Is Sharia Law Being Practiced In Canada

[Argus]

What do you propose to do about the Muslims?

We should end immigration by Muslims, and mosques should be monitored, the sermons given by the mullahs translated and checked by CSIS. In additioin, we should ban all foreign money coming into Canada for religious purposes. If local Muslims want to build a mosque they have to pay for it, not get money from Saudis.

[jdobbin]

We should end immigration by Muslims, and mosques should be monitored, the sermons given by the mullahs translated and checked by CSIS. In additioin, we should ban all foreign money coming into Canada for religious purposes. If local Muslims want to build a mosque they have to pay for it, not get money from Saudis.

How many use foreign money now to build mosques?

Doesn't the RCMP already monitor terrorism in Canada as well as hate crimes?

As far as Muslim immigration goes, I don't know that they even ask the religion of new immigrants.

[Argus]

We should end immigration by Muslims, and mosques should be monitored, the sermons given by the mullahs translated and checked by CSIS. In additioin, we should ban all foreign money coming into Canada for religious purposes. If local Muslims want to build a mosque they have to pay for it, not get money from Saudis.

How many use foreign money now to build mosques?

It is my understanding that almost all mosques built in the last ten years were built with grants from the Saudis.

Doesn't the RCMP already monitor terrorism in Canada as well as hate crimes?

I don't know how much monitoring of Muslim mosques and schools go on, but I suspect it's not a lot. Recording sermons would probably require a court order, and there are political considerations, of course.

As far as Muslim immigration goes, I don't know that they even ask the religion of new immigrants.

Then simply stop accepting immigrants from Muslim countries, and weed out most of the refugees - who aren't legitimate anyway.

[jdobbin]

It is my understanding that almost all mosques built in the last ten years were built with grants from the Saudis.

I don't know how much monitoring of Muslim mosques and schools go on, but I suspect it's not a lot. Recording sermons would probably require a court order, and there are political considerations, of course.

Then simply stop accepting immigrants from Muslim countries, and weed out most of the refugees - who aren't legitimate anyway.

I think the RCMP does't need a court order if they have informants. I believe they have a lot of those.

Are there other countries who stop Saudi funding?

Harper hasn't even filled all the positions on the immigration and refugees boards to process all those that have come in. It is a bit bewildering. Refugees are now backlogged because of the lack of staff. They basically don't have to back their claim for a veyr long time.

[betsy]

The best we (western society) can do is insist that they follow our laws, and clamp down on the clerics who promote violence and hate. What I'm, not sure about is how many of the radicals there really are, and if they actually are on the fringe, or represent a larger group. e.g.

Most of the samples you gave came from the United States. Do you have examples where a large segment of Canada's Muslim population is being radicalized?

Wasn't a Canadian Muslim accused of being involved with 9/11? (Not sure what happened to that)

Weren't Canadian Muslims....arrested for plotting to take the Parliament hostage and behead our MPs?

Weren't the Canadian Khadrs involved with terrorism?

May not be much....but you see that radicalism is here!

For all you know, Canada had escaped being targetted only because it serves an important purpose: it serves as a viable entry point.

As the saying goes, you don't mess around in your own backyard. But it seems the gloves are off now that Al Qaeda had declared we're definitely on the list!

[gc1765]

I agree. But it seems this has been going on since 1991, and Christians and Jews have been using this same system...so why hasn't anyone complained about this before?

What exactly do you mean?

What I mean is that you appear to be opposed to "faith-based arbitration" for Muslims, which I assume is why you started this thread. So, are you also opposed to "fait-based arbitration" for Jews and Christians?

[gc1765]

Hardly random. They were organized attacks on Christians and Jews by groups of Muslims who had dedicated their lives to killing Christians and Jews, and who enjoy considerable support in the Muslim world.

"random" was not my word, I was simply agreeing with another post.

I remind you that Osama Bin Laden, who was behind the WTC, is regarded as a hero by much of the Muslim world.

How much of the Muslim world supports bin laden, and how much of it opposes bin laden? How many muslims in north america support bin laden, and how many oppose him?

[gerryhatrick]

Is this "faith-based mediation and dispute resolution," the dreaded Sharia Law?

Why is it so "dreaded"?

Depends. How much do you hate women?

I don't hate women at all.

You give a pretense of understanding so perhaps you can answer.

Sharia law is barbarous in its punishments, as you well-know, and its treatment of women is equally barbarous and unacceptable in this day and age.

Is that what they wanted to enact in Ontario, barbarous punishments?

I suspect the truth is something other than what some posters here are trying to suggest.

Some posters here have a deep-seated bigotry towards Muslims. I don't know where it stems from, but it's quite an ugly thing to see. 9/11 and other events conducted by terrorists have given racists and bigots an excuse to pile on all Muslims.

[betsy]

I agree. But it seems this has been going on since 1991, and Christians and Jews have been using this same system...so why hasn't anyone complained about this before?

What exactly do you mean?

What I mean is that you appear to be opposed to "faith-based arbitration" for Muslims, which I assume is why you started this thread. So, are you also opposed to "fait-based arbitration" for Jews and Christians?

Please, give an example of what you mean by faith-based arbitration for Jews and Christians. Just to be sure what you mean.

[jbg]

Please, give an example of what you mean by faith-based arbitration for Jews and Christians. Just to be sure what you mean.

Concedely, the Orthodox Jews do have "kosher courts" for disputes over food's being kosher or "trefe", the location of synagogues, Jewish divorces (I have real problems with that and think that all States and Provinces should have laws emasculating this power, as New York does), etc. With the exception of divorces, these courts deal in areas that Courts would be loathe to because of the church/state separation we have in the US.

[Argus]

I remind you that Osama Bin Laden, who was behind the WTC, is regarded as a hero by much of the Muslim world.

How much of the Muslim world supports bin laden, and how much of it opposes bin laden? How many muslims in north america support bin laden, and how many oppose him?

I don't know about North America, but a Pew reserach poll found that between 25% and 60% of the population in Muslim countries support bin laden.

What does that tell you about your belief that only "extremists" hate the West and wish violence on us?

[Argus]

Sharia law is barbarous in its punishments, as you well-know, and its treatment of women is equally barbarous and unacceptable in this day and age.

Is that what they wanted to enact in Ontario, barbarous punishments?

No, they wanted family arbitration by a barbarous guide, a guide which says that a man can't be prosecuted for rape unless four adult men testify against him, a guide which says a woman's word is worth only one half what a man's word is, a guide which says a man may divorce his wife by saying "I divorce thee" three times, a guide where the man is always in charge and the woman's duty is to do as she is told and obey.

[gerryhatrick]

Sharia law is barbarous in its punishments, as you well-know, and its treatment of women is equally barbarous and unacceptable in this day and age.

Is that what they wanted to enact in Ontario, barbarous punishments?

No, they wanted family arbitration by a barbarous guide, a guide which says that a man can't be prosecuted for rape unless four adult men testify against him, a guide which says a woman's word is worth only one half what a man's word is, a guide which says a man may divorce his wife by saying "I divorce thee" three times, a guide where the man is always in charge and the woman's duty is to do as she is told and obey.

Show me one link that shows that was what was being proposed in Ontario.

I won't hold my breath.

[Canuck E Stan]

Show me one link that shows that was what was being proposed in Ontario.

I won't hold my breath.

Gerry,Gerry Gerry.

Okay now, Take a deep breath.

Not only it it being proposed it's being done.

Shariah law in Ontario

The Ontario government has been reviewing its Arbitration Act and on Dec. 20, 2004, it released a report conducted by former attorney general Marion Boyd. Among her 46 recommendations was that:

* The Arbitration Act should continue to allow disputes to be arbitrated using religious law, if the safeguards currently prescribed and recommended by this review are observed.

Earlier in the year, the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice said it wanted to set up its own faith-based arbitration panels under the Arbitration Act, based on Shariah law.

The proposal ran into opposition from women's groups, legal organizations and the Muslim Canadian Congress, which all warned that the 1,400-year-old Shariah law does not view women as equal to men.

In her report, Boyd noted that some "participants in the Review fear that the use of arbitration is the beginning of a process whose end goal is a separate political identity for Muslims in Canada, that has not been the experience of other groups who use arbitration."

How would Shariah law apply in Ontario?

First, it's not clear the term "Shariah law" would even be used. Several groups that appeared before Boyd's process of reviewing the Arbitration Act say it's not Shariah law they want to set up but a Muslim Personal/Family Law process which has its roots in Shariah.

The arbitration process as set out in the Arbitration Act is voluntary. Most of the concerns about the creation of "Shariah" tribunals have focused on the fear that Muslim women may feel they are being forced into taking part in a process of binding arbitration according to Muslim family law instead of resolving their disputes through the court system.

In her report, former Ontario attorney general Marion Boyd stressed that any faith-based system would have to conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Okay now, Exhale

[jbg]

The wife's participation is hardly "voluntary" since she doesn't have the firepower at home to resist the husband's dominant will under Islamic culture.

[gc1765]

Please, give an example of what you mean by faith-based arbitration for Jews and Christians. Just to be sure what you mean.

I don't know, you were the one that posted the link about faith-based arbitration! All I know is that it's apparently been going on in Ontario since 1991, but no one has mentioned it or started a thread about it yet. This is from the link YOU provided.

Faith-based arbitration by Christians, Jews and Ismailis has been functioning smoothly under the Arbitration Act since its introduction in 1991.

I can't give you a specific example of when this happened, but then again that didn't stop you from starting a new thread about Islamic faith based arbitration without a specfic example.

[gerryhatrick]

Show me one link that shows that was what was being proposed in Ontario.

I won't hold my breath.

Gerry,Gerry Gerry.

Okay now, Take a deep breath.

Not only it it being proposed it's being done.

Shariah law in Ontario

The Ontario government has been reviewing its Arbitration Act and on Dec. 20, 2004, it released a report conducted by former attorney general Marion Boyd. Among her 46 recommendations was that:

* The Arbitration Act should continue to allow disputes to be arbitrated using religious law, if the safeguards currently prescribed and recommended by this review are observed.

Earlier in the year, the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice said it wanted to set up its own faith-based arbitration panels under the Arbitration Act, based on Shariah law.

The proposal ran into opposition from women's groups, legal organizations and the Muslim Canadian Congress, which all warned that the 1,400-year-old Shariah law does not view women as equal to men.

In her report, Boyd noted that some "participants in the Review fear that the use of arbitration is the beginning of a process whose end goal is a separate political identity for Muslims in Canada, that has not been the experience of other groups who use arbitration."

How would Shariah law apply in Ontario?

First, it's not clear the term "Shariah law" would even be used. Several groups that appeared before Boyd's process of reviewing the Arbitration Act say it's not Shariah law they want to set up but a Muslim Personal/Family Law process which has its roots in Shariah.

The arbitration process as set out in the Arbitration Act is voluntary. Most of the concerns about the creation of "Shariah" tribunals have focused on the fear that Muslim women may feel they are being forced into taking part in a process of binding arbitration according to Muslim family law instead of resolving their disputes through the court system.

In her report, former Ontario attorney general Marion Boyd stressed that any faith-based system would have to conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Okay now, Exhale

I should not have to explain this to you, but when I said "that" I clearly was referring to Argus's post which read as folows:

No, they wanted family arbitration by a barbarous guide, a guide which says that a man can't be prosecuted for rape unless four adult men testify against him, a guide which says a woman's word is worth only one half what a man's word is, a guide which says a man may divorce his wife by saying "I divorce thee" three times, a guide where the man is always in charge and the woman's duty is to do as she is told and obey.

So again I ask, show me one link that shows that was what was being proposed in Ontario.

Your link has not done so.

[betsy]

Please, give an example of what you mean by faith-based arbitration for Jews and Christians. Just to be sure what you mean.

I don't know,

You don't know.

You've made a big claim about Jews and Christian arbitration...and you're backing it up with, "I don't know."

Oh well, then you've really got nothing to say.

Thank you for being honest, though.

[betsy]

Please, give an example of what you mean by faith-based arbitration for Jews and Christians. Just to be sure what you mean.

I don't know, you were the one that posted the link about faith-based arbitration! All I know is that it's apparently been going on in Ontario since 1991, but no one has mentioned it or started a thread about it yet. This is from the link YOU provided.

I didn't know it's been going on since 1991!

My thread title is a question. And it was followed by several questions.....

[gc1765]

I don't know,

You don't know.

You've made a big claim about Jews and Christian arbitration...and you're backing it up with, "I don't know."

Oh well, then you've really got nothing to say.

Thank you for being honest, though.

Why don't you read and/or quote my entire paragraph and then you'll see what my point is. I did not make any "big claims" about Jewish & Christian aribration, except to say that they have been taking place in Ontario since 1991, which was from the link that YOU provided (I assumed you had read the link before posting it).

My point is this, you do not have a single example of Jewish/Christian arbitration OR an example of Islamic arbitration (despite the fact that I asked you), yet you decide to start an entire thread on Islamic arbitration for which you do not have any specific examples. And then you harp on me for quoting something that was provided in YOUR link?

Now, back to my original question. Based on your posts, I am guessing that you are opposed to Islamic arbitration (but if you're not opposed perhaps you can clarify your position for me) and your opposition comes without knowing any specific examples. Now, without being given any specific examples of Jewish & Christian arbitration, are you also opposed to them?

[Argus]

No, they wanted family arbitration by a barbarous guide, a guide which says that a man can't be prosecuted for rape unless four adult men testify against him, a guide which says a woman's word is worth only one half what a man's word is, a guide which says a man may divorce his wife by saying "I divorce thee" three times, a guide where the man is always in charge and the woman's duty is to do as she is told and obey.

Show me one link that shows that was what was being proposed in Ontario.

Why? What was being proposed was binding family arbitration according to Islamic law - which we know to be highly prejudicial towards women. Why is this confusing to you? Or is it your desperate need to defend brown people no matter the reason, no matter the cause, no matter the rightness or wrongness of the topic?

I won't hold my breath.

Oh, that's okay, go ahead.