Shariah: The Threat to America

[kimmy]

We can't do that really. Sometimes, common law systems have to reach outside themselves (our's often looks to the UK, US, and Australia) when precedent doesn't exist within our own system. They may even refer to international law.

I call BS on that.

I don't think you can find any instance where our courts have looked to the US or Australia or international law for precedents, and when our courts examine British law for precedents it is because British Common Law is the *foundation* of our legal system.

And I don't think you could even invent for me a situation where a court might say "ok, we don't know how to decide this. Let's see what international law (or Australia, or Sharia) says about it." It's inane.

-k

Edited September 19, 2010 by kimmy

[bush_cheney2004]

I call BS on that.

I don't think you can find any instance where our courts have looked to the US or Australia or international law for precedents,....

I can understand why one would assume this to be the case (pun intended), if only for domestic political reasons, but the nature of jurisprudence invites broader review when access and citation/indexing systems makes it so much easier to do so. Other professions routinely cross international boundaries for a body of knowledge. So in fact we do find that Canadian courts (and other nations' courts) have relied on such references as influence on "precedent". From the SCC site:

Manfredi, C.P., "The Use of United States Decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms" (1990) 23 Canadian Journal of Political Science 499.

La Forest, G.V., "The Use of International and Foreign Material in the Supreme Court of Canada" (1988) 17 Canadian Council on International Law. Proceedings 230.

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/biblio/index-eng.asp

[nicky10013]

I call BS on that.

I don't think you can find any instance where our courts have looked to the US or Australia or international law for precedents, and when our courts examine British law for precedents it is because British Common Law is the *foundation* of our legal system.

And I don't think you could even invent for me a situation where a court might say "ok, we don't know how to decide this. Let's see what international law (or Australia, or Sharia) says about it." It's inane.

-k

Where we've signed international treaties and are members of binding international organisations, where cases are pertinent, judges must cite international law. The only way we can only apply our own laws in order to "ensure" shariah law doesn't come into Canada (absurd), is to withdraw from every international agreement and organisation. Not going to happen.

[kimmy]

If Canada is bound to honor international law in specific cases, what of it? That has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

And Dick, while it doesn't surprise me to learn that courts in Canada look at arguments and decisions made in other jurisdictions, I'd be very surprised to hear that these decisions have any sort of standing in Canada.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

....And Dick, while it doesn't surprise me to learn that courts in Canada look at arguments and decisions made in other jurisdictions, I'd be very surprised to hear that these decisions have any sort of standing in Canada.

And like I said, one should be surprised, but apparently it does happen. I will see what I can dig up in the way of direct citation and "standing".

[Machjo]

Who said anything about eliminating "...all laws that are compliant with Shari'a or that move in its direction "?

That sounds totally unnecessary and cumbersome. All we have to do is recognize only our own country's laws and legal system, period and end of story.

I can certainly agree with that. But if that's the case, then whether a law agrees with shari'a or not becomes irrelevant.

[kimmy]

I can certainly agree with that. But if that's the case, then whether a law agrees with shari'a or not becomes irrelevant.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is talking about striking down portions of our laws that are similar to Sharia. What people are talking about is refusing to accept portions of Sharia that are in conflict with our laws. The case American Woman cited is an example of what people don't want to happen here.

-k

[Machjo]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is talking about striking down portions of our laws that are similar to Sharia. What people are talking about is refusing to accept portions of Sharia that are in conflict with our laws. The case American Woman cited is an example of what people don't want to happen here.

-k

That's fair enough. But the idea that the US government would pass a law explicitly recognizing Shari'a on its own merits would be unconstitutional anyway since it would conflict with the separation of church and state.

Just to take Prohibition in the 1930s as an example. Sure the government could prohibit the consumption of alcohol, whether for health, social or other reasons, if it should be the express wish of the people that the government do so.

however, had they tried to pass a law stating that all that prohibited alcohol on the basis that it was nonconformant to Shari'a, it could not have passed. So I really don't see the issue here.

[Machjo]

Here's a quote from the link in the OP:

"If we are to face down shariah, we must understand what we are up against, not simply hope that dialogue and “engagement” will make the challenge go away. Those who today support shariah and the establishment of a global Islamic state (caliphate) are perforce supporting objectives that are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, the civil rights the Constitution guarantees and the representative, accountable government it authorizes. In fact, shariah’s pursuit in the United States is tantamount to sedition."

So it would seem to me that as long as the Constitution stands, there is no need to fear its subversion by Shari'a.

Now of course a Muslim is free to practice Shari'a in his own daily life, such as not engaging in alcohol, gambling, drugs, extramarital sex, theft, lying, murder, the eating of certain animals, etc. etc. etc., as long as it is in conformity with the law of the land. But as long as it is in conformity, then it is a non-issue. The OP itself essentially acknowledges it by pointing out the constitution.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I'd be very surprised to hear that these decisions have any sort of standing in Canada.

Well, clearly they have some standing as it is a trivial exercise to find international citations in SCC case law, the USA and New Zealand being favorites. Here's an example...R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59:

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc52/2004scc52.html

[punked]

You guys might not get this but Shariah law is already outlawed in the US. I know because it is buried in that obscure document called the Constitution that only a Republican wouldn't know of.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Don't worry it is no threat.

[Machjo]

You guys might not get this but Shariah law is already outlawed in the US. I know because it is buried in that obscure document called the Constitution that only a Republican wouldn't know of.

The US Constitution does not allow for the outlawing of Shari'a seeing that Church and State are separate. All the Constitution can do is to enforce US law. That means that any Shari'a law that is in conformity with US law is permitted, and any Shari'a law that runs counter to US law is not. but for the US government to eitehr enforce or ban Shari'a, that would be unconstitutional.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Don't worry it is no threat.

Exactly. This is why Shari'a as such is neither enforced nor banned in the US.

[Smallc]

I call BS on that.

I don't think you can find any instance where our courts have looked to the US or Australia or international law for precedents, and when our courts examine British law for precedents it is because British Common Law is the *foundation* of our legal system.

International law was used in the reference regarding Quebec secession. The US and Australian courts have the same foundation, and so are useful sources.

And I don't think you could even invent for me a situation where a court might say "ok, we don't know how to decide this. Let's see what international law (or Australia, or Sharia) says about it." It's inane.

I wouldn't have to invent one. There are cases where even the supreme court has used US law. One legal website talks about where even constitutional references will sometimes use US law as a guide. I doubt sharia law would be used.

From 1990 through 2002, for instance, the Canadian Supreme Court cited decisions of the United States Supreme Court about a dozen times a year, an analysis by The New York Times found. In the six years since, the annual citation rate has fallen by half, to about six.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/us/18legal.html

Inane indeed.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

And Dick, while it doesn't surprise me to learn that courts in Canada look at arguments and decisions made in other jurisdictions, I'd be very surprised to hear that these decisions have any sort of standing in Canada.

Nice back away. If we're looking at the decisions, we're obviously considering them to have some kind of standing...some important legal substance.

[Wild Bill]

Nice back away. If we're looking at the decisions, we're obviously considering them to have some kind of standing...some important legal substance.

That is an assumption, on your part. References do not have to be binding. They merely have to be informative. Do you have a cite that these decisions have standing?

Are you going to give us a new definition of sovereignty?

[kimmy]

Nice back away. If we're looking at the decisions, we're obviously considering them to have some kind of standing...some important legal substance.

That our courts do appear to discuss arguments made in other jurisdiction is a far reach from proving your original assertion:

That sounds totally unnecessary and cumbersome. All we have to do is recognize only our own country's laws and legal system, period and end of story.

We can't do that really. Sometimes, common law systems have to reach outside themselves (our's often looks to the UK, US, and Australia) when precedent doesn't exist within our own system. They may even refer to international law.

Examining the merits of decisions made elsewhere is a far reach from saying we have to look at other systems of law because our own doesn't know what to do.

-k

[bud]

THREAT

THREAT

THREAT

THREAT OF ISLAM !! ! ! !!!!!

hey american woman; glenn beck called, he likes what you're doing.

i mean, the example of an overturned court decision is such a perfect example of the THREAT OF ISLAM !!!!!!111

Edited September 20, 2010 by bud

[Smallc]

Examining the merits of decisions made elsewhere is a far reach from saying we have to look at other systems of law because our own doesn't know what to do.

I'm sorry, but the arguments are actually cited in legal decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada. The common law system is completely built on precedent. In some cases, the written law is almost secondary to this.

[Smallc]

That is an assumption, on your part. References do not have to be binding. They merely have to be informative. Do you have a cite that these decisions have standing?

The cases were cited in Supreme Court decisions. That gives the arguments that were made standing. We don't have to consider and use the decisions, but we do, because precedent is important.

Are you going to give us a new definition of sovereignty?

Are you talking to someone else? Considering and upholding the decisions of other common law courts isn't giving up our sovereignty.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Smallc

[BubberMiley]

The only reason anyone is talking about this is because the Republicans think that if they oppose it, people will think Obama must be for it.

But nobody's for it, nobody's talking about it, and only the most deranged islamophobes give it any credence at all.

Ultimately I think it's a losing strategy, because those with a grasp on reality see it for what it is.

[Shady]

hey american woman; glenn beck called, he likes what you're doing.

So do 70% of Americans. As well as a large percentage of Europeans. Some people don't abandon their principles because of political correctness. They don't defend misogyny, homophobia, and anti-human rights, just for political purposes. Stay classy guys!

[bloodyminded]

So do 70% of Americans. As well as a large percentage of Europeans. Some people don't abandon their principles because of political correctness. They don't defend misogyny, homophobia, and anti-human rights, just for political purposes. Stay classy guys!

Glenn Beck the feminist! That's awesome.

[Shwa]

So do 70% of Americans. As well as a large percentage of Europeans. Some people don't abandon their principles because of political correctness. They don't defend misogyny, homophobia, and anti-human rights, just for political purposes. Stay classy guys!

Very cool!

Political Correctness