|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Cthulhu wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Cthulhu wrote: |
| 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. |
It's not really fitting laws to beliefs. Private arbitration of disputes has been long established. The two parties are free to use whatever system they want for the arbitration process. If they want to use the bible or dianetics or the star fleet technical manual, they're free to do so. The government's role is paper work. |
Even though its a private issue it's a slippery slope. Limits are always going to be tested. As Bulsajo mentioned, I don't think it's the business of the state to get mixed up in religious settlements--I don't like the fact that it was already mixed up in them even before the Sharia dispute came along. The more accommodating civil law becomes to minority religious interests the more it will be pushed to do so further. Christianity and Orthodox Judaism has problematic areas but Sharia is really pushing the envelope. There are too many extreme examples of its misuse around the world; letting Canadian civil law give Sharia its blessing though its use for civil mediation is a mistake, pure and simple. That's the wrong kind of symbolism for a liberal democracy.
What's voluntary now could potentially become a Charter issue later, and it's the judges who inevitably decide what's good for the rest of the country. There's been too much of that already. |
It would seem you're constructing a slippery slope. "If we allow this, then we sanction that..."
How is this version of fundamentalist different from Christian or Jewish fundamentalism that have the right to religious arbitration? Neither accord women much status.
Heck, you want family abuse, head to America's bible belt.
People don't give up their freedoms guaranteed under the charter if they accept such arbitration. We're just keeping stuff out of the clogged courts, which is the purpose of all voluntary arbitration. The courts can already be used by religion. Two people can sign a contract based on Islamic or Judaic law and if one person is in violation, the matter can be taken to civil court.
You provide some pretty nebulous arguments that amount to "I got a bad feeling about this." What's concrete is a) at least two religious groups have the right to "faith based" arbitration, no one raised a hew and cry b) we don't discriminate as a society based on religion, making arbitrary decisions about what constitutes a "good" religion and what constitutes a "dangerous" religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What was the name of that cult in Colorado, used to be part of the Mormon church but then split off and now has that wacky guy who calls himself the prophet, lets each man have about a dozen wives and has people in pickup trucks patrolling the streets with shotguns making sure that no outsiders get in? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RachaelRoo
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Location: Anywhere but Ulsan!
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| In Sharia law, a woman's opinion counts for exactly 1/2 a man's. Enough said - this has no place in Ontario. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Man known as The Man
Joined: 29 Mar 2003
Location: 3 cheers for Ted Haggard oh yeah!
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RachaelRoo wrote: |
| In Sharia law, a woman's opinion counts for exactly 1/2 a man's. Enough said - this has no place in Ontario. |
But it would create a 2nd class of citizens along religious lines!
Marion Boyd is NDP filth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cthulhu
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Cthulhu wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Cthulhu wrote: |
| 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. |
It's not really fitting laws to beliefs. Private arbitration of disputes has been long established. The two parties are free to use whatever system they want for the arbitration process. If they want to use the bible or dianetics or the star fleet technical manual, they're free to do so. The government's role is paper work. |
Even though its a private issue it's a slippery slope. Limits are always going to be tested. As Bulsajo mentioned, I don't think it's the business of the state to get mixed up in religious settlements--I don't like the fact that it was already mixed up in them even before the Sharia dispute came along. The more accommodating civil law becomes to minority religious interests the more it will be pushed to do so further. Christianity and Orthodox Judaism has problematic areas but Sharia is really pushing the envelope. There are too many extreme examples of its misuse around the world; letting Canadian civil law give Sharia its blessing though its use for civil mediation is a mistake, pure and simple. That's the wrong kind of symbolism for a liberal democracy.
What's voluntary now could potentially become a Charter issue later, and it's the judges who inevitably decide what's good for the rest of the country. There's been too much of that already. |
It would seem you're constructing a slippery slope. "If we allow this, then we sanction that..."
How is this version of fundamentalist different from Christian or Jewish fundamentalism that have the right to religious arbitration? Neither accord women much status. |
Well, I did point out in my previous post that given my druthers I'd not have Ontario courts involved in any of it at all, Christian, Jewish, Muslim or whatever. Christianity and Judaism might have some patriarchal elements but I don't see them as equivalent to Sharia in practice, assuming you are not simply pointing this out as an issue of legal fairness.
It also takes us into the territory of "What constitutes a religion" which is another can of worms that opens up if every other religion or pseudo-religion jumps on the bandwagon.
| Quote: |
Heck, you want family abuse, head to America's bible belt. |
The Bible Belt has issues of its own. However, the issue here is about Ontario.
| Quote: |
| People don't give up their freedoms guaranteed under the charter if they accept such arbitration. We're just keeping stuff out of the clogged courts, which is the purpose of all voluntary arbitration. The courts can already be used by religion. Two people can sign a contract based on Islamic or Judaic law and if one person is in violation, the matter can be taken to civil court. |
Apparently the way things are going this is going to clog the courts anyway, but for a completely different reason. If Sharia is rejected what do you think the odds of a Charter challenge will be? Pretty good I'd say. And if it is allowed the bandwagon will start to fill.
It has also been pointed out that Sharia law is less codified than its Christian and Jewish counterparts, and more up to the interpretation of the individual clerics or scholars. More on that below.
The fact that this so-called voluntary legislation is being protested by a significant portion of the principals involved, i.e,. Muslim women's groups and mainstream Muslim groups, seems to belie the innocence of it. The spectre of immigrant women being coerced (due to language problems, cultural issues or whatever) has been raised by educated members of the very group it is intended to serve. It would appear there's a lot of debate as to how "voluntary" this can be to people who are depending on their community. Heck, the Muslim Canadian Congress called sharia "uncodified, racist and unconstitutional"--do we know better than them?
| Quote: |
| You provide some pretty nebulous arguments that amount to "I got a bad feeling about this." What's concrete is a) at least two religious groups have the right to "faith based" arbitration, no one raised a hew and cry b) we don't discriminate as a society based on religion, making arbitrary decisions about what constitutes a "good" religion and what constitutes a "dangerous" religion. |
According to the Slate article Jewish feminist groups aren't too happy either, but I think the main difference here is that more Muslim women are recent immigrants who have little knowledge of the system and are dependent on their religious community and who won't likely rock the boat when going through this civil process. Further to that, although I have issues with some aspects of Christianity and Judaism I don't think language problems or fear (in a general rather than individual sense) is much of an issue for either of them. If this makes a double standard then cut it all out altogether--that would prevent this potential double standard from appearing at all.
However much one wants to give equivalency to religions it appears few people in the West are considering Sharia (or how large parts of it are being interpreted throughout the world) to be anything less than medieval, and that's not something the Ontario court system should be allowing in any sense. If one finds that offensive than get rid of the system for the other groups as well, because it's pretty clear this issue will only get messier and more confrontational if we move forward, er, backward, in the name of equality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The fact that this so-called voluntary legislation is being protested by a significant portion of the principals involved, i.e,. Muslim women's groups and mainstream Muslim groups, seems to belie the innocence of it. The spectre of immigrant women being coerced (due to language problems, cultural issues or whatever) has been raised by educated members of the very group it is intended to serve. |
Yes, the above raises questions for me too. I knew a muslim girl who was the auntie of a friend, admittedly younger than he was. She always wore the head covering in my country. I think I saw her twice without it. My friend once mentioned 'after I asked him if she could marry a non muslim' that he would ____ her if she married a christian. I feel that not everybody has the same opportunities as others. Thus laws are only good for those who can live under them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
howie2424
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cthulhu
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the story:
| Quote: |
| Premier Dalton McGinty said today Ontario will reject the use of Shariah law and will move to prohibit all religious-based tribunals to settle family disputes such as divorce. |
A sensible decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
[url] http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20050912/ca_pr_on_na/ontario_shariah_rejected[/url]
the yahoo article says that Xtian and Jews also get hit
| Quote: |
| In a telephone interview with the national news agency, McGuinty announced his government would move quickly to outlaw existing religious tribunals used for years by Christians and Jews under Ontario's Arbitration Act |
fair enough say i.
| Quote: |
"Ontarians will always have the right to seek advice from anyone in matters of family law, including religious advice," he said. "But no longer will religious arbitration be deciding matters of family law."
|
| Quote: |
Despite calling for an end to all religious arbitrations, Ontario's New Democrats were not happy with the way McGuinty handled the Shariah debate.
|
ain't no pleasin' opposition is there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
