[Athens]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...n20050904.html

Almost 100 organizations around the globe will protest Thursday against a proposal that would allow Islamic law to be used in family arbitration and mediation cases in Ontario.

I can't believe Ontario would even think of allowing this. For christ sake this is Canada, Canadian law not Islamic law. Argh this is really pathetic!

[loki74]

Wow. Thats... unbelieveable!

[von Wrangell]

Nothing like some old school discrimination:

Boyd was asked to review Ontario's Arbitration Act after the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice requested religious-based arbitrations, similar to those that have been used in Ontario for the past 15 years. Currently in Ontario, both Jews and Catholics can choose religious arbitration if they like.

[Doofy]

What about the Moonies? Are they going to be able to choose their own religious arbitration?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Doofy

What about the Moonies? Are they going to be able to choose their own religious arbitration?

If they were to be recognized as part of a religion, and that there were enough people to allow such a process, yes.

I am all for it, personally. I am tired of the sacro-sanct standardizations of cultures and religions.

As long as men and women and children are respected, I see no problem.

For your information, the Canadian Chart of Human Rights guarantees such arrangements, as long as it does not contradict the Chart.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

If they were to be recognized as part of a religion, and that there were enough people to allow such a process, yes.

I am all for it, personally. I am tired of the sacro-sanct standardizations of cultures and religions.

As long as men and women and children are respected, I see no problem.

For your information, the Canadian Chart of Human Rights guarantees such arrangements, as long as it does not contradict the Chart.

If they want Islamic law, go to a Islamic country. What if the husband wants to deal with it in Islamic ways, and the wife wants to do it in the way of the land, for example our courts. That’s a conflict right there. Who's rights is more valid. I would argue for the woman being the law of the land should win out over the law of a religion. This is a very dangerous game being played what will affect woman and children most.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Athens

If they want Islamic law, go to a Islamic country. What if the husband wants to deal with it in Islamic ways, and the wife wants to do it in the way of the land, for example our courts. That’s a conflict right there. Who's rights is more valid. I would argue for the woman being the law of the land should win out over the law of a religion. This is a very dangerous game being played what will affect woman and children most.

Yes, and such a conflict requires that the Chart be applied.

If the husbands wants it, and the wife does not want that arrangement, the wife wins. As I said, the Courts are driven by the Chart, which requires respect for the Human beings first.

If Islamic points of Law were to go against the Chart, the Chart takes over.

I do not feel concerned one bit.

My concern is if we have to declare a child to Children's Aid Society in the Toronto region; there is one for each major religion and that is a problem when it is time to make a signalment. See, people are used to the idea that religions do not matter. But some C.A.S. require that the informant knows the religion of the child... By Law, they are required to take the case anyway, but that they have to ask the question bothers me all the time.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Yes, and such a conflict requires that the Chart be applied.

If the husbands wants it, and the wife does not want that arrangement, the wife wins. As I said, the Courts are driven by the Chart, which requires respect for the Human beings first.

If Islamic points of Law were to go against the Chart, the Chart takes over.

I do not feel concerned one bit.

My concern is if we have to declare a child to Children's Aid Society in the Toronto region; there is one for each major religion and that is a problem when it is time to make a signalment. See, people are used to the idea that religions do not matter. But some C.A.S. require that the informant knows the religion of the child... By Law, they are required to take the case anyway, but that they have to ask the question bothers me all the time.

I still think its dangerous in a country that has people from so many religions and backgrounds. If the family wants Islamic law, why do they move to a country that is not Islamic. I think people should live by the laws and expectations of the country they have located to. I would for example never expect to enjoy my rights, freedoms as a Canadian in say Iran. I would expect to be under Islamic law there. So should they when they live here.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Athens

I still think its dangerous in a country that has people from so many religions and backgrounds. If the family wants Islamic law, why do they move to a country that is not Islamic. I think people should live by the laws and expectations of the country they have located to. I would for example never expect to enjoy my rights, freedoms as a Canadian in say Iran. I would expect to be under Islamic law there. So should they when they live here.

You are right; you are in Canada because of of the Canadian religion, right?

That type of reaction we had with the Jews too.

With the Catholics as well. And the French speaking Catholics.

I am sorry but I cannot agree or share that attitude you have. Let's stop demonize the alien and instead, welcome them as our brothers and sisters and you're likely to see some of that Human Brotherhood that will help you become a better citizen of the world.

Because that is it's first meaning of being a better citizen...

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

You are right; you are in Canada because of of the Canadian religion, right?

That type of reaction we had with the Jews too.

With the Catholics as well. And the French speaking Catholics.

I am sorry but I cannot agree or share that attitude you have. Let's stop demonize the alien and instead, welcome them as our brothers and sisters and you're likely to see some of that Human Brotherhood that will help you become a better citizen of the world.

Because that is it's first meaning of being a better citizen...

I’m not demonizing anything. Be it Religion, or culture and yes Canada has a culture its the same issues and same ideas. In the home they are free to be religious, people are free to go and practice what ever religion they have. When it comes to laws they should follow, and do as the law of the land. There is no prejudice here, no religious hatred, no racism.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Athens

I’m not demonizing anything. Be it Religion, or culture and yes Canada has a culture its the same issues and same ideas. In the home they are free to be religious, people are free to go and practice what ever religion they have. When it comes to laws they should follow, and do as the law of the land. There is no prejudice here, no religious hatred, no racism.

Laws are not made of granite. Laws are to serve the people. There is a good case in favor of this arrangement; Ontario, especially Toronto, is seeing a lot of Muslims. It only makes sense to provide this adapted service.

You areallowed to disagree; I suggest you write a letter an explain, point by point, why is Canada not be be consused into an Islamic country and how allowing this arrangement in Ontario is inappropriate.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Laws are not made of granite. Laws are to serve the people. There is a good case in favor of this arrangement; Ontario, especially Toronto, is seeing a lot of Muslims. It only makes sense to provide this adapted service.

You areallowed to disagree; I suggest you write a letter an explain, point by point, why is Canada not be be consused into an Islamic country and how allowing this arrangement in Ontario is inappropriate.

I don't see much point as this is a local issue in Ontario, its not my place to really get involved. If it was the Federal government or in BC I would be more pro active about it. FOr now im just going to rant on how bad a idea this is. I wonder what some American veiws are on this if it was say proposed in one of the States.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Athens

I don't see much point as this is a local issue in Ontario, its not my place to really get involved. If it was the Federal government or in BC I would be more pro active about it. FOr now im just going to rant on how bad a idea this is. I wonder what some American veiws are on this if it was say proposed in one of the States.

Before you do that, I suggest you research the topic well so we'd have some facts to debate on rather than just a media topic being thrown in the arena.

Get the points of Law concerning this arrangement, parameters of the service, and an explanation of how this will be applied, then let's hear it.

As you are certainly aware, your post can be read as a knee-jerk reaction. Since there is a lot of prejudice about Muslims, any reactions you are bound to see here will be adding on these knee-jerk reactions and it will not be an interesting debate on the topic, but instead, a debate about you, which is not your purpose here.

My 2 cents.

[Athens]

My best friends are Muslims, and I have more then enough posts defending Muslims so dont even go there.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Athens

My best friends are Muslims, and I have more then enough posts defending Muslims so dont even go there.

You misunderstood me.

All I am saying is go to the source of the program that Ontario wants to implement, rather than bring a reporter's point of view of the situation.

That is all I meant.

[Pendergast]

You know what?

Let me do this for you.

Dispute Resolution in Family Law: Protecting Choice, Promoting Inclusion,; Executive Summary Is a .pdf document presenting a summary of the program.

Dispute Resolution in Family Law: Protecting Choice, Promoting Inclusion The Attorney General's website with all the details.

And some critique over the [url=http://muslim-canada.org/mediacritique.html]media's[/url coverage about it, which should be worth a glance.

I mean, we can critique and blast all we want, but if we are ignorant of the details, we show only our ignorance. Right?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Athens

If they want Islamic law, go to a Islamic country. What if the husband wants to deal with it in Islamic ways, and the wife wants to do it in the way of the land, for example our courts. That’s a conflict right there. Who's rights is more valid. I would argue for the woman being the law of the land should win out over the law of a religion. This is a very dangerous game being played what will affect woman and children most.

In your example it would be by the way of the land. Perhaps you should read up on this before judging it?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Athens

I’m not demonizing anything. Be it Religion, or culture and yes Canada has a culture its the same issues and same ideas. In the home they are free to be religious, people are free to go and practice what ever religion they have. When it comes to laws they should follow, and do as the law of the land. There is no prejudice here, no religious hatred, no racism.

There is dicrimination when you allow Jews and Christians to have this option but deny other faiths the same.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Athens

I don't see much point as this is a local issue in Ontario, its not my place to really get involved. If it was the Federal government or in BC I would be more pro active about it. FOr now im just going to rant on how bad a idea this is. I wonder what some American veiws are on this if it was say proposed in one of the States.

Why is this a bad idea?

[DBursey]

It's not a bad idea for those in Ontario who agree to apply its version in areas limited to civil law. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but criminal law is a federally defined matter which applies equally to all.

The Charter is there for everyone with a legitimate legal qualm. Civil courts based on any of these religious variations wouldn't have the powers to override Charter rights, which are constitutionally guaranteed to all Canadians.

Canadians are well served to keep their basic legal rights in mind before getting too spooked by little teapots. Consider the basic aspects of Ontario's Ontario Arbitration Act before reaching conclusions!

[Athens]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

There is dicrimination when you allow Jews and Christians to have this option but deny other faiths the same.

I didn't realize they did. They shouldn't.

[:dragonflypro:]

Any potential for one party to have diminished rights versus another in any proceeding is absolutely ludicrous. Especially in a secular country.

I don't even need to get into the whole 'suppose the women in pressured to accept it scenario.'

The west, for all its possible shortcomings, has it spot on with secular law. Entertaining even the smallest option in the matter only opens the door to future additions… of which may contain much farther reaching points.

Precedent is a dangerous bedfellow.

[turtle777]

Only in Canadia (sic!)

-t

[Spliffdaddy]

lol @ Canada

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

Any potential for one party to have diminished rights versus another in any proceeding is absolutely ludicrous. Especially in a secular country.

I don't even need to get into the whole 'suppose the women in pressured to accept it scenario.'

The west, for all its possible shortcomings, has it spot on with secular law. Entertaining even the smallest option in the matter only opens the door to future additions… of which may contain much farther reaching points.

Precedent is a dangerous bedfellow.

You obviously have not read any information posted as to why this came to be and how it will be managed.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

lol @ Canada

The dog yells and the caravan moves on.

[DBursey]

Any potential for one party to have diminished rights versus another in any proceeding is absolutely ludicrous. Especially in a secular country

And here I made that not inconsiderable effort to explain precisely why that can't happen in Canada.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by DBursey

And here I made that not inconsiderable effort to explain precisely why that can't happen in Canada.

I guess they don't understand what "freedom" really means...

I hope they won't get jealous, so let's not start a thread on that topic shall we?

[:dragonflypro:]

Pendergast and DBursey,

I think you both don't take my meaning.

The confines or theme of ANY religious law being adopted, mediated or otherwise in legal proceedings IS the issue.

Arbitration of domestic and civil issues using religious law for the basis of resolution needs to be done within the confines of a church, mosque, synagogue, etc.

It should never be entered into the standing civil legal process of a secular nation.

I am not implying that death penalties or some other such madness will ensue. I don't mean to imply that Charter rights would be usurped by it. However, it does open a door into elements of the government being involved and making legally binding agreements based on religious preceedings.

Religious equality is exactly that. One set of laws for all is exactly that. In any legally binding case the law must be universal. Any sway regardless of you best intentions is irrelevant.

Once you introduce arbitration for Group A, then you have Group B, C, A.1, etc etc.

Imagine a arbitration setup for every non-denminational Christian church. It is out of hand. "Oh, there are only certain groups", one may say. Well, who decides the groups? The government? It gets worse and worse from there.

It is just a bad idea.

If you want religious arbitration, get it where it originates. Need it legally binding? Have the arbiter along with the parties meet with attorneys and draw a legal contract to that end utilizing the agreement reached without mention to method. At no point should a government official be involved in it the contractual terms.

Again, it is just a bad idea.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

Pendergast and DBursey,

I think you both don't take my meaning.

The confines or theme of ANY religious law being adopted, mediated or otherwise in legal proceedings IS the issue.

There are no religious Law adopted. Read again.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

There are no religious Law adopted. Read again.

law, process, basis.

Semantic dissection does not change the matter.

Any inclusion of religious 'doctrine' (does that work for you) as part of an ultimately legal binding process is wrong.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

law, process, basis.

Semantic dissection does not change the matter.

Any inclusion of religious 'doctrine' (does that work for you) as part of an ultimately legal binding process is wrong.

You will have to prove your point using the aforementionned example to be convincing to me.

Please state facts and avoid general theorisations.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

You will have to prove your point using the aforementionned example to be convincing to me.

Please state facts and avoid general theorisations.

Sorry, not gonna go down 'the explain my post with 5000 words to your 2 sentence dismissal and evidentiary demand' road.

I have made my point, it stands on its own.

Adding any religious (Christian, Jew, Islam, whatever) based proceedings to the legal process is complex, infinitely wrought with divergence of opinion, costly, unmanageable and wrong.

One people, one law.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

Sorry, not gonna go down 'the explain my post with 5000 words to your 2 sentence dismissal and evidentiary demand' road.

I have made my point, it stands on its own.

Adding any religious (Christian, Jew, Islam, whatever) based proceedings to the legal process is complex, infinitely wrought with divergence of opinion, costly, unmanageable and wrong.

One people, one law.

Well good for you and thank you for your time.

At this time, however, this experiement has been used with Christians (Catholic and Protestants), Jews, and unless I am wrong, special arrangements has been for some Hindu cultures.

It has nothing to do with religion, except in the respect of the culture when comes the time to apply principles bound to respect the belief of that culture.

In the meantime, the Canadian Chart of Human Rights is explicit that respecting people's beliefs, people's protection comes first.

That is the bit you cannot get yet. Well do some research and play tthe game or be content of beig defeated by your own ignorance. Your point stands in the U.S., very likely, because it makes sense in that setting. In Canada, the game is different and we play well together, thank you.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Well good for you and thank you for your time.

At this time, however, this experiement has been used with Christians (Catholic and Protestants), Jews, and unless I am wrong, special arrangements has been for some Hindu cultures.

It has nothing to do with religion, except in the respect of the culture when comes the time to apply principles bound to respect the belief of that culture.

In the meantime, the Canadian Chart of Human Rights is explicit that respecting people's beliefs, people's protection comes first.

That is the bit you cannot get yet. Well do some research and play tthe game or be content of beig defeated by your own ignorance. Your point stands in the U.S., very likely, because it makes sense in that setting. In Canada, the game is different and we play well together, thank you.

Because I disagree doesn't mean 'I don't get' it or make me ignorant. Nor does my desire not to essay-post my position. My opinion is exactly that… as is yours.

Your willingness to jump and slap an 'ignorance' label does little to encourage my willingness to participate. Maybe civility is different in Canada. You know it is OK to disagree, right?

Hey, wanna get some arbitration?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

Sorry, not gonna go down 'the explain my post with 5000 words to your 2 sentence dismissal and evidentiary demand' road.

I have made my point, it stands on its own.

Ah?

I thought you were done here?

Adding any religious (Christian, Jew, Islam, whatever) based proceedings to the legal process is complex, infinitely wrought with divergence of opinion, costly, unmanageable and wrong.

One people, one law.

You say it is unmanageable. I say prove it using the example presented in this thread with facts. And why not use the examples of the other programs used in Ontario so far? Nah. Your mind is made up, so why bother?

To disagree is fine. To say it is wrong without any explanations beyond the stuff you brought makes it unenlightnened in a discussion..

Are we OK about arbitration now?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Athens

If they want Islamic law, go to a Islamic country.

Those of you guys who are opposed to this, why don't you start a Klan forum?

[Millennium]

I think the point is that for the most part, anyone is free to live their lives under any religious law they please, both in the US and Canada (and most other Western nations). These laws do not have the force of the legal system behind them, but this only matters when the two conflict, and when that happens it's generally accepted even by most religious folks that the law of the land needs to take precedence.

In other words, there is no need whatsoever for a separate set of "religious courts" or anything similar to them. Any lawful religious practice can be carried out in proper ceremonial fashion, backed by actual legal proceedings when appropriate.

Canada does not have the same notion of a separation of Church and State that the US does (I know they're officially Protestant, though I'm not certain which branch). They achieve religious freedom through other means, and although I don't agree with those means I can't really find cause for complaint either. However, neither do I see any need to (or, for that matter, any sense in) legally imposing different standards on people depending on their religious practices.

[DBursey]

Canada does not have the same notion of a separation of Church and State that the US does (I know they're officially Protestant, though I'm not certain which branch). They achieve religious freedom through other means ...

Not so. Canadian law establishes what are for all intents and purposes the same principles of separation of church and state as those found in the United States. The Canadian State has no affiliation with any religion.

[Millennium]

What statute does that? I'm finding very conflicting data about this issue.

[DBursey]

Section 1 & 2 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that certain freedoms are guaranteed and are subject "only to such reasonable limits that prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Among these freedoms are "freedom of conscience and religion...".

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by DBursey

Section 1 & 2 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that certain freedoms are guaranteed and are subject "only to such reasonable limits that prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Among these freedoms are "freedom of conscience and religion...".

Freedom of religion and a separation of Church and State are not the same thing, even though they are related. You can have freedom of religion without a separation of Church and State; for a more concrete example you could look at the UK, which is officially Anglican. A separation of Church and State without freedom of religion seems pretty strange, but it's also possible: China does this.

I don't doubt that Canada has great religious freedom, and I don't mean any insult to Canada when I say it doesn't have a separation of Church and State. The idea of such a separation is, for the most part, a uniquely American phenomenon; it's a product of a time when it was thought that true freedom of religion required the state to stay completely out of religious business. Since then, countries have implemented religious freedom in many other ways, with varying and sometimes arguable degrees of success, but then, there are people who would say the US doesn't have religious freedom either.

It's just a different way of doing things, and I do not mean any disrespect. But when a nation allows religious legal decisions to carry force of law without backing those decisions up by a separate, secular legal process, then either it's not implementing a separation of Church and State at all or its implementation has a very serious hole.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Freedom of religion and a separation of Church and State are not the same thing, even though they are related. You can have freedom of religion without a separation of Church and State; for a more concrete example you could look at the UK, which is officially Anglican. A separation of Church and State without freedom of religion seems pretty strange, but it's also possible: China does this.

I don't doubt that Canada has great religious freedom, and I don't mean any insult to Canada when I say it doesn't have a separation of Church and State. The idea of such a separation is, for the most part, a uniquely American phenomenon; it's a product of a time when it was thought that true freedom of religion required the state to stay completely out of religious business. Since then, countries have implemented religious freedom in many other ways, with varying and sometimes arguable degrees of success, but then, there are people who would say the US doesn't have religious freedom either.

It's just a different way of doing things, and I do not mean any disrespect. But when a nation allows religious legal decisions to carry force of law without backing those decisions up by a separate, secular legal process, then either it's not implementing a separation of Church and State at all or its implementation has a very serious hole.

And this is what you do not understand.

The only part that has to do with religion is the application of the cultural aspect, the practicality of it.

It sanctions the religion as part of the rights of all Human Beings, but at the same time, it guarantees the rights of the Human being first, religion coming afterwards.

There is no religious application of the Law. There is only an accomodation that recognizes some cultural aspects that depend of it.

Church and State are effectively separated by the Chart. In terms of Family Law, it acknowledges cultural peculiarities. Believe me, if one of the parties is not interested in being part of the process, it is just a matter of saying "no". It is a matter of choice. And the Courts will recognize it.

Please take the time to read the documentation both DBursey and myself have posted and linked.

[Eug Wanker]

The idea of such a separation is, for the most part, a uniquely American phenomenon

[Fred_Cokebottle]

why is this a big deal here for non-muslims? I don't get it..