waldo Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 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. and I don't care that you don't care! No, let me play the same card thrown at me a while back: 'you sir, you were deceitful by omission'! As I relayed, you didn't qualify anything and just raised your ShariaBoogeyman!... you didn't speak to any of those most relevant particulars I mentioned. Details, smetails! why don't you present a case for how your Boogeyman would ever exist/co-exist within the scope of the Canadian Constitution/Charter? Why not start there, hey! Lay it all out. .
Guest Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 Maybe like the Islamic Sharia Council in the UK?
Big Guy Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 Yoohoo, Big Guy. 3321: There's nothing wrong with any of that, but the Gov't in Canada cannot endorse sharia law in any way, shape or form. The pressure on women born and confined to Islam will be too much for them to resist. Many of them will have to choose between ostracism and accepting the ruling of that kangaroo court. Anything? You may be correct but I believe that women, just like men, when given the freedom to make choices are capable of making those choices. If both the woman and man (if it is a man/woman disagreement) agree to this form of mediation, arbitration or whatever then whoever is conducting the process makes sure that both have made the decision of their own free will. Obviously, if it can be shown later that there was coercion or intimidation then the result is invalidated. Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
On Guard for Thee Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 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. If I'm in Syria and being bombed, I ain't heading for Saudi. I'm heading north. Maybe geography isn't your strong suit, but there are maps to look at.
Rue Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 Waldo again you insult people and pose as holier then thou about the Sharia Law opting out lobbying that went on. The arbitrations you referred to by Christian and Jewish tribunals that you claim Muslims wanted as well is absolutely false. Completely false. The arbitrations you referred to could not and can not opt out of existing Ontario or federal family or divorce laws. The opting out the Sharia law groups wanted, would have. By the way and hey don't let the facts get in the way of your posing as an expert on the subject, arbitration decisions unless they conform to the Charter, and existing Canadian laws are unenforceable. Zip over your head.
Rue Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) In Post 3353 Cyber made a reference to Hasidic Jews to infer Muslims only want the same thing Hasidic Jews have in Canada. To start with Hasidic Jews can not opt out of Canadian family or divorce laws or any other laws. Secondly they only marry once. Thirdly and since Cyber brought it up let's point out the absurdity of his comment. Why yes, they both have beards. Tee hee. Last I looked however, Hasidic Jews don't run countries or engage in terrorism and Hasids don't rape non Hasids in wars and use them as sex slaves or set up Kingdoms and call for running the world. No they don't behead people or chop off arms either. Unlike Muslims, Hasids do not proseltyze. They do not like Muslims define non Jews as inferior dhimmi like Muslims do and engage in a religion that believes it should not be separated from the state government and be used to implement laws that state non Hasids can't own land, must not do business with a Muslim directly, etc. So the posters who criticize Islam don't you know-Muslims only want the same thing Hasids have and why are you so unfair? Right. Like Muslims and for that matter the Amish, because Hasidic society is segregated from mainstream society, when its women and children are abused sexually or by violence, yes it can be covered up by certain Rabbias or Pastors and this is precisely why people like me who were and are family mediators or lawyers, do not at all feel comfortable with religious groups who are segregated, not open to the public, and give condensed and absolute power to religious leaders that are not able to be questioned. The throw in the Jew gets preferential treatment analogy Cyber used is crap. Hasidic Jews and Amish have the exact same problems Muslim societies have when they engage in fundamentalist practices but the difference is, none of us are asking people to tolerate them when they cross the line. Unlike you, I do not apologize for their extremist practices, I try expose them openly with criticism. I don't apologize for them and misrepresent them as benevolent. You work as I did in a clinic with incest victims, you could care less what religion they are. If they use that religion as their rational for their practices, I call them out for what they are. What next, you want to lecture me on seeing a kid with syphilis refuse to take anti biotics because his parents believe God will heal him? Spare me. The attempt to try turn this debate into Jews have what Muslims want is a pile of crap. Hasidic Jews have nothing Muslims don't already have, and more importantly if any of them... any sect of any religion wants to break Canadian laws, or opt out of laws, its not Islamophobic to tell them to suck wood. I also repeat verbartum what Wes did because I was there when the lobbying went down.... people wanted to and still want to opt out of Canadian laws particularly basic civil rights, precisely because they do not want to follow them. Its not how democracy works but its how people in fundamentalist religions operate. They go to public schools, enjoy the benefits of public schools and free bussing but want to pull their children from school because they don't want their children to learn what a penis is. Yah I get it and no I don't agree with it. No I do not think in our society teaching children about body parts and reproduction is a sin and that does not make me Islamophobic. In fact while we are at it teaching children not to beat up gays doesn't bother me. I am not homophobic. I can see concerns that sexual behavior of adults should not be taught to young children-I get that but with the internet and cell phone so accessible to children, fundamentalist religious parents have to make a choice-get free public education, or keep your child home and screw them up teaching them not to adjust to mainstream values. you don't get it both ways, You want to demand what the curriculum should be to suit your values-go create a private school and bloody well pay for it. You don't like a law you have two choices, one being to elect Sharia Law Muslim supporters into government and take it over and turn Canada into a Muslim state, the other is to break the law and suffer the consequences if you believe your law is more important than Canada's existing laws. No I do not condone the Muslims or Siekhs in my neighbourhood who in two elections, one federal, one provincial sent candidates of all parties to my door pandering for ethnic votes by playing up to fundamentalist religious beliefs that sex and homosexuality are dirty and should not be in schools. No I don't try apologize for that and deny its a fact and has been brought to this country and is a cancer to building a healthy society. This ridiculous notion you pick and chose the laws you want is crap. It comes from this ridiculous belief that people are entitled. It comes from people who believe they can get what ever they want. Demand and you get-Canada is one unlimited rule of exception to its laws. Everyone can do their own thing. Right. Ah its nice to live in this nice clean little sanitized liberal bubble called Canada- where all is swell and everyone gets to be what ever they want including a bigoted extremist who defines gays and women and non Muslims as infidel. Yes welcome to Fantasy Island. Boss dee plane dee plane. Oh yah its coming full of who? And instead of Ricardo Montalban and that little short guy waiting its Justin and the Right Hon.John McCallum. Welcome to Fantasy Island where all your dreams come true. I preferred Kojak. Edited February 3, 2016 by Rue
dialamah Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 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. It's a spin. "Lobbying for Sharia law" is a lot different than lobbying to have cultural differences accommodated within existing Canadian law, similar to the way in which First Nations do. In any case, they were turned down. it's a way of life with codes of conduct that are enforced with the absolute strictest of penalties. Depends on who is interpreting and enforcing the sharia law in question. You and others seem to think Sharia law is some kind of hard-wired code that is exactly the same everywhere, but it's not. Kinda like the difference between the US, Canada, the UK etc. Our laws are similar in many ways, but they're not exactly alike. Thus, what might get one the death penalty in one country results in jail time in another country. From what I've seen, Sharia law has even more latitude in its application than do the standard body of laws that Western countries tend to follow.
waldo Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 Waldo again you insult people I didn't insult anyone/you... I noted significant inconsistencies in your statements/claims as compared to anything I've read in relation to the historical particulars concerning that single organizations pursuit to introduce tribunal based arbitration, and the existence of other religious based tribunal arbitration. Accordingly, I pointed those inconsistencies out and asked if you could provide cited reference to support your statements/claims. Are you saying that you consider asking you to cite reference(s) to substantiate your statements/claims akin to insulting you? .
dialamah Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 In Post 3353 Cyber made a reference to Hasidic Jews to infer Muslims only want the same thing Hasidic Jews have in Canada. To start with Hasidic Jews can not opt out of Canadian family or divorce laws or any other laws. Secondly they only marry once. Why do they only marry once? Is divorce forbidden? If it is, why should it be, if it's legal within Canadian laws and culture? What if there is physical, sexual or emotional abuse within the marriage? Why should they be not permitted to leave such a marriage, and/or remarry if they choose to do so? The throw in the Jew gets preferential treatment analogy Cyber used is crap. Hasidic Jews and Amish have the exact same problems Muslim societies have when they engage in fundamentalist practices but the difference is, none of us are asking people to tolerate them when they cross the line. Unlike you, I do not apologize for their extremist practices, I try expose them openly with criticism. I don't apologize for them and misrepresent them as benevolent. Pointing out and contradicting ignorant, xenophobic and and racist comments and attitudes is not 'apologizing' for extremists. Nobody likes or appreciates people who trample on other's rights or make everyone less safe. Some of us also don't want to see an entire group described in such hateful ways as Muslims have been on this thread. My defense of Muslims here would be the same defense I'd give Jews, if I were involved in a thread detailing all the ways in which Jews were 'dangerous' or 'unable to assimilate culturally', 'setting up to take over the world' etc. You should think about the type of person who is so ready to denigrate huge numbers of people like that, and whether such an attitude is one you want to support.
Hal 9000 Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 It's a spin. "Lobbying for Sharia law" is a lot different than lobbying to have cultural differences accommodated within existing Canadian law, similar to the way in which First Nations do. In any case, they were turned down. Depends on who is interpreting and enforcing the sharia law in question. You and others seem to think Sharia law is some kind of hard-wired code that is exactly the same everywhere, but it's not. Kinda like the difference between the US, Canada, the UK etc. Our laws are similar in many ways, but they're not exactly alike. Thus, what might get one the death penalty in one country results in jail time in another country. From what I've seen, Sharia law has even more latitude in its application than do the standard body of laws that Western countries tend to follow. So, are you gonna suggest that we allow certain elements of Sharia law? How do you know that the muslims will only follow the good things Sharia Law has to offer? Who is gonna decide what elements of this "good" Sharia law is allowed? BTW - I think we all know that the 1400 year Sunni/Shiite dispute is generally about interpretation of Sharia Law. So, what side do you (or I guess your brother-in-law) side with? I would guess he is a Sunni. The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
GostHacked Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 That would be easier to do if all our politicians weren't whores. Then all the more reason to take our politicians to task on the matter. But if you believe your energy is being used more productively by complaining about Muslims on a forum board, then I really don't know what else to suggest.
Argus Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) Depends on who is interpreting and enforcing the sharia law in question. You and others seem to think Sharia law is some kind of hard-wired code that is exactly the same everywhere, but it's not. Kinda like the difference between the US, Canada, the UK etc. Our laws are similar in many ways, but they're not exactly alike. Thus, what might get one the death penalty in one country results in jail time in another country. From what I've seen, Sharia law has even more latitude in its application than do the standard body of laws that Western countries tend to follow. Really? And in what interpretation of Sharia is it okay to be gay? Or is it not a capital offense to commit adultery? Or to blaspheme? In what version of Sharia are women and men treated equally? In what version of Sharia are Muslims treated the same as unbelievers? Edited February 3, 2016 by Argus "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
Argus Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) Then all the more reason to take our politicians to task on the matter. But if you believe your energy is being used more productively by complaining about Muslims on a forum board, then I really don't know what else to suggest. Seems to me you complain about a lot of things here rather than 'taking our politicians to task'. Edited February 3, 2016 by Argus "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
DogOnPorch Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 Really? And in what interpretation of Sharia is it okay to be gay? Or is it not a capital offense to commit adultery? Or to blaspheme? In what version of Sharia are women and men treated equally? In what version of Sharia are Muslims treated the same as unbelievers? Technically, there are 7 different schools of Sharia: Four for Sunni and three for Shia Islam. All seven use the same references: The Quran and Hadiths. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Argus Posted February 3, 2016 Report Posted February 3, 2016 Pointing out and contradicting ignorant, xenophobic and and racist comments and attitudes is not 'apologizing' for extremists. It absolutely IS, especially given most of the comments have nothing to do with racism or xenophobia. What people like you can't seem to understand is that 'judgement' is not a human failing, but a human trait. In your desperation to never judge other groups, lest you be considered politically incorrect, you perform this sort of awkward dance in which you try to ignore the fact these other groups do and support behavior and beliefs which are utterly reprehensible to Canadians. Your continuing mantra "Mustn't judge! Mustn't judge! Mustn't judge!" is designed to neuter what intellect an knowledge do, which is produce judgement. It results in the absurd spectacle of liberals frantically defending illiberal behaviour, and defending those who think and behave in violently illiberal ways from any and all criticism. Some of us also don't want to see an entire group described in such hateful ways as Muslims have been on this thread. You mean you don't want to see people pointing out ongoing behaviour patterns from Muslim societies and repeated surveys indicating the extremely illiberal, misogynistic and homophobic views of the Muslim world. You don't want to see that because you're desperately chanting your "Mustn't judge! Mustn't judge! Mustn't judge!" mantra. You, like others, have turned non-judgement into your own religion, and like so many zealots, you insist that others follow your religious beliefs and refrain from judging other groups no matter how much information that judgement is based on. "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
Hudson Jones Posted February 4, 2016 Author Report Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) Really? And in what interpretation of Sharia is it okay to be gay? And in what interpretation of bible or old testament is it okay to be gay? https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often. But when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look. Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1 Leviticus 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Romans 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." Why do you try so hard to sell to everyone that EVERY Muslim follows the EXACT same thing? It's a shallow and superficial way of thinking that all Muslims think and believe the same thing. If a group of Muslims have tried to bring in Sharia law (which actually partly follows the literal teachings of the bible) into Canada, it doesn't mean that they represent the thinking of all Muslims. It also doesn't mean that they want to bring in everything that Sharia Law teaches or that they want to bring in what the Saudis believe or the Iranians believe or the Pakistanis believe. This is like a group of Christians who want to bring in the teachings of the bible into the law does not represent those who have a Christian background. Edited February 4, 2016 by Hudson Jones When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
Rue Posted February 4, 2016 Report Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) In response to Dialamah in her most recent post she compared incorporating Sharia law as Muslims asking for something no different then what aboriginals get, This is as illogical and incorrect a comparison as the one Cyber made comparing Muslims to Hasidic Jews in Canada. To start with the Charter of Rights and Canadian constitution and our recognition of the Magna Carta Act defines aboriginal law, more accurately called protocols, customs, rites, as equal and parallel to the French and Legal systems of law we incorporated when creating Canadian laws. Aboriginal laws unlike Sharia law do not contradict existing Canadian laws. In fact they are compatible with and complement existing Canadian laws and many have been used as the basis of Canadian laws as they promote very democratic and progressive concepts. While we are at it, let's remind Cyber that Hasids do not practice mainstream Jewish religion. Unlike Sharia law, the laws they practice can not and do not opt out of existing Canadian laws. No they have not gone to public schools and demanded their people be accommodated. They don't demand prayer rooms and insist all food in public schools be kosher as Muslims have demanding Halal. Hasids have not been welcomed by the plane load by John McCallum escaping civil wars-no their followers have not engaged in terrorism and no you can be sure Justin and John will not do photo ops with them or attend their Hasidic temples. Muslims do not and have never had the same legal rights as aboriginals. Go tell that to Justin. I am sure the next photo op where he poses with native leaders he will tell them they no longer have special status. Maybe he can fly them into cities down South like he has Syrian refugees and give them homes though. Edited February 4, 2016 by Rue
Rue Posted February 4, 2016 Report Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) Waldo's response to me in regards to the Marion Boyd report made no logical sense. He refers to a repport that was in fact rejected. For those who do not know and from reading Waldo's last comment to me, himself included, it was back on On 21 October 2003, that the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice, a pro Sharia law lobby group headed by retired Ontario lawyer, Syed Mumtaz Ali, lobbuied to set up an Islamic tribunal where Islamic law would be applied in adjudicating family law matters through "voluntary" arbitration. The McGuinty government in response appointed Marion Boyd, a former provincial Attorney General, to review the Arbitration Act and decide gave her a mandate to investigate : "what differential impact, if any, arbitration may have on women, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, or other vulnerable groups. This is because he was considering allowing Mulsim tribunals the right to make binding legal decisiosn that could opt out or ignore existing Ontario family laws. McGuinty was told in no uncertain terms he had no jurisdiction over allowing them to opt out of the Divorce Act of Canada. Three groups. The Canadian Council of Muslim Women (CCMW), the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL), and the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women all presented concerns as to the above that I and many other lawyers worked on and supported. Here is the position of these groups summarized in two articles from the CCMW: http://ccmw.com/initial-response-to-marion-boyds-report-on-the-arbitration-act/ http://ccmw.com/what-we-do/projects/no-religious-arbitration/ To summarize their submissions many of us dispute resolution professionals supported , argued that , separate arbitration tribunals for settling family matters under shariah/Muslim family law would ghettoize and further marginalize Muslim women. In the article, IN THE (CANADIAN) SHADOW OF ISLAMIC LAW: TRANSLATING MAHR AS A BARGAINING ENDOWMENT by PASCALE FOURNIER, which can be found at; OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL [VOL. 44, NO. 4] 649 and http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=ohlj there is an excellent summary of the legal position the above groups and legal and dispute professionals such as myself expressed when arguing against allowing Sharia law to opt out of the existing Ontario laws. I disclose I did receive a Master's in Law from Osgoode,so if you believe I have a bias because of that, its there in the open. However I have had many battles with York U academics as I have other human beings. I have no special love for anyone except dogs, cats and horses. Those arguments in fact were conceded to by McGuinty and the Liberals dropped the notion of passing legislation to allow arbitration decisions to opt out of existing Ontario laws. Waldo clearly did not grasp the issue. Arbitrations have always been allowed. Passing decisions that will contradict or ignore existing Ontario laws and still be binding is not allowed. Let's be clear because it appears Waldo does not get it- anyone can go to mediation and mediate a settlement. Mediations are not binding. Anyone can go to arbitration and try settle a matter and come up with a binding legal agreement from that arbitration that can be enforced in court unlike a mediation agreement which then needs to be placed in a contract to have any legal binding effect However tmediaation and arbitration agreements, family issue settlement contracts, can not opt out of Ontario family laws, federal divorce laws or the Charter which is what the sharia law lobby groups wanted. Those pro sharia law groups make no mistake wanted the right of Muslim councils to create binding legal decisions that would opt out of existing Ontario family laws and federal divorce laws and it was stopped and I am proud to have been one of many lawyers and family mediators who assisted the above groups. Here is another legal article that expresses the concerns we had with Sharia law: http://web.stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Sharia_11.2.pdf Waldo can make any ridiculous remarks he wants about the Boyd Report but it was thrown into the garbage and for him to refer to it as it has any relevance and to suggest otherwise or attack me for not referring to it speaks for itself. Oh Waldo you do realize Kathleen Wynne was dead against the Boyd report and you know how close she is to your leader Justin. Hey now you think Justin will mediate between these Sharia Law groups and Kathleen in Ontario over their cocnerns about the public school curriculum and how it promotes the wrongs sex values? How long do you think Justin would survive living in Saudi Arabia or Iran or the Kingdom of ISIL with the views he had hmmm? Yah yah, they would embrace him and his female cabinet members. Oh by the way you know Kathlyn has told community colleges to stop setting up male only campuses in Sharia law nations. Lol. I love Liberals. Edited February 4, 2016 by Rue
waldo Posted February 4, 2016 Report Posted February 4, 2016 Waldo go look at post 3361 to start. You can' t go a thread without an insult and you want to deny that? Lol. You might also want to tell Waldo what happened to Marion Boyd's report and find out why it was never adapted and is now widely seen as an example of how in the name of tolerance it was in fact going to open up the province to creating self ruled gthettoes of law that would have violated the Canadian Charter and existing federal and provincial laws. You can ask him the prominent role his good friend Kathlyn Wynn played in opposing the allowing of Shafria law opt out provisions and how she has now clashed openly over Muslim groups demanding sex education be taken out of the public school system in Ontario. no insult in post 3361... you could easily quote what you claim as insult. Just who are you directing your "you might", "you can", to? ... the "Royal YOU"? please sir, you reference my "good friend Kathlyn Wynn" (sic)... that's insulting to draw an association you implicitly mean to demean/deigrate with! Your posting history shows you have little respect for "Kathleen Wynne", notwithstanding you can't spell her name correctly. Your tactic is an insult sir! in all your postured claim of being the "fair observer and determiner", your wholly disingenuous tactics shine within your quoted closing sentence. It is my understanding that the most profiled protests by, as you say, "groups demanding sex education be taken out of the public school system in Ontario" comes from Catholic based protestations and the Canadian Families Alliance (CFA)... that parents’ rights coalition representing more than 25 associations and an estimated 200,000 parents. It's quite telling that you somehow managed to apply your focus on this point elsewhere - go figure, hey! .
cybercoma Posted February 4, 2016 Report Posted February 4, 2016 Rue, stop referring to me with your ridiculous strawman arguments. What you think I've argued is not at all what I've said, as usual.
waldo Posted February 4, 2016 Report Posted February 4, 2016 Waldo's response to me in regards to the Marion Boyd report made no logical sense. He refers to a repport that was in fact rejected. Waldo can make any ridiculous remarks he wants about the Boyd Report but it was thrown into the garbage and for him to refer to it as it has any relevance and to suggest otherwise or attack me for not referring to it speaks for itself. Oh Waldo you do realize Kathleen Wynne was dead against the Boyd report and you know how close she is to your leader Justin. Hey now you think Justin will mediate between these Sharia Law groups and Kathleen in Ontario over their cocnerns about the public school curriculum and how it promotes the wrongs sex values? Lol. I love Liberals. are you still reeling from me making the citation request? The request you have yet to meet? You made a claim that former Ontario Premier McQuinty said "..."... you also spoke of the subsequent creation of (non-Islam) based tribunal arbitration relative to your statement/claim. As I said, neither fit the historical accounts I've read. Apparently, you're having difficulty finding sources to support your statement/claim. no - the Boyd report was not rejected by the Ontario government; it was the impetus to substantiate going forward to begin an intended proceeding to facilitate public response. I'm shocked your coy wording would have you presuming to leave a false impression on the report... and what I stated. Shocked, I tells ya! and no, I don't realize your stated "realize"... but then again, this is just another of your unsubstantiated statements. It seems you're pressing awfully hard to tag presumed positions and your hypothetical musings towards me... notwithstanding you, once again, single out your focused group attention while ignoring the principals bringing opposition forward to that proposed Ontario school curriculum change. you say you "love Liberals"... I expect some might, in turn, revel in your poster-boy representation. .
Boges Posted February 4, 2016 Report Posted February 4, 2016 Jeez guys. An over 10 year old story about Ontario flirting with some form of Sharia Law has little to do with the premise of this thread. I think the backlash over the proposal is an indication that Ontario won't try this again. Then again McGuinty also ran and hid with the proposed sex ed curriculum but the new premier brought it back. I doubt a Lesbian would ever allow for Sharia courts in the province however.
waldo Posted February 4, 2016 Report Posted February 4, 2016 Jeez guys. An over 10 year old story about Ontario flirting with some form of Sharia Law has little to do with the premise of this thread. I think the backlash over the proposal is an indication that Ontario won't try this again. Then again McGuinty also ran and hid with the proposed sex ed curriculum but the new premier brought it back. jeez, wonder who brought it up... that MLW member (and others subsequently) sure thought it thread relevant, in spite of, as you highlight, the arbitration tribunal pursuit had the effective result of removing provision for any like religious based mediation and the 'scuttling' of those prior existing Jewish and Catholic arbitration tribunals. .
Hal 9000 Posted February 4, 2016 Report Posted February 4, 2016 So In Cologne, they have an extra 2500 police on hand for Carnival, they've had to illuminate certain areas and close down other areas, spend an extra half million dollars on security and bring in Brits with facial recognition technology. And, the attendance for the event is way down. The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
Boges Posted February 4, 2016 Report Posted February 4, 2016 So In Cologne, they have an extra 2500 police on hand for Carnival, they've had to illuminate certain areas and close down other areas, spend an extra half million dollars on security and bring in Brits with facial recognition technology. And, the attendance for the event is way down. Clearly Islamophobic.
Recommended Posts