Forget All Else: Islamic Law Comes To Canada

[Neal.F.]

Political correctness, tolerance and inclusiveness has gone overboard in Canada, to the point where now our system of common law is threatened, perhaps mortally.

The first steps have been taken for Islamic law, or Sharia to be recognized in canada, and enforced by canadian judges.

while it is supposed to be strictly for use in disputes between Muslims, I think we can all see where it is all headed. Next the Sikhs will demand their own system be recognized, and then tamils... and on and on it goes.

It must be ONE law for all.

This must be opposed, and overturned. It is an outrage to have one set of laws for some people and another set of laws for another group. although I welcome immigration, and believe it enriches the country, the flipside is that those who come here must agree to live by Canadian law, and leave the old country behind. If things were so good over there, why leave in the first place?

Here are some articles that have appeared on this disturbing turn of events. This has far reaching implications, even more than the gay marriage issue, which generated record amounts of mail to MPs, and MPPs all across the country. Our legislators must here from Every canadian that this kind of arrangemet is NOT acceptable, and unless it is stopped, they will lose their seats.

From the Ottawa Citizen

From the Law TimesFrom Worldnet daily

[Michael Hardner]

WorldNetDaily has jumped on this and lit the flames of hysteria. No surprise there.

The key phrase is the Ottawa Citizen article is:

"a decision between two parties does not bind the Canadian judicial system," said Mr. Short.

If both parties agree to have their dispute mediated in this way, it's basically like Judge Wopner and the people's court.

The valid argument against such an arrangement would be the added expense to the Canadian taxpayer, and the whole issue of multiculturalism vs. melting pot etc. etc.

But stonings ? Would any reasonable person expect that the Canadian court system would allow people to be stoned to death ?

[Neal.F.]

No other country on earth would consider allowing one group of people to have their own set of laws, and enforce them through its system of courts. Canada has become the joke of the world.

We have ONE law that applies to all. If the Muslims or whoever, want to apply a form of religious arbitrarion, they can do it intramurally in their own religious environment, however, any actions would have to be within the limits of existing canadian law.

This must be opposed .

If ever there was a reason to put an end to the bleeding-heart liberal failed experiment of government-sponsorred multiculturalism, this is it.

All canadians must be subject to the same law, In addition to the inherent unfairness and lack of objectivity, this type of system encourages ghettoization, rather than integration with the broad community at large. It will also certainly result in every other religious or ethnic group to demand that their laws are recognized and enforced under canadian law. This will lead to complete anarchy, and total breakdown in common law

Liberals have made a mockery of what was once a great country. No matter what the social engineers say, 2+2 does not equal 5.

[Michael Hardner]

Neal, there's no other set of laws.

It's dispute mediation. If you and I have a dispute, it's possible for us to have it mediated in any way we like, as long as it ultimately conforms to Canadian laws.

I have seen notices in Toronto for individuals involved in small claims court to have a Rabbi resolve the case. It's the same thing.

[SirRiff]

what is so hard to understand?

two parties agreeing to mediate thier own problems by an accepted set of rules.

and has been pointed out, it doesnt bind canadian laws at all in any way.

false hysteria

sirriff

[Morgan]

Mr. Short said Canadian courts will take any of the sharp edges off decisions based on sharia law. Even if both partners in a marriage dispute agreed to the stoning of an adulterer, "a decision between two parties does not bind the Canadian judicial system," said Mr. Short.

Ottawa Citizen article quoted in Neal's post.

Well, Mr. Short an arbitration lawyer from Toronto sure calms my "false hysteria", I don't know about the rest of you.

How nice Mr. Short gamely assures us that no one is forcing the Canadian government to accept a Muslim "legal" decision about stoning an adulterer.[read LPOC who are known for laying down like carpets in the face of controversy involving their Muslim voting bloc].

I agree with you, Neal, this is an absolute outrage.

Sir Riff, maybe you won't be such a supporter of Muslim law having recognition in Canada once Muslim law kicks in regarding homosexuality as it applies to curriculum, same sex marriage, job hiring practices in small business etc. We'll see how reasonable you think sharia law is when it hits close to home and challenges one of your pet hobby horses.

However, Sheila Ayala, a spokeswoman for the Humanist Association of Canada, said there is a danger in Canadian courts upholding decisions based on sharia law.

[SirRiff]

We'll see how reasonable you think sharia law is when it hits close to home and challenges one of your pet hobby horses.

it wont.

canada is a modern democracy which has intrinsic protections against rolling back into the middle ages.

read the charter or rights and freedoms to see what canada stands for.

sirriff

[KrustyKidd]

what is so hard to understand?

two parties agreeing to mediate thier own problems by an accepted set of rules.

and has been pointed out, it doesnt bind canadian laws at all in any way.

false hysteria

sirriff

Is there a line you would draw anywhere? I mean can us white people set up our own sytem of law within Canadian Society as well? Why can't we? There are Tribal Council sessions on Reserves now to met out punishment like temporary banishment for kids caught commiting crimes.

Can I convert tommorow and put a few uppity bitches under a drop cloth if I don't happen to like the bikini they have on?

Ten years from now, what happens if I catch my wife messing around with my homo husband? Can I have them both put in front of an Islamic Council? Not liking the outcome can I then go to a Canadian court? Not happy with that can I go to the White/RedNeck court system? And not happy with that can I just get a couple of Aborigionals to banish them to a remote island on Lake Superior?

Can we also make it so that there is a second ruling party permanently in place in Parliament? An Islamic one? There should be as this is only fair too.

hey, can I be on that council or part of the Islamic process? Not being Islamic it might raise a few eyebrows but hey! This is Canada and if they discriminate against me I'll haul their ass into Red Neck Court and have them dragged behind a pick up.

Can I get to make real intelligent decisions like picking my daughter's husband

LIKE THESE IDIOTS FIGURE

Or should we just draw a line now?

[Guest Random]

How (or perhaps more to the point, why), was this kept so quiet until now?

My issue beyond having more than one system of law, even at the dispute mediation level, is what the responsibility is to the community.

If I am doing business with a person who has had to be in front of a judge for whatever reason to do with legal disputes, I want to know or be able to find out.

I want to be able to go to a source that keeps a public record. This sounds as though these parties face a judge, separate from the whole of public view, in a place, separate from the whole of public view, and answer to a decision separated from public view.

Is that how you read this, folks? If so, what are we up to here!

[Michael Hardner]

Is there a line you would draw anywhere? I mean can us white people set up our own sytem of law within Canadian Society as well? Why can't we?

Yes, you can. As I pointed out you can choose a Rabbi to settle disputes if you so desire.

Those of you who have predicted imminent stonings - please indicate how soon we can expect these so that we can weigh the accuracy of your predictions. Will it be before the end of 2004 ?

[SirRiff]

its a damn form of MEDIATION!!

if one white christian guy hits the car of another white christian guys on a country road, the can choose to settle the problem privately. one guy can say the bible says to feed as gift, so he can offer to feed the other guy a home cooked meal. so they both eat and the damages are settled. thus it was mediated privately. if they choose to formalize the process they can do so under religous justificaiton or moral justification or rural country jsutification.

the important this is the courts will allow private parties to mediate disputes so long as they do not contradict canadian law. in truth there is much litigation that does not belong in the courts already which hurts the quality of justice we see. there is tons of stuff that doesnt even need to be litigated.

so once again, this is just a form of private mediation which is allowed in canada. nothing will be allowed that contradicts the Charter or the canadian justice system. white guys can just as well choose to mediate a car accident if they wan to as well. and a large group of people may choose to more formalize this mediation process for their own benefit.

lets review;

the canadian justice systems still reigns supreme...

private mediation is allowed and may actually benefit canada.

anybody realize that we already have 2 forms of law in canada?

the british common law system and the french civil code in quebec. we are reasonable intelligent people, we can deal with it while maintaining charter protection.

sirriff

[KrustyKidd]

"The thing that concerns us is that it will give credibility to sharia." She also raised the question of whether there will be any limits to the implementation of sharia law in Canada. Some accounts on the Internet of the formation of Canada's new Islamic Institute of Civil Justice suggested this will pave the way to Canadian Muslim women being stoned for adultery.

Read the articles Riff. They are not talking about two Muslims having a fender bender and this replacing the exchange of insurance numbers, it's replacing their law for ours.

As an example, a husband decides to divorce his Muslim wife. He says "I divorce you" three times and that is it. Gives her two chickens and a goat and she goes on welfare while he lifts veils in singles clubs.

You think this is good?

[Morgan]

KrustyKidd,

I think you're dead on about the potential for nasty consequences by allowing Muslims to live by sharia law in Canada. What were the boneheads in Ottawa thinking?

The following is a depressing article in National Review about what's happening in European countries when Muslim immigrants practice sharia law. It isn't pretty. Europeon dishonor: sharia on the Old Continent, Nat'l Review Dec. 03/03

Multiculturalists and leftist defenders of uncontrolled immigration, uneasy when confronted with episodes of the brutal application of sharia in Europe's Muslim ghettoes, are quick to predict that these incidents will disappear once Muslims are wealthier and better integrated into Western society through marriage to native Europeans. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that these predictions will come true in the foreseeable future. Muslims in Europe account for the vast majority of those living under the poverty line, and Muslim neighborhoods are the poorest areas in nearly every European city. Furthermore, statistics show that the majority of European Muslims are not marrying indigenous Europeans but other Muslims, either from their country of origin or from within local Muslim communities.

Politically correct European politicians, ever mindful not to offend their newly arrived Muslim brethren, have done little to aid in the assimilation process. As a result, immigrants who settle in Europe's Muslim communities are often greeted with the same sharia-inspired mayhem that they left behind in their countries of origin. From England to Holland to Greece, many European Muslims have managed to segregate themselves from society at large and maintain harsh traditions ill-suited to the West. As the number of unassimilated Muslims grows and Europe's elites continue to remain silent, the ultimate victim may turn out to be Western civilization itself.

[SirRiff]

why do you guys assume the supreme court of canada would suddenly go stupid and let men stone thier wives or something?

as i said, we alrady have a seperate system fo law in quebec, plus law from treaties that recognize native indian rights.

the courts will never allow anything that contradicts the charter or established canadian law. all this would do is formalize the process of out of court settlements that either now waste court resources or go unreported.

sirriff

[Hugo]

the courts will never allow anything that contradicts the charter or established canadian law.

Such as when the Divisional Court of Ontario over-rode a Parliamentary decision from 1999 not to allow same-sex marriage? The courts can no longer be trusted not to meddle in lawmaking or change laws on a whim. Don't be naive.

[Brainiac]

Such as when the Divisional Court of Ontario over-rode a Parliamentary decision from 1999 not to allow same-sex marriage? The courts can no longer be trusted not to meddle in lawmaking or change laws on a whim. Don't be naive.

The courts decide whether or not laws made by the law makers are against the Charter Rights of Canadians. They are a safe guard against a government who might make laws that infringe on the rights of others. They are not elected, so public opinion and popularity polls don't affect their decisions, but instead they decide based on the letter and spirit of the law that governs our land.

The Parlimentary decision to not allow same sex marriage was found by two provincial courts to not jive with the the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we base our society on and the Supreme Court backed that up. It is the same Charter that will protect me, a Christian, from a government saying that I cannot practice my faith because I don't agree with the act of homosexuality.

As for your statement saying that the courts change laws on a whim. I just have to say that you exhibit a very deep misunderstanding of the rule of law as it is practiced here in Canada. Please enlighten me as to where the courts just change law on a whim without taking into account the legal rights of Canadian citizens as stated in the Charter?

The courts interpret the laws that are set out by Parliment thus creating case law (except in Quebec where it is a little different)and they decide whether new laws follow the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that our elected officials don't go making laws that discriminate against people in Canadian society.

[Hugo]

The courts interpret the laws that are set out by Parliment

When Parliament has set out a law that states that same-sex marriage is illegal, and a court actually reverses that, that goes beyond interpretation. That is changing a law and it should not be within the power of a non-elected body to do that.

The Parlimentary decision to not allow same sex marriage was found by two provincial courts to not jive with the the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we base our society on and the Supreme Court backed that up.

The Charter is a document that perpetuates the problems of discrimination. See paragraph 15, subsection 2. Besides which, the Charter itself is a product of Parliament (Constitution Act, 1982) and thus, apparently, a court could choose to disregard it or even scrap it if it felt so inclined.

[Brainiac]

When Parliament has set out a law that states that same-sex marriage is illegal, and a court actually reverses that, that goes beyond interpretation.

Hugo,

Say the government passed a law that said if your religion does not believe in homosexuality it is guilty of hate crimes and is to be outlawed, and say the majority of people in the country thought that the law was a just one and made a lot of sense (thus creating the political will for the government to go ahead with the law). Would you not want the courts to say that this law is unconstitutional and it infringes on your fundamental freedom of conscience and religion? A court that is not bound by public pressure or political ideology and instead the objective interpreation of the law (ie. Charter of Rights and Freedoms for this example). Or is that the courts over stepping their boundaries? I could go on with examples but I will leave it at one for the time being.

That is changing a law and it should not be within the power of a non-elected body to do that.

Remember Hugo, the Nazi Party of Germany was a group of elected officials. That is why we have the Charter, it is to protect the minority from the will of the majority if that majorities will is against the minorities fundamental freedoms. A government of elected officials is not above breaking the law or passing laws that infringe upon the rights of its citizens.

The government made a bad law as it relates to the rights of a certain minority in Canadian society as set out in the Charter(banning same sex marriage) so the Ontario and BC courts found that the law needed to be changed to fit with the Charter of Rights and the Supreme Court agreed.

The courts do not do the changing, they just told the government that the law is unconstitutional and that it could not be enforced in Canada so it needed to go back and be changed so that it fit with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why the government is working on changes to the same sex marriage bill at the moment. They will make the changes and then have the Supreme Court look over them to make sure that they will not have another Charter Challenge brought against them. Ever wonder why we do not have any Abortion laws in Canada at the moment?

[Hugo]

Or is that the courts over stepping their boundaries?

Yes, it is. Courts of law are there to interpret law and to apply it correctly to specific cases. They are not there to change laws, over-ride laws or create new laws, those are the tasks of Parliament.

I could go on with examples but I will leave it at one for the time being.

Your example is invalid, which you can see if you turn it on it's head. Let's say the government of Canada passes (or has passed, in this case) a bill saying that a person may not be detained without a fair trial. However, a panel of unelected judges decides that that is not in keeping with their vision of Canada and over-turns the law, ruling that a person may be arrested and detained indefinitely without ever being tried in front of a jury of 12 of his peers.

It's about as likely as your example, so what say you?

Remember Hugo, the Nazi Party of Germany was a group of elected officials.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Go back and study German history, 1933.

That is why we have the Charter, it is to protect the minority from the will of the majority if that majorities will is against the minorities fundamental freedoms.

The Charter itself is the result of a Parliamentary Act. In keeping with what you are saying, there should be nothing stopping a panel of judges from striking down the precious Charter itself. And as I said, the Charter itself upholds discrimination and bigotry based on ethnicity, gender, religion, age and handicap.

Ever wonder why we do not have any Abortion laws in Canada at the moment?

Bzzzt. Wrong again. We do have an abortion law in Canada. Parliament passed an amendment to Section 251 of the Criminal Code, legalising therapeutic abortion in 1969, but the Supreme Court decided that wasn't good enough (again) and changed it to abortion-on-demand, for any or no reason, at any time, in 1988.

[Brainiac]

The Charter is a document that perpetuates the problems of discrimination. See paragraph 15, subsection 2. Besides which, the Charter itself is a product of Parliament (Constitution Act, 1982) and thus, apparently, a court could choose to disregard it or even scrap it if it felt so inclined.

This above statement illustrates so succinctly your ignorance of the Charter, the legal system here in Canada and the concept of discrimination. I am first guessing that you are referring to s.15 ss.2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Please explain how section 15 of the Charter perpetuates the problems of discrimination? I would be interested in hearing this.

As for a court choosing to disregard or even scrap the Charter if it felt so inclined is nothing more than hysterical rhetoric spouted out by someone who doesn't understand the workings of the Canadian legal system or the Charter.

[Hugo]

As for a court choosing to disregard or even scrap the Charter if it felt so inclined is nothing more than hysterical rhetoric spouted out by someone who doesn't understand the workings of the Canadian legal system or the Charter.

Whatever. Given your knowledge of history and laws, I see no reason to take that statement seriously at all.

Please explain how section 15 of the Charter perpetuates the problems of discrimination?

See this thread for that.

[KrustyKidd]

Remember Hugo, the Nazi Party of Germany was a group of elected officials.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Go back and study German history, 1933.

Actually the Nazis were elected.

CLICK HERE TO SEE NAZI FREAKS

By the end of 1920, the Nazi Party had about 3,000 members. A year later Hitler became its official leader, or Führer Adolf Hitler's attempt at an armed overthrow of local authorities in Munich, known as the Beer Hall Putsch , failed miserably.

From 27,000 members in 1925, the Party grew to 108,000 in 1929.  The SA was the paramilitary unit of the Party,  that became known for its strong arm tactics of street brawling and terror. From 1925 to 1927, the Nazi Party failed to make inroads in the cities and in May 1928, it did poorly in the Reichstag elections, winning only 2.6% of the total vote. The Party shifted its strategy to rural and small town areas and fueled antisemitism by calling for expropriation of Jewish agricultural property and by condemning large Jewish department stores.

Heinrich Brüning  was the first chancellor under the new presidential system. He was unable to unify the government,

Want to know why Brunning and his sucessor could not unify the government?

Although they were a small party, the Nazis were unified in their mission; to destabilise and overthrow the government and replace it with themselves.

On election day September 14, 1930, the Nazis received 6,371,000 votes, over eighteen percent of the total, and were thus entitled to 107 seats in the German Reichstag. It was a stunning victory for Hitler. Overnight, the Nazi party went from the smallest to the second largest party in Germany.  Nazi storm troopers dressed in civilian clothes celebrated their electoral victory by smashing in the windows of Jewish shops, restaurants and department stores, an indication of things to come.

On October 13, 1930, dressed in their brown shirts, the elected Nazi deputies marched in unison into the Reichstag and took their seats. When the roll call was taken, each one shouted, "Present! Heil Hitler!" They had no intention of cooperating with the democratic government.

Germany's government remained on the brink of collapse. The SA brownshirts, about 400,000 strong, were a part of daily street violence.

On January 30, 1933, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor.

With Adolf Hitler's ascendancy to the chancellorship, the Nazi Party quickly consolidated its power.

On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag building went up in flames. Nazis immediately claimed that this was the beginning of a Communist revolution. This incident prompted Hitler to convince Hindenburg to issue a Decree for the Protection of People and State that granted Nazis sweeping power to deal with the so-called emergency. This laid the foundation for a police state.

Within months of Hitler's appointment as Chancellor, the Dachau concentration camp was created. The Nazis began arresting Communists, Socialists, and labor leaders. Parliamentary democracy ended with the Reichstag passage of the Enabling Act, which allowed the government to issue laws without the Reichstag.

[Hugo]

Hitler's rise to the Chancellorship was largely the result of backroom dealings between Papen, Schleicher, Hindenburg and Hitler. The last election prior to Hitler's appointment as Chancellor was in July 1932, and he only got 37% of the vote. The appointment was constitutional but Braniac's statement that "the Nazi Party of Germany was a group of elected officials" is just dead wrong.

[KrustyKidd]

OK, think I got on track now. You mean to say that he meant " elected" as in forming a legitimate government based on the will of the people?

[Brainiac]

Yes, it is. Courts of law are there to interpret law and to apply it correctly to specific cases. They are not there to change laws, over-ride laws or create new laws, those are the tasks of Parliament.

Who said they were there to change, over ride, or create new laws? Not all laws that are made by the government follow what the charter says, so when there is a charter challenge against the law, the court will decide whether or not the law is in compliance with the charter. if it is not the government needs to change it. THE COURTS DO NOT DO THE CHANGING.

Let's say the government of Canada passes (or has passed, in this case) a bill saying that a person may not be detained without a fair trial. However, a panel of unelected judges decides that that is not in keeping with their vision of Canada and over-turns the law, ruling that a person may be arrested and detained indefinitely without ever being tried in front of a jury of 12 of his peers.

Are you referring to any one case in particular? Is there more information? On its face this example does not make sense. Again, the courts DO NOT CHANGE THE LAW that is not their job. They let the government know when there needs to be a change in the law because of charter problems. My example spoke to everyones fundamental right to conscience and religious beliefs, I am not sure what you are talking about. please explain.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Go back and study German history, 1933.

"In the election of July 1932, the Nazi Party won 37% of the Reichstag seats..." (taken from The Rise of the Nazi Party) Looks like they were elected to me, albeit not the ruling party, but I never said that.

The Charter itself is the result of a Parliamentary Act. In keeping with what you are saying, there should be nothing stopping a panel of judges from striking down the precious Charter itself. And as I said, the Charter itself upholds discrimination and bigotry based on ethnicity, gender, religion, age and handicap.

What would the courts base striking the charter down on?

Does the Charter go against the Charter? Is there something in the Charter that infringes on someones Charter Rights and Freedoms? I think you have some kind of idea that the courts just run rough shod over the laws that are made by Parliment because they have nothing better to do. Again I say you do not understand what you are talking about.

Bzzzt. Wrong again. We do have an abortion law in Canada. Parliament passed an amendment to Section 251 of the Criminal Code, legalising therapeutic abortion in 1969, but the Supreme Court decided that wasn't good enough (again) and changed it to abortion-on-demand, for any or no reason, at any time, in 1988.

Umm...s.251 of the Canadian Criminal Code concerns Unseaworthy Vessel and Unsafe Aircraft. So where is that Abortion Law again? There is s. 163 that concerns advertising method of causing abortion or miscarriage, s. 287 (1),(2),and (3) Procurring miscarriage (doing it yourself), s.288 Supplying noxious thing for purpose of abortion, and s. 287(4),(5),(6) Therapautic abortion.

What the Supreme Court struck down was the law that basically said a woman does not have control over her own body because it did not fit with a womans Charter Rights. The government, not wanting to deal with it, left it as that and did not replace it, so it is left open. So instead of being illegal, there is a opportuntity to choose that was created by the innaction of the government. The court did not make any laws, it just struck one down in this case.