Can someone from Canada (or one familiar w/ their laws and customs)

[pepperbear]

please explain how the religous tribunals work. Here is a link to a story about a possibility of a Sharia law tribunal to form in Ontario. Are they associaited with the Gov't proper or are they independent? How much law-making power, if any, do they have?

Thanks!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4226758.stm

[Brundle_Fly]

1. independent

nothing can trump the law of the land.

Although we get into a grey area with relious laws.

[Maple]

2. It works like an out-of-court settlement

If it's going to take a long time to get through the regular court, and cost a lot of money, something can be settled by a tribunal...but only if all parties agree to this route, and agree to abide by the decision.

They aren't, however, bound to do so. It's only a matter of agreement.

First Nations courts (what Americans call Indians)were started because 'white man's jails' didn't seem to be working, and there were a lot of reoffenders.

So members of the tribe meet and hear what the offender has to say, hear what the victims have to say, and then come to a decision.

Within the tribal system it seems to work...it's a powerful thing when your tribe, your closest community, punishes you. It's like 'shunning' in a religious community.

[pepperbear]

3. THANKS! That puts it in perspective. n/t

[IntravenousDemilo]

5. It's also an entirely abominable idea.

The Law must remain secular; religion must have no part of it. And just as important, sharia brutalizes women.

[Maple]

6. Really?

You musn't have read the previous posts.

[IntravenousDemilo]

9. Yes I did

If decisions not compatible with Canadian law are to be superseded by it, why not eliminate the middle mullah and leave things to the secular courts?

Our laws have to apply equally to everyone. Anything other than completely equal treatment under the law is apartheid.

[Maple]

10. Then you should know

that its an out of court settlement...nothing more.

Creates no laws, cannot go against a Canadian law, must be agreed to by all parties.

And if you don't like the judgement, go to a regular court.

In other words, much ado about nothing.

[IntravenousDemilo]

15. It's a slippery slope

It's bad enough that we have separate schools, without this.

[Maple]

18. We've done it for a century

and yet now have half our Supreme Court female, and gay marriage just passed.

We are nowhere near any sort of Dark Ages.

[IntravenousDemilo]

23. Actually, I think we're due north of the Dark Ages

There's a huge, smelly pile of religion darkening up jurisprudence south of the border. Canadians are trying to progress in the opposite direction with, as you mention, gay marriage and greater female representation on the Supreme Court, amongst other things. Sharia in Ontario would be a step backwards.

[Maple]

25. I'll agree with that

But Sharia isn't any different than the Jewish and Christian tribunals that have been in existence for a century.

If it was Buddhist tribunals we were discussing, there wouldn't be a problem. It's just that right now, Muslims are seen as evil.

Well...they ain't.

[IntravenousDemilo]

34. I'm glad we've found some common ground

But Sharia isn't any different than the Jewish and Christian tribunals that have been in existence for a century.

I read "Christian tribunals" and I think "Inquisition". I don't know if there's a similar Jewish analogy. Whatever, we shouldn't have had those, either.

{i]If it was Buddhist tribunals we were discussing, there wouldn't be a problem.

Yes, I think there would.

It's just that right now, Muslims are seen as evil.

Well...they ain't.

I know they ain't. Not all of them. Not even most of them. Just some, the ones who judge their religious courts to have a place in secular Canadian society and law. That goes for Christians and Jews, too.

And Buddhists, if that were their way.

[Maple]

35. Canada isn't secular

It's just less religious than it's been in the past.

That's a very very recent change.

When I was a kid, swings were tied together on a Sunday, in Ontario, so no one could use them.

Having 20 kids was not uncommon, doctors could go to prison for even breathing the words 'birth control' or mentioning condoms, and divorce wasn't allowed except under extreme circumstances...believe it or not, Parliament had to discuss it and decide.

It's thanks to immigrants, and different ways and ideas that we changed.

And thank God, Allah, Isis, Buddha and the fairies for that!

[IntravenousDemilo]

37. Canadian civil law is secular, though.

And we're living now, not when we were children. My childhood in the '60s, by the way, was in Saskatchewan, which evidently was a bit freer jurisdiction, given your description of how Ontario used to be. I guess years and years of democratic socialism under Tommy Douglas (who I realize was a preacher) had made it so.

[Maple]

40. Canadian civil law

is the same as the rest of the law...and all changes to it have been recent.

Saskatchewan wasn't freeer...the era was.

[IntravenousDemilo]

44. When was your era (if that's not too personal a question)?

As I said, my childhood was during the 1960s. BTW, by way of background, I was named after Tommy Douglas (his last name = my first name), and during my teen years, I became a Stanfield and then a Clark PC. My social democratic parents were mortified. As I got older, and after Mulroney stabbed Clark in the back, I became disillusioned with party politics.

Then I met David Orchard, read his book, and immediately signed on to his campaign. How different Canada would be if Peter MacKay hadn't turned out to be such a liar! Now that our formerly moderate centrist party has lurched to the right and been taken over by CCRAP, resulting in the Silly Party, I've gone back to my roots, and I'm impressed with how much smarter my parents are, even after death, than they were when I was a teenager.

Sorry, that's just a tangent.

[Yupster]

12. Agree Demilo

With things like honor killings, I wouldn't trust that a woman had much choice whether to agree or not to the Sharia court.

Bad idea in my opinion.

[Maple]

13. Islam doesn't allow 'honor killings'

That is a cultural variation.

Much like ones that Christians have.

[IntravenousDemilo]

17. M-hm, "That is a cultural variation"... yes, a cultural variation of...?

Finish it? Anyone? Anyone?

[Maple]

19. Which variation do you follow?

Baptist? Seventh Day Adventist? Mormon? Amish? Episcopalian? Evangelical?

Lots of variations...in all religions.

And it's also separate from culture.

Not many Mormons in Italy for example.

Or Amish in France.

Or a big to-do about evolution anywhere but the US.

[IntravenousDemilo]

21. I repeat, it is a cultural variation of...............? nm

[Maple]

22. Different countries

Many Muslim women drive, are educated, and are even judges.

Only in countries where the culture, not the religion, specify their role do your versions occur.

Christians needn't talk. For 2000 years women have been considered inferior...and unable to be educated, or to achieve anything.

[IntravenousDemilo]

26. BZZZZZT! Wrong! The correct answer is: it's a cultural variation of Islam.

Are these women who are judges, Sharia judges? Or are they judges in our secular court system?

As to Christians (which category does not include me, so I don't know why you mention it) and their crimes over the last 2,000 years, that was then, this is now. In Muslim law, it's still THEN.

[Maple]

27. BZZZZZT Wrong. It has nothing to do with Islam

It's a cultural variation by country.

Islam involves over a billion people and 5 continents.

They don't all think and believe the same thing anymore than Christians do.

[IntravenousDemilo]

30. I asked what it's a cultural variation OF

and you told me what it's a cultural variation BY. Let's compromise and say it's a cultural variation OF Islam, BY country. And I can't think of anywhere in Christendom that has a "variation" similar to sharia. Certainly not this country, where common law has served our society very well for the most part because it is a reflection of how we think and were brought up as Canadians.

[Maple]

32. It's a national variation

and nothing to do with the religion of Islam.

As to Christianity...over 2000 years it has more than racked up enough bad points to take the title for oppression.

Women were routinely beaten, killed, burned at the stake, drowned, tortured, forced into nunneries, sold to the highest bidder, married off to people they didn't even know, forced to sleep with the local Lord, denied any kind of education, denied even small things like whistling, or exercise, forced into everything from chastity belts to corsets to riding sidesaddle.

And the 'common law' is English. Not Canadian.

Which is why it's only a part of our legal system. We ain't English.

[IntravenousDemilo]

36. You're splitting hairs

You've said it's a national variation. Are you saying that it's the non-religious civil law of the land in some countries, written right into the law-code of those societies? Are any of these countries non-Islamic?

Your argument about Christianity is a red herring in this context, in that I agree Christianity has been just as culpable. I told you, I'm a secular humanist. Anyway, I'd like you to name me one developed, industrialized, modern nominally Christian nation where women are "routinely beaten, killed, burned at the stake, drowned, tortured, forced into nunneries, sold to the highest bidder, married off to people they didn't even know, forced to sleep with the local Lord, denied any kind of education, denied even small things like whistling, or exercise, forced into everything from chastity belts to corsets to riding sidesaddle."

We inherited English Common Law (except in Quebec, where civil law won't allow sharia, by the way) a long time ago when we were part of the British Empire and have carried it on through our membership in the Commonwealth. It is ingrained in our society; English Common Law is also Canadian Common Law.

[Maple]

38. Sorry, but hair has nothing to do with it

Afghanistan has a culture that holds women as chattel. It isn't notably religious. Russia is the same way, and has been, at least officially, without religion for a century.

In fact the western world held women as chattel..in my lifetime in fact.

Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity. It has a lot of variations depending on the country and the times.

My grandmother was not allowed to whistle, or get an education, or to ride astride, much less drive. My mother needed a co-signer on a library card, and couldn't work after she was married.

The western world held these beliefs about women for centuries...kindly note the Dark Ages, Middle Ages, Renaissance, and our own 'modern era'...like I said, even in my own lifetime.

English Common Law is nice...but it's not the be-all and end-all. Just another historical leftover. We have changed most of it.

Quebec has the Napoleonic Code...just like Scotland and many other countries.

Lots of things have supposedly been 'ingrained' in our society...yet they've disappeared.

I've seen little technological change in my life...we haven't had much...but social change has been enormous.

Time marches on. The one sure thing you can count on in Life ....is change.

As paradoxical as that sounds.

[IntravenousDemilo]

42. Afghanistan isn't notably religious?

A number of Islam's holiest sites are there. It's also the country where the two giant stone Buddhas were obliterated by the Islamic fundamentalists who were in charge at the time.

Does Russia now officially consider women chattel? Were they considered as such in the Soviet Union?

Your grandmother wasn't allowed to drive, whistle, etc, exactly when? Two days ago? Last Thursday? Any time this century?

To be sure, we have changed a lot (I won't grant you "most") of English Common Law...to Canadian Common Law. And most of the changes were adaptations rather than revolutionary.

I always thought it was strange that Quebec has the Napoleonic Code, since Napoleon didn't seize power until some decades after Quebec came under English rule (and the English most assuredly didn't like Napoleon). When did they adopt it? And what the hell is Scotland doing with it?

Lots of things HAVE been ingrained in Canadian society, and yes, they have disappeared. Our adherence to common law isn't one of them. Yet.

You've seen little technological change in your life? What is that thing you're looking at right now? And progressive social change isn't happening fast enough to suit me. But thankfully it is happening.

And yes, we should recognize that change is inevitable -- just not retrograde change.

[applegrove]

4. Yup. I'm a little worried but when you think all sorts of religions &

cultures in Canada have their own courts..you cannot stop them. It is going on behind door. If you fund it and force it to comply with Canadian Criminal Law & Family Court rulings, then you have some sort of control over who gets to be a judge and who gets to make the rulings.

I live in a city where many, many cover their heads. They are doctors & teachers & professors & professionals & mothers.

When the gay marriage act passed a little while ago - as soon as the neocons tried to light a fire under religious groups (many new immigrant)the PMs response was a very blunt "we are a multicultural society and we protect the rights of various cultures - no matter who you are).. or something to that effect.

And it is true. And we have had little in the way of problems considering how high immigration rates are and compared with Europe.

Carrot & stick. If the Islamic communities (where both parties agree to abide by the outside court) want to build some of the same structures other groups have in terms of alternatives - I don't think you can stop them. If they abuse the system and start breaking the law, harassing people or women for not acting a certain way in a free country, etc. - we will hit them as hard as France did. We will take everybody's rights away just like France did with religious clothing and schools.

You cannot assume that the very judges sitting in these tribunals will not be some scarfed female judge - who could equally have been a family court judge.

We have to let everyone try and find a way to work things out for themselves.

You hear sharia & it makes us all cringe. As long as the tribunals do in no way conflict with the rule of law - it is the same as any counseling or intervention that takes place among catholics. If they begin to become exploited from the outside - that will be dealt with.

IMHO

[IntravenousDemilo]

7. Islam doesn't even allow women to drive.

What makes you think they can be judges?

BTW, that's not what "carrot and stick" means; what it means is to dangle a carrot from a stick in front of the mule you're riding, just out of reach of its lips, to coerce it into motion. See, it's "carrot and stick", not "carrot or stick". Sorry, it's a major peeve of mine, and I'm letting the world know one person at a time.

[Maple]

11. Muslim women both drive, and are judges

Don't confuse Islam with culture.

Islam has well over a billion adherents in 5 continents.

Not all Christians are Baptists.

Or Catholics.

Or born again.

Don't assume 'Islam' is monolithic either

[IntravenousDemilo]

14. ...and can be divorced by their husbands

with a simple "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee". And under sharia, if a married woman becomes pregnant via rape, she's will considered an adulteress (the baby is evidence) unless there is a male witness who testifies that she was raped. Thank goodness she's in Canada where they wouldn't stone her to death, but merely shun her!

And these tribunals would settle domestic questions? Please. We cannot have anything to do with this crap. No, I suppose sharia is not Islam. Islam has its good points, among which sharia is not one. Mussolini made the trains run on time, too. That was a good point. But he was also a fascist. We like the trains to run on time, but we don't want to do the fascist bits. We can accept much of Islam, but we musn't embrace sharia.

I am shocked, shocked, I tells ya, that there are women who support the idea, among them Marion Boyd, whose little brainstorm I heard this was; they remind me of the Log Cabin Republicans, or maybe "Jews For Hitler".

[Maple]

16. No, I'm sorry, but that's not true

Western myths make it all so simple. Islam bad, Christianity good.

Now please pay attention.

It cannot violate the laws of Canada, it can't make any new laws.

It is entirely voluntary.

And even then, if you don't like the decision you simply go to a regular court.

It's a time saver....an out of court settlement. Nothing more.

We've been doing this for a century with other religions.

Boyd did a study...please stop equating a study with some nonsense about Hitler.

[IntravenousDemilo]

20. Read closer

My argument wasn't "Islam bad, Christianity good". I'm a secular humanist who abhors the idea of any organized religion.

You call it a "time saver". I call it "outsourcing". Is expediency really what matters in our legal system, or should we be aiming for careful consideration of cases and dispensation of justice for Canadians in Canadian courts, by Canadian judges and juries, within Canadian society at large? I'm leaning towards the latter.

And what I'm saying with the Hitler reference is that Boyd is a traitor to her sex for proposing this. I do hope you're not automatically defending her position because you're both members of the Liberal Party.

[Maple]

24. Call it whatever you like

That doesn't change the reality.

It has already been occurring for many years. Better to shine a light on it, and regulate it, than to simply ignore it and hope it goes away. It won't.

And last time I looked, Boyd was NDP.

[IntravenousDemilo]

28. Fine, for now I'll call it "privatization"

It has already been occurring for many years. Better to shine a light on it, and regulate it, than to simply ignore it and hope it goes away. It won't.

No. Better to say, "Oh, you've been privatizing our legal system all these years? You shouldn't have. Stop it or you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of Canadian law."

And last time I looked, Boyd was NDP.

You're right about that, and I'm wrong. I figured that if the provincial government was seriously considering this, the spokesman would have come from the governing party. My mistake. But the fact that she's NDP, and thus at least nominally progressive, makes it even worse. And here I thought the party I (now) vote for would at least pay lip-service to the notion of separation of church and state. I must contact my riding's NDP executive.

Nevertheless, Boyd is still a traitor to her sex.

[Maple]

29. Privatization is an economic concept

and nothing to do with religion.

And since they haven't done anything wrong, they can't be prosecuted.

What is it you don't understand about a voluntary out of court settlement?

Boyd did a study, and made recommendations based on that.

I didn't agree with Rae's study on education either, but I'd hardly call for a lynching over it.

[IntravenousDemilo]

31. Religion is also an economic concept

as long as one of the reasons is to save money through outsourcing our legal system to a religious court. And it is one of the reasons, so "privatization" is a perfectly apt word, since we'd be taking something that is and ought to be the purview of the state and putting it in private hands.

[Maple]

33. No it's not

Two quite different things.

Economics is my field, and trust me, it has nothing whatever to do with religion.

[IntravenousDemilo]

39. If money's involved, if taxpayer-financed court costs are a consideration,

then there's a very definite economic element. And religion will have even more to do with economics once we finally start taxing church property.

By the way, I've noticed that we two Canucks seem to have hijacked the top position of General Discussion for over an hour. Way to go!

[Maple]

41. Money is involved in everything

That doesn't make it economics.

I'd be delighted to tax churches...and unions.

PS...the Americans have probably long since gone to bed. :D

[IntravenousDemilo]

43. No, but there's an economic element

PS...the Americans have probably long since gone to bed. :D

Hah! And most of them live west of us! Go figure.

[applegrove]

45. Canadian law says you can drive when you are 16 if you pass a test.

[Maple]

8. The Canadian Way

is to regulate something they can't prevent anyway, and then tax it.

Works out well for everyone.