Forget All Else: Islamic Law Comes To Canada

Brainiac · December 14, 2003

Cite it. Show me where in your CCRF that it limits or otherwise modifies the supreme authority of Parliament.

It doesn't state it anywhere, instead it occurs in the courts exercising the Charter when a Charter challenge is brought. Parliment doesn't have to have its legislation reviewed by the courts to ensure that it complies with the Charter. If they don't however, they risk having the legislation repealed if it doesn't comply. Some may say this diminishes the power of Parliment because they cannot just pass whatever they want and have it stick.

No, the Parliament had it's authority limited in no way, shape or form. As well, since the Parliament can, even retroactively, disband, replace or modify the SCC, it is no more subject to review than it was before.

I disagree.

First of all, who exactly is my dear leader?

Trudeau.

HAHA, like I said you assume too much. Trudeau is no more my dear leader than say Governor Mulroney.

OK, so if the SCC only exists by the will of Parliament,that means that it can be replaced just as easily. I'd suggest that there is no way around the fact that the CCRF is toothless and without effective enforcement abilities, "a law unenforced is no law at all".

So what you are saying is that because the SCC can be replaced, the CCRF is toothless? That would suggest that every law in Canada is toothless? The fact is the Charter has been working for over 20 years. If that is toothless then that works for me.

Boydfish · December 14, 2003

the fact that the CCRF is a partial list of rights is specifically mentioned so that additional rights beyond the scope of the charter are not denied on the scope they are not enumerated in the charter. there is no conclusion to be made that this means common law is equal. there may be additional common law rights, but they are not equal to charter protection.
people need to study the law in some matter before claiming they know what they are talking about. (same with genetics)

I suggest you follow your own advice, or at least explain how a right can be "greater" or "lesser", since a right is something that you have or you don't: If it can be removed by the government arbitrarily, it's not a right, it's a privledge. Thus, if there is such a thing as common law rights, they are rights, just the same as the rights that the CCRF repeats. I have noted that all of you CCRF supporters have yet to cite a single right or freedom that was conferred to citizens of the confederation by the charter. Between April 16th and April 18th, 1982, what changed? What was I now free to do that I was not free to do before?

You also are neatly ignoring that the CCRF has no included method of enforcing said rights, instead placing it's enforcement, thus where "the rubber meets the road" on rights, in the SCC, which has no constitutional protection or authority. That means that, in a fashion, the CCRF rights are "entrenched"(Really only because they do not introduce anything new, meaning that even if the Canadians repeal the CCRF, my common law rights continue unmolested), but they are empty and hollow words: There is no mechanism to sustain and protect the CCRF as they are applied.

You are also ignoring that the SCC, which is essentially just a branch of the government of the day(Created, appointed and subject to replacement or dissolution by the government like any other act.), has demonstrated that they can "read in" whatever they see fit into the CCRF. If the SCC can modify the CCRF by addition of anything, what pray tell, limits them from reading into, as an example, something to Section 12 starting with "Except when..." or simply read in a declaration that all residents of Ontario and Quebec are distinct citizens of the confederation and superior to the lesser peoples of the other 8 provinces and territories?

So, if the above is all untrue, why not just simply point to a line in the CCRF that proves me wrong? Or just tell me that the SCC really is in your constitution and that it's not enabled by the SCCA? Or that the SCC really didn't "read in" lines to your CCRF?

Your silence speaks volumes....

Brainiac · December 15, 2003

s.15 is effectively useless to prevent discrimination because it is so vague.

Seemed to work just fine in the case that you cited.

However, that case concerned nothing more than sexual orientation which is not listed as being protected from discrimination in the Charter. What the court actually admitted to doing was not acting according to the letter of the Charter but acting in the "spirit" they perceived to be behind it.

That is because you do not understand the idea of interpretation. Cite me anything in that case you gave that suggests that the judges ruled in a way that was to promote their view of what Canada should look like. Unless you know what each of the judges personal beliefs are you really can't do that. The judges in this case interpreted the law to include sexual orientation. The fact that it is not listed in s.15 has nothing to do with it. s.15 says everybody has the right to be equal before and under the law. The judges could not have objectively ruled in any other way. It seems pretty clear to me. The spirit of s.15 is to ensure everyone is equal before and under the law. Laws are often written in a vague manner so that they can be interpreted on a case per case basis, because it is impossible for the drafters of the law to take into account any little thing that might happen that the law didn't cover. There seems to always be an exception to the rule. That is what you get for living in a society where common law is used.

...although property rights are entrenched elsewhere it would seem that, according to the case above where the Charter was used to over-ride family law, the Charter can be cited as good reason to override other laws.

I don't know if property rights are entrenched elsewhere? The Charter is used by the courts in cases where someone brings a Charter challenge to repeal sections or entire laws that are unconstitutional. The charter can only be used to repeal property laws that are unconstitutional(do not conform with the rights set out in the Charter). I can't think of any that might be though. Any ideas? If there was a property law that says only white men can own land, then that probably would be repealed.

If an NDP or even farther left-wing government wished to abolish private property there is nothing in the Charter to stop them, and if the SC was similarly left-leaning they could defend the action of the government on the basis that the Charter does not allow property rights.

I am tired of dealing with your paranoid conspiracy theories. You should think about making an argument that doesn't sound like you just finished calling into a late night talk show about how aliens and queers are ruining the soil. If a government abolished property rights in Canada (not that I can think of why they would), they would have a lot more to worry about than a bunch of court cases.

Boydfish · December 15, 2003

It doesn't state it anywhere, instead it occurs in the courts exercising the Charter when a Charter challenge is brought. Parliment doesn't have to have its legislation reviewed by the courts to ensure that it complies with the Charter. If they don't however, they risk having the legislation repealed if it doesn't comply.

You aren't really serious in this, are you?

The SCC, which is appointed by the government and can be tossed from existence by the same Parliament that you're seeking to limit, is supposed to be able to limit the same Parliament on whose their very existence hinges?

Some may say this diminishes the power of Parliment because they cannot just pass whatever they want and have it stick.

If Parliament can pass an act in the morning, let's say called Being a Muslim is a crime Act, 2003, there is little to stop them from amending the SCA, 1985to include a provision that all SCC rulings can be overriden by a simple Order in Council. In other words, your Parliament is only limited as long as it wishes to be.

HAHA, like I said you assume too much. Trudeau is no more my dear leader than say Governor Mulroney.

Trudeau was simply the founder of the current political movement that wants to see our confederation of 10 equal nations replaced by a "Union of Franco-Socialist Republics". A big piece of that doctrine is the CCRF that you're defending so stridently.

So what you are saying is that because the SCC can be replaced, the CCRF is toothless? That would suggest that every law in Canada is toothless? The fact is the Charter has been working for over 20 years. If that is toothless then that works for me.

So they haven't come for you yet. It's easy to pretend that everything is OK when it's not you that is being persecuted.

Hugo · December 15, 2003

The judges in this case interpreted the law to include sexual orientation. The fact that it is not listed in s.15 has nothing to do with it. s.15 says everybody has the right to be equal before and under the law.

Firstly, the fact that it is not listed in s.15 has everything to do with it. A court cannot claim to be interpreting law when the legitimacy of their interpretation depends upon that law being worded differently from how it was written.

Secondly, s.15 is basically a reiteration of Orwell's famous line, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." You see, subsection 1 forbids discrimination, except for cases listed in subsection 2 - and don't forget, if the law favours one group or person, they are discriminating against someone else. This is just another reason why the Charter has no place in a free and democratic country, it is redundant and farcical.

I am tired of dealing with your paranoid conspiracy theories. You should think about making an argument that doesn't sound like you just finished calling into a late night talk show about how aliens and queers are ruining the soil.

If I'm wrong, nothing much will happen. But if you're wrong, we're on the fast track to one-party and one-man government. Does it not alarm you that Canada seems to be headed increasingly towards one-party government, with state-controlled and private media alike doing their best to marginalise and demonise all opposition, and election funding reform designed to be most supportive of the party already in power? Does it also not alarm you that by convention, the Canadian political system is being set to concentrate power so heavily in the hands of the Prime Minister?

Nothing good has ever come out of one-party and one-man governments. Bearing in mind what horrible tragedies have come out of those eventualities, I am justifiably alarmed as it is becoming apparent that the same thing could very well happen here.

The SCC, which is appointed by the government and can be tossed from existence by the same Parliament that you're seeking to limit, is supposed to be able to limit the same Parliament on whose their very existence hinges?

Well, the SCC is appointed by the Prime Minister and has the power to strike down "unconstitutional" laws, the meaning of unconstitutionality apparently being very flexible. The Senate is also appointed by the Prime Minister, with the power to block or amend any Bill any number of times. The Prime Minister's party has been set by electoral funding reform to receive a greater share of money for re-election purposes. The government controls a significant sector of the media, and one that is viewed by many Canadians as a voice of reason. The Prime Minister has no limit set upon his term of office. The Prime Minister is not elected to his post by the people. And so on - and yet the leftists continue to delude themselves that it is American democracy that is on the wane and not their own.

Craig Read · December 23, 2003

Hugo good points and I would agree wholeheartedly - the Charter is not needed:

1. The Charter is a vague document open to discrimination via judicial interpretation. It is used to circumvent Parliament. Guess what the Charter was based on ? the US Bill of Rights. However the BoR is not as loose, poorly worded or vague as the CoR.

2. Canada has the weakest set of Parliamentary Institutions in the Western World. No checks and balances, little real debate and party whips which ensure compliance with the party line.

3. PMO's [PMs Office] and a handful of Cabinet Ministers effectively run the country as they see fit - this is especially obvious if they have a majority Government.

4. Outdated Constitution which needs to be updated for the real world of the 21rst century. Ottawa continues to try to dominate the Provinces and cities by encroaching ceaselessly on social and economic issues while ignoring what they are supposed to focus on - defence, security, foreign policy, internal free trade etc.

5. Corruption. When Govts control 50 % [direct and indirectly] of the economy - you do not have a 'free market' system as posited by the media.

You have a politically dominated economy - where economics is subservient to politics. This is self defeating and ensures that the vaunted Canadian welfare system will sustain itself only through debt and tax accumulation as the economy grows but more slowly than it should.

and you mentioned

The Senate is also appointed by the Prime Minister, with the power to block or amend any Bill any number of times. The Prime Minister's party has been set by electoral funding reform to receive a greater share of money for re-election purposes.

This is correct as well. An unelected upper house is redudant, expensive and illiberal and a rat house of patronage. Reform it or scrap. Ditto for the Governor General's office. Colonialism died a long time ago. Time to grow up.

What a country, so highly frustrating .....

Brainiac · December 23, 2003

Hi Boydfish,

The SCC, which is appointed by the government and can be tossed from existence by the same Parliament that you're seeking to limit, is supposed to be able to limit the same Parliament on whose their very existence hinges?

The SCC is not the only court that can render a piece of legislation inoperative. Any high court in any province can do the same, there is nothing saying that the SCC has to rule on every Charter case. It just has to be a court of competent jurisdiction.

If Parliament can pass an act in the morning, let's say called Being a Muslim is a crime Act, 2003, there is little to stop them from amending the SCA, 1985to include a provision that all SCC rulings can be overriden by a simple Order in Council. In other words, your Parliament is only limited as long as it wishes to be.

If you say so, but the upper courts of a province could still make that legislation inoperative. Like I said before, it doesn't have to be the SCC.

Trudeau was simply the founder of the current political movement that wants to see our confederation of 10 equal nations replaced by a "Union of Franco-Socialist Republics". A big piece of that doctrine is the CCRF that you're defending so stridently.

I just believe that the Charter and the Constitution Act are good things. That doesn't mean that I am some fan of the guy who got it put in place.

So they haven't come for you yet. It's easy to pretend that everything is OK when it's not you that is being persecuted.

Okay, who are THEY, and what are THEY coming for? Who is being persecuted? Are you being persecuted Boydfish? If so, how?

Brainiac · December 23, 2003

Hi Hugo,

Firstly, the fact that it is not listed in s.15 has everything to do with it. A court cannot claim to be interpreting law when the legitimacy of their interpretation depends upon that law being worded differently from how it was written.

Legislators write laws that can be broadly interpreted so that they don't have to rewrite them all everytime an exception to the rule shows up. That is how precedents are formed. s.15 states that EVERY INDIVIDUAL is equal before and under the law. Everybody can be interpreted to mean someone who does not fall into the listed groupings. People with a third arm are not listed in s.15 either but they are still equal under and before the law.

Secondly, s.15 is basically a reiteration of Orwell's famous line, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." You see, subsection 1 forbids discrimination, except for cases listed in subsection 2 - and don't forget, if the law favours one group or person, they are discriminating against someone else.

I understand how you come to this conclusion, but it is a juvenile understanding of the issues surrounding discrimination at best. The issue is more complex than you have made it out to be. You are assuming that everyone is on an equal playing field to start with.

Does it not alarm you that Canada seems to be headed increasingly towards one-party government, with state-controlled and private media alike doing their best to marginalise and demonise all opposition...

Yes it does bother me that the opposition in this country is unable to mount an effective opposition to the party in power. I don't think I would blame that on the media however, I think that has more to do with a few select wing nuts in said party that don't understand that when they say stupid things it just confirms peoples fears about the party they belong to. I am not saying that those conclusions are in any way justly founded, but that perception is one that is very dangerous to parties like the Alliance/Reform. That frustrates me to no end. I think the new conservative party should teach all of its members a little about PR. I am also frustrated by the electoral process here in Canada, I don't like how the majority of the country didn't vote for the party in power, yet they have a majority. That will be difficult to change however, because no party who gets in power will ever want to change it.

Hugo · December 23, 2003

People with a third arm are not listed in s.15 either but they are still equal under and before the law.

This is true, however, homosexuals represent somewhere between 3% and 10% of the population (depending upon which study you believe) and have probably the most powerful and vocal lobbyists in the country. I think, if they were to be represented in the Charter, they should probably be represented specifically rather than falling into "other", especially as the possible consequences are so far-reaching. People with three arms are not seeking to rewrite public decency laws, change the education of Canadian children and so forth.

The issue is more complex than you have made it out to be. You are assuming that everyone is on an equal playing field to start with.

Nobody is on an equal playing field. Maybe I'll do better in life than some people I know because I'm smart and they are stupid, but does that mean that they should be given greater opportunity than me to compensate? Should ugly men be "awarded" supermodels to date to compensate for their "disability?"

No, of course not. All people should be equal before the law, and our laws should reflect how we would like our society to be. To that end, law must perpetuate the idea that everyone is equal at least before it, and let that idea permeate into the public conscious and allow it to dissipate prejudice (as it is arguably doing, just look at the strides that have been made for racial and gender equality without affirmative action). What it should not do is adopt an attitude of "two wrongs make a right" and attempt social engineering according to the vision of a half-witted Marxist Quebecois.

Yes it does bother me that the opposition in this country is unable to mount an effective opposition to the party in power. I don't think I would blame that on the media however, I think that has more to do with a few select wing nuts in said party that don't understand that when they say stupid things it just confirms peoples fears about the party they belong to.

Quite, however, it seems to me that the media tends to dwell on the mistakes of the opposition far more than on the Liberals. Yahoo.ca left the story about the Alliance MP who favoured recriminalising homosexuality up on their portal for 5 days, and the same story got a predictably hand-wringing and hysterical response from the Toronto Star. I avoid the CBC completely, however, I'd bet money that their opinion was similar, and similarly overblown.

On the other hand, there didn't seem to be much media fuss over the overwhelming number of incidences of corruption that surround Jean Chretien - the Grand Auberge, the Fu brothers, private jets, mysterious meetings and loans, conflicts of interest, Conrad Black, and so forth. I'd think that a little-known MP and his views of homosexuality should be less important to the national media than numerous allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest involving the Prime Minister himself.

I am also frustrated by the electoral process here in Canada, I don't like how the majority of the country didn't vote for the party in power, yet they have a majority. That will be difficult to change however, because no party who gets in power will ever want to change it.

Unless, of course, they either 1) will fall on their sword for Canadian democracy or 2) believe that a proportional system will actually benefit them.

righturnonred · December 23, 2003

I don't like how the majority of the country didn't vote for the party in power, yet they have a majority.

.

Actually it's called a plurality and it's the kind of garbage that is associated with a multiparty system which is even more prone to special interest rule than what we have in the United States.

The American politcal system is far from perfect but discouraging third parties goes a long way towards minimizing confusion and making representation, well, more represenative.

The Democrats in the Senate technically held a plurality for a short time when jumpin' Jim Jeffords left the Republican party and became an Independant. Republicans lost the majority because of it.

Brainiac · December 24, 2003

Hi Hugo,

This is true, however, homosexuals represent somewhere between 3% and 10% of the population (depending upon which study you believe) and have probably the most powerful and vocal lobbyists in the country. I think, if they were to be represented in the Charter, they should probably be represented specifically rather than falling into "other", especially as the possible consequences are so far-reaching. People with three arms are not seeking to rewrite public decency laws, change the education of Canadian children and so forth.

I am not sure homosexuals had a 'powerful and vocal' lobby when the Charter was first introduced. I imagine if the Charter was introduced today sexual orientation would probably be included in the 'list'. Why it wasn't we can only guess, but 'every individual' means everyone, as a sort of catch all so they were included. That is why the Charter is written in such a way that they have the ability to adapt to changing Canadian society. I personally don't know how 'powerful' this homosexual lobby is, but I don't think it is the most powerful one in the country. As for people with three arms, who knows what the future holds for them.

All people should be equal before the law, and our laws should reflect how we would like our society to be. To that end, law must perpetuate the idea that everyone is equal at least before it, and let that idea permeate into the public conscious and allow it to dissipate prejudice (as it is arguably doing, just look at the strides that have been made for racial and gender equality without affirmative action).

I agree that things have changed for the better, but I think affirmative action type programs have helped a lot in making those changes. In my profession, when women started to get hired they were met with very sexist attitudes that came from the top all the way down. As more and more women started to get hired and move up through the bureucracy that attitude started to change, and it is for the most part gone, but there are still a couple of people who hold their old prejudices to this day. Affirmative action can cause some people to feel threatened, but that isn't so much the fault of the policies as it is their own prejudices. Some people just can't cope with change.

Quite, however, it seems to me that the media tends to dwell on the mistakes of the opposition far more than on the Liberals.

I guess that would depend on your political leanings and which channel you watch. I think they dwell too long on a lot of stories, but I don't find them to be particularily partisan.

I'd think that a little-known MP and his views of homosexuality should be less important to the national media than numerous allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest involving the Prime Minister himself.

The fact of the matter is that most Canadians do not like the Alliance/Reform because they view them to be racist. Knowing this the members of the Alliance/Reform should probably try to keep a lid on some of their wing nuts no matter how minor of a role they play because that person ultimately is a representative of that party and it just fuels peoples fears. The Liberals, PC, and NDP don't have that reputation so when one of their idiots goes off it is perceived as being an isolated incident. Is that fair, no, but it is reality and that is what matters. Only a fool would think that the Alliance/Reform is the only party in Canada to have bigots in its fold, but that is the image that they have been painted with early on due to the fact that it is a party made up of social conservatives from the PC party who went and made their own party.

Hugo · December 24, 2003

I imagine if the Charter was introduced today sexual orientation would probably be included in the 'list'... That is why the Charter is written in such a way that they have the ability to adapt to changing Canadian society.

In my view, any document that needs to or can be subjected to social whimsy and changing society cannot truly be any kind of bill-of-rights. Human rights are supposed to be inalienable and innate to all human beings, and if the 'rights' in question can be changed and modified at the discretion of "society" they cannot be inalienable and innate. Therefore, what we are talking about here is not right, but privilege, and the question is whether or not the law should permit any one individual or group to have privilege before it. I say no.

I personally don't know how 'powerful' this homosexual lobby is, but I don't think it is the most powerful one in the country.

I will confess that I don't know exactly how powerful, for instance, EGALE is since they don't disclose that information. However, I will bet real money that they are one of the best-funded lobby groups in Canada. I'll also bet that there is not one single conservative or religious lobby group that can come close to the level of funding and media campaigning that EGALE has. If you have any hard facts on this, I would be interested, but it seems to me that pro-gay groups certainly get the lion's share of public and media attention.

As for people with three arms, who knows what the future holds for them.

Surgery, I'd imagine.

Affirmative action can cause some people to feel threatened, but that isn't so much the fault of the policies as it is their own prejudices. Some people just can't cope with change.

AA is ridiculous. It basically states "two wrongs make a right", i.e. in order to fix a discrimination we're going to create another one. What if, eventually, women overtook men in real incomes? What if you axed the AA programme and the trend continued - would you then create a new AA programme to penalise women? There's also the problem that AA itself creates resentment and engenders the kind of bigotry that it seeks to dispel, the fact that the people it "benefits" often end up worse off for it's interference, and the fact that AA draws attention to and exaggerates differences of gender, ethnicity etc. that we are supposed to be becoming more blind to. AA does not create a level playing field, it just tilts that field in different directions, and so in principle it is really no better than Apartheid, segregation or other officially-sanctioned bigotry.

This has all been gone over in an older thread, I would revisit it.

Brainiac · December 30, 2003

In my view, any document that needs to or can be subjected to social whimsy and changing society cannot truly be any kind of bill-of-rights.

Good thing you don't draft laws. Every law in Canada is subject to interpretation because no one can write a law that takes into account every situation that can possibly happen.

Human rights are supposed to be inalienable and innate to all human beings, and if the 'rights' in question can be changed and modified at the discretion of "society" they cannot be inalienable and innate.

The rights are not changed or modified. In the case you cited they were interpreted to include a group that was not specifically spelled out in the Charter, thus rendering the law that was in question unconstitutional. The Charter was not rewritten for this it...in fact the wording of the Charter includes them anyway, just not specifically. The decision does not affect the rights already held by straight people to marry, it just extends those rights to gays.

Hugo · December 30, 2003

Every law in Canada is subject to interpretation because no one can write a law that takes into account every situation that can possibly happen.

But we aren't talking about law, we are talking about rights, and my view of human rights is that they are unchanging and inalienable. They are also somewhat separate from the law, which is why the US, Canada, the UN and other countries feel the need to have declarations of human rights which are separate from and different to their legal codices.

Brainiac · December 31, 2003

But we aren't talking about law, we are talking about rights, and my view of human rights is that they are unchanging and inalienable. They are also somewhat separate from the law, which is why the US, Canada, the UN and other countries feel the need to have declarations of human rights which are separate from and different to their legal codices.

The Charter is a legal document thus it is law. Being a law is where it gets its power from. If it wasn't a law there would be no way for people to have their rights enforced. As for rights being unchanging, I disagree. Any right that cannot change with a changing society is basically useless. Note, changing doesn't mean that anyone loses their rights, they are usually extended. A gay man being able to marry has no effect on my right as a straight man to also be married.

As for the issue that started this thread...it appears that the group wants to extend sharia law to Family Law in Ontario if both parties agree to it. There is a Muslim womens group that sees it as being a waste of time. I think I agree with the Muslim Womens group.

waxer · August 22, 2005

You guys in Canada are nuts. What next? stoning women for adultery, killing gays, making it law to not show your ankles? You are kidding yourselves if you think Moslems who want sharia law will not keep pushing for that! Before you know it you will have lost all your freedoms that you now take for granted. You won't be able to drink alcohol, have sex with who you choose, be able to wear nice clothing, change your religion, and a host of other freedoms.

kimmy · August 22, 2005

You guys in Canada are nuts. What next? stoning women for adultery, killing gays, making it law to not show your ankles? You are kidding yourselves if you think Moslems who want sharia law will not keep pushing for that! Before you know it you will have lost all your freedoms that you now take for granted. You won't be able to drink alcohol, have sex with who you choose, be able to wear nice clothing, change your religion, and a host of other freedoms.

If things ever get to that point, I vow that I will take up arms and oppose it with kim-like fury that will make the Iraq insurgents look like the Ladies Temperance Society.

However, our constitution won't permit things to reach that point... not unless our entire society goes through some sort of upheaval.

-k

Argus · August 23, 2005

You guys in Canada are nuts. What next? stoning women for adultery, killing gays, making it law to not show your ankles? You are kidding yourselves if you think Moslems who want sharia law will not keep pushing for that! Before you know it you will have lost all your freedoms that you now take for granted. You won't be able to drink alcohol, have sex with who you choose, be able to wear nice clothing, change your religion, and a host of other freedoms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If things ever get to that point, I vow that I will take up arms and oppose it with kim-like fury that will make the Iraq insurgents look like the Ladies Temperance Society.

However, our constitution won't permit things to reach that point... not unless our entire society goes through some sort of upheaval.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pipe down and get back to the kitchen, wench.

Black Dog · August 23, 2005

Before you know it you will have lost all your freedoms that you now take for granted. You won't be able to drink alcohol, have sex with who you choose, be able to wear nice clothing, change your religion, and a host of other freedoms.

Sounds like some people's idea of utopia. <_<

Argus · August 23, 2005

Before you know it you will have lost all your freedoms that you now take for granted. You won't be able to drink alcohol, have sex with who you choose, be able to wear nice clothing, change your religion, and a host of other freedoms.

Sounds like some people's idea of utopia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not that I'm a big fan of Focus on the Family, but could you tell me where they want to ban people from having sex, wearing nice clothing, drinking alcohol or changing their religions?

Black Dog · August 23, 2005

Oh I doubt they'd publicly cop to any such positions. But there's no question the differences between radical Islam and fundamentalist Chrsistianity are only a matter of degrees. Both are rigid, patriarchal belief systems emphasizing purity and absolute devotion to the religious dogma. Given teh chance, I'm dead certain America's Dominionists and their Canadian bretheren would gladly turn our free society's into the kind of place even the Taliban would approve of.

Argus · August 23, 2005

Oh I doubt they'd publicly cop to any such positions. But there's no question the differences between radical Islam and fundamentalist Chrsistianity are only a matter of degrees.

Yes, well, the difference between me and Brad Pitt is only a matter of degree, too.

Both are rigid, patriarchal belief systems emphasizing purity and absolute devotion to the religious dogma.

You could say the same about any religious group.

Given teh chance, I'm dead certain America's Dominionists and their Canadian bretheren would gladly turn our free society's into the kind of place even the Taliban would approve of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure there are a few loonies on the religious right (pat robertson springs to mind) who would, but they are a very, very small minority with little or no support among the religious community. Therein lies the difference between us and the Muslim world, for the fundamentalists are far more willing to seek blood, and they have far more support in the greater community.

waxer · August 23, 2005

Oh how trusting you are. If you get a chance, have a look at what the most senior moslem in Australia is saying about Australian culture- Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilali, Grand Mufti of Australia and imam of Sydney's Lakemba Mosque. (among other things that its our fault that so many Lebanese boys have commited gang rape here- because we allow skimpy clothing)

Already Chrstmas celebrations are banned in many schools and shopping centres because of supposedly offending the moslems.

I don't think you guys have any idea what sharia law is. And like any political group trying to change the culture of where they live, they will try a little bit at a time. You are only seeing the tip of the iceburg. Did you know Iran didn't used to have sharia law untill relatively recently? Now they do all the things I mentioned before (penalty for changing religion is death, girls must dress modeslty (that means virtually no skin other than the face showing, penalty for gays is death, penalty for even minor theft is hands chopped off, girls in Saudi are beaten to hospital if the wind blows their dress and the police see her ankles)

Oh, and if you think women will willingly submit to sharia law, they will- but only because of the threat of "honour killing" if they don't.

There can only be one law in a country, if you allow this sharia business it will be the tip of the iceburg and could spell the end of democracy in Canada- not now, or next year, but gradually until they have enopugh power for a revolution- Have a look at how it happened in Iran, Aceh, Have a look at what is happening right now in West Papua.

Oh, and I saw that some of you guys writing believe its just arbitration that they want- What a load of crap, they can already have arbitration, they don't need to make it law- There is always an alterior motive when someone wants to make whatthey can already do into a new law.

Canuck E Stan · August 23, 2005

Waxer, not only do we Canadians know all about Sharia. We also know about Lois and Brams.

crazymf · August 23, 2005

Oh I doubt they'd publicly cop to any such positions. But there's no question the differences between radical Islam and fundamentalist Chrsistianity are only a matter of degrees. Both are rigid, patriarchal belief systems emphasizing purity and absolute devotion to the religious dogma. Given teh chance, I'm dead certain America's Dominionists and their Canadian bretheren would gladly turn our free society's into the kind of place even the Taliban would approve of.

This is Canada. Bring your religious beliefs, wear turbans on the force. We'll let you do anything you want. Hell, we'll even change the laws to suit you. Just don't interfere with the colonial federal government or the rights of the Frenchies and Ontarians.

My sarcasm of the jour.