NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an important issue particularly right now in Canada. I am not an expert on this subject, or have an invested interest, I just feel it needs to be discussed.

A while back the province of Ontario allowed muslim groups in the province to allow civil disputes to be settled by local muslim leaders, imams, according to Sharia Law. The first problem is the seperation of chuch from state, where a religious organization is settling something that is a duty of the state. The big controversy is that it discriminates against woman, where in western society we have strived for gender equality. The problem with Sharia, where it exists, in all muslim nations, is that it is interpreted differently and that there is no uniform understanding of what exactly how it should be interpreted. The controversy surrounding Sharia has sparked protests in many European cities and here Canada, convincing the premier to reverse the descion. Some muslim groups have lauded this descion and others have decried it as a hate crime and a clear example of islamophobia. It is also a controversial issue since christian and jewish groups have been practicing faith based tribunals for a long time with little controversy and our now threatned because of this issue.

The question I pose to you is complex. First of all do you support, specifiically in this case, the seperation of church from state? From what you know is Sharia discrimanatory against women? Something that is practiced in muslim nations and condemned by the west, has no place in western society? Or is this just a perfect example of our growing secular society and phobia towards anything islamic?
Is there a place in western countries for faith based tribunals?

McGuinty made the right decision about Sharia Law, it has no place in Canadian Law just because it is religious. Whats next the Spanish Inquisition?

Now that Sharia Law has been struck down should Christian and Jewish faith based tribunals be abolished as welll?

Wait. You have religious tribunals making laws in Canada? :confused:

Well, personally, anyone can have whatever faith-based tribunal they like to resolve differences, provided that nothing the tribunal decides has any legal weight whatsoever beyond that of an arbiter. If it's voluntary arbitration that's accepted by both sides of the dispute, then fine, whatever.

Giving these sorts of groups any legal power, however... no way. Canada already has a judicial system, and while not perfect, it seems to do okay.

Okay, let's make a couple of things clear.

Ontario, a province in Canada, used to allow Catholic and Jewish people to see faith-based mediators to settle domestic disputes. The decisions of these arbitrators was not binding; they had to be voluntarily accepted by the parties involved. These arbitrators were not permitted to override or break Canadian law, but they were allowed to handle some things outside of the civil court system.

Muslims asked for the same priviledges, and someone (I can't recall her name) was asked to submit a position piece on it. This woman studied the issue and ultimately decided that arbitration using shariah law would be acceptable as long as women's rights were not abused.

Premier McGuinty was placed on the hot seat and ultimately decided against allowing Islamic faith-based arbitration, because there was a huge local and international outcry against it. Shariah arbitration was never actually permitted in Ontario.

However, because they couldn't allow Shariah law, it was felt that it was discriminatory to Muslims to allow Catholic and Jewish faith based arbitrations. So the Ontario government has disallowed all faith based tribunals, although families can still seek counselling through their own faith.

I haven't heard too much commotion from the Catholics over this, but the Jews are incensed.

I understand McGuinty's position on this; it was a huge political hot potato. Personally, I feel that if the recommenations of the study had been followed (Canadian law followed, women's rights respected etc) that Muslim faith-based arbitration was just acceptable as other faith-based arbitration. But too many people just heard the words "Shariah" and assumed it would be bad, without looking at the restrictions and circumstances in which the arbitration would take place.

Well, personally, anyone can have whatever faith-based tribunal they like to resolve differences, provided that nothing the tribunal decides has any legal weight whatsoever beyond that of an arbiter. If it's voluntary arbitration that's accepted by both sides of the dispute, then fine, whatever.

Giving these sorts of groups any legal power, however... no way. Canada already has a judicial system, and while not perfect, it seems to do okay.

Seconded...

Okay, let's make a couple of things clear.

Ontario, a province in Canada, used to allow Catholic and Jewish people to see faith-based mediators to settle domestic disputes. The decisions of these arbitrators was not binding; they had to be voluntarily accepted by the parties involved. These arbitrators were not permitted to override or break Canadian law, but they were allowed to handle some things outside of the civil court system.

Muslims asked for the same priviledges, and someone (I can't recall her name) was asked to submit a position piece on it. This woman studied the issue and ultimately decided that arbitration using shariah law would be acceptable as long as women's rights were not abused.

Premier McGuinty was placed on the hot seat and ultimately decided against allowing Islamic faith-based arbitration, because there was a huge local and international outcry against it. Shariah arbitration was never actually permitted in Ontario.

However, because they couldn't allow Shariah law, it was felt that it was discriminatory to Muslims to allow Catholic and Jewish faith based arbitrations. So the Ontario government has disallowed all faith based tribunals, although families can still seek counselling through their own faith.

I haven't heard too much commotion from the Catholics over this, but the Jews are incensed.

I understand McGuinty's position on this; it was a huge political hot potato. Personally, I feel that if the recommenations of the study had been followed (Canadian law followed, women's rights respected etc) that Muslim faith-based arbitration was just acceptable as other faith-based arbitration. But too many people just heard the words "Shariah" and assumed it would be bad, without looking at the restrictions and circumstances in which the arbitration would take place.


While nothing of that sort exists (to my knowledge) either in Ireland nor in my native Germany, I can understand and appreciate the idea of such arbitrators.
I think it is a pity that instead of informing the public on the exact extend of cases they can decide and on the fact that those decision have no binding legal effect whatsoever.
Although I can understand that this would have been hard to achieve in the current political climate.

Now that Sharia Law has been struck down should Christian and Jewish faith based tribunals be abolished as welll?

Yes and they were.

The Jewish National Congress is not happy about the throwing out of the baby with the bathwater and there will be some noise made this decision, it is not over yet. This is the first decision PREMIER MCSQUINTY has made that i agreed with, even if was made under pressure. Islamic Law has NO place in Canadian Law,keep it the f##k out of Canada.Do i make myself clear?

Now that Sharia Law has been struck down should Christian and Jewish faith based tribunals be abolished as welll?
I was under the impression that that's exactly what happened....the only way they could really justify excluding Shari'a was to get rid of all faith-based tribunals.

Oops...that ban (http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=7299) is just in the works. In any case, it's the only way to avoid being charged with religious descrimination.

Wait. You have religious tribunals making laws in Canada? :confused:
No.

Faith-based tribunals have been used to arbitrate family issues only. They do not make laws. They can not contradict existing laws.

But too many people just heard the words "Shariah" and assumed it would be bad, without looking at the restrictions and circumstances in which the arbitration would take place.
Agreed. And now a system of rabbinical courts, that has been in place for decades, and has worked quite well, is going to be denied their function.

Sharia Law is incompatiable with Modern Civilization and cannot be allowed to exist...

The Jewish National Congress is not happy about the throwing out of the baby with the bathwater and there will be some noise made this decision, it is not over yet. This is the first decision PREMIER MCSQUINTY has made that i agreed with, even if was made under pressure. Islamic Law has NO place in Canadian Law,keep it the f##k out of Canada.Do i make myself clear?
You're right. And these tribunals had nothing to do with introducing Islamic Law into Canadian Law. Perhaps a bit of background research on the topic might help your understanding of it.

Sharia Law is incompatiable with Modern Civilization and cannot be allowed to exist...
:rolleyes:

And this is exactly why the proposal was struck down. Not because it was inherently bad, but simply because people don't bother to find out what it actually means. It's more convenient to just make baseless assumptions.

Islamic Law has NO place in Canadian Law
This is exactly why it was the case that nobody wanted to make Islamic law part of Canadian law.

:rolleyes:

And this is exactly why the proposal was struck down. Not because it was inherently bad, but simply because people don't bother to find out what it actually means. It's more convenient to just make baseless assumptions.

I know what it means! The cutting off of the hand for stealing, the dehumanization of women, stoning for adultery, hanging for homosexuality, the veil.... We don't want that here...

Separation of church and state is essential in a democracy. They shouldn't even have allowed those christian and jewish courts in the first place, because now the muslims want the same rights as them... Anyway, the islamic case is much worse because according to the sharia an adulterous woman can be stoned and it treats women like shit.

Another thing: I think that western democracies have the duty to guarantee all basic rights to the people. Gender equality is one of these basic rights in my opinion. Do if those muslim fundamentalists want their Sharia they can leave Canada and the west and go to live in a muslim country where they can be treated the way they like.

If they want to stay in the West, the muslims must adapt themselves to a secular society and must be taught into Human Rights.

I know what it means! The cutting off of the hand for stealing, the dehumanization of women, the veil.... We don't want that here...
ROFL....

...yeah, that's EXACTLY what was being proposed... :cool:

You are funny:).

I know what it means! The cutting off of the hand for stealing, the dehumanization of women, stoning for adultery, hanging for homosexuality, the veil.... We don't want that here...
Read this post. (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9648435&postcount=6)

People were calling for voluntary arbitration. Not for Shari'a laws to be forced onto people who disagree with them. On top of that, the proposal wasn't going to allow the abritration to override Canadian law.

Separation of church and state is essential in a democracy. They shouldn't even have allowed those christian and jewish courts in the first place, because now the muslims want the same rights as them...
That's really your only argument? That faith-based tribunals were basically an 'in' for the Muslims, and therfore bad? Let's actually examine what you think is the problem with faith-based tribunals. But first, I ask you to find out what the limits and responsibilities of those tribunals are first.

Google: Rabbinical courts and Catholic tribunals

ROFL....

...yeah, that's EXACTLY what was being proposed... :cool:

You are funny:).

That is what has happened in nations where Sharia law is legal and recognized; Iran, Pakistan (where there are honor killings and rape is used as punishment), the northern areas of Nigeria, Arabia.... need I go on?

That is what has happened in nations where Sharia law is legal and recognized; Iran, Pakistan (where there are honor killings and rape is used as punishment), the northern areas of Nigeria, Arabia.... need I go on?
Yes I think you need to go on...to a different thread. Because you clearly have no idea of what is being discussed in this one. At no point did anyone seriously consider allowing Shari'a law to become law in Canada. Please...re-read the first post, and the link Neo Anarchists has supplied you.

Back on track...to the original question, I am glad that faith based councils have been struck down as a legitimised form of arbitration. These councils can still have legal (re: can not contradict existing legislation) powers, if the arbitration is entered to willingly, and a legal contract is drawn up. Let them continue to help their people resolve family issues, but through normal legal channels (ie: prenups, postnups, child custody arrangements) like everyone else.

The problem with allowing Sharia law as a legaly binding means of arbitration, or of ignoring it as a harmless result of diversity, is that it could promote seperatism, Balkanization, and a stage for extremism. In France they have had problems with advocates of Sharia, even though they did not have legal sanction, they have used violence to enforce their will. Girls were forced to wear the veil, students at schools refused to obay female teachers, rape used as punishment for going unveiled or without the company of a man, est...

i dont give a crap what religion you are... canadian laws, rules, regulations, etc, are for all canadians. Every one has equal rights and responsibilities, and as such should have a universal form of arbitration.

I am a Agnostic, i dont go for this attitude of certain people more deserving of rights, funds, etc.. because of their religion. That includes religious arbitration, the goverment funding of Catholic or religious schools, or the public funding of anything that is discrimating to people of certain religions (including those of us without a "organized" religion).

To the people of Ontario who are freaking out over this.... GROW UP and SHUT UP. Welcome to the 21st century, This isnt a time where religious leaders have polititions by the throut. All Religious arbitration is gone... nonoe has anything more then everyone else... isnt that ... omg its EQUALITY :eek: . Like it or not, Canada is an independant secular society. This is to be fair to all of the religions. Dont like the equality in our laws... LEAVE.

Please feel free to practice your religion, it is your right and freedom to. Just leave me and the rest of the secular society out of it.
:headbang:

That's really your only argument? That faith-based tribunals were basically an 'in' for the Muslims, and therfore bad? Let's actually examine what you think is the problem with faith-based tribunals. But first, I ask you to find out what the limits and responsibilities of those tribunals are first.

Google: Rabbinical courts and Catholic tribunals

Sorry, but i think you didn't get it. The problem is that an inpartial laic justice is a public service, like healthcare, and a democracy should provide it to all the citizens, whether they want it or not (just like healthcare or education).

And it's undemocratic for church and state to mix. Whoever wants to go back to the dark ages can choose some religious authoritarian country and go live there!

Oh and by the way these are courts for family issues, which only makes it worse!!!

i dont give a crap what religion you are... canadian laws, rules, regulations, etc, are for all canadians. Every one has equal rights and responsibilities, and as such should have a universal form of arbitration.

I am a Agnostic, i dont go for this attitude of certain people more deserving of rights, funds, etc.. because of their religion. That includes religious arbitration, the goverment funding of Catholic or religious schools, or the public funding of anything that is discrimating to people of certain religions (including those of us without a "organized" religion).

To the people of Ontario who are freaking out over this.... GROW UP and SHUT UP. Welcome to the 21st century, This isnt a time where religious leaders have polititions by the throut. All Religious arbitration is gone... nonoe has anything more then everyone else... isnt that ... omg its EQUALITY :eek: . Like it or not, Canada is an independant secular society. This is to be fair to all of the religions. Dont like the equality in our laws... LEAVE.

Please feel free to practice your religion, it is your right and freedom to. Just leave me and the rest of the secular society out of it.
:headbang:

I agree so much! It freaks me out that a lot of people don't realize that we're in the 21st century!

I'd feel pissed off if Portugal started following Ontario's steps, although I think it would be almost impossible (this is Europe... :D hehehehe)

Please feel free to practice your religion, it is your right and freedom to. Just leave me and the rest of the secular society out of it.
It's funny, because that is exactly what the people who you are arguing against are advocating.

The Jewish National Congress is not happy about the throwing out of the baby with the bathwater and there will be some noise made this decision, it is not over yet. This is the first decision PREMIER MCSQUINTY has made that i agreed with, even if was made under pressure. Islamic Law has NO place in Canadian Law,keep it the f##k out of Canada.Do i make myself clear?


Relegious law has no place period! It is one law for all. If relegious groups want to make laws, they should create a political party to represent them in the Legeslature. Enough said

This is an important issue particularly right now in Canada. I am not an expert on this subject, or have an invested interest, I just feel it needs to be discussed.

A while back the province of Ontario allowed muslim groups in the province to allow civil disputes to be settled by local muslim leaders, imams, according to Sharia Law. The first problem is the seperation of chuch from state, where a religious organization is settling something that is a duty of the state. The big controversy is that it discriminates against woman, where in western society we have strived for gender equality. The problem with Sharia, where it exists, in all muslim nations, is that it is interpreted differently and that there is no uniform understanding of what exactly how it should be interpreted. The controversy surrounding Sharia has sparked protests in many European cities and here Canada, convincing the premier to reverse the descion. Some muslim groups have lauded this descion and others have decried it as a hate crime and a clear example of islamophobia. It is also a controversial issue since christian and jewish groups have been practicing faith based tribunals for a long time with little controversy and our now threatned because of this issue.

The question I pose to you is complex. First of all do you support, specifiically in this case, the seperation of church from state? From what you know is Sharia discrimanatory against women? Something that is practiced in muslim nations and condemned by the west, has no place in western society? Or is this just a perfect example of our growing secular society and phobia towards anything islamic?
Is there a place in western countries for faith based tribunals?
Yes, there is a place. It's right there behind Constitutional law, the criminal code, statutory law, common law, and administrative law. People cannot sign away their rights under the law. They may decide to abide by a religious law which abridges their rights under the law, but should they choose to not be ruled by such law they are protected from having to do so. In addition, should any violations of statutory or criminal law be committed in the process of the imposition of religious law, secular law is determintive. Period.

Isnt Sharia Law techinally Breaking the Magna Carta

Um, if the plan is only to alow Sharia law in a counselling-type role with no legal power why is there a problem? Anyone could go down to the local mosque and ask what they should do according to Sharia law anyway, what difference will it make?

The Jewish National Congress is not happy about the throwing out of the baby with the bathwater and there will be some noise made this decision, it is not over yet. This is the first decision PREMIER MCSQUINTY has made that i agreed with, even if was made under pressure. Islamic Law has NO place in Canadian Law,keep it the f##k out of Canada.Do i make myself clear?you Jews..should not have more privileges than the Muslims.