McGuinty Cancels All Religious-Based Tribunals

[Guest eureka]

The Catholic Church does not have the "right to collect taxes under the BNA Act." Only goverments, federal and provincial, have the power, not right.

[B. Max]

Since a judge no less has now declared atheism as a religion, will the government now ban its cultural marxism tribunals of human wrongs that mascarade under the guise of human rights commissions.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hawk,

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.

It wasn't the right of homosexuals to get married before, they had to fight for it. Now it can be a 'non-issue'. In Alberta, Klein had proposed a similar stance, no marriages for anyone, as McGuinty has done with religious law. Personally, I do not want Islamic law to rear it's 'ugly head' in this country, and I think that what was done was only proper given the circumstances.

I don't hear the Catholic Church or any Hebrews demanding that Sharia law be included in the laws of the land, either. If they feel the actions of McGuinty unfair, they should be also championing the rights of Islamic law to be included also.

[BHS]

I don't hear the Catholic Church or any Hebrews demanding that Sharia law be included in the laws of the land, either. If they feel the actions of McGuinty unfair, they should be also championing the rights of Islamic law to be included also.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Done. Sort of. (I mean, unless you're looking for a rabbi to come right out and defend Islam specifically without regard to or mention of his own predicament, which you have to admit is a bit much to expect. ) Read the whole article, but I refer specifically to the penultimate paragraph. Please note that Sharia has already been in use since the NDP enacted the Arbitration Act, and the current hubbub pertains to the request by the Islamic community to create a sort of Sharia Law Society of Ontario or somesuch. Taken in this context, it seems to me that McGuinty's decision to outlaw all religiously based arbitration is like swatting a fly with a howitzer.

CTV

[BHS]

The Catholic Church does not have the "right to collect taxes under the BNA Act." Only goverments, federal and provincial, have the power, not right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I refer interested readers to the Scott Act of 1863 (enacted subsequent to the Common Schools Act of 1859), protected by section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867. This has all been reviewed by the courts in decades past, which confirmed the Catholics' right to a seperate system of education funded by taxes. And don't bother quibbling with semantics, eureka. I'm not in the mood for it and I won't be responding to your further inevitable jibes.

[GostHacked]

The Catholic Church does not have the "right to collect taxes under the BNA Act." Only goverments, federal and provincial, have the power, not right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I refer interested readers to the Scott Act of 1863 (enacted subsequent to the Common Schools Act of 1859), protected by section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867. This has all been reviewed by the courts in decades past, which confirmed the Catholics' right to a seperate system of education funded by taxes. And don't bother quibbling with semantics, eureka. I'm not in the mood for it and I won't be responding to your further inevitable jibes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess the religious in the country would not want those articles in the consitution to change. So they can continue to have their voice heard. But overall we are evolving as a society and the government must meet the demands of the majority of the land. But then again evolution is a farce.

Those Acts are old. Outdated. No longer needed. But how do yu go about starting to change it?

Now come on you guys and gals, lets play nice and discuss things instead of throwing mud.

[August1991]

The Catholic Church does not have the "right to collect taxes under the BNA Act." Only goverments, federal and provincial, have the power, not right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I refer interested readers to the Scott Act of 1863 (enacted subsequent to the Common Schools Act of 1859), protected by section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867. This has all been reviewed by the courts in decades past, which confirmed the Catholics' right to a seperate system of education funded by taxes. And don't bother quibbling with semantics, eureka. I'm not in the mood for it and I won't be responding to your further inevitable jibes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe, BHS, that this is only true now in Ontario. Confessional schools in Newfoundalnd and Quebec have been abolished. They never existed in other provinces - except I think Manitoba.

In the case of Ontario, interpretation of the constitution only guaranteed State funding of explicitly Catholic education up to age 16. I think local property taxes dedicated to education are collected according to confession.

As to McGuinty, I haven't followed this issue closely but I think he better know what he's doing. He has many people in the world watching this.

And BTW BHS, I enjoy reading your posts.

[Guest eureka]

You are apparently not in the mood for reality, either. The Constitution does not, repeat that, NOT, give the right to Catholic churches to collect taxes.

[mirror]

This uproar from the Jewish community is very misleading. Apparently Jewish courts only dealt with two cases last year, so it is not as if a whole lot of people are going to be inconvenienced by McGuinty's decision to end the practice.

Often when there is a big uproar over some issue when investigated it is discovered there are only a few people involved but becasue they control the name of some organization they sound like they represent vast numbers.

292

[BHS]

I believe, BHS, that this is only true now in Ontario.  Confessional schools in Newfoundalnd and Quebec have been abolished.  They never existed in other provinces - except I think Manitoba.

In the case of Ontario, interpretation of the constitution only guaranteed State funding of explicitly Catholic education up to age 16.  I think local property taxes dedicated to education are collected according to confession.

As to McGuinty, I haven't followed this issue closely but I think he better know what he's doing.  He has many people in the world watching this.

And BTW BHS, I enjoy reading your posts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

EEEEthankyewww!!! (Meant to sound like a chirpy Brit accent.)

You are correct. This legislation only applies in Ontario. My centrocentric mistake.

To clarify, the Church does not collect taxes; rather, taxes are collected by the government on behalf of the constitutionally protected seperate school system. The taxpayer specifies whether his taxes are meant to support the public or seperate system, but my understanding is that this is a merely a form of cencus-taking and doesn't affect resource allocation.

[cybercoma]

I believe, BHS, that this is only true now in Ontario.  Confessional schools in Newfoundalnd and Quebec have been abolished.  They never existed in other provinces - except I think Manitoba.

In the case of Ontario, interpretation of the constitution only guaranteed State funding of explicitly Catholic education up to age 16.  I think local property taxes dedicated to education are collected according to confession.

As to McGuinty, I haven't followed this issue closely but I think he better know what he's doing.  He has many people in the world watching this.

And BTW BHS, I enjoy reading your posts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

EEEEthankyewww!!! (Meant to sound like a chirpy Brit accent.)

You are correct. This legislation only applies in Ontario. My centrocentric mistake.

To clarify, the Church does not collect taxes; rather, taxes are collected by the government on behalf of the constitutionally protected seperate school system. The taxpayer specifies whether his taxes are meant to support the public or seperate system, but my understanding is that this is a merely a form of cencus-taking and doesn't affect resource allocation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought people couldn't specify anymore. The taxes are split up based on student population, no?

[Guest eureka]

What is guaranteed by the Constitution is closer to your last effort. It is the right of taxpayesrs to direct their education taxes to the Catholic system.

That is somewhat different but it is an important difference not a semantic quibble. It also has led to political an ethical difficulties.

[BHS]

I believe, BHS, that this is only true now in Ontario.  Confessional schools in Newfoundalnd and Quebec have been abolished.  They never existed in other provinces - except I think Manitoba.

In the case of Ontario, interpretation of the constitution only guaranteed State funding of explicitly Catholic education up to age 16.  I think local property taxes dedicated to education are collected according to confession.

As to McGuinty, I haven't followed this issue closely but I think he better know what he's doing.  He has many people in the world watching this.

And BTW BHS, I enjoy reading your posts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

EEEEthankyewww!!! (Meant to sound like a chirpy Brit accent.)

You are correct. This legislation only applies in Ontario. My centrocentric mistake.

To clarify, the Church does not collect taxes; rather, taxes are collected by the government on behalf of the constitutionally protected seperate school system. The taxpayer specifies whether his taxes are meant to support the public or seperate system, but my understanding is that this is a merely a form of cencus-taking and doesn't affect resource allocation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought people couldn't specify anymore. The taxes are split up based on student population, no?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You may be right. I don't recall ignoring that section of my tax return last year.

[mockingbird]

I don't hear the Catholic Church or any Hebrews

"Hebrews"? What's that supposed to mean pig skin?

[I Miss Trudeau]

"Hebrews"?  What's that supposed to mean pig skin?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2 : a member of or descendant from one of a group of northern Semitic peoples including the Israelites

Get a dictionary, twine sphere.

[kimmy]

"Hebrews"?  What's that supposed to mean pig skin?

2 : a member of or descendant from one of a group of northern Semitic peoples including the Israelites

Get a dictionary, twine sphere.

Perhaps twine sphere was simply questioning whether Hebrew is an accepted synomym for someone of Jewish faith.

twine sphere

twine sphere

I don't know what it means, but it's funny. I know what "twine" and "sphere" mean, but I don't think I've ever heard them used in combination to address a person before.

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

Perhaps twine sphere was simply questioning whether Hebrew is an accepted synomym for someone of Jewish faith.

I believe it is, or should be. I was trying to avoid, in this case, using the term 'the Jews', as I did not want it to appear derogatory or 'conspiratorily paranoid'.

[PocketRocket]

Wow. This thread certainly took off.

I may need a bit of education on this, and anyone feel free to do so, or to correct me if I'm wrong in any of my assumptions, but the way I see it, this ruling doesn't change much.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't someone have to agree to the rulings of a religious tribunal under current law???

IOW, if I am Catholic (I am non practising), and I agree to be judged by a Catholic tribunal for some peccadillo or other, then the decision to bow to that tribunal is made by me and me alone.

But, if the rulings of said tribunal fall outside of conventional, secular Canadian law, am I not also free to have my case heard in a conventional court of law, and possibly have the Catholic decision overturned???

If this is indeed the case, then this bill (or whatever it is) banning religious law would change nothing.

If someone wants their case or complaint arbitrated by a Catholic (or Jewish or Muslim) tribunal, rather than taking it to court, then that is still the decision of the two (or more) parties involved in the dispute.

If this is done, and afterwards one of the parties involved disagrees with the outcome and decides to try have it overturned by taking it to court, then it simply lowers his credibility within his/her own religious community.

If someone is of such a religious bent that they want to have their case arbitrated by a religious tribunal rather than conventional law, then it is unlikely that such a person would want to overturn any ruling and risk their standing within their church.

Ergo, any religious establishment could likely still set up some sort of arbitration/mediation process wherein a case is brought before them, and they pass down "recommendations" rather than "rulings".

To a devout believer in the faith involved, such a recommendation would likely be looked upon as "law" anyway, so little would really change.

Of course, all of the above is based on the assumption that a ruling passed down by a Catholic or Jewish tribunal is not actually "law" in the conventional legal sense, but rather a ruling that the participants must willingly choose to follow.

As a side note, the Catholic church "ruled" that I could not marry my protestant wife, and refused to perform the marriage ceremony, unless, of course, she would agree to classes and training in how to become a good Catholic.

We got married in a different church.

Interestingly enough, the Catholic church, who did not want to recognize our right to marry, also frowned upon our divorce.

Can't win with some folks.

EDITED TO ADD: I admit to being ignorant on the current status of religious "law", and how it is recognized within the Canadian legal system, and so the above thoughts may be way off base if the assumptions they are based on are incorrect.

As stated above, I welcome any corrections or education in regards to this matter.

[August1991]

I admit to being ignorant on the current status of religious "law", and how it is recognized within the Canadian legal system, and so the above thoughts may be way off base if the assumptions they are based on are incorrect.

As stated above, I welcome any corrections or education in regards to this matter.

You are perfectly correct PR.

It is common for firms in international markets to appeal to third party arbitration. For example, a Canadian importer and a Malaysian exporter might include in the contract of sale a provision that any disputes will be arbitrated in France using agreed upon contract law. The proceedings may be confidential.

This is no different than family arbitration.

----

McGuinty could mean that he intends to make explicit that a person is free to seek arbitration under Ontario law. (That was always the case.) Or maybe he means that he will have police arrest religious - or any third-party - arbitrators. (I don't know how they would do that in practice.)

In effect, can or should the police arrest Dr. Phil?

[August1991]

More.

The following longish quote comes from David Frum's weblog:

As a reader from Ontario observes in a recent email:

"We were told by pro-sharia advocates not to worry, the rulings would be reviewed by the Ontario courts to ensure everything is legal. But in Ontario it is perfectly legal for a woman to give up her rights to custody, visitation & support. These issues are open to negotiation and by definition can be negotiated away. An immigrant woman already cut off from the broader Canadian society & under pressure from family & community would have no chance of standing up for rights to which she is not even aware she has. This is a disaster averted, in my opinion."

The story of the destruction of Jewish and Christian arbitration as the price of averting sharia law may be an example of a point Daniel Pipes ceaselessly makes: that the effort to integrate a third great religion into the life of the Judaeo-Christian West will not be easy - and will disarrange a very great many arrangements that Westerners have come over many years to regard as natural and harmless.

One arrangement that may call out for a second look is the practice of automatically conferring citizenship on the spouses of citizens. The British writer Anthony Daniels (also known by his pen name "Theodore Dalrymple"), a medical doctor, has warned of the dangerous effects of such trans-national marriages for British Muslim women. Their families in Britain arrange a marriage for them to a cousin back in Pakistan in order to obtain him entry into the UK. He marries, behaves himself for a year (the period within which the marriage can be voided without conferring residency rights) - and then as soon as the voidable period lapses, immediately begins to bully and abuse his young and vulnerable new wife. She may leave him - but he won't leave Britain.

If my memory serves (I'm traveling and don't have access to files - and alas the errors above warn me of the dangers of trusting to memory!), the Netherlands has adopted a serious scheme to prevent arranged marriages from victimizing Dutch women of Muslim background. Canada and the United States may need to consider similar reforms.

There are three points here.

1) When, if ever, should the State force minimal conditions on a party to a contract? (Above, it is noted that a woman, out of ignorance, may voluntarily give up right to child custody.) That is tantamount to saying that when you buy your new $25,000 car, it is understood that it will be illegal to sell it used for less than $15,000.

2) Call it Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Lutheran or Swedish Commercial Arbitration, should the State forbid a style of jurisprudence? (Daniel Pipes argument simplified above is that accommodating Sharia will cause us problems elewhere.)

3) How do we deal with citizenship?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

In effect, can or should the police arrest Dr. Phil?

Who the hell is Dr. Phil?

That is tantamount to saying that when you buy your new $25,000 car, it is understood that it will be illegal to sell it used for less than $15,000.

In some cases, this is true. Revenue Canada came down hard on some friends of mine who, as a personal favour, wanted to sell me and my wife a vehicle for $1. (It was an 'older', 1997, SUV that was owned by their private company, but they had originally leased it and then bought it outright...) RevCan said "No way, you have to charge at least the book value ($10,000)". Evidently, any sort of 'goodwill' is tantamount to fraud in their eyes.

When, if ever, should the State force minimal conditions on a party to a contract?

When the contract falls below minimum accepted standards as set by the law of the land. Let's say someone (foolishly) enters a contract, that might be incredibly lucrative, but failure to fulfill the contract means termination of life instead of employment. Should that be ok if both parties agree? Silly, of course. But, what if one of the parties is brought up to believe a certain religion, and that they must marry another person from that religion, or they risk death. By entering into that 'marriage contract', they may or may not have the right to choose an arbitrator, for the religion supplies it's own, which is always unfavourable to one of the parties, and heavily slanted towards the other. The person, in order to avoid pre-acknowledged unfair arbitration, risks death if they don't enter the contract. Therefore, a 'universal minimum' must be applied by someone, and the only one with enough power is the state.

[kimmy]

In effect, can or should the police arrest Dr. Phil?

Yes... but not for this.

-k

[Tawasakm]

In some cases, this is true. Revenue Canada came down hard on some friends of mine who, as a personal favour, wanted to sell me and my wife a vehicle for $1. (It was an 'older', 1997, SUV that was owned by their private company, but they had originally leased it and then bought it outright...) RevCan said "No way, you have to charge at least the book value ($10,000)". Evidently, any sort of 'goodwill' is tantamount to fraud in their eyes.

My Dad once sold me a car for $1. I think we actually added five cents to make the figure look more interesting. I cannot for the life of me understand why there would be an impediment to such a thing in Canada.

In any event it seems clear (to me at least) that secular law should 'trump' religious law in any sensible legal system. If anybody can throw any reasons at me why this should not be so then it would be fun debating it.

[Tawasakm]

Who the hell is Dr. Phil?

Largish, bald and made big by Oprah. Dave Letterman seems to be a fan of his too.

[Riverwind]

In some cases, this is true. Revenue Canada came down hard on some friends of mine who, as a personal favour, wanted to sell me and my wife a vehicle for $1. (It was an 'older', 1997, SUV that was owned by their private company, but they had originally leased it and then bought it outright...) RevCan said "No way, you have to charge at least the book value ($10,000)".  Evidently, any sort of 'goodwill' is tantamount to fraud in their eyes.

Your friends likely deducted the capital cost of the SUV from the profits of the company. By doing that they declared the SUV as a capital asset of the company which makes the SUV no different from cash in the bank from the point of view of the Revenue Canada. Any time you transfer assets out of company it must be for a legitimate expense. Giving cash away to your friends is not a legitimate business expense. However, if you had done work for his company then he could have given you the SUV in lieu of cash, however, you would have had to declare the book value of the SUV as income. If you friends had not deducted the capital cost of the SUV from the company books then they would have been free to sell it to you at whatever price.

The Revenue Canada regulations are designed to close loop holes that would allow people to launder money and evade taxes. Revenue Canada does not make up rules just to make people's lives miserable - there is always a logical reason.