NationStates Jolt Archive

Canadians Muslims will get sharia courts to settle disputes (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=516303)
"Canada is embarking on an unusual judicial experiment that will allow members of its Muslim community to submit to the teachings of the Koran to resolve a variety of civil legal disputes, ranging from divorces to business conflicts."

Hmmm ... Canada is not very far from the Michigan town where calls to prayer are allowed over mosque loudspeakers. Will there be Muslim courts in that town next? ~ Michael.

Not going to happen.

It would violate the Relgious Netrality of the Consititution.

Personally, I think Canada is going to run into problems with that one.
The death penalties obviously had to be discounted since Canada does not have them. But what if the Canadian courts don't allow for someother penality. Are the Muslims going to accept that?

I could imagine other lawsuits over the rulings especially when say a non-Muslim offender gets a harsier penality then a Muslim offender with the same offense.

It will be curious to see how it works.....

It might because I think it was Canada that also allowed for some tribal laws to deal with some offense.

Finally, I am a beliver that you follow the laws of the land. If I commit an offense in a Muslim nation then I have to face the Sharia. I don't expect to be judged by American laws.

The same should apply to everybody.

It is interesting that I hear about people complaing about the ugly Americans expecting everywhere to be like America and yet they expect their own Culture when in the US.

But that is just me. As I said when I am in a land, I try to learn the culture.

Not going to happen. It would violate the Relgious Netrality of the Consititution.If both parties voluntarily submit to binding religious arbitration, as the article points out, then how would that violate separation of church and state? ~ Michael.

Not going to happen. It would violate the Relgious Netrality of the Consititution.If both parties voluntarily submit to binding religious arbitration, as the article points out, then how would that violate separation of church and state? ~ Michael.

That is true.

I admit to being ignorant of Canadian laws but I would expect it would depend on the offense. Say Rape vs. assult?

What about if a Muslim went after a non muslim? If he non Muslim refused the Shaira, do the Candian courts come into play?

Would this cause problems with the Muslim community? As in being outcasted even if he was not guilty?

Like I said, it would be curiuos to see how it works out.....

Several thoughts:

a) Since 1991, Ontario's other minority groups have been given the option to provide arbitration to their members in a limited context. Thus far, this has taken a lot of pressure off of Ontario courts. Why shouldn't Muslims and other groups take advantage of this?

b) The enforcement of any decision resulting from the arbitration will be up to the Canadian government. Obviously, the decisions must not violate Canadian law (no stonings, no drawing and quartering, etc.)Members of the minority community can opt for arbitration - but no one can be coerced into accepting arbitration, least of all non-Muslims.

To my ears, this sounds like a win-win situation. Each community gets to have an impartial judge from their own community to settle low-level disputes. Larger issues are handled by the provincial and federal government. Everybody benefits. What could possibly be wrong with that?

I think a court based on the Islamic laws of Sharia would be fine if it's treated as a civil court to settle issues that aren't major like marriage and divorce and custody issues. If there is something like murder then it should go to regular court. If there is a question of life or death, it should be taken to the regular courts, otherwise, tehre is no real why not to let them have their own court for minor issues.

Hmmm, many courts in many jurisdictions allow binding arbitration for purely civil matters. This is outside the bounds of criminal courts so would only aply on a limited basis.

And to be fair, courts in many jurisdiction don't take judicial notice of who the arbitrator was. If you go to settle a divorce out of court with the help of your priest and submit the paperwork uncontested to the courts - they will accept it.

So I don't see the big deal. If people want to use an Imman instead of a Monsigneur to settle a civil matter abd have the courts notarize it - this is not really anything outside the normal bounds of civil procedures.

-Z-

Such ideas have already come to America, to a certain extent, under the guise of "Compassionate Conservatism:"

People who want to homeschool their children, or get religious education for them rather than send them through the public schools, can get tax vouchers and credits for opting out of the public school system. This way, for example, a devout Catholic can send his child to a private Jesuit school and not have to pay taxes into the public school system.

Additionally, people can get tax credits for donating money to religious organizations that provide private welfare (prison education, drug rehab, etc) - rather than paying money into the public welfare system. This is based on a similar principle.

Considering that religious communities in the US are assuming more and more of the government's responsibilities (education, welfare, etc.) allowing them to have some control over legal disputes isn't a very great stretch.

Such ideas have already come to America, to a certain extent, under the guise of "Compassionate Conservatism:"


"Compassionate Conservatism" revolves around Christianity. There is are many examples of exclusion. One that comes to mind is (of course I forget the groups name) a Wicca organization that has done a great deal of work for the poor. They were denied.

It is also abused by the likes of Pat Robertson who seems to pull the largest amount of cash for "aid" in Africa. I read somewhere he used the money to fly stuff to africa and :shock: he made stops by some diamond mines to fly some stuff back.

For me I will be looking for the next President(after the shrub) to end the Relgious gifting of tax money.

As to Canada! You go!

I think it's slick you guys got that stuff to work.

We sort of have that stuff going in some areas. I think the Amish handle their own problems.....