McGuinty Cancels All Religious-Based Tribunals

[mirror]

Link

Premier Dalton McGinty said today Ontario will reject the use of Shariah law and will move to prohibit all religious-based tribunals to settle family disputes such as divorce.

Actually this heated discussion about bringing Sharia law into Canada provided an opportunity to discuss the whole aspect of religious-based tribunals. And now Ontario Liberal Premier McGuinty has rejectd Sharia and cancelled all others. Good move. The more we can remove religion from government the better off we will all be.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear mirror,

Good move. The more we can remove religion from government the better off we will all be.

I agree, if it is to be fair, it must be universal.

[August1991]

McGuinty has apparently adopted a French or Continental solution to the problem. The Civil Code is a top-down legal system. The common law is a bottom-up legal system. Both systems have their merits.

In the case of arbitration, two parties to a contract are ultimately always free to choose their own arbitrator for any difference of opinion. In practical terms, a marriage certificate or a divorce certificate issued in Las Vegas or in Tehran, for example, will be recognized in Ontario. For close knit communities, where one's reputation is important, I would imagine that people will simply go offshore for these matters. IOW (yes, that acronym again), contract law lends itself by nature to being in the common law tradition.

McGuinty's decision also raises a broader issue about religion and state-funding of schools. If McGuinty means that religious tribunals should not be involved in family law, then how can he justify tax money going to a Catholic school system?

In any case, I suspect he has taken this decision not based on any principle but for the simple reason that the alternative was politically untenable.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

McGuinty's decision also raises a broader issue about religion and state-funding of schools. If McGuinty means that religious tribunals should not be involved in family law, then how can he justify tax money going to a Catholic school system?

An excellent point. I have, to date, been asked to specify which school syatem I support, 'public or seperate', at census time. I was, however naively, led to believe that my answer to this question was going to dictate which 'school system' my taxes (or educational portion thereof) would fund. Perhaps, as this Dalton McGuinty thread indicates, we have entered a new phase of 'secularism'.

[cybercoma]

It's something he cannot stop. People who are deeply religious will still look to their churches/synagogues/temples/etc to settle marriage and family issues. There's nothing he can do to stop that and if he tries, he'll be violating one of the fundamental human rights to observe and practice religion.

[GostHacked]

It's something he cannot stop.  People who are deeply religious will still look to their churches/synagogues/temples/etc to settle marriage and family issues.  There's  nothing he can do to stop that and if he tries, he'll be violating one of the fundamental human rights to observe and practice religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And some religious laws violate human rights. I will gladly violate your religious rights in favour of human rights.

I have been keeping an eye on this a little and I am glad to hear this decision. We cannot have seperate laws for every religion out there. This just shows more of a seperation between church and state. I welcome this, and will be even more happy when all others are stopped as well. It would not be fair to have Christians, Jews and others to have their own tribunals but not Muslims. Ban them all just to be fair.

[Argus]

I welcome this, and will be even more happy when all others are stopped as well. It would not be fair to have Christians, Jews and others to have their own tribunals but not Muslims.  Ban them all just to be fair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem was that the Christian and Jewish arbitration worked quite well and saved the government a pile of money.

The problem is that Muslims, unlike the other groups, are not Canadian born, and are not secular at all. So their religious system would have had far more influence and would have been far more intrusive and forceful than the other religions' systems. Not to mention, of course, that discrimination is hard-wired into their system at every level.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

If some people can't play nice with their religions, they have to be taken away.

The problem was that the Christian and Jewish arbitration worked quite well and saved the government a pile of money.

I expect you are right, though some form of 'willing arbitration', (just not legally binding) can still occur, and be facilitated by one's church. As for me, I belong to "The Church of Shit Happens". (My diocese is 'Our Lady Of Perpetual Cynicism')

[cybercoma]

If he was going to ban it for one, he had to ban it for all of them so the Muslims couldn't claim discrimination.

[mirror]

Now the Jewish community is upset with McGuinty. You had to know this was going to happen. Mcguinty has shot himself in the foot over this one although as Tory said it is the right decision.

Jewish groups upset with McGuinty

[kimmy]

Very good news, in my opinion. And somewhat surprising- when was the last time a Canadian politician had the stones to say "sorry, but no" to an ethnic lobby?

-k

[Riverwind]

In practical terms, a marriage certificate or a divorce certificate issued in Las Vegas or in Tehran, for example, will be recognized in Ontario.

This is not exactly true since marriages are not considered absolutely binding contracts. Any spouse who disgrees with the terms of seperation can go back - even years later - and get a court to overturn a seperation agreement. The system is rediculous as it stands now. Adults should be allowed to sign binding contracts that cannot be overturned by a judge with a degree in social engineering.

[mockingbird]

McGuinty Cancels All Religious-Based Tribunals, Rejects Sharia, Ends Christian & Jewish...

Good.

Now the Jewish community is upset with McGuinty. You had to know this was going to happen. Mcguinty has shot himself in the foot over this one although as Tory said it is the right decision.

I'm Jewish and I'm pleased with this decision.

Now it's time also to convert the catholic schools into public schools and/or to take away catholic school funding.

[cybercoma]

I'm Jewish and I'm pleased with this decision.

Now it's time also to convert the catholic schools into public schools and/or to take away catholic school funding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Catholic schools are the exact same as public schools, with masses and religion class. I don't think they should be converted to public schools however they should lose all public funding and be solely private.

Of course, if they do that, those schools will probably become public anyway so they can still get public funding.

[Hawk]

I am suspicious of this turn of events, it seems entirely too radical to cancel all forms of tribunals due to a single bad one (terrible to be precise), especially ones that have been in place and not causing any problems. I don't support this move, but hey all socialists want is a scapegoat and religion offers itself as a handy one. Lets eliminate all religion from society, it will make Canada a better country =)

You guys deserve what you are gonna get if you keep following this road.

[mirror]

I am suspicious of this turn of events, it seems entirely too radical to cancel all forms of tribunals due to a single bad one (terrible to be precise), especially ones that have been in place and not causing any problems. I don't support this move, but hey all socialists want is a scapegoat and religion offers itself as a handy one. Lets eliminate all religion from society, it will make Canada a better country =)

You guys deserve what you are gonna get if you keep following this road.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear Hawk

Imagine Canadians not wanting a fundamentalist society like the US, where the government doesn't have to look after the people of NO as God will do it. Shame on us.

Cheers

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hawk,

You guys deserve what you are gonna get if you keep following this road.

A society free of 'religious intolerance'? A society based on logic and reason rather than piety and fanaticism? Schools that teach fact as more important than faith? Hospitals filled with doctors instead of Churches filled with gold? Lets hope so!

[Hawk]

Dear Hawk,

You guys deserve what you are gonna get if you keep following this road.

A society free of 'religious intolerance'? A society based on logic and reason rather than piety and fanaticism? Schools that teach fact as more important than faith? Hospitals filled with doctors instead of Churches filled with gold? Lets hope so!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if you are going to go to the extremes rather than discuss the actual issues of course it will sound ridiculous. Congrats on being an @$$.

[Hawk]

I am suspicious of this turn of events, it seems entirely too radical to cancel all forms of tribunals due to a single bad one (terrible to be precise), especially ones that have been in place and not causing any problems. I don't support this move, but hey all socialists want is a scapegoat and religion offers itself as a handy one. Lets eliminate all religion from society, it will make Canada a better country =)

You guys deserve what you are gonna get if you keep following this road.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear Hawk

Imagine Canadians not wanting a fundamentalist society like the US, where the government doesn't have to look after the people of NO as God will do it. Shame on us.

Cheers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Society is not what the governments make it, society just 'is'. That is the problem with socialism, they look to the government to control society, and religious control is just one rung on the ladder to religious persecution. But go for it, in a couple decades when I try to say 'told ya so' nobody will be able to hear me from my prison cell =p

Oh, and since when has the USA relied on 'God' soley in any decision? Please don't say Iraq, unless you are really that uneducated.

[BHS]

I'm Jewish and I'm pleased with this decision.

Now it's time also to convert the catholic schools into public schools and/or to take away catholic school funding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Catholic schools are the exact same as public schools, with masses and religion class. I don't think they should be converted to public schools however they should lose all public funding and be solely private.

Of course, if they do that, those schools will probably become public anyway so they can still get public funding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Catholic church has the right, under the British North America Act, to collect taxes in order to provide education services. Changing this would require a constitutional amendment. And good luck with that.

Let me first reiterate that I am not a religious person; I would describe my religious leanings as agnostic in a pinch.

That being said, I don't understand why people on this forum are so quick to characterize decisions informed by religious sentiment as illogical or incorrect, while at the same time accepting at face value arguments informed by convictions which are no less arbitrary. It happens in every argument where religious conviction comes into play, and I find it extremely irksome.

Political arguments by their nature are often based more on emotional convictions that substantive facts. This doesn't make the political process any less valid. Why should opinions rooted in one form of established moral framework (religion) be any less valid than those rooted in others (environmentalism, humanitarianism, etc.)?

Why is a marriage dispute arbitrated by a religious authority any less valid than a marriage dispute arbitrated by a secular arbitrator, if no laws are broken or rights trampled on in the process? Saying that the secular authority has more legitimacy in this matter is like saying that a Justice of the Peace is better suited to perform a marriage than is a minister.

I would think that rather than banning religious arbitration (and driving it underground, where it will persist completely outside of the scope of legal review) it would have been better to provide a defined set of legal boundaries for religious arbitrators to follow, and provide the periodic random review of cases to ensure that the law isn't being broken. Would that be harder and costlier to impliment than the cost and difficulty of bringing all of these disputes into the court system?

[mirror]

The Catholic church has the right, under the British North America Act, to collect taxes in order to provide education services. Changing this would require a constitutional amendment.  And good luck with that.

Let me first reiterate that I am not a religious person; I would describe my religious leanings as agnostic in a pinch.

That being said, I don't understand why people on this forum are so quick to characterize decisions informed by religious sentiment as illogical or incorrect, while at the same time accepting at face value arguments informed by convictions which are no less arbitrary. It happens in every argument where religious conviction comes into play, and I find it extremely irksome.

Political arguments by their nature are often based more on emotional convictions that substantive facts. This doesn't make the political process any less valid. Why should opinions rooted in one form of established moral framework (religion) be any less valid than those rooted in others (environmentalism, humanitarianism, etc.)?

Why is a marriage dispute arbitrated by a religious authority any less valid than a marriage dispute arbitrated by a secular arbitrator, if no laws are broken or rights trampled on in the process? Saying that the secular authority has more legitimacy in this matter is like saying that a Justice of the Peace is better suited to perform a marriage than is a minister.

I would think that rather than banning religious arbitration (and driving it underground, where it will persist completely outside of the scope of legal review) it would have been better to provide a defined set of legal boundaries for religious arbitrators to follow, and provide the periodic random review of cases to ensure that the law isn't being broken. Would that be harder and costlier to impliment than the cost and difficulty of bringing all of these disputes into the court system?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear BHS

No one has any beefs about your religious beliefs as long as you keep them to yourself. You know private between you and your God as others here don't give a rat's ass about your religious beliefs. The problem is though is that you don't keep them to yourself and that is where the problems lie. So if religious people can't shut up about them they will continue to get hammered because a lot of others think they are gobblygook, and why should we have to be subjected to such absurdies.

172

Cheers

[BHS]

The Catholic church has the right, under the British North America Act, to collect taxes in order to provide education services. Changing this would require a constitutional amendment.  And good luck with that.

Let me first reiterate that I am not a religious person; I would describe my religious leanings as agnostic in a pinch.

That being said, I don't understand why people on this forum are so quick to characterize decisions informed by religious sentiment as illogical or incorrect, while at the same time accepting at face value arguments informed by convictions which are no less arbitrary. It happens in every argument where religious conviction comes into play, and I find it extremely irksome.

Political arguments by their nature are often based more on emotional convictions that substantive facts. This doesn't make the political process any less valid. Why should opinions rooted in one form of established moral framework (religion) be any less valid than those rooted in others (environmentalism, humanitarianism, etc.)?

Why is a marriage dispute arbitrated by a religious authority any less valid than a marriage dispute arbitrated by a secular arbitrator, if no laws are broken or rights trampled on in the process? Saying that the secular authority has more legitimacy in this matter is like saying that a Justice of the Peace is better suited to perform a marriage than is a minister.

I would think that rather than banning religious arbitration (and driving it underground, where it will persist completely outside of the scope of legal review) it would have been better to provide a defined set of legal boundaries for religious arbitrators to follow, and provide the periodic random review of cases to ensure that the law isn't being broken. Would that be harder and costlier to impliment than the cost and difficulty of bringing all of these disputes into the court system?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear BHS

No one has any beefs about your religious beliefs as long as you keep them to yourself. You know private between you and your God as others here don't give a rat's ass about your religious beliefs. The problem is though is that you don't keep them to yourself and that is where the problems lie. So if religious people can't shut up about them they will continue to get hammered because a lot of others think they are gobblygook, and why should we have to be subjected to such absurdies.

172

Cheers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are so terribly, pathetically ignorant. I hope it's nice for you.

[newbie]

Dear BHS

No one has any beefs about your religious beliefs as long as you keep them to yourself. You know private between you and your God as others here don't give a rat's ass about your religious beliefs. The problem is though is that you don't keep them to yourself and that is where the problems lie. So if religious people can't shut up about them they will continue to get hammered because a lot of others think they are gobblygook, and why should we have to be subjected to such absurdies.

172

Cheers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I happen to believe in your comments, but I don't think it helps to insult BHS, re his religious beliefs. All that does is produce more negativity and personal attacks. Remember the "ignore."

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hawk,

Well, if you are going to go to the extremes rather than discuss the actual issues of course it will sound ridiculous. Congrats on being an @$$.

I suppose I had that coming.

BHS makes a very good argument with

Why should opinions rooted in one form of established moral framework (religion) be any less valid than those rooted in others (environmentalism, humanitarianism, etc.)?

I was raised RC, but became 'agnostic by choice' when I was old enough to see certain patterns and, shall we say, hypocrisy throughout most religions.

I would think that rather than banning religious arbitration (and driving it underground, where it will persist completely outside of the scope of legal review) it would have been better to provide a defined set of legal boundaries for religious arbitrators to follow, and provide the periodic random review of cases to ensure that the law isn't being broken. Would that be harder and costlier to impliment than the cost and difficulty of bringing all of these disputes into the court system?

The crux of the matter is basically protectionism, with McGuinty choosing 'The Samsom option" of all or none. It is a play to keep a certain set of religious laws from becoming 'on par' with certain others. Lets say, for example, Sharia law of Islam becoming equally valid with Christianity and Judaism. (Just as an example). In Sharia law, the testimony of one man equals that of two women, and women get the extremely short end of the stick in many other ways. To prevent this becoming an acceptable form of 'discrimination', there are only two choices, ban one certain set of religious laws (which could only be justified by saying that those particular ones are wrong), or by banning all forms of 'religious law' mediation, which is the only real choice to be made without 'taking sides'.

[Hawk]

The Catholic church has the right, under the British North America Act, to collect taxes in order to provide education services. Changing this would require a constitutional amendment.  And good luck with that.

Let me first reiterate that I am not a religious person; I would describe my religious leanings as agnostic in a pinch.

That being said, I don't understand why people on this forum are so quick to characterize decisions informed by religious sentiment as illogical or incorrect, while at the same time accepting at face value arguments informed by convictions which are no less arbitrary. It happens in every argument where religious conviction comes into play, and I find it extremely irksome.

Political arguments by their nature are often based more on emotional convictions that substantive facts. This doesn't make the political process any less valid. Why should opinions rooted in one form of established moral framework (religion) be any less valid than those rooted in others (environmentalism, humanitarianism, etc.)?

Why is a marriage dispute arbitrated by a religious authority any less valid than a marriage dispute arbitrated by a secular arbitrator, if no laws are broken or rights trampled on in the process? Saying that the secular authority has more legitimacy in this matter is like saying that a Justice of the Peace is better suited to perform a marriage than is a minister.

I would think that rather than banning religious arbitration (and driving it underground, where it will persist completely outside of the scope of legal review) it would have been better to provide a defined set of legal boundaries for religious arbitrators to follow, and provide the periodic random review of cases to ensure that the law isn't being broken. Would that be harder and costlier to impliment than the cost and difficulty of bringing all of these disputes into the court system?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear BHS

No one has any beefs about your religious beliefs as long as you keep them to yourself. You know private between you and your God as others here don't give a rat's ass about your religious beliefs. The problem is though is that you don't keep them to yourself and that is where the problems lie. So if religious people can't shut up about them they will continue to get hammered because a lot of others think they are gobblygook, and why should we have to be subjected to such absurdies.

172

Cheers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny, I didn't hear socialists telling the homosexuals to keep their beliefs to themselves. Why should we have to be subjected to such absurdies as gay pride parades and SSM? Your argument is hollow.