NationStates Jolt Archive

Judging from what I read, Canada has some real issues to resolve concerning the original inhabitants.

The starlight tours, for instance, seem to have been widespread. It's murder - and in a callous and indifferent, yet institutionalized manner.

I've read one story of a starlight tour from 30 years ago. So it's been going on and on and on.

Yes, it is bad -- it seems to be widespread amongst the police forces. On the one hand, it is not reported frequently, but on the other hand, it may be because the victims are unwilling to report the abuse.

Believe me, the treatment of Canada's aboriginals by other Canadians is, by and large pretty terrible. A lot of it is historical, but a lot of it is happening today as well. Part of the problem is the police get frustrated dealing with the same homeless, drunks, or drug addicts all the time, and get into the mind set of 'teaching them a lesson'. In many ways, it's similar to the way police forces around the world deal with minorities or other underdogs, it's just showing a Canadian-specific symptom. Not saying that's a good excuse, by any means.

USA infant mortallity rate = lower than canada
Life expentacy = lower than canada
Cost per person = HIGHER than canada
The usa spend a higer percentage of its GDP per capita than canada.

The list goes on and on. YOu can check all these facts at the CIA worldfact website....

Uh, Jay, I think you mean that the USA infant mortality rate is higher than in Canada, cause at the moment you're undermining your own arguement.

Plus being a person who supports market forces, I just dont get the USA system with health care. You cant shop around and get the best price in times of medical problems. If you have a heart attack you go to the nearest hospital. You shop around and get that deal at MC hearts. Market forces dont work AT ALL with health care.

health care is about the only place socialism works. YOu can predict numbers, costs very well and put into practice large scale changes WAY more efficiently than a million private clinics + hosiptals can. When you duplicate service + policies in a public system you get better care. Private system just cant compare and are WAY more expensive and overall have worse care.

USA infant mortallity rate = lower than canada
Life expentacy = lower than canada
Cost per person = HIGHER than canada
The usa spend a higer percentage of its GDP per capita than canada.

The list goes on and on. YOu can check all these facts at the CIA worldfact website....

Canada has a real problem with specialty surgeries. The number of specialists in areas such as vascular surgeons is dropping - it's well worth a graduate's time to go to the US after school and get certified there rather than staying in Canada and trying to practice there.

More money.

My aunt would be dead today if we had waited for the Canadian surgeon to come available. Lucky for her, we had the money to send her to surgery here in the US.

And the ludicrous comments from the Canadian bureaucrats involved in trying to arrange the surgery in Canada make the worst US insurance nightmares look good. For a moment, my aunt thought she was talking to Josef Mengele on the phone. They didn't care if she lived or died - in fact, it seemed ominously clear that if she died, that would cost less and relieve the burden on the system.

It's up at the top right...Fort Chipewyan.

http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/reference/provincesterritories/alberta/referencemap_image_view

Mostly just natives up there though...OMG!

OMG! That's almost as far north as Fort Nelson! :D

Whispering Legs, your aunt may have had a terrible time, but it has been shown time and time again that necessary treatment, including surgeries, are generally provided in a timely fashion. However, we do currently have a problem with elective surgery wait lists, no doubt about it.

The problem with our doctors moving to the States would not be solved by moving from a public to a private system. The US has a larger market for doctors, no matter what system we use, doctors will be tempted to enter the larger market where there are almost 10 times the people clamouring for their services.

Uh, Jay, I think you mean that the USA infant mortality rate is higher than in Canada, cause at the moment you're undermining your own arguement.


yup that would be a typo :(

It's up at the top right...Fort Chipewyan.

http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/reference/provincesterritories/alberta/referencemap_image_view

Mostly just natives up there though...OMG!

ah i have heard of that, ya that would be cold lol

how many people in your town?

Canada has a real problem with specialty surgeries. The number of specialists in areas such as vascular surgeons is dropping - it's well worth a graduate's time to go to the US after school and get certified there rather than staying in Canada and trying to practice there.

More money.

My aunt would be dead today if we had waited for the Canadian surgeon to come available. Lucky for her, we had the money to send her to surgery here in the US.

And the ludicrous comments from the Canadian bureaucrats involved in trying to arrange the surgery in Canada make the worst US insurance nightmares look good. For a moment, my aunt thought she was talking to Josef Mengele on the phone. They didn't care if she lived or died - in fact, it seemed ominously clear that if she died, that would cost less and relieve the burden on the system.


Ok so if your didnt have insurance for that surgery in the states, you would do what then?

I never said the canuck version was great just WAY WAY better than the USA's version. Of course if you have tons of cash your golden in the states, best care in the world! You just better hope you have decent coverage.

Ok so if your didnt have insurance for that surgery in the states, you would do what then?

I never said the canuck version was great just WAY WAY better than the USA's version. Of course if you have tons of cash your golden in the states, best care in the world! You just better hope you have decent coverage.

I have coverage with Kaiser, which my employer does not pay for.

For my whole family, it costs about 600 per month (two adults (one diabetic), and three children (one asthmatic)).

It's been well worth it, and the treatment and availability of specialists has never been in question. In fact, my wife had her knees done by an extremely qualified sports surgeon - with care that went far beyond the normal orthopedic regimen (much nicer temporary braces as well - designed for an athletic lifestyle).

ah i have heard of that, ya that would be cold lol

how many people in your town?
In my town, 4000. Fort Chip has about 902:) I no tell where I live...

The one thing I'm very happy about in the U.S. is that no single demographic group drives policy. Those of us who live in rural settings are not completely dominated by the Dems. in the cities yet. In Canada I don't think that is working so well. At the very least, Canada is a fairly good neighbor. Beats the heck out of Mexico anyway.
Yeah! Damn Mexicans invading for no reason and taking half your territory!

As I said before, Canadians are generally willing to pay taxes to provide the services to ensure those services are provided to everyone. It's not an entitlement - it just means that we are [generally] supportive of each other. It means that we are taking personal responsibility for ourselves AND for others in our communities.

You know, like families do.

Why not set up public trust funds with specific user criteria rather than paying big brother to adminster it at such a hefty cost?

Yeah! Damn Mexicans invading for no reason and taking half your territory!

Not trying to justify past indescretions. Current behavior is still a legitimate issue.

Why not set up public trust funds with specific user criteria rather than paying big brother to adminster it at such a hefty cost?

And public trust funds wouldn't cost money to administrate and maintain? Lawyers are more usually more expensive than civil servants.

And public trust funds wouldn't cost money to administrate and maintain? Lawyers are more usually more expensive than civil servants.

Not more expensive than a multiple layer Gov. and it takes a lot less of them to get the job done.

I have coverage with Kaiser, which my employer does not pay for.

For my whole family, it costs about 600 per month (two adults (one diabetic), and three children (one asthmatic)).

It's been well worth it, and the treatment and availability of specialists has never been in question. In fact, my wife had her knees done by an extremely qualified sports surgeon - with care that went far beyond the normal orthopedic regimen (much nicer temporary braces as well - designed for an athletic lifestyle).

Do you have heath limits? For example lots of people have a limit on how much they can bill private heath insurance for. Whether it be a million dollars or a 100 K, once over that limit you get billed.

The private system is just more expensive period. Plus you peops die earlier on average and your babies die in greater numbers. What do you hate babies or something?

Not more expensive than a multiple layer Gov. and it takes a lot less of them to get the job done.

Got any examples to back up your claims?

I have coverage with Kaiser, which my employer does not pay for.

For my whole family, it costs about 600 per month (two adults (one diabetic), and three children (one asthmatic)).



I don't know about you, but there is no way my family could have afforded $600 per month for medical insurance. That is way more than my parents ever paid in taxes per month. And given that they have 12 kids (although no more than 8 of us would have been on their insurance at any one time), they would probably have to pay more for coverage than that.

Do you have heath limits? For example lots of people have a limit on how much they can bill private heath insurance for. Whether it be a million dollars or a 100 K, once over that limit you get billed.

The private system is just more expensive period. Plus you peops die earlier on average and your babies die in greater numbers. What do you hate babies or something?

I belong to an HMO (Kaiser). There aren't any limits.

I pay 10 dollars for each visit, and 10 dollars for each prescription (these are co-pays). Other than that, there are no deductibles and no limits.

Not more expensive than a multiple layer Gov. and it takes a lot less of them to get the job done.


:confused:

Why does the USA pay more per person to pay for health care than canada does? Canucks + everyone else in western Europe it would seem live longer than u yanks as well...

Got any examples to back up your claims?

actually, yes, I've had several clients who's family's left trust funds to care for their disabled children rather than depending on Social Security to do it. The Banks trust dept. charged less than the interest on the fund and were far more responsive and efficient than the Social Security Administration is. You didn't have to wait 6 months to determine eligibility to get funds or start the trust. Or pay the politicians to pass the laws that pertain to the trust contract stipulations. Or the Federal, State and local regulation of the fund.

Yeah! Damn Mexicans invading for no reason and taking half your territory!

You mean, like the US did in the 1840s to Mexico? The whole damn south-west used to be theirs!

I belong to an HMO (Kaiser). There aren't any limits.

I pay 10 dollars for each visit, and 10 dollars for each prescription (these are co-pays). Other than that, there are no deductibles and no limits.


I have to agree that the with eqqus that the average canadian is not paying 600 a month for health care in taxes. They are just paying taxes for crap like gun control and national child care ;)

Canada has mooses...

i want a moose

I have to agree that the with eqqus that the average canadian is not paying 600 a month for health care in taxes. They are just paying taxes for crap like gun control and national child care ;)

Don't make me smack you, Jay. :fluffle:

actually, yes, I've had several clients who's family's left trust funds to care for their disabled children rather than depending on Social Security to do it. The Banks trust dept. charged less than the interest on the fund and were far more responsive and efficient than the Social Security Administration is. You didn't have to wait 6 months to determine eligibility to get funds or start the trust. Or pay the politicians to pass the laws that pertain to the trust contract stipulations. Or the Federal, State and local regulation of the fund.

No, dear, of public trust funds set up to ensure that everyone in a country (or state or other community) has equal access to health care. Not just the ones with wealthy families.

I have to agree that the with eqqus that the average canadian is not paying 600 a month for health care in taxes. They are just paying taxes for crap like gun control and national child care ;)

The federal government claimed in parliament that it would cost no more than $85 million over 5 years to implement firearm registration. In 1995, Mauser predicted that the final cost for the registry would be between $1 billion and $1.5 billion. In 2002, the full cost of setting up the registration bureaucracy has already reached $1 billion.

“We don’t know how much this fiasco will eventually cost but if it is allowed to continue on the same path, the bill could easily reach $2 billion by 2005,” says Mauser.

The number of employees working on firearm registration grew from under 100 in 1995 to over 1,700 in the year 2000. Given government secrecy around the program, we do not have an accurate idea of how much the current number of employees may have mushroomed.

At the same time, the total number of RCMP officers has declined by over 10 percent since 1975 on a per capita basis. The ratio of police officers to population is at its lowest point since 1972.

“These costs might be worth it if the benefits were substantial enough,” says Mauser. “But there is no evidence that merely increasing the difficulty of obtaining a firearm through stricter gun laws has any important effect on crime rates.”

Mauser stresses that the firearm registry merely diverts money from programs that might actually be of use to improve public security. “Why has the government wasted one billion dollars to register guns owned by hunters, when they should have made a more concerted effort to investigate organized crime? The Canadian Coast Guard or Immigration Canada could use a billion dollars to protect Canadians from terrorists. The criminal justice system could use a billion dollars to track down violent offenders or put more law enforcement officers on the streets,” he says.

“I agree with the Auditor General that the most shocking aspect of this debacle is the complete lack of accountability. The government would not tell Parliament the true costs. The government has spent over a billion for a program with no benefit to the general public,” concludes Mauser.

Whispering Legs, I take it that Kaiser is not one of the HMOs that are being/have been sued for racketeering and bad faith and all that sort of thing?

Edit: And yes, the above is exactly what Jay was talking about. He is against the gun registry.

Edit again: I should point out that I'm not against it in theory, but this implementation is definitely a boondoggle.

Whispering Legs, I take it that Kaiser is not one of the HMOs that are being/have been sued for racketeering and bad faith and all that sort of thing?

Kaiser has had trouble in the past - in the early 1990s especially.

But as a model of how things should be run - and how they should improve - it's pretty good.

One reason they have to keep changing to make people happy is that if they make you unhappy, you quit.

You can't quit a National Health Service. So they don't change unless there's a major scandal or a politician gets it into his head to change something.

Some people don't like an HMO - they make you do regular visits and they counsel you on lifestyle. But it's a great deal if you have children or are chronically ill.

Kaiser has had trouble in the past - in the early 1990s especially.

But as a model of how things should be run - and how they should improve - it's pretty good.

One reason they have to keep changing to make people happy is that if they make you unhappy, you quit.

You can't quit a National Health Service. So they don't change unless there's a major scandal or a politician gets it into his head to change something.

Some people don't like an HMO - they make you do regular visits and they counsel you on lifestyle. But it's a great deal if you have children or are chronically ill.

So you feel you're getting good value for your money when HMO profits go up 73% (industry-wide) in 2003? Lord knows, when insurers in Canada see their profits go up at the cost of the consumer, we freak out and demand the government do something about it. Mind you, our insurance companies gouged us for a lot more than a 73% profit increase in 2003. We got brutalized.

Erhm... people around here -constantly- bash Canada for no reason -at all-

Canada has mooses...

i want a moose
Actually, it's grammatically incorrect to use mooses as the plural of moose. The actual term is meese.

Funniest thing i ever saw was in Montreal grafitti that said "Anglo go home" its a funny place though they hate teh rest of canada but they just won't let go.

Actually, it's grammatically incorrect to use mooses as the plural of moose. The actual term is meese.

noooo teh plural of moose is moose as in there are many moose in canada especially up north in what i like to call "NO MANS LAND"

BUT WHO GIVES A FLYING F*** as F1 season starts saturday night live from australia

noooo teh plural of moose is moose as in there are many moose in canada especially up north in what i like to call "NO MANS LAND"

Shows how much YOU know! I bet you use goose as plural instead of geese, and mouses instead of mice...sheesh!

The plural of beaver, by the way is NOT beavers, it is BEAVEN!

"Hey the beaven sure are big this year aren't they!"
"Naw, they ain't nearly as bad as those dang meese!"

I have a feeling it's going to be a dud. Even though they were asking for Zep to do it...

well it doesnt seem like this turned out to be a dud

well it doesnt seem like this turned out to be a dud
Aw shucks *blushes*

"Hey the beaven sure are big this year aren't they!"
"Naw, they ain't nearly as bad as those dang meese!"

WTF??? thats really funny for some reason :D :D :D :D

well it doesnt seem like this turned out to be a dud

Well, there were points where we just couldn't stop ourselves from defending Canada instead of bashing it. But I still got a few good punches in before I jumped into the trenches to ward off the attackers.

The federal government claimed in parliament that it would cost no more than $85 million over 5 years to implement firearm registration. In 1995, Mauser predicted that the final cost for the registry would be between $1 billion and $1.5 billion. In 2002, the full cost of setting up the registration bureaucracy has already reached $1 billion.

“We don’t know how much this fiasco will eventually cost but if it is allowed to continue on the same path, the bill could easily reach $2 billion by 2005,” says Mauser.

The number of employees working on firearm registration grew from under 100 in 1995 to over 1,700 in the year 2000. Given government secrecy around the program, we do not have an accurate idea of how much the current number of employees may have mushroomed.

At the same time, the total number of RCMP officers has declined by over 10 percent since 1975 on a per capita basis. The ratio of police officers to population is at its lowest point since 1972.

“These costs might be worth it if the benefits were substantial enough,” says Mauser. “But there is no evidence that merely increasing the difficulty of obtaining a firearm through stricter gun laws has any important effect on crime rates.”

Mauser stresses that the firearm registry merely diverts money from programs that might actually be of use to improve public security. “Why has the government wasted one billion dollars to register guns owned by hunters, when they should have made a more concerted effort to investigate organized crime? The Canadian Coast Guard or Immigration Canada could use a billion dollars to protect Canadians from terrorists. The criminal justice system could use a billion dollars to track down violent offenders or put more law enforcement officers on the streets,” he says.

“I agree with the Auditor General that the most shocking aspect of this debacle is the complete lack of accountability. The government would not tell Parliament the true costs. The government has spent over a billion for a program with no benefit to the general public,” concludes Mauser.

My oppinion is that if you really want to spend enough energy to kill someone, you will buy a gun no matter what the price, and if someone know someone is coming after them, they will defianately get one, but if the victim doesnt know or knows but it seems unlikely that a crime will happen against them (eg: a burgulary) they'd rather take their chances than spend $500-$1100 on a high capacity weapon, plus the paperwork and licencing. plus, most violent crimes involving guns happen with unregistered weapons and not with assault rifles. most crimes dont even involve a firearm. if full automatic weapons were leagalized without all the extra money needed, citizens would be much better protected from burgularies and violent crimes. the only things that need extra paperwork are scopes, because they can't be used for defense as well as semi full auto, bolt, and pump weapons w/out optics and can only be used for hunting and an offensive situation

Did ya know that 25% of over 18, high school graduate Americans think that the speed of sound is faster that that of light. ANNNDDD that nearly the same percentage cannot locate Canada on a world map, no seriously Canada....wow. :headbang:

Did ya know that 25% of over 18, high school graduate Americans think that the speed of sound is faster that that of light. ANNNDDD that nearly the same percentage cannot locate Canada on a world map, no seriously Canada....wow. :headbang:

This is a Canada bashing thread. :D Make your own thread for laughing at the US.

Sinuhue, I always thought the plural of beaver was beaves.

I was bashing canada, buncha nerds that we are for knowing that junk. And I think the plural is Beavi.

This is a Canada bashing thread. :D Make your own thread for laughing at the US.

Sinuhue, I always thought the plural of beaver was beaves.

Not trying to justify past indescretions. Current behavior is still a legitimate issue.
Ok. Damn Mexicans for imposing illegal import tariffs on avocados and brooms and coming up with excuses to not let US truckers into their country as stated in NAFTA!

think that the main problems between the US and Canada are:... too much for weapon systems they don't need. Americans also find the reaction of Canadians comical - once a Canadian finds out he's been taken advantage of, something silly inevitably happens.
Actually we need the weapons but we keep getting a gov't in that decides to do something about the sorry state of our military. Then once they get things started the east elects the liberals back in who cancel the defence contract and loose millions in cancellation fees without actually getting a single bullet in return. Which comes back to the comically silly thing that happens after we discover we have been taken advantage of!

I was bashing canada, buncha nerds that we are for knowing that junk. And I think the plural is Beavi.
No it is just beavers. Nice and simple, nothing too wild!

Actually we need the weapons but we keep getting a gov't in that decides to do something about the sorry state of our military. Then once they get things started the east elects the liberals back in who cancel the defence contract and loose millions in cancellation fees without actually getting a single bullet in return. Which comes back to the comically silly thing that happens after we discover we have been taken advantage of!

Tell me again why Canadians need any armed forces beyond a coastal maritime patrol.

Tell me again why Canadians need any armed forces beyond a coastal maritime patrol.
Because the Damn Sea Kings that the Liberals have left us stuck with keep dropping out of the sky and killing too many of our people not too mention the incident with the used sub we bought instead of going new. Most of or troops are using WW2 era weapons while our Cadets are training with WW1 era weapons. Does this answer your question?(not that I or any other Canucks are butter with the Liberal party) We also are involved in too many UN peacekeeping missions. The yanks go in and overthrow the tyrants and then we have to go in and maintain order and peace until the region stabalizes again! All in all we have many reasons, plus how long till the yanks decide to quit putting up with the annoying brat to their north east and just come up to take over the entire country? lol! sort of!

Because the Damn Sea Kings that the Liberals have left us stuck with keep dropping out of the sky and killing too many of our people not too mention the incident with the used sub we bought instead of going new. Most of or troops are using WW2 era weapons while our Cadets are training with WW1 era weapons. Does this answer your question?(not that I or any other Canucks are butter with the Liberal party) We also are involved in too many UN peacekeeping missions. The yanks go in and overthrow the tyrants and then we have to go in and maintain order and peace until the region stabalizes again! All in all we have many reasons, plus how long till the yanks decide to quit putting up with the annoying brat to their north east and just come up to take over the entire country? lol! sort of!

Canadians are not required to provide UN peacekeepers. I say stop.
Canada doesn't need a submarine of any sort for any reason.
A good maritime patrol force, with a few good ships and helicopters for that purpose (along the lines of the US Coast Guard's equipment) would be good. I believe the RCMP performs border patrol missions, so you don't need an Army. You don't really need an Air Force.

Here's what I advocate for the USA, and it's a slight exception to my normal Libertarian politics. Socialized medicine is often a bureaucratic nightmare. I've dealt with public agencies and they are no better than HMOs. I favor regulations of prescription drug prices, health services, insurance coverage evasions, etc. Insurance companies would not be allowed to evade proper coverage on the basis of "untimely filing" which they sometimes cause themselves on purpose by not processing the papers in time, and then turn around and reject new claims on the basis of "duplicates". If an insurance company or HMO denied a claim because of "timely filing", it will have to prove that the papers are being processed sufficiently when received, and will have to accept claims if valid, even if they are a duplicates of the previously rejected claims. Also, all children, being dependent anyway, would be covered by health insurance in everything.

If you see something specific that is lacking in Canada (so go ahead and talk about our opinons of you if you wish), then please offer a real analysis, and real solutions to the problem, or at the very least, discuss the issue without falling back on your usual attack procedures.


Perhaps a bit of separation of "Church and State" would be in order up there...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131715,00.html

Canada Weighs Using Muslim Law

CHICAGO — In Muslim neighborhoods in Canada, some women fear the legal power handed to their religious leaders.

As long as the country's law is followed, religious leaders can play a role in Canada's legal system. But a controversy has erupted over whether Muslim law should be used.

_______________________

I would also concur that, by and large, Canadian Municipalities are far less concerned for the environment. Case in point... For many years Vancouver B.C. has been dumping raw sewage into the Ocean just off their Coast, which is causing untold amounts of harm to the local Sea life...

http://www.georgiastrait.org/Articles2003/whales.php

It’s encouraging to see that the CRD wants to protect streams and ground water from the contamination of 30,000 septic tanks. But it’s ironic that at the same time we continue to ignore the impacts of the sewage of 300,000 CRD residents.

What’s even more disturbing is the excuse we so often use to fight programs designed to protect the health of citizens and the environment: cost.

Protecting streams and shellfish beds from septic tank contaminants costs too much.

Protecting the Juan de Fuca Strait from the 100 million litres of sewage and toxic chemicals dumped daily costs too much.

___________________________

Is that specific enough for you?

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps a bit of separation of "Church and State" would be in order up there...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131715,00.html

Canada Weighs Using Muslim Law

CHICAGO — In Muslim neighborhoods in Canada, some women fear the legal power handed to their religious leaders.

As long as the country's law is followed, religious leaders can play a role in Canada's legal system. But a controversy has erupted over whether Muslim law should be used.
_______________________

While your concern is welcome, I fear Foxnews is misleading you, yet again.

There has been a movement in Ontario to have tribunals using muslim law. It's still being debated whether it should be allowed. The movement has met stiff competition from all over the place.

Foxnews make it sond like it's already happening. Hell, even the headline and the text contradicts themselves.

While your concern is welcome, I fear Foxnews is misleading you, yet again.

There has been a movement in Ontario to have tribunals using muslim law. It's still being debated whether it should be allowed. The movement has met stiff competition from all over the place.

Foxnews make it sond like it's already happening. Hell, even the headline and the text contradicts themselves.

Hmmmm...

I don't see anywhere that I or the Article said anything about it being done currently, both things you point out say it is being considered, right?

That such things can even be considered is a bit disturbing, is it not?

By the way, I am not saying that we here in the U.S. have it all right ourselves quite the contrary. I believe that we have a few things we should "work on" before we go telling anyone else how to run a Democracy...

Regards,
Gaar

Hmmmm...

I don't see anywhere that I or the Article said anything about it being done currently, both things you point out say it is being considered, right?

That such things can even be considered is a bit disturbing, is it not?

By the way, I am not saying that we here in the U.S. have it all right ourselves quite the contrary. I believe that we have a few things we should "work on" before we go telling anyone else how to run a Democracy...

Regards,
Gaar
My mistake, I thought you thought it was already happening.

Anyway, they've got precedent because there are jewish tribunals in Ontario already in place. Obviously, these private tribunals cannot go against the Canadian legal system and both party can always appeal to the Canadian courts. Why were they put in place? I don't know, I don't live there. But it would be hypocritical to allow some religious tribunals while refusing some others. And so, a debate is ongoing.

My mistake, I thought you thought it was already happening.

Anyway, they've got precedent because there are jewish tribunals in Ontario already in place. Obviously, these private tribunals cannot go against the Canadian legal system and both party can always appeal to the Canadian courts. Why were they put in place? I don't know, I don't live there. But it would be hypocritical to allow some religious tribunals while refusing some others. And so, a debate is ongoing.

And that "precedent" is a very dangerous thing for a Democracy, in my mind.

Just as Laws against Morals are, again in my opinion, very dangerous things...

They justify things like illegal search and seizure and invasion of Privacy under the guise of Law... Making crimes of things that are not crimes.

Until we can get that right, we have no business trying to force our "beliefs" on others.

Regards,
Gaar

Tell me again why Canadians need any armed forces beyond a coastal maritime patrol.

Because they are next-door neighbours to the world's most aggressive foreign-policy nation?

Because they are next-door neighbours to the world's most aggressive foreign-policy nation?

Indeed. Some would argue that it's because they are next-door neighbours to the world's only foreign-policy nation. :D

Indeed. Some would argue that it's because they are next-door neighbours to the world's only foreign-policy nation. :D

I could make a comment about how those people must not be Americans... since 'foreign policy' implies a world OUTSIDE the borders... but people would attack me for making anti-US comments...

:(

Canada could have had English culture, American politics and French food...

Instead, Canada has American culture, French Politics and English food!

My mistake, I thought you thought it was already happening.

Anyway, they've got precedent because there are jewish tribunals in Ontario already in place. Obviously, these private tribunals cannot go against the Canadian legal system and both party can always appeal to the Canadian courts. Why were they put in place? I don't know, I don't live there. But it would be hypocritical to allow some religious tribunals while refusing some others. And so, a debate is ongoing.

Don't forget what they are suggesting would only be valid if both sides wanted and agreed to that system. In other words, the people who would use this system would have to choose it and of course it could not supersede Canadian law. Yes, the Fox article is very misleading.

Don't forget what they are suggesting would only be valid if both sides wanted and agreed to that system. In other words, the people who would use this system would have to choose it and of course it could not supersede Canadian law. Yes, the Fox article is very misleading.

I guess it's not any sillier than using Judge Judy, or The People's Court. In those cases, both sides agree to the system in question, and it still has to follow US law.

One wonders what the point is, though. At least Judge Judy is entertaining and makes money, and is probably a better venue for the idiots that appear on the show.

I guess it's not any sillier than using Judge Judy, or The People's Court. In those cases, both sides agree to the system in question, and it still has to follow US law.

One wonders what the point is, though. At least Judge Judy is entertaining and makes money, and is probably a better venue for the idiots that appear on the show.

Yes, I suppose you could say it's sort of the same given the system being suggested would only be valid for civil cases and not criminal.

Steph, since you're obviously one of the "uppity Canadians" the thread seems to be aimed at, perhaps you could hold forth on more of the subject of your webpage, as it might pertain to current events. Specifically:

1. As it applies to the apparent warming of European leaders (but perhaps not their constituents) to Condi.
2. The Palestinian-Israeli situation.
3. Libya's capitulation over WMD.
4. Saudi Arabia and other pressure from non-US nations for Syria to leave Lebanon.
5. Recent comments by Lebanese religious leaders (some of whom can be considered to be anti-American) who have referred to the recent Iraqi elections as the Arab version of the Fall of the Berlin Wall.
6. The ostensible alliance of Syria and Iran.
7. How Condi is handling North Korea, especially in light of the obligations of the US to UN Resolution 90.

Yeesh. Why don't you start a new thread, people?

Yeesh. Why don't you start a new thread, people?
No, no. This is relevant. She'll say something that someone will interpret as "an uppity Canadian bashing the US", and we'll be back on track.

Don't forget what they are suggesting would only be valid if both sides wanted and agreed to that system. In other words, the people who would use this system would have to choose it and of course it could not supersede Canadian law. Yes, the Fox article is very misleading.

Not really, the Fox article says exactly what you just said...

But Muslim women are the ones saying they have a problem with that even, given the lack of womens Rights in many Muslim communities.

Did you read the article? It really wasn't that long...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131715,00.html

Canada Weighs Using Muslim Law

CHICAGO — In Muslim neighborhoods in Canada, some women fear the legal power handed to their religious leaders.

As long as the country's law is followed, religious leaders can play a role in Canada's legal system. But a controversy has erupted over whether Muslim law should be used.

Two parties in a Canadian civil dispute, like a divorce, can opt to use a religious leader as a mediator, and the mediator's decision is binding. Canadian native tribes, Christians and Jews use this system.

"If Muslims have a civil dispute among themselves, they would want to settle the matter within the community rather than take it outside," said Shabir Ally, president of the Islamic Information Institute (search).

But some Canadian Muslim women fear that Muslim law, or Sharia (search), will be imposed on them in these civil mediations. Critics say Sharia has been used, or abused, to discriminate against women. And some Canadian Muslim women say they will be badgered into accepting decisions from conservative imams acting as mediators.

"They will be oppressed in a sense because they'll be coerced into feeling they need to follow this process of binding arbitration, implementing Sharia. Otherwise they're deemed as blasphemous and labeled by the community and then where else is she to go?" said Iman Zebian, a member of the board of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women (search).

Unless the government watches closely, these women worry that imams acting as legal arbitrators will take advantage of women in the name of Islam.

Hmmmm...

I don't see anywhere that I or the Article said anything about it being done currently, both things you point out say it is being considered, right?

That such things can even be considered is a bit disturbing, is it not?
It's not as though the Candian government woke up one morning and said, hey, let's allow muslims to use Shari'a law! It was something that was brought to the government as a suggestion, so of course it has to be considered (when enough people are pressuring for such things). That does not mean it WILL be put into place.

Native groups have already been allowed to use 'sentencing circles' in some cases, so now other groups want to know if they can deal with certain issues based on THEIR traditions. It's a valid question that needs an answer. That's not disturbing, that's a country with a multicultural population trying to deal with its differences.

Yes, I suppose you could say it's sort of the same given the system being suggested would only be valid for civil cases and not criminal.

We couldn't do the Muslim thing here, though. The separation of Church and State would forbid the practice.

But we can do Judge Judy.

*snip*I don't think anyone here has yet supported the idea of muslim tribunals. As has been said before, there is substantial resistance to the idea, both within and without the muslim community, which likely means it will not be put into place. HOWEVER, even if it were, I'm not sure what would bother you so much about it, again since it could not contravene existing Canadian civil law?

The reason I don't support it is because there is still a lot of confusion about what particular take on shari'a would be used, AND because as you said, a sizeable portion of the female muslims who would be impacted by this don't support it. If the community was able to reach consensus, I'd say, go for it. The jewish tribunals, and native circles haven't had a lot of resistance, before or after the fact, and they haven't interfered with Canadian law. They simply formalise things that were already traditionally done.

*snipped*

CHICAGO — In Muslim neighborhoods in Canada, some women fear the legal power handed to their religious leaders.


I've lived in a whole lotta places and been to many others up here, but I've never heard of a 'Muslim neighbourhood' anywhere, at any time, in Canada. There's neighbourhoods with greater or lesser percentages of Muslims living in them, but I'd be curious to see if anyone can name me one exclusively 'Muslim neighbourhood' in all of Canada.

This is just more FoxNews divisiveness. What, are they hoping to turn US popular opinion regarding Canada so sour as to make us yet another 'axis of evil' country?

I'm laughing so hard I nearly lost bowel control there.

We couldn't do the Muslim thing here, though. The separation of Church and State would forbid the practice.

But we can do Judge Judy.
I'm not sure...Canada doesn't have a state religion either. This isn't allowing a religious group to police itself or form it's own laws...though it does give them some leeway in terms of moderating disputes, and making recommendations for sentencing and so on. The native sentencing circles are not based solely on religion, but rather on a cultural view of punishment and restitution...they make recommendations, but the judicial system still has to choose to accept, or reject those recommendations. It doesn't mean a native murderer won't go to jail...

I'm not sure...Canada doesn't have a state religion either. This isn't allowing a religious group to police itself or form it's own laws...though it does give them some leeway in terms of moderating disputes, and making recommendations for sentencing and so on. The native sentencing circles are not based solely on religion, but rather on a cultural view of punishment and restitution...they make recommendations, but the judicial system still has to choose to accept, or reject those recommendations. It doesn't mean a native murderer won't go to jail...

Here in the US, if it's religious, you can't do it in court.

I've lived in a whole lotta places and been to many others up here, but I've never heard of a 'Muslim neighbourhood' anywhere, at any time, in Canada. There's neighbourhoods with greater or lesser percentages of Muslims living in them, but I'd be curious to see if anyone can name me one exclusively 'Muslim neighbourhood' in all of Canada.

This is just more FoxNews divisiveness. What, are they hoping to turn US popular opinion regarding Canada so sour as to make us yet another 'axis of evil' country?

I'm laughing so hard I nearly lost bowel control there.
The phrasing might be hackneyed, but the issue is a real one. Such tribunals would try to settle things like repayment of a dowry after divorce, custody of children, mediate disputes etc.etc. Here are some Canadian links to the issue:

Canadian Council of Muslim Women: http://www.ccmw.com/ShariainCanada/Tribunals%20Will%20Marginalize%20Canadian%20Muslim%20Women.htm

Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada: http://www.caircan.ca/ann_more.php?id=1132_0_9_0_C

CTV: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1094680399477_11/?hub=CTVNewsAt11

I'm not sure...Canada doesn't have a state religion either. This isn't allowing a religious group to police itself or form it's own laws...though it does give them some leeway in terms of moderating disputes, and making recommendations for sentencing and so on. The native sentencing circles are not based solely on religion, but rather on a cultural view of punishment and restitution...they make recommendations, but the judicial system still has to choose to accept, or reject those recommendations. It doesn't mean a native murderer won't go to jail...

Canada has the Head of the Established Church on its money and stamps.

Here in the US, if it's religious, you can't do it in court.
That's the thing...it isn't being done in court. It's outide the courts. Let's use a different example...if a couple is getting divorced, and a number of health care professionals recommend that the children go to the father, the courts will usually accept that recommendation...but they don't have to. In this case, it would allow community members to make recommendations. The courts still have the ability to say yes or no. Would that still not ever be allowed in the US?

Canada has the Head of the Established Church on its money and stamps.
No, we have the Queen. She may serve as the head of an established church, but it isn't OUR established church. We have her in one role but not the other. (Though I say, let's boot her off altogether!)

Here in the US, if it's religious, you can't do it in court.

Not just in Court, but it isn't supposed to be a part of our Government PERIOD!

That IS my point, but I guess we need to now justify why it is ok to do it in Canada...

I also like those that would rather try and make Fox News "look bad" instead of addressing the issue.

Regards,
Gaar

The phrasing might be hackneyed, but the issue is a real one. Such tribunals would try to settle things like repayment of a dowry after divorce, custody of children, mediate disputes etc.etc. Here are some Canadian links to the issue:

Canadian Council of Muslim Women: http://www.ccmw.com/ShariainCanada/Tribunals%20Will%20Marginalize%20Canadian%20Muslim%20Women.htm

Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada: http://www.caircan.ca/ann_more.php?id=1132_0_9_0_C

CTV: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1094680399477_11/?hub=CTVNewsAt11

Could it be that Fox News was refering to those "communities" of Muslims and not actual communities? It is a common way of addressing large groups of like minded people, is it not?

Nah, that can't be it... Then some would have nothing to divert the attention away from the actual POINT of the discussion, sorry my bad...

Regards,
Gaar

That's the thing...it isn't being done in court. It's outide the courts. Let's use a different example...if a couple is getting divorced, and a number of health care professionals recommend that the children go to the father, the courts will usually accept that recommendation...but they don't have to. In this case, it would allow community members to make recommendations. The courts still have the ability to say yes or no. Would that still not ever be allowed in the US?

The people who make recommendations to the court are appointed by the court for that purpose. So, in the case of divorce, they already work for the government. You could bring your own child psychiatrist, for instance, but it won't wash (at least not around here). No religious figure is employed by the government for this purpose, nor are any who are not employed consulted for these purposes. The court could not base its decision on the recommendation of any religious figure - the decision could easily be overthrown on that basis - First Amendment.

There is a mechanism for community members to make recommendations in criminal cases. It's called a jury.

If you have a civil trial, you can ask for a jury. Now, as to who ends up on that jury, that's another question. But it won't be all Moslems, or all natives (unless that's the predominant population in your county).

Don't they have juries in civil trials in Canada?

Could it be that Fox News was refering to those "communities" of Muslims and not actual communities? It is a common way of addressing large groups of like minded people, is it not?

Nah, that can't be it... Then some would have nothing to divert the attention away from the actual POINT of the discussion, sorry my bad...

Regards,
Gaar
Don't get snarky with me...I never bashed FOX, I actually looked at the issue. So direct that sarcasm elsewhere...

That's the thing...it isn't being done in court. It's outide the courts. Let's use a different example...if a couple is getting divorced, and a number of health care professionals recommend that the children go to the father, the courts will usually accept that recommendation...but they don't have to. In this case, it would allow community members to make recommendations. The courts still have the ability to say yes or no. Would that still not ever be allowed in the US?

Are you sure this is the case?

I read it as saying that the Group defered to would be able to decide, and that it would be binding, as long as the decision didn't contradict Canadian Law, please correct me if I am wrong...

Regards,
Gaar

If you have a civil trial, you can ask for a jury. Now, as to who ends up on that jury, that's another question. But it won't be all Moslems, or all natives (unless that's the predominant population in your county).

Don't they have juries in civil trials in Canada?
Hell if I know:)

I couldn't really tell you much about how our court systems work:( However, I know in the north at least, the native sentencing circles worked quite well, but I couldn't really explain HOW they worked...

Don't get snarky with me...I never bashed FOX, I actually looked at the issue. So direct that sarcasm elsewhere...

It was, I didn't mention You directly, I was merely pointing to your links as the Groups I wished to address...

Sorry if you took it wrong, I did SEE you defend the article, didn't I?

So why would my comment have been directed towards you?

I'm sure those who did it know who I was refering to.

Regards,
Gaar

Are you sure this is the case?

I read it as saying that the Group defered to would be able to decide, and that it would be binding, as long as the decision didn't contradict Canadian Law, please correct me if I am wrong...

Regards,
Gaar
Yeah, I'm talking out my BEhind...I'm rereading and it doesn't look like it would really have much to do with the courts unless someone took it to court...meaning, a civil dispute would be mediated and judged by the tribunal (not contravening Canadian law) rather than having the issue taken to court. It seems different than what our sentencing circles do...

Don't get snarky with me...I never bashed FOX, I actually looked at the issue. So direct that sarcasm elsewhere...
"Snarky?" Snarky??" Ummm ...

It was, I didn't mention You directly, I was merely pointing to your links as the Groups I wished to address...

Sorry if you took it wrong, I did SEE you defend the article, didn't I?

So why would my comment have been directed towards you?

I'm sure those who did it know who I was refering to.

Regards,
Gaar
Noted, forgiven, forgotten.

We couldn't do the Muslim thing here, though. The separation of Church and State would forbid the practice.

But we can do Judge Judy.

I don't know that it would be considered illegal depending on the context. Do all states require a trial to finalize a divorce? Or can a couple work out their agreement, have it properly written up, and file it as an uncontested divorce? If they can do the latter, then if the agreement is mediated by their pastor (or mullah), then what would make it invalid as long as it met state guidelines?


Now, perhaps you haven't formalized it and one might need to find a mullah willing to work with a lawyer to draw the paperwork up, but all we are doing is recognizing that this is a culturaly sensitive way to let people settle disputes. It does not, after all, actually intertwine the state in the business of religion or the religion into the state. It only provides another venue besides a law office in which to mediate an agreement before filing it, and that mediation must still arrive at a solution that is within the bounds of same secular laws that apply to everyone.

I mean really, if you and your spouse are lookign to make an amicable split and just need a fair agreement drawn up and filed, then what does it matter who you do your negotiating through before you finalize the agreement?

"Snarky?" Snarky??" Ummm ...
Don't you go talking about kettles and pots now Eut...my Irish temper is flaring today...

I*snip*
I think the fear is that although this kind of arbitration would have to be consensual (as most arbitration or mediation is), people are afraid they would be *forced* to consent (oxymoron, but you know what I mean). So the hubby takes the wife to the mullah, gets a decision and then she has to agree to it, or take it to a civil court...

I dunno, I should shut up now.

Are you sure this is the case?

I read it as saying that the Group defered to would be able to decide, and that it would be binding, as long as the decision didn't contradict Canadian Law, please correct me if I am wrong...

Regards,
Gaar

In civil cases in Canada you can come to a binding agreement on just about anything outside of the court as long as the decision meets the legal requirements and you file the proper paperwork. It doesn't matter if you negotiate the agreement directly with the other person, use one lawyer, two lawyers, 50 lawyers, your parents, your priest, your bartender, or your third cousin five times removed as a mediator.

If two people can settle something themselves then why waste the courts time and money to force something down their throats that makes neither happy?

If they're happy, the paperwork is properly filled out, and the agreement is legal - then why the hell should the courts care how you came to that agreement? They do not, after all, have a mandate to stick their noses into places where it isn't needed.

I don't know that it would be considered illegal depending on the context. Do all states require a trial to finalize a divorce? Or can a couple work out their agreement, have it properly written up, and file it as an uncontested divorce? If they can do the latter, then if the agreement is mediated by their pastor (or mullah), then what would make it invalid as long as it met state guidelines?


Now, perhaps you haven't formalized it and one might need to find a mullah willing to work with a lawyer to draw the paperwork up, but all we are doing is recognizing that this is a culturaly sensitive way to let people settle disputes. It does not, after all, actually intertwine the state in the business of religion or the religion into the state. It only provides another venue besides a law office in which to mediate an agreement before filing it, and that mediation must still arrive at a solution that is within the bounds of same secular laws that apply to everyone.

I mean really, if you and your spouse are lookign to make an amicable split and just need a fair agreement drawn up and filed, then what does it matter who you do your negotiating through before you finalize the agreement?

Yes, but the difference is that, in an amicable divorce, the participants themselves file the pertinent papers, never is anyone from the Church allowed to act on behalf of anyone from the Courts perspective.

Just as is allowed in Canada now, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

I think the fear is that although this kind of arbitration would have to be consensual (as most arbitration or mediation is), people are afraid they would be *forced* to consent (oxymoron, but you know what I mean). So the hubby takes the wife to the mullah, gets a decision and then she has to agree to it, or take it to a civil court...

I dunno, I should shut up now.


Well, I believe that such agreements must be consesual to be binding. however I think that while your risk IS somewhat valid, nost people who would allow themselves to be bullied into a bad agreement would do so no matter if the matter was through their lawyer or their priest.

A person could just as easily force their spouse to sign an uncontested divorce document at the lawyers office as at the mosque if they were trying to do that.

In civil cases in Canada you can come to a binding agreement on just about anything outside of the court as long as the decision meets the legal requirements and you file the proper paperwork. It doesn't matter if you negotiate the agreement directly with the other person, use one lawyer, two lawyers, 50 lawyers, your parents, your priest, your bartender, or your third cousin five times removed as a mediator.

If two people can settle something themselves then why waste the courts time and money to force something down their throats that makes neither happy?

If they're happy, the paperwork is properly filled out, and the agreement is legal - then why the hell should the courts care how you came to that agreement? They do not, after all, have a mandate to stick their noses into places where it isn't needed.

Yes, but those "Binding agreements" are nothing more than a "Contract" in the eyes of the Court, are they not?

The difference would be that, in the one YOU cite the agreement was made BEFORE they decided to agree in Court, in the one we are talking about someone involved in Religion gets to decide a binding agreement in or for a Court of Law BEFORE any actual agreement has been reached, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, but the difference is that, in an amicable divorce, the participants themselves file the pertinent papers, never is anyone from the Church allowed to act on behalf of anyone from the Courts perspective.

Just as is allowed in Canada now, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar


But filing is just the final act after the negotations are done. Is there anything in your laws to prevent people from using their priest as the mediator and then filing it themselves?

No.

So the end result is the same really isn't it - except for who signs the bottom of the paperwork? In this case, it is really more about expanding who notarizes the agreement more than anything else.

Well, I believe that such agreements must be consesual to be binding. however I think that while your risk IS somewhat valid, nost people who would allow themselves to be bullied into a bad agreement would do so no matter if the matter was through their lawyer or their priest.

A person could just as easily force their spouse to sign an uncontested divorce document at the lawyers office as at the mosque if they were trying to do that.

Sorry but you are wrong. As long as they consented to the binding arbitration beforehand they do not HAVE to agree on the outcome, just as binding arbitration works in the U.S.

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, but the difference is that, in an amicable divorce, the participants themselves file the pertinent papers, never is anyone from the Church allowed to act on behalf of anyone from the Courts perspective.

Just as is allowed in Canada now, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar
Sorry, but you could have your pet canary fill out the paperwork if you really wanted to...doesn't mean it would be processed, but there is (as far as I know) NO restriction about who can help you with the paperwork.

Don't you go talking about kettles and pots now Eut...my Irish temper is flaring today...
Eep! Thanks for the warning! [ runs away to other threads! ]

A person could just as easily force their spouse to sign an uncontested divorce document at the lawyers office as at the mosque if they were trying to do that.
True. True dat.

Ok...I'm feeling strange today...

Yes, but those "Binding agreements" are nothing more than a "Contract" in the eyes of the Court, are they not?

The difference would be that, in the one YOU cite the agreement was made BEFORE they decided to agree in Court, in the one we are talking about someone involved in Religion gets to decide a binding agreement in or for a Court of Law BEFORE any actual agreement has been reached, right?

Regards,
Gaar


Yes, but my uinderstanding is that the decision is not binding unless agreed to - and that incudes agreement to the decision. One does not opt to go this route and have it be binding from that point on.

So if you were to attempt this route and felt that your mullah (or rabbi) was not giving you a fair shake you could withdraw from the process at any point and elect the more traditional court route.

In other words, your religious leader has no binding authority over you at any point that you cannot revoke.

Yes, but those "Binding agreements" are nothing more than a "Contract" in the eyes of the Court, are they not?

The difference would be that, in the one YOU cite the agreement was made BEFORE they decided to agree in Court, in the one we are talking about someone involved in Religion gets to decide a binding agreement in or for a Court of Law BEFORE any actual agreement has been reached, right?

Regards,
Gaar
That is exactly what we're talking about though in this case...these would be out-of court settled civil cases. (I'm pretty sure on that one now...)

But filing is just the final act after the negotations are done. Is there anything in your laws to prevent people from using their priest as the mediator and then filing it themselves?

No.

So the end result is the same really isn't it - except for who signs the bottom of the paperwork? In this case, it is really more about expanding who notarizes the agreement more than anything else.

Again I must disagree.

In any "negotiation" with my Priest in the matter I am free to say that I don't like it and won't agree.

In Binding Arbitration we discuss it and then I am left with whatever they have decided, no matter what I think.

Those are not the same, are they?

Regards,
Gaar

Sorry but you are wrong. As long as they consented to the binding arbitration beforehand they do not HAVE to agree on the outcome, just as binding arbitration works in the U.S.

Regards,
Gaar
I don't think Zep was saying that wasn't the case...in fact I think you just restated the fact that you have to agree beforehand for it to be binding...

Edit: Okay, I see Zep IS saying you could agree beforehand then withdraw...I don't believe that is the case...I think once you agree you're stuck...which would make this different than regular arbitration and is at the crux of much of the resistance...

Besides, I can't see why Canadian Muslim women would be worried, they wouldn't even allow the process without her consent.

Yes, but my uinderstanding is that the decision is not binding unless agreed to - and that incudes agreement to the decision. One does not opt to go this route and have it be binding from that point on.

So if you were to attempt this route and felt that your mullah (or rabbi) was not giving you a fair shake you could withdraw from the process at any point and elect the more traditional court route.

In other words, your religious leader has no binding authority over you at any point that you cannot revoke.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong on this one.

Just as Binding Arbitration isn't always "agreed" upon in the U.S., I am sure the same applies in Canada. Once you have agreed to the Arbitration the decision is binding, that is why they refer to it as such.

The only way such decisions can be "overturned" is if they are not in compliance with Canadian Law.

Regards,
Gaar

Besides, I can't see why Canadian Muslim women would be worried, they wouldn't even allow the process without her consent.
You have an awful lot of faith in a woman's ability to deny her husband, her family and her community in this...if they all wanted it, would she really be free to say no? The law says she would be free to refuse, but reality says she would be pressured. Depends on the woman, but women in abusive or dependent relationships are notoriously low in self-esteem and assertiveness, whatever their culture.

I don't think Zep was saying that wasn't the case...in fact I think you just restated the fact that you have to agree beforehand for it to be binding...

Edit: Okay, I see Zep IS saying you could agree beforehand then withdraw...I don't believe that is the case...I think once you agree you're stuck...which would make this different than regular arbitration and is at the crux of much of the resistance...

Exactly, he IS wrong...

Here are some points I picked up off that Canadian Council of Muslim Women to outline their concerns:


Proponents of the Sharia tribunals say that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will protect women’s equality rights. The Charter applies only to state actions and not disputes between private individuals such as the arbitration agreements or awards.

While arbitration requires consent of both parties and is voluntary, women may feel compelled to go to a Sharia tribunal by virtue of their strong religious affiliation and family and community pressures.

Sharia law is not a homogeneous civil code but rather a very complex system of Muslim jurisprudence interpreted by culturally and ethnically diverse individuals often from a patriarchal perspective. There are no norms or standards for settlements, e.g. amount or length of alimony and support payments, age of male or female children for custody awards. It is precisely the arbitrariness of these awards that will jeopardize the equality rights of Muslim women. CCMW fears that arbitration using Sharia/Muslim family law will continue to be based on a very narrow, conservative interpretation of Islam, which has already had a negative impact on some Canadian Muslim women and Muslim women world-wide.
Of course, they have more to say, but I don't want to cut and paste it all:)

Exactly, he IS wrong...
Well, I'm not entirely certain on that:

The Arbitration Act holds religious bodies' decisions are legally binding as long as their rulings conform to Canadian law, and that both parties were willing participants in the process.
I haven't yet read that the participants only need to be willing on the onset...

Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had been searching for cannabis on a small farm near the city of Edmonton in a routine investigation.

<snip for brevity>

Police in Alberta have been cracking down on illegal cannabis "grow-ops" that have sprung up across the province.

The shooting could also raise some awkward political questions for the government in Ottawa.

Mr Martin has announced plans to loosen laws on cannabis possession.

Critics have warned his plan could increase illegal cannabis production.

"The issue of grow-ops is not a ma-and-pa industry as we've been seeing for a number of years," RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli told the AP news agency.

"These are major serious threats to our society and they are major serious threats to the men and women on the frontline who have to deal with them."

Until now many Canadians have tolerated cannabis production as merely a minor nuisance, says the BBC's Ian Gunn in Vancouver.

This shooting during a cannabis raid will likely reignite the debate and perhaps force the government to rethink its more liberal approach to the drug.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4317341.stm

...but still, since it has been mentioned in the Canadian Council of Muslim Women site that appeals are done through the courts and it can be hard to overturn arbitration decisions, I'd have to say that I suspect you agree at the beginning, and that you can not disagree with the final decision...

Just my suspicion.

I don't know that it would be considered illegal depending on the context. Do all states require a trial to finalize a divorce? Or can a couple work out their agreement, have it properly written up, and file it as an uncontested divorce? If they can do the latter, then if the agreement is mediated by their pastor (or mullah), then what would make it invalid as long as it met state guidelines?

Now, perhaps you haven't formalized it and one might need to find a mullah willing to work with a lawyer to draw the paperwork up, but all we are doing is recognizing that this is a culturaly sensitive way to let people settle disputes. It does not, after all, actually intertwine the state in the business of religion or the religion into the state. It only provides another venue besides a law office in which to mediate an agreement before filing it, and that mediation must still arrive at a solution that is within the bounds of same secular laws that apply to everyone.

I mean really, if you and your spouse are lookign to make an amicable split and just need a fair agreement drawn up and filed, then what does it matter who you do your negotiating through before you finalize the agreement?

Here in the US, mediation is done through mediators appointed by the courts.

Those aren't religious figures.

Although you may not have a trial, there is a hearing to finalize the agreements.

You have an awful lot of faith in a woman's ability to deny her husband, her family and her community in this...if they all wanted it, would she really be free to say no? The law says she would be free to refuse, but reality says she would be pressured. Depends on the woman, but women in abusive or dependent relationships are notoriously low in self-esteem and assertiveness, whatever their culture.

Ah, you make a valid point. I can't really argue with that.

*snip*
This happened in a community pretty close to mine. The four murdered RCMP were well known here. This is a real shock, but it kind of adds to the other terrible things that no one expected to happen in rural Alberta, that did anyway. We had a school shooting in Taber two weeks after Columbine. You would think these things would happen in urban centres, not sleepy little towns...

All our flags are at half-mast, and the communities surrounding Mayerthorpe are in total shock. Those men all had families.

Well, I'm not entirely certain on that:


I haven't yet read that the participants only need to be willing on the onset...

http://www.canadianlawsite.com/arbitration.htm

Arbitration:
A dispute resolution mechanism, whereby an independent neutral third party is appointed to hear and consider the merits of the dispute, and who renders a final and binding decision called an award.

http://www.autoissues.org/arbitration_faq.htm

What is voluntary arbitration?
In voluntary arbitration, both sides in the dispute voluntarily agree to submit their disagreement to arbitration after it arises and after they have an opportunity to investigate their best options for resolving their claim.

http://www.fwlaw.com/arbitration.html

Unpredictability - because arbitrators generally are not required to follow legal precedent or procedural or evidentiary rules, and because many arbitrators are not licensed attorneys, the outcome of arbitration may be much less predictable than the outcome of traditional litigation;

Finality - most arbitration decisions cannot be reviewed on appeal; thus the arbitrator's decision is final;

Cripes...you'd think a shoot-out like that would happen over meth or something harder than weed...though the guy who did it was known to be a bit psychopathic...everyone was afraid of him.

However, the RCMP were all armed with handguns, while the man who killed them then shot himself had a high-powered rifle. I think our RCMP need to be more careful, perhaps to the point of paranoia in cases like this. Many rural people have hunting rifles or whatever, and know how to use them...perhaps we are more comfortable with guns than our urban counterparts? In any case, only one RCMP managed to get a shot off in defense before they were killed.

Now, perhaps you haven't formalized it and one might need to find a mullah willing to work with a lawyer to draw the paperwork up, but all we are doing is recognizing that this is a culturaly sensitive way to let people settle disputes. It does not, after all, actually intertwine the state in the business of religion or the religion into the state. It only provides another venue besides a law office in which to mediate an agreement before filing it, and that mediation must still arrive at a solution that is within the bounds of same secular laws that apply to everyone.


I see. Well, then, in the US, why do we have to settle disputes in a courtroom that doesn't have the Ten Commandments in it? It only provides another decoration in the venue of the court where disputes are settled before filing, and that settlement must still arrive at a solution that is within the bounds of the same secular laws that apply to everyone.

I'm being specious, but I hope you take my point. Separation of church and state is an absolute - Jefferson referred to it as a "Wall" (capitalization is his).

*snip*
I think I understand the difference...I'm just not sure what kind of arbitration this sort of tribunal would be...it gets called different things in different news sources.

This happened in a community pretty close to mine. The four murdered RCMP were well known here. This is a real shock, but it kind of adds to the other terrible things that no one expected to happen in rural Alberta, that did anyway. We had a school shooting in Taber two weeks after Columbine. You would think these things would happen in urban centres, not sleepy little towns...

All our flags are at half-mast, and the communities surrounding Mayerthorpe are in total shock. Those men all had families.

It sounds like a) the RCMP is not expecting an active shooter, and b) when they do come upon an active shooter, they have little or no training, weaponry, or armor to deal with it.

Cripes...you'd think a shoot-out like that would happen over meth or something harder than weed...though the guy who did it was known to be a bit psychopathic...everyone was afraid of him.

However, the RCMP were all armed with handguns, while the man who killed them then shot himself had a high-powered rifle. I think our RCMP need to be more careful, perhaps to the point of paranoia in cases like this. Many rural people have hunting rifles or whatever, and know how to use them...perhaps we are more comfortable with guns than our urban counterparts? In any case, only one RCMP managed to get a shot off in defense before they were killed.

In the US, in rural areas, they carry what is commonly called the "patrol rifle".

If you do law enforcement in a rural area, having something like a semi-auto hunting rifle is a good idea.

I'm being specious, but I hope you take my point. Separation of church and state is an absolute - Jefferson referred to it as a "Wall" (capitalization is his).
I wonder why this so rarely is an issue in Canada...are we more religious? It just seems that aside from the odd case of someone not wanting GOD to appear in the national anthem, or refusing to let some schools have children recite the Lord's Prayer in class, division of church and state aren't big things here. They should be, in my mind...but then again, I waffle on that when it comes to culture...hmmm...

Big beef of mine in regards to religion? I've said it before, but it bears repeating. There should not be a publicly funded Catholic school system that only allows Catholics to attend. It should be privately funded if it is not publicly open.

It sounds like a) the RCMP is not expecting an active shooter, and b) when they do come upon an active shooter, they have little or no training, weaponry, or armor to deal with it.
Well especially in our rural areas, where everyone knows one another...two of these guys were on a stakeout, waiting for the suspect to come home, and the other two had just shown up to relieve them. No one knows yet why they left their position, or how the suspect got back without them noticing it...

Like I said, no one, inlcuding our RCMP expect this sort of thing here...

I wonder why this so rarely is an issue in Canada...are we more religious? It just seems that aside from the odd case of someone not wanting GOD to appear in the national anthem, or refusing to let some schools have children recite the Lord's Prayer in class, division of church and state aren't big things here. They should be, in my mind...but then again, I waffle on that when it comes to culture...hmmm...

Big beef of mine in regards to religion? I've said it before, but it bears repeating. There should not be a publicly funded Catholic school system that only allows Catholics to attend. It should be privately funded if it is not publicly open.

It's an issue to some of the Canadians on this list - but only if the problem is in the US. I'm sure that Zeppistan and Stephistan would be up in arms about anything "faith-based" that Bush comes up with - and would go to the mat to maintain that separation of church and state.

However, if something "faith-based", especially non-Western faith-based was going on in Canada with the funding or blessing of the government, that would be called being "culturally sensitive".

Either you're culturally sensitive to everyone (hey, why don't the Scientologists get their own council - and the Church of the Subgenius while we're at it - and Jerry Falwell's church - he could move Liberty Baptist to Ottawa and take over).

I can see the natives getting a break on this. After all, they were a nation before Canada. And they don't have to put religious overtones on it - but being a Muslim or a Baptist - that's "faith-based".

At least in the US we can contest it on that basis. It's in our Constitution.

It's an issue to some of the Canadians on this list - but only if the problem is in the US. I'm sure that Zeppistan and Stephistan would be up in arms about anything "faith-based" that Bush comes up with - and would go to the mat to maintain that separation of church and state.

However, if something "faith-based", especially non-Western faith-based was going on in Canada with the funding or blessing of the government, that would be called being "culturally sensitive".
I'll have to admit being ambivalent on this as well...I'm not really sure where I stand on it, and I think I need to learn more about it before I make any judgements. As an atheist, I strongly oppose religion being part of my government or any judicial system we have, but then again...I do want it respected by our laws and political system. I'm just not sure to what extent.

The Hutterite and Mennonite colonies have similar tribunals and often solve things within their communities, without anyone the wiser. I don't think we can ban it outright, because it will exist anyway, albeit not completely legally. I'm not sure what the solution is...

This happened in a community pretty close to mine. The four murdered RCMP were well known here. This is a real shock, but it kind of adds to the other terrible things that no one expected to happen in rural Alberta, that did anyway. We had a school shooting in Taber two weeks after Columbine. You would think these things would happen in urban centres, not sleepy little towns...

All our flags are at half-mast, and the communities surrounding Mayerthorpe are in total shock. Those men all had families.

Crikey!! :eek:

That's really and truly tragic. :(
I am really sorry to hear all this... I'll light a candle for them.

Crikey!! :eek:

That's really and truly tragic. :(
I am really sorry to hear all this... I'll light a candle for them.
Thanks. I'm not sure what's going to come out of this...

The Muslim tribunal thing kind of went cold...where did everyone go?

It's an issue to some of the Canadians on this list - but only if the problem is in the US. I'm sure that Zeppistan and Stephistan would be up in arms about anything "faith-based"

Oh, I never said I agreed with it. It wouldn't involve our courts. You can get a chimpmunk to work out your divorce if you like, and because it is choose and not forced upon people I suppose that is why I'm not too much up in arms about it. But I never said I ageed with it. ;)

I wonder why this so rarely is an issue in Canada...are we more religious? It just seems that aside from the odd case of someone not wanting GOD to appear in the national anthem, or refusing to let some schools have children recite the Lord's Prayer in class, division of church and state aren't big things here. They should be, in my mind...but then again, I waffle on that when it comes to culture...hmmm...

Big beef of mine in regards to religion? I've said it before, but it bears repeating. There should not be a publicly funded Catholic school system that only allows Catholics to attend. It should be privately funded if it is not publicly open.
I think it's because it's not written in our constitution that there must be a separation of church and state. In fact, it's almost the opposite. Our charter of rights says that freedom of religion is important. So, throughout the years, religion has been allowed in many places that would have the US constitution expert up in arms if it happened south of the border.

This is one thing I like from the US. I'm all for freedom of religion, but there should be a bigger separation of church and state up there. Although, I think that our politicians as a whole make a distinction between their religious values and their position as lawmakers. At least, I hope so.

I'm not Canadian, but I'm guessing that it has more to do with appeasing the Quebecois. Everything you do seems aimed at placating the Quebecois so they don't secede.

compared to the USofA, i say up with canada

I'm not Canadian, but I'm guessing that it has more to do with appeasing the Quebecois. Everything you do seems aimed at placating the Quebecois so they don't secede.
That is a load of rubish. :rolleyes:

That is a load of rubish. :rolleyes:
Well, not originally it wasn't...we guaranteed protection for Catholocism for the French in order to smooth things over...I don't think we continue to do it just so they don't succede, but...I dunno.

I'm not Canadian, but I'm guessing that it has more to do with appeasing the Quebecois. Everything you do seems aimed at placating the Quebecois so they don't secede.

That's so 1995, catch up.. ;)

Really? Could have fooled me.

Really? Could have fooled me.

Then I'm sorry, but you are misinformed.

Am I? Then, why do you have 2 official languages and special privileges for Roman Catholics?

Am I? Then, why do you have 2 official languages and special privileges for Roman Catholics?
We have special privileges for almost every religions. The Catholics are just one more group. Besides, there's a big Catholic population and they tend to be just as vocal for what they believe in than the protestants.

And we have two official languages because there was two languages spoken when Canada was founded.

Fascinating.

Wow. I didn't know there were special privileges for Catholics in Canada.

Could someone explain that to a poor, dumb American where they don't officially favor any religion (at least they try not to)?

Am I? Then, why do you have 2 official languages and special privileges for Roman Catholics?

2 official languages is what and who we are as Canadians. We are made up of both. I see no argument there. As for Roman Catholics, I have no idea what you're talking about?

I heard something about special schools for Catholics and all. Oh, well. Never mind.

Wow. I didn't know there were special privileges for Catholics in Canada.

Could someone explain that to a poor, dumb American where they don't officially favor any religion (at least they try not to)?


The only thing i can think of is the seperate catholic school system.

Here in calgary about 1/3 of the schools are catholic. Its basically the exact same as a normal school, no nuns or priests. You just get get taught "religion" in school ( hour a week about christians) and go to church once in a blue moon. The catholic schools are very "not" religious actually. Of course you have to be catholic to attend. These schools were formed way back in the day to give french catholics proper "catholic" schooling...

I heard something about special schools for Catholics and all. Oh, well. Never mind.
There are.