Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Bulsajo]

And the rest of Ontario.
Obviously Dalton McGuinty has been spending a lot of time with Michael Livingstone...

[mindmetoo]

[Bulsajo]

double post

[Bulsajo]

Good point. I was thinking of how Sharia law seems to incompatible with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but your points on religions being voluntary and other religions being potentially just as incompatible are well taken.

Perhaps I don't understnad the concept of religious arbitration as it is used here, but I do think that- on principle- this is heading in the wrong direction:
I think that separation of religion from government is the only way to ensure fairness for all and would prefer that they abandon religious arbitration altogether. If you want religous arbitration then you seek it in your religious community. If religious arbitration doesn't supercede the law then why is it the state's business to regulate, and if it DOES supercede the law, well I have to say I have a problem with that.

[howie2424]

The other interesting thing that no media reports on this issue seem to have addressed, is whether this form of arbitration can be imposed on a woman without her consent. It may be that they are only providing for this form of arbitration when all parties to the dispute agree to being bound by the result in advance. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that's the rule with the other forms of religious based arbitration. If that's the case then it's hard to see why anyone would complain.

[howie2424]

Answered my own query. The sharia tribunals will be purely voluntary and any rulings they make in contravention of The Charter can be overturned by a Canadian court.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106547/

[Moldy Rutabaga]

The separation of church and state is an extremely messy business-- simply saying there should be no religion in social arbitration presumes that secular arbitration is neutral, and it isn't-- in some ways, a secular humanist perspective is anti-religious. That being said, it is probably best that courts be careful in permitting fundamentalist perspectives. And certainly, we must agree that a religious set of laws that argues by definition that a class or gender of people don't have any right to decide their destiny or doesn't even respect their existence needs serious curbs. We can say that women won't be forced to accept a Sharia outcome and it sounds nice and tidy, but if immigrant women with poor English and legal resources are surrounded by glowering relatives holding cans of gas and matches, a real world perspective should tell us it's not going to work.

Ken:>

[Bulsajo]

So I'm wondering how the Wiccan, Scientologist, Moonie & Santarian petitions to have the same rights of religious arbitration in Ontario are going.

[RachaelRoo]

[Cthulhu]

There's so much stink being raised about it here in Ontario these days (much of it coming from Muslim Women's Groups) I doubt it'll pass. But the fact that it made it this far it yet another indication of the way both the Charter and activist lawyers/judges are leading politicians (and by extension the general public) around by the nose. It is ironic that the Charter can both create this kind of problem and be forced to act against it as well.

Having more and more aspects of Canadian law being adjusted to fit the needs of interest groups is not a good sign. Instead of having one law on a subject for everyone to follow we are going the way of having multiple laws to fit multiple minority groups. If we are constantly having to amend laws to fit beliefs outside of the Canadian legal system it seems to indicate a fluidity to Canadian traditions and laws far in excess of what one would consider normal changes over time. Apparently our very generous liberal democratic system isn't generous enough for some. No wonder so many Canadians have such an identity crisis.

[mindmetoo]

[dogbert]

[Bulsajo]

By Allah's beard, you speak the truth!
And coincidentally, I expect a Mormon exodus to Ontario any day now.

[bignate]

[Cthulhu]