CANADIEN

:lol: Nobody is buying your "one needs to be islamophobic to defend women's right" line, and few are unable to see that your so-called "defense of women" is nothing more than a pathetic excuse.

Well put. Was perhaps a little simplistic on my part. That being said, Islamic education that take in account the Canadian contaxt and fosters dialogue with the Canadian society as a whole would be most welcome.

Let's talk about the Irish... Of the two politically murders of politicians since Confederation, one was done by an Irish nationalist. Financial contributions by Irish-Canadians and Irish-Americans were a major source of financing for the IRA until well in the 1970's. Let's talk about Ukrainians and Eastern European immigrants. Those of the early 1920's supported marxist unions. OF COURSE, THE ACTIONS OF THE FEWS ARE NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE MANY, NOW ARE THEY THE ACTIONS OF THOSE OF TODAY. But the same things now said about Muslim immigrants used to be said about those immigrants as well. And they were not even considered sufficiently Christian by some to be worthy of living here.

A very small economy, like Iceland, should be wary of high risk investments. Hopefully, they will be more careful ext time. BTW, although it's two-three years old now, I wonder how much of an impact the reduction of U.S. military activity at Keyflacik had had. This was one relatively significant foreign investment, after all.

It's called politics. At least, they don't seem to be holding her sexual orientation against her.

Here's an idea. You stop making a fool of yourself, and I stop pointing out you're making a fool of yourself. Have I ever denied the fact thaat English is the first language of a majority of Canadians? Nope. You are the one in denial of the fact French and the Aboriginal languages are Canadian languages as well. You are the one who advocate that English should be the only language used in government services and on commercial signs. You want an English-only country, which Canada is not and will never be. You want an English-only country, move to the UK. Trudeau doesn't say much these days. You say a lot, and once again you don't get it. Canada is, and should be, its own country. Tthe ENTIRE Charter? I gonna have so much fun.

Can't admit French-speaking Canadians are fully Canadians, such let's kick Quebec out, right? So, you want the break-up of the country, while calling supporting equality before the law for all Canadians a form of treason. Typical Leafless.

Slightly different from what you said last summer, when you were opposing an apology bbbecause residential schools were sych a good thing. Inconsistency... typical Leafless.

Obviously, you didn't get the point of my posting. Of course, we cannot separate what the man said from the fact he speaks as someone who claims relligious authority, or wahtever reaction his audience has. The point of that specific posting was to respond to Mr. C.'s hypocrisy in screaming "you're off-topic" whenever someone raises a point he doesn't like while he gives himself the right to go in whatever direction fits his bigotry.

I meant independant country, but point taken. :lol:

If our past is any indication, yes.

The number of Canadian-born leaders in the Muslim ommunities is liekely to grow as more <uslims are born here. In time, hopefully, a majority of them will not only be born here, but will also receive their spiritual training here.

Agrred. And less not forget that sharia covers a lot more than marital and sexual matters.

The idea that a culture is "incapacitated" when it does not have exclusive ownership of a county is so ridiculous it laughable. The Scots don't have their own country; are they "incapacitated"? Do they need to become English? How about the Welsh, the Tibetans, the Chechens? Some of the greatest Jewish thinkers and philosophers lived during a time when there was no Jewish country, not exactly what I would call "incapacitated". BTW, you are the only person on the WWW to use the word incapacitated to describe any culture A theory held by one person... Says a lot. You still don't get the point that French-speaking Canadians and Aboriginals DO NOT need to assimilate to be fully canadians, do you? BTW, multiculturalism dates back to 1960's, open immigration to the late 1950's. You don't get that either. Typical leafless.

:lol: Incapacited, me? Not a bit. Envious? Not of you, that's for sure. If I wanted a French country, I'd move to France. If you want an English country, move to the UK. This country is Canadian, the way it should be. And we are still waiting to the exact quote from the Charter that proves your point.

Hear, hear.

I expected that a thread on the new Icelandic PM would attrack some homophobic comments. I didn't think it would sink into... this. My apologies to those who like me are shaking their head in disbelief.

Exactly why NO religious "tribunal" or litigation resolution mechanism can be allowed. Muslim or otherwise.

News is that the Holocaust-denier Williamson has apologized to the Vatican for the embarrassment. Good, next he can apologize to the families of the victims of the Holocaust. And now we have another moron, also from the SSPX, states that "gas chambers existed at for disinfecting". These priests and bishops want to be in communion with Rome? Then, Rome should remind them that communion for priests and bishoops includ obedience, and order them to shut up.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel (a western country) have been known to attack women who dared to pray at the Wailing Walls or people who dare to drive on Saturday. The religious framework Jewish Orthodox "tribunals" in this country use is based on the same interpretation of the place of women as the Sharia. The two are contrary to the laws of Canada, and no tribunal or arbitration mechanism should be allowed to resolved civil litigation using either. By your logic, Muslims born and raised in Canada also have an awareness of their rights in this country. So would a decision in a child custody issue, based on the Sharia, be valid if the two parties were born and raised in Canada and therefore aware of their rights? Where the parties in a ligitation were born and raised should not make a difference in what dispute resolution mechanisms they can use. Besides, any contract, any litigation settlement, that is contrary to the laws of Canada is invalid. No matter the parties.

And let me explain to you the difference between legal and illegal. Slavery, even agreed upon, is illegal.

Why would I be surprised that you cut out a sentence of another person's posting to make it sound the exact opposite of what was actually said. Either you can't read, or you're an hypocrite, or both. I'll let you decide. BTW, the topic is not what she said, but what the cleric said. Right?

Therefore, it is not on Islam, or other Muslims, right, or even on the fact he is Muslim or a cleric? It is about what HE said, and nobody else. That man is wrong, and he should be denounced accordingly.

The comparison between sentencing circles and Islamic (or Jew orthodox, for example) tribunals is an innacurate one, on various level. Sentencing circles do not sit as tribunals, passing judgement on the guilt or innocence of an individuals. They are a way of determining the sentence for a crime, based on the First nation tradition of restorative, instead of punitive, justice. They cannot impose sentences that are contrary to Canadian law, and in fact their decisions have to be reviewed and confirmed by a judge. While I am sure that some sentencing circle decisions impose a lesser sentence that what a judge would do, I am sure the opposite is true as well. The existing religious "tribunals" in Canada (such as the Jewish Orthodox ones) do not actually sit as tribunals either, and are in fact an alternate civil litigation resolution mechanisms; they do not hear cases on criminal justice issues. Interesting to note that those who attempted to set such "tibunals" with Sharia at its basis were not seeking to have them pass judgement on criminal matters either. The existing religious "tribunals", like any other alternate civil arbitration mechanisms, could not render decisions that go contrary to canadian law. Why then not accept them, then? Because, in most cases, religion-based civil justice operates on principles contrary to the Canadian law system, such as inequality of men or women, or a higher value given to the testimony of a member of the particular religion. The risk of decisions contrary to Canadian laws being rendered by those tribunals is, therefore, higher.

"Spawned", right? Thank you for reminding us that we are not talking about human beings here. Of course, it should not come as a surprise to you that I believe that even proponent of sharia law have the freedom to express their opinions. Andthat I believe that religious tribunals have no place in a secular, multicultural society. And that I believe that if they cannot live in a country with no sharia, they are free to move. The same way you are free to move if you can't stand living in a multicultural society.