Islamophobia in Canada

[Hal 9000]

When any two people are involved in a disagreement they can have a third person to resolve their argument. It can be a layperson, a lawyer a counselor or anybody else to which BOTH agree. That is nothing new.

Domestic disagreements can be resolved by a grandfather, priest, rabbi using their criteria as anything that BOTH people agree to. Some Jews and some Catholics will choose to have someone mediate between them based on the tenets of their religions. I see no reason why Muslims cannot choose to be mediated by Sharia law as applied by a Muslim cleric if BOTH parties agree to the process and be committed to the decision.

There is a movement for more and more Canadian aboriginal disputes (including criminal behavior) be allowed by aboriginal elders using their ancient tenets as long as EVERYONE involved agrees to the process.

Are with that, the door opens.

[cybercoma]

What should be done about terrorism?

If anyone here came up with a good answer to this question, they would be nominated for a Nobel.

[cybercoma]

Are with that, the door opens.

Just as the doors are open to Hasidic laws FOR ALL CANADIANS! Hide under your beds!

[Guest]

To be so vague is a disservice to everyone. How many hate crime assaults on random innocent people is an acceptable number?

None, of course, but can we be clear that pointing out despicable religious behaviour whenever it rears its ugly head isn't a hate crime?

[Guest]

Just as the doors are open to Hasidic laws FOR ALL CANADIANS! Hide under your beds!

I would vote for no official religious arbitration at all.

Edited February 2, 2016 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

None, of course, but can we be clear that pointing out despicable religious behaviour whenever it rears its ugly head isn't a hate crime?

Nobody has ever said that it was.

[Hal 9000]

Just as the doors are open to Hasidic laws FOR ALL CANADIANS! Hide under your beds!

Muslim mediators, then Sharia for family law, then Sharia for business law, then food products, challenges to our freedom of religion laws etc etc. Who say's if 2 parties are agreement of Sharia and the punishment is amputation, that the gov't can/will stop it. What is the gov't gonna say? If you can't see the various stages playing out, all over the globe - you're very blinded.

I've got nothing to worry about though, I'm a man. And unlike you liberals, I will easily adjust (if need be) to an Islamic state. I worry for some of the women, my daughter and you people who will clearly struggle when the harsh reality that muslims don't share your sensitivities. It won't happen overnight or with sudden impact, It will take 20 years or so to see a dramatic shift.

[Argus]

The decision to deny sharia was based on the fact that women basically had to check their human rights at the door because sharia overrides their basic civil rights.

And the fact that, by design, Sharia Law discriminates very strongly against women. Why would any woman willingly choose to commit her dispute to a Sharia court then? The answer is she likely would not, but the pressure on her would be enormous to do so. To refuse would be akin to rejecting Islam in her community and among her family. For immigrants in particular, that would mean they would likely have to give in.

[Guest]

Nobody has ever said that it was.

Okay, for the literal among us, act like it's a hate crime.

[WestCanMan]

Stay in the ME and let the bombs continue to fall on their heads. Great idea, would you do it?

Bombs aren't falling across the whole middle east. There are lots of places over there where safe havens could be set up on a temporary basis.Just evacuating whole countries from the middle east into europe and north america isn't the solution.

[waldo]

You're so out in left field now waldo it's hilarious that you feel on track.

The decision to deny sharia was based on the fact that women basically had to check their human rights at the door because sharia overrides their basic civil rights.

considering you absolutely had no idea about the actual event, you're now suddenly the expert to speak to the Ontario government's decision rationale in not allowing the Islam faith-based tribunal process focused on settling so-called family law related issues. Again, you're absolutely resistant to talking about, what at that time, were the Jewish and Catholic based tribunals doing exactly the same thing. The Ontario 1991 Arbitration Act was the foundation for the existing Jewish and Catholic tribunals; it was the foundation for the organization seeking a similar Islam focused tribunal.

before I get tagged as "pro-Sharia" by the usual suspects here (including you), I'm not in favour of any faith-based arbitration process... even as limited as the focus here was in regards the Jewish, Catholic and potential Islam based family-law tribunals. That being said, there was one valued result of those tribunals; they off-loaded regular courts and the resulting time to process cases that sometimes could last years working through the court system.

by your comment, that tribunal would exist counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Really, that would have been allowed to stand?

for what its worth, some Catholic groups/spokespersons offered support for the establishment of the Islam tribunal... if for no other reason than self preservation. And as it turned out, the Ontario government pulled the plug on the whole arbitration process itself, causing the end of those Jewish and Catholic based tribunals.

try to get some degree of understanding before you jump in and embarrass yourself further!

.

[Rue]

When any two people are involved in a disagreement they can have a third person to resolve their argument. It can be a layperson, a lawyer a counselor or anybody else to which BOTH agree. That is nothing new.

Domestic disagreements can be resolved by a grandfather, priest, rabbi using their criteria as anything that BOTH people agree to. Some Jews and some Catholics will choose to have someone mediate between them based on the tenets of their religions. I see no reason why Muslims cannot choose to be mediated by Sharia law as applied by a Muslim cleric if BOTH parties agree to the process and be committed to the decision.

There is a movement for more and more Canadian aboriginal disputes (including criminal behavior) be allowed by aboriginal elders using their ancient tenets as long as EVERYONE involved agrees to the process.

Rabbias, Mullahs, Christian clergy have always been allowed to mediate and provide family counseling. No one in Canada has ever prevented this.

What did happen is McGuinty when he was Liberal Premier of Ontario suggested Muslims be allowed to opt out of Ontario Family Law and settle their family law matters with Sharia law.

When he opened the doors for Muslims, Orthodox Jews suddenly asked for the same rights as did the Amish and other Christian sects.

First of all Divorce Law is exclusively federal domain and so McGuinty over-stepped his bounds thinking people could opt out of federal divorce law.

All they could opt out of was non divorce matters. He soon found out the same orthodox fundamentalists he thought he was cow-towing to for ethnic votes wanted to opt out of federal divorce law.

In regards to division of property, custody of children, determination of support pursuant to divorce McGuinty had no say. In regards to fami;y law regarding common law spouses over property division, custody of children or determination of support payments, he did.

The Muslims at that time sought not to opt out for mediation, but to have their Mullahs make binding legal decisions. They in fact ironically argued it was done for them in Israel so why not in Ontario.

In Israel precisely because Zionism and the Zionist state recognizes the right of non Jews to their own religious and family laws, it lets them opt out to their own religious courts.

When Israel did this it found these religious tribunals condoning and covering up incest, child abuse, battering of women, unfair division of property against women.

Family mediators/academics such as myself were consulted by the McGuinty government and provided statistics and data as to the domestic violence, incest and unfair treatment of women in Sharia Law, Rabbinical and Christian tribunals.

None one suggested we were Islamophobic or anti semitic or anti Christian except a handful of people who wanted to keep women inferior to men in legal rights.

Mediation is required in any family law litigation today. It has nothing to do with restorative justice and healing circles used by aboriginal communities for certain alcoholics charged with minor criminal charges.

Its absolutely false to suggest Sharia law engages in mediation. In fact it does not. It operates on the principle of imposing decisions and adjudication.

[Guest]

I think the issue with any of them would be the androcentric attitudes of the arbitrators. That said, in the two that already existed, perhaps there would be a choice for the female to refuse to participate. I'm not sure that choice would be so forthcoming in an Islamic abitration panel.

[WestCanMan]

Now's the part where you wriggle out of that by making a definition for widespread that ignores evidence of the random acts of violence against Muslims in the West.

Go fish. I don't feel the need to wriggle out of anything.

I can't recall a whole lot of incidents where westerners sexually assaulted large numbers of muslim women with the blessing of the religious leaders or government.

[Guest]

Go fish. I don't feel the need to wriggle out of anything.

I can't recall a whole lot of incidents where westerners sexually assaulted large numbers of muslim women with the blessing of the religious leaders or government.

It wasn't you either. It was Boges to which that post referred.

Edited February 2, 2016 by bcsapper

[waldo]

What did happen is McGuinty when he was Liberal Premier of Ontario suggested Muslims be allowed to opt out of Ontario Family Law and settle their family law matters with Sharia law.

When he opened the doors for Muslims, Orthodox Jews suddenly asked for the same rights as did the Amish and other Christian sects.

oh my! That sure goes against any historical accounts I've seen... care to cite a reference to support your statements?

.

Edited February 3, 2016 by waldo

[WestCanMan]

considering you absolutely had no idea about the actual event, you're now suddenly the expert to speak to the Ontario government's decision rationale in not allowing the Islam faith-based tribunal process focused on settling so-called family law related issues. Again, you're absolutely resistant to talking about, what at that time, were the Jewish and Catholic based tribunals doing exactly the same thing. The Ontario 1991 Arbitration Act was the foundation for the existing Jewish and Catholic tribunals; it was the foundation for the organization seeking a similar Islam focused tribunal.

before I get tagged as "pro-Sharia" by the usual suspects here (including you), I'm not in favour of any faith-based arbitration process... even as limited as the focus here was in regards the Jewish, Catholic and potential Islam based family-law tribunals. That being said, there was one valued result of those tribunals; they off-loaded regular courts and the resulting time to process cases that sometimes could last years working through the court system.

by your comment, that tribunal would exist counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Really, that would have been allowed to stand?

for what its worth, some Catholic groups/spokespersons offered support for the establishment of the Islam tribunal... if for no other reason than self preservation. And as it turned out, the Ontario government pulled the plug on the whole arbitration process itself, causing the end of those Jewish and Catholic based tribunals.

try to get some degree of understanding before you jump in and embarrass yourself further!

.

Stowe it waldo, I knew exactly what forms of sharia law they tried for in ontario, I was the one who brought it up.

I don't care if there are Jewish and Christian-based tribunals set up for family law arbitration, or what happens to them. All I care is that women's rights aren't stomped out by archaic religious stupidity.

The liberal crowd here was making the case that "moderate muslims here don't want sharia" and I said they already started lobbying for it. Civil law is part of it, and it's a start.

You're the only one embarrassing yourself here.

[Guest]

I do seem to remember a Muslim women's group lobbying successfully against it.

Edited February 2, 2016 by bcsapper

[Boges]

It was successfully lobbied against for sure. Doesn't mean there wasn't serious thought given to doing it.

[Guest]

Probably not, no. Im glad saner heads prevailed, though.

[Rue]

When any two people are involved in a disagreement they can have a third person to resolve their argument. It can be a layperson, a lawyer a counselor or anybody else to which BOTH agree. That is nothing new.

Domestic disagreements can be resolved by a grandfather, priest, rabbi using their criteria as anything that BOTH people agree to. Some Jews and some Catholics will choose to have someone mediate between them based on the tenets of their religions. I see no reason why Muslims cannot choose to be mediated by Sharia law as applied by a Muslim cleric if BOTH parties agree to the process and be committed to the decision.

There is a movement for more and more Canadian aboriginal disputes (including criminal behavior) be allowed by aboriginal elders using their ancient tenets as long as EVERYONE involved agrees to the process.

I was actually one of many academics from the dispute resolution professions consulted by the government in regards to the proposition that people be allowed to opt out and follow Sharia law.

In fact it was NOT just Muslims but certain Orthodox Jews. This was not about mediating. This was about having clerics

or Rabbias make decisions as to how to divide up property or who got custody of children and how support would be based or determined.

[waldo]

Stowe it waldo, I knew exactly what forms of sharia law they tried for in ontario, I was the one who brought it up.

I don't care if there are Jewish and Christian-based tribunals set up for family law arbitration, or what happens to them. All I care is that women's rights aren't stomped out by archaic religious stupidity.

The liberal crowd here was making the case that "moderate muslims here don't want sharia" and I said they already started lobbying for it. Civil law is part of it, and it's a start.

You're the only one embarrassing yourself here.

sure you did! That's why you made the broadest of reference to Sharia and never qualified the actual narrowest of focus on arbitration level tribunals ruling on so-called 'family law' related concerns. Sure you did! Nor did you manage to speak to the dated decade+ old nature of it, nor did you speak to the qualifying particulars that saw it ruled against... along with the accompanying end to those existing Jewish and Catholic arbitration tribunals. Nor did you speak to the group that sought the arbitration tribunal, or how wide-spread they spoke for the, at that time, 400K Ontario Muslims.

details really get in the way of some around here, hey!

.

[eyeball]

The people doing bad things to Muslims are awful. The Muslims doing bad things to people are much worse.

Not compared to the western allies of Muslims doing bad things to people. They're the one's who most deserve to have bad things done to them.

[waldo]

I was actually one of many academics from the dispute resolution professions consulted by the government in regards to the proposition that people be allowed to opt out and follow Sharia law.

In fact it was NOT just Muslims but certain Orthodox Jews. This was not about mediating. This was about having clerics

or Rabbias make decisions as to how to divide up property or who got custody of children and how support would be based or determined.

really? And here I thought the impetus was this 2004 report (commissioned by the Ontario Government) from "Marion Boyd", former Ontario Attorney General and former Ontario Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues, and its recommendation that Islam faith-based tribunals be allowed in Ontario... and here I thought those former Jewish and Catholic faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters on a voluntary basis existed in Ontario since 1991 (vis-a-vis the Ontario Arbitration Act).

oh wait, are you saying you were a consultant to the author of that report... and, if so, how did that report recommendation get by your personal "reservations"?

.

[WestCanMan]

sure you did! That's why you made the broadest of reference to Sharia and never qualified the actual narrowest of focus on arbitration level tribunals ruling on so-called 'family law' related concerns. Sure you did! Nor did you manage to speak to the dated decade+ old nature of it, nor did you speak to the qualifying particulars that saw it ruled against... along with the accompanying end to those existing Jewish and Catholic arbitration tribunals. Nor did you speak to the group that sought the arbitration tribunal, or how wide-spread they spoke for the, at that time, 400K Ontario Muslims.

details really get in the way of some around here, hey!

.

My comment was the correct assertion that muslims in canada lobbied for sharia law. I don't have to qualify the scope of it every time i reference it, it's just a fact. I don't care how you feel about it waldo.

What you fail to understand about Islam is that it's not just a religion, it's a way of life with codes of conduct that are enforced with the absolute strictest of penalties. Civil law is just a start. The Gov't of Canada can never condone any form of sharia, once the door is open a crack it's too hard to suddenly draw a line somewhere.