment 4. I believe it is now for you to tell me how this wife who can be forced to consent to a decision under Sharia will be able to avail herself of any other resolution. Please provide an example. I agree with all the points you make in the second statement, but it is irrelevant to the use of sharia where it is voluntarily agreed.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-13 4:27:28 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:27:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Second, what will happen to the woman who dares contradict the head of the family and proceeds with her wishes in the court anyway? Acid in the face? Wife beating? Honor killing? Is there no precedent for it happening in other sharia societies?

De bossed signed duh contract wit a stooge union, ya see? So we wuz gonna go to court, but dem bosses got wind of it, and they tole their mafia pals to tell frankies wife that frankies gonna go for a swim wit' cement shoes, if he dont lay off this lawsuit crap.

So Jules - do you have the state take away the right to negotiate a labor contract, because of things like the above, OR do you have the state crack down on the illegal use of violence??

You think wife beating and wife murder only happens in the muslim community? Or that its only the muslim community where people are coerced by threat of violence into legal steps against their interests?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 4:28:29 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:28:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 hey FB, i suppose that would disqualify Mrs. Bush, as well?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 4:29:30 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:29:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 fb,

Perhaps we should continue this conversation next week when you're feeling a bit better?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-13 4:31:28 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:31:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 LH-I don't think the state has it written into the labor code that God authorizes the slaying or state labor workers for humiliating their bosses. We already know your position on women's rights under religious law, LH (women deserve few, if any), so this is really a discussion to clarify where Mrs. Davis stands.

Mrs. Davis-Are you asserting that allowing sharia into Canadian national law will result in no more violence than allowing the 10 commandments into U.S. law? If so, what reason do you have to believe that?

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-13 4:40:03 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:40:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 LH...if you can't see the irony in a woman who chooses to anonymously identify herself "Mrs Somebody." - defending the implementation of a law that defines a woman as the property of a man -
v/s
the title of Mrs. Bush, a woman who is being identified as the wife of the President of the Free World, then there really is little hope for you.

Additionally, I'm just curious. If a woman signs a contract with her pimp, regarding interest on profits earned by her prostitution - do you think those laws should be upheld in arbitration?

Posted by feeling bitchy 2004-09-13 4:44:44 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:44:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 jules - thank you for making a polite and accurate case.

Posted by feeling bitchy 2004-09-13 4:46:54 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:46:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Jules,

No one is sugesting or agreeing to allow Sharia into Canadian law. I suspect that whatever violence you are contemplating is already and would remain illegal under Canadian law. I doubt that those who engage in such violence will be more or less likely to engage in such violence because Sharia might be used to resolve private disputes as long as the result does not violate Canadian law.

People who hit women, throw acid in people's facet, etc., etc. as we are treated to daily in the news are savages. They care not one whit what the law is as they think they are above it. This is a problem in any country that admits immigrants who are not acculturated to their new home or aware of its laws.

When they engage in such activities they should be prosecuted under the law.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-13 4:47:42 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:47:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 sorry honey, you just don't have any credibility. Try changing your handle and maybe we'll take note.

Posted by feeling bitchy 2004-09-13 4:49:27 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:49:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 I believe it is now for you to tell me how this wife who can be forced to consent to a decision under Sharia will be able to avail herself of any other resolution.

I think this is where we all meet up again-SHE CAN'T, or at least, it's unlikely, given the potential (illegal) punishment for doing so that is in store for her, under the blessing of her religious text (although you are correct Mrs D, it can happen anywhere-but contrast the typical US populace's response to crimes against women-"it's wrong" and the Muslim world's typical response-"she must have done something to deserve it).

No prob, fb.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-13 4:53:18 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:53:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 "How Do You Solve the Problem of Sharia?"

No Sharia! Problem solved!

Posted by Nanook 2004-09-13 4:56:02 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:56:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 nanook...hee, hee.

Mrs. D - are you a Muslim?

Posted by feeling bitchy 2004-09-13 4:58:13 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:58:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 No, have you ever been to church?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-13 6:07:23 PM|| 2004-09-13 6:07:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Didnt these people immigrate to get rid of the SHARIA, whats the matter with them. If they want SHARIA they cab bloody go back to where they came from

Posted by Fawad 2004-09-13 8:46:08 PM|| 2004-09-13 8:46:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Frank-it took a while but your comment #3 sunk in.

:)

Posted by jules 2 2004-09-13 9:24:02 PM|| 2004-09-13 9:24:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 My $0.02 - thx :-)

Posted by Frank G 2004-09-13 9:32:39 PM|| 2004-09-13 9:32:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 What would keep an Anglo-saxon male from "converting" to Islam just before a divorce to take advantage of Sharia's biases? If a Moslem buddy of mine got a good custody deal in a Sharia court, couldn't I sue to have my case ejudicated in Sharia court as well?

Posted by Super Hose 2004-09-13 10:17:05 PM|| 2004-09-13 10:17:05 PM|| Front Page Top

22:03 UFO
16:04 UFO
08:53 UFO
08:37 UFO
08:37 UFO
00:31 UFO
14:03 asim ishaq
16:46 lex
12:30 tu3031
12:27 lex
09:04 .com
08:44 .com
07:30 trailing wife
05:59 Howard UK
03:26 Nanook
02:57 .com
02:50 .com
02:50 Nanook
02:36 Nanook
02:33 .com
02:28 Nanook
02:26 .com
02:18 .com
02:17 Nanook