Michael Hardner Posted October 19, 2009 Report Posted October 19, 2009 jbg, If that were the motive that would be great. I highly doubt it's what the CMC has in mind though. I realize you're just one poster, but it seems to me many people have posted complaints that Muslims don't speak out against extremists enough. Are you one of those posters ? If so, isn't this what you wanted ? If so why aren't you satisifed ? “There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.”Oscar Wilde Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
jbg Posted October 26, 2009 Report Posted October 26, 2009 Maybe you can enlighten us as to what they do have in mind? Sure. They seem to be apping a similar Egyption law. The impetus is too coincidental for belief. jbg, I realize you're just one poster, but it seems to me many people have posted complaints that Muslims don't speak out against extremists enough. Are you one of those posters ? If so, isn't this what you wanted ? If so why aren't you satisifed ? Yes I am one of those posters. Chadors themselves are symbols not of violence but of cultural separateness. There is no evidence they want to become assimilated from just this issue. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Oleg Bach Posted October 26, 2009 Report Posted October 26, 2009 Sure. They seem to be apping a similar Egyption law. The impetus is too coincidental for belief.Yes I am one of those posters. Chadors themselves are symbols not of violence but of cultural separateness. There is no evidence they want to become assimilated from just this issue. Watching a church service across the parking lot at the back of my house - the service was outside..behind the church - a wedding - These people numbered about 150 - The were the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians - and ancient cult..perhaps the last of the old way - They are lawful and orderly - sure they do not assimulate in full - and Yes the priest does look at me with an untrusting eye when I see him in the corner store - The great rift that exists between myself and these Christians and Orthodox Muslims is very similar. We have been seperated by time..They simply don't trust us..because we are not trust worthy - and they are prejudice against anyone that is not of their religious family. I wish that the old priest that looks upon me as an infidel westerner would take the time to understand that I am exactly as he is...I believe in the same thing - same values - the same God - but we are to far apart and I dare not approach him - I suspect it would bother him to know that I and he are the same..maybe people just don't want to open the gate or take down the wall - maybe it's a privacy issue - or maybe a tacit policy of exclusion - we are exclusive - I am sure that the Muslims and other old sects are also exclusionary for no good reason. Quote
Argus Posted October 27, 2009 Report Posted October 27, 2009 jbg, I realize you're just one poster, but it seems to me many people have posted complaints that Muslims don't speak out against extremists enough. Are you one of those posters ? If so, isn't this what you wanted ? If so why aren't you satisifed ? How many Muslims speak out against this sort of thing? Bigotry Unchallenged If this goes on in mosques all across Canada regularly but no one ever mentions it but this one guy and one group is this not another indication of how "moderates" allow Islamists to control the agenda without protest? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted October 27, 2009 Report Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) The problem is that the Muslim and Jewish courts were proceeding under laws allowing for submission of disputes to binding arbitration. The Courts, i.e. the enforcers of "our laws" have almost no ability to review the decision of any arbitral panel, whether it's in labor, contract interpretation or religion. For example, if a panel deciding a contract dispute gets the law wrong, too bad, unless the arbitrators were bribed. A mistake of law is not grounds for overturning the work of an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. Thus, if a marriage is solemnized under, say, Sharia law, the covenants that go with marriage include submission of marital disputes to arbitration. Thus, the problem with your assumption that "in the end our laws trump their culture". Huh? Contractual law still applies. A contract cannot stand, for instance, if one party was forced into the agreement under duress, the contract is null and void. No contract can violate civil or criminal law. For instance, Sharia inheritance laws could not stand up in a civil proceedings because it flies in the face of legislation in all provinces. Edited October 27, 2009 by ToadBrother Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 27, 2009 Report Posted October 27, 2009 Argus, My point was that when moderates speak out, we don't hear the original complainers expressing solidarity or appreciation. These are the same people who condemn moderates for not condemning extremists... That said, I think Jerry Seinfeld (the MLW poster not the comedian) broke the mold and came out in support. Tarek Fatah: Bigotry unchallenged Fatah's column is a bit of an oxymoron isn't it ? He challenges the bigotry with his very column. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted October 27, 2009 Report Posted October 27, 2009 Fatah's column is a bit of an oxymoron isn't it ? He challenges the bigotry with his very column. I think his point was that nobody in the Muslim community is protesting such terms being used - well, except him - despite how common is their usage. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted October 27, 2009 Report Posted October 27, 2009 Argus, Fair enough but something is indeed being said and let's hope it trends towards the levels of criticism present in other religions. There's no reason to think it won't be. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
jbg Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 Huh? Contractual law still applies. A contract cannot stand, for instance, if one party was forced into the agreement under duress, the contract is null and void. No contract can violate civil or criminal law. For instance, Sharia inheritance laws could not stand up in a civil proceedings because it flies in the face of legislation in all provinces. My understanding is that the arbitrators themselves get to decide if a valid agreement to arbitrate was made, once the party seeking arbitration can show a signature on a contract providing for arbitration. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
ToadBrother Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 My understanding is that the arbitrators themselves get to decide if a valid agreement to arbitrate was made, once the party seeking arbitration can show a signature on a contract providing for arbitration. If you go to the Provincial Supreme Court, you are essentially saying "This ain't being arbitrated no more." Quote
jbg Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 If you go to the Provincial Supreme Court, you are essentially saying "This ain't being arbitrated no more." You cannot do the equivalent in New York or most other states, unless you're asserting that no arbitration agreement was or could be made. Can you in Canada? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
politicslvr Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Has anyone here been following the story of Nathalie Morin? "The Canadian government has decided not to repatriate a Quebec woman living in Saudi Arabia who claims her husband is not allowing her from leaving the country. Nathalie Morin, who married a Saudi Arabian man over eight years ago, is subject to the Saudi law that women and their children cannot leave the country without the permission of their husbands. Morin has three children and claims to have been trying to come to Canada for almost three years – but her husband refuses to allow her the necessary permission." Thoughts? Quote InformedVote - Canadian politics blog and your source for all things Canadian politics.
ToadBrother Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Has anyone here been following the story of Nathalie Morin? "The Canadian government has decided not to repatriate a Quebec woman living in Saudi Arabia who claims her husband is not allowing her from leaving the country. Nathalie Morin, who married a Saudi Arabian man over eight years ago, is subject to the Saudi law that women and their children cannot leave the country without the permission of their husbands. Morin has three children and claims to have been trying to come to Canada for almost three years – but her husband refuses to allow her the necessary permission." Thoughts? Yes, be careful what countries you choose to go to, and understand that in many cases, your country of origin is likely going to be able to do very much to get you out. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 politicslvr, What does that mean - "The Canadian government has decided not to repatriate a Quebec woman living in Saudi Arabia" ? Is she Canadian ? Is she pursuing refugee status ? What does that mean ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
wyly Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Yes, be careful what countries you choose to go to, and understand that in many cases, your country of origin is likely going to be able to do very much to get you out. when my niece the atheist married a moderate J.W. I predicted it wouldn't last long once reality set it in, and it didn't... as I warned my daughters of...the guy may seem your perfect love but things can all change after marriage and kids come along...old traditions that were far removed quaint customs can suddenly return especially when kids arrive on the scene... I told my girls try pick your partner from those who share your beliefs and outlook on life... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
jbg Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Has anyone here been following the story of Nathalie Morin? "The Canadian government has decided not to repatriate a Quebec woman living in Saudi Arabia who claims her husband is not allowing her from leaving the country. Thoughts? politicslvr,What does that mean - "The Canadian government has decided not to repatriate a Quebec woman living in Saudi Arabia" ? Is she Canadian ? Is she pursuing refugee status ? What does that mean ? Michael - I had the same reaction. I'd respond if I understood the post. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Guest American Woman Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Michael - I had the same reaction. I'd respond if I understood the post. Maybe this will help clear things up for you: Save Nathalie Morin Nathalie Morin, a Canadian and a Quebecor, is being held against her will in Saudi Arabia, and is unable to leave the Muslim nation simply because she is a woman. Morin, along with her two children Samir and Abdullah, is a virtual captive in her own home due to her husband Saeed Al Sharahni forbidding her from leaving. Under Saudi law, which derives from the strict Islamic Sharia principles, she is the property of her husband and must have his permission in order to leave the country. There needs to be more pressure on these nations to relinquish barbaric and primitive behaviours. However, Ottawa has said in the past that Canadians in Saudi Arabia are subject to its laws. Quote
politicslvr Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 politicslvr,What does that mean - "The Canadian government has decided not to repatriate a Quebec woman living in Saudi Arabia" ? Is she Canadian ? Is she pursuing refugee status ? What does that mean ? What this means is the Canadian government is not going to interfere in Saudi affairs and somehow help bring Nathalie home. Ottawa has stated that Saudis are under their own set of laws, basically sweeping the issue under the rug. Quote InformedVote - Canadian politics blog and your source for all things Canadian politics.
politicslvr Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 What this means is the Canadian government is not going to interfere in Saudi affairs and somehow help bring Nathalie home. Ottawa has stated that Saudis are under their own set of laws, basically sweeping the issue under the rug. Sorry, I forgot to mention that yes, Nathalie is a Canadian citizen from Quebec. She is desperately trying to come back, but Saudi law will not allow her to leave without her husband's permission. Quote InformedVote - Canadian politics blog and your source for all things Canadian politics.
DogOnPorch Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) Sounds a lot like that Sally Field movie "Not Without My Daughter"...and I'm not trying to make light of the situation. That was based on a real event involving the exact same thing only in Iran. We overestimate the power our various governments have over the internal affairs of these various countries. Edited October 30, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
politicslvr Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 Sounds a lot like that Sally Field movie "Not Without My Daughter"...and I'm not trying to make light of the situation. That was based on a real event involving the exact same thing only in Iran. We overestimate the power our various governments have over the internal affairs of these various countries. We certainly do overestimate out government's power. Something tells me, however, that if this was an American citizen we'd see her arriving in the US soon. Quote InformedVote - Canadian politics blog and your source for all things Canadian politics.
DogOnPorch Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) I'm not so sure about that. Ask Billy Hayes and Betty Mahmoody and hundreds of others like them. Edited October 30, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
politicslvr Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 I'm not so sure about that. Ask Billy Hayes and Betty Mahmoody and hundreds of others like them. Fair enough, I'd just think that given US influence in Saudi Arabia perhaps she'd have a better chance if she was an American. Quote InformedVote - Canadian politics blog and your source for all things Canadian politics.
jbg Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 Sounds a lot like that Sally Field movie "Not Without My Daughter"...and I'm not trying to make light of the situation. That was based on a real event involving the exact same thing only in Iran. We overestimate the power our various governments have over the internal affairs of these various countries. This points out a very real defect in allowing total self-determination among nations. Savagery is savagery and yet we routinely abide it in the name of respecting the "internal affairs" of nations that do not respect the rights of their people, particularly women and gays. Leftists should be particularly insistent in protecting these rights. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
ToadBrother Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 We certainly do overestimate out government's power. Something tells me, however, that if this was an American citizen we'd see her arriving in the US soon. And you'd be wrong. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.