• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sharia Law in Canada?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MAJOR_Baker
  • Start date Start date
Drebk,
I think the point Slim is trying to make is simple[maybe presented a little bit zealous,but BTDT] the way the islamic "code" is right now the woman is wrong. Full stop!
I fear it would be the old "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts". I don't believe it was written that way but power is a hard thing to give up. There are still a lot of  WASP's who bristle at the thought of a women being equal so don't expect the men who were raised to believe womem are "objects/assets" to just forgo that in a heartbeat. Won't/can't happen!
 
When I think of any woman (or any one) being treated that way I become physically ill.

Get this crap the fuck out of Canada!

Slim
 
Just did a Quicklaw search, there are many instances already exisitng in Canadian, and indeed Anglo- Canadian jurispridence interpreting and applying the Sharia. The key word in all cases so far is "consent": although it is concievable that consent could be implied through previous conduct, and more ominously, a marriage contract between the parties or their families...  Incidentally, foreign  law is often applied to common purchase and sale contracts in canada ... for example McAfee products have an enforcebale governing law clause which requires Canadian courts to use the Dutch law to interpret the contract.... so be careful and read every contract you enter into. It can be a legal mine field if the other party wants to make an issue of it... and this is becoming more and more prevalent.       
 
spenco said:
I don't really want to get into a full blown rant here but integration does seem key or we will lose our culture if this keeps up, well just be one big mini china or mini India with no identity of our own.
I don't want to ruffle your feathers here, maybe I'm just comprehending it wrong  but your generalisation seems a bit interesting and scary..seems to come off as a racial attack..I'm sure you coulda have substituted the "mini china" and the "mini India" with the danforth or spadina but i guess since they aren't  yellow and brown would seem appropriate.. hey i get where your coming and I am all for integration, i believe in the motto if you don't like it here get the next ship back home so you can enjoy the luxuries your country has to offer that you were running away from!
This crap needs to get shipped back to whence it came and so too with all these criminals, save my tax dollars by feeding clothing and giving shelter to those criminals that migrate to Canada.
hey man I'm not coming after you with a flame thrower just thought it interesting that it wasn't a "mini Greece or mini Italy" so don't come after me trying to get a head butting match...not interested!!! just thought it was interesting.
Canada should know when to draw the line although that line is getting really fuzzy. generalisation hurts all..do not throw the baby with the bath water as there are numerous contributions by shyte of the "turd world" countries who have integrated retained their culture and are making Canada proud of what it stands for.
 
I'm a little less reactive on the topic.

I'm no expert on Sharia law, but some of the aspects seem not to
agree with the Canadian Charter of Rights.  It will certainly be a matter
for the courts, lawmakers, and citizens to discuss.  What makes us Canadian in
legal terms is the Charter of Rights and the laws that govern us that
we ALL fall under.  Separate laws or processes will more or less divide us
and thats no good.

However, I disagree with the some of the above statements of "true
Canadianism".  It could be said most families today have at least one
side that has been in Canada for less that four generations.  Immigrants
for three hundred years have come from all over the world.  What
is the face of a Canadian then?  In precise terms and facts, what is
Canadian culture and what is it you fear is under threat?

Given Italians, Greeks, Chinese, Poles, Pakistanis, Ukrainians, Brits, Scots, Irish,
Japanese, etc, they are all different cultures and have various beliefs.  Any first
generation Canadian will bring their country's issues with them whether
they are from Singapore or Holland.  The next generations, those born in
Canada, learn the values and the laws of Canada and share the most with
the country. 

Personally, I appreciate the mini-Greeces, the mini-Chinas, the
mini-Italys, the mini-Irelands, the mini-Indias found in amounst
Canada for a number of reasons.  What I don't like are those
that make the fences and separate "us" from "them" from
any perspective.
 
â Å“I'm no expert on Sharia law, but some of the aspects seem not to agree with the Canadian Charter of Rights.  It will certainly be a matter for the courts, lawmakers, and citizens to discuss.  What makes us Canadian in legal terms is the Charter of Rights and the laws that govern us that we ALL fall under.  Separate laws or processes will more or less divide us and thats no good.â ?

Bert: I am in agreement with most of what you say however, with the greatest respect sir, I take  particular issue with the above captioned paragraph.

1. In legal terms the Charter makes absolutely no one a Canadian. Twenty million citizens of this country were Canadians long before the Charter came into force, and the passing of the Constitution Act, 1982 did absolutely nothing to preserve or detract from that fact. Since 1982, 10-14 million other citizens have been either born Canadian or became Canadian and the existence of the Charter certainly did not make them Canadian either. With respect to citizenship, all the Charter does is guarantee  obedience to certain fundamental principles of administrative law that ensure an applicant for Citizenship is treated in accordance with the Rule of Law.

2. Multi-culturalism, religious freedom, and equality are separate and distinct legal concepts under the Charter, which may, under certain conditions, intersect in order to advance an argument. However, each concept would be analysed separately under its own body of law: intersecting rights [sometimes called â Å“piggy-backingâ ? or â Å“bundlingâ ?] is a new and relatively untested development that some judges have characterized as dangerous. [see the last sentence of paragraph 5 for an example].

3. All Canadians are subject to the Rule of Law, however, not all Canadians can derive any useful benefit from the Charter, and many are outright precluded in certain circumstances. In fact, section 15(1) and 15(2) of the Charter, [the equality provisions] create a legal scheme whereupon a large percentage of the population is effectively barred from seeking refuge in the Charter where their rights are engaged. True equality, as the saying goes, requires treating some groups â Å“more equalâ ? than others.  There is now a body of emerging legal jurisprudence in Canada that finally recognizes that with rights, come responsibilities- in my opinion, it is that trend, more than anything else, is what will re-establish a sense of Canadian identity â “ equality with fairness; religious freedom without internalized sub-culture oppression; duty to others; limits to unrestrained individualism etc. There is a rising trend seeking to re-balance equality litigation in Canada, touching upon, and in some cases displacing, blatantly discriminatory and divisive attitudes of many special interest groups as well tempering the rather lopsided outcomes of equality litigation so far. 
   
4. When is the last time citizens had an effective opportunity to discuss any proposed law, let alone a form of â Å“lawâ ?? I'm sure you agree, the Sharia debate will no doubt clothe itself in overtones of racial, gender and religious bias. Several decisions written by Chief Justice Dickson, in the Supreme Court of Canada, expressly state that with respect to interpretation of laws, Courts owe little deference to legislatures and none at all to citizens. Those decisions are still cited and adhered to today in both form and substance. Therefore, the notion that there is some sort of ongoing dialogue between the Courts and legislatures [the so-called Charter dialogue] is nothing more than legal-academic myth advanced by those seeking to further entrench the power of the Court itself.  As far as legislators consulting or discussing issues with citizens, those concepts are so far removed from the way our so-called democracy currently operates such that â Å“a promise to consult or discuss an issue is not even a promise to take common sense, honesty and integrity into consideration.â ? Couple that bit of legal obiter with the pervasive political practice of selective public consultation and you end up with the hallmarks of a dysfunctional democracy slipping into a quasi dictatorship of twisted academic and political elitism. 
 
5. Integration of concepts and precepts of the Sharia into legislation or regulations such as the Family Law Act is, on its face, nothing more and nothing less than importation of certain religious rules of conduct into marriage enforceable in a court of law â “ i.e. if you choose the Sharia,  you must follow the Sharia before going to court.  This is already the case with marriage contracts, many of which call for mediation before litigation. Such contracts are between 2 private persons, are enforceable in their own right, and since they are not between the state and citizen, there is no need to legislate further.  A co-habitation agreement/marriage contract trumps the FLA with certain property based exceptions. The Charter does not apply to contracts not involving the state, and to create a separate body of statutory law for Sharia marriages will open the door for legislatures to create separate forms of legal marriage- gays and lesbians will surely attack such a development.

.....

I'm happy to see that you raised the Charter issue in this forum, and if you didn't know, there is a separate forum regarding the appropriateness of subjecting in an unrestrained manner, the Charter and the CHRC over the CF. The essence of the forum discusses the appropriateness of CF members having to rely upon the civilian system to have their Charter and human rights issues dealt with, as well as whether or not certain systemic remedies have had a negative impact on the operational effectiveness of an unique institution whose primary seat of excellence is supposed be war-fighting.

Cheers ...

 
 
Many posts on this thread started with "I am no expert on sharia". Here is an article (link below) published in a muslim British newspaper, Al-Muhajiroun, that reads like a short course on sharia for the non-muslim. Here is a short excerpt:

Economically: The sale of alcohol or pork would be prohibited, gambling would be outlawed. The currency would change from paper money to the use of Gold as standard, thereby eradicating inflation. Stocks and shares would be prohibited as would insurance, interest based transactions and the current company structures - all of this would be replaced with a unique economic system encouraging distribution of wealth, banning exploitation and hoarding and ensuring transactions are done where the goods are tangible, the services specified and the companies are real. Man would be the trustee of God's wealth on Earth promoting investment of it to please God â “ as in Jihad to conquer other lands to spread the law and order of Islam.

From what I can see, this is not a joke. This guy is serious. BTW, did you see how the world's wealth should first be invested in Jihad to conquer other lands? Didn't they say that armed Jihad is the work of a small, marginalized minority? Sharia applies to all muslims, not a minority.

Cheers (while you still can: alcohol will be banned under sharia)

A concerned civilian

http://www.muhajiroun.com/press_release/250704_londistan.htm


 
"Al-Muhajiroun is a radical Islamic group in the UK which applauds the September 11th hijackers as the "Magnificent 19." Believe it or not their stated goal is to turn Britain into an Islamic republic. Apparently, mainstream British muslims have been known to refer to them in the press as "freaks." Hey, if the shoe fits..............
 
Sharia is almost as mis-understood in the Muslim world as it is here. The problem with Sharia law, at least as far as an application in Canada goes, is the qualifications of the legal practitioners. However we may despise them, lawyers in Canada are accredited by a system we accept and, somewhat, understand. Sharia "lawyers" have no professional association or regulatory bodies to govern them.

Islam is governed by the Qu'ran, Hadith and Sunnah (respectively the Word of God as told to the Prophet Mohammed, the Teachings [sayings] of the Prophet and the Acts of the Prophet). This body of work is interpreted by four basic schools of Sharia, creating an astonishingly varied body of legal precedent - varying from a Taliban-esque interpretation to one that is remarkably similar to our own. Where the Taliban would adhere to the medieval "law" that two women are required to equal the testimony of one man, the most liberal of the Sharia schools provides for equality. Where the Qu'ran (or maybe it is the Hadith) enjoins Muslims "Read!" the Taliban believes it to mean "read the Qu'ran," while the more liberal schools interpret it to mean "be educated" (i.e. just read, anything that comes in front of you). It is also interesting to note that the Arabic imperative of "read" has no gender case, so denying education to the female of the species is actually considered "haram" (forbidden) by the majority of educated Muslims.

"Jihad" is another concept that is broadly interpreted. The physical Jihad advocated by the Wahhabi-esque types like Bin Laden is considered the narrowest of interpretations. For many Muslims "Jihad" is the internal, spiritual, struggle ("struggle" is the literal tanslation of "jihad").

For the moment I'll avoid any comparative discussions about Christianity and Islam. Suffice it to say that most of what has been posted here is cloaked in a greatcoat of ignorance. Yes, there are concerns about application of Sharia Law in Canada, but let's be careful about where we lay the sights before we rip off a burst.

 
I came here as a kid in 64 and adopted the way of life here.Any one remember Dominion Day?

Whats next?The Jews,Hindus,Sikhs,Buddhists etc. all declaring the own laws?
Give me a F'n break!!

P.C is going toooo far now!!!
 
First X-mas in my new house...Can't wait to put up the "holiday tree"...F*****G PC a**holes!

Slim
 
What peed me off the most was a few years back,those of the Hebrew faith complained about the Cross being displayed in certain Fed. Building's which till that complaint had been displayed since 1918 now try and find a cross in honour of our fallen a Fed building close or on Remembrance Day?

Can't we all come and get a long any more as this country was at one time?
Are we Canadians or are we becoming a Hyphenated Canadians?
If it's hyphenated I'm out of here when I retire and you are welcome too it!!!!

 
[quote author=Spr.Earl link=topic=16662/post-95046#msg95046 date=109358921

Can't we all come and get a long any more as this country was at one time?
Are we Canadians or are we becoming a Hyphenated Canadians?
If it's hyphenated I'm out of here when I retire and you are welcome too it!!!!

YES, Spr. Earl, its a sad state of affairs.

Its even sadder, We can run but we can't hide.

If you have figured it out or where, please please let us know. (Chr..st I hope theres no Snow or Ice)

PS Congratulations on your 30+ coming up.


 
Personally I don't let my faith define me,
I am Technically supposed to folow the sharia law, and my Mum still does, I do not.


Quite frankly as long as both parties consent, I haven't got a sweet worry about what happens, it's their "Soul" not mine..and mine has been long condemened to hell.

There is a great deal that is of very good value in the Quran and I Have no problem when people choose to live their lives by that word.

There is much to it, specifically regarding women (not to incite any arguments) that people do not take into account or are willing to accept.
Not that I am condoning anything, by any means, I condone a much more liberal lifestyle.

Good luck to anyone who should have to encounter this situation. The basics are, you mind your P's and Q;s and respect (if only superficially) the older traddy's that are tied up, It's not  hard to pay lip serice to something you coudnt give 3 and a half shytes about.

As for its affecting Canada, It is TRULY like any other law they've passed regarding ANYthing cultural.............
 
For sixty-five million years, mammals and eventually the human family roamed the continents and
migrated here and there.  Incursions of one migration, tribe, or people, would inevitably wander
into another's territory and consequences would occur.  We have 2.5 million years of history we
don't even know about.

The ancient occupants of China, Europe, central and south eastern asia are not the same people
as who are found there today.

In recent times (-6,000 years), migrations turned more into mass organized armed conflicts as
humans began building communities and finding collective identity.  Examples are the Greeks,
the Romans, the Goths, Anglo-Saxons, the Mongols, the Ottomans, and various
migrations of Moguls, ancient Japanese, and Polynesians into early Americas from a western point
of view.  Everybody comes from somewhere. 

Countries like France, Britain, Germany, China, India (not necessarily including the last century)
had stable monogamous populations.  The French were French, the Brits were Brits, the
Chinese were Chinese.  These regions were used to the same laws, the same appearance,
similar religion as examples.  Go to any of these regions and and see a population who have
lived there for 2,000 years, check out their attitudes, and you'll know what I mean.

Canada, the USA, Malaysia, Australia and areas of recent European colonialism created an influx
of people into those regions and actively immigrated many peoples from around the world.
Throughout the years, the laws adopted into these countries reflected the populations.

In Canada, the heavy greater European immigration of the 1800s and 1900s has
given way to other immigrations of recent times.  Anciently, the development of
countries like Canada, the US, Australia with such diverse populations are uncommon
and without precedence.

Everyone who has ever come to Canada has historical ties to their original area, their laws,
and customs.  This is particular true of first generation immigrants.  Many high density
urban cities have strong ethnic communities like the Somalies, Italians, French,
Asians, and this trend is increasing.  With large populations of peoples whose ways
are not parallel with those of established Canadians, then an "us" and "them"
mentality becomes stronger.

The fear implied in many posts is the perceived threat to Canadian laws, rights, and
freedoms from these communities.  Actually, Europe's situation is more intense as
recent migrant populations are gaining a political foothold.  The countries in Europe
are smaller in area and the pressures perceived by the traditional population are more
visible.

Another theoretical way of looking at it is if a Canadian immigrated to China.  You can't
take the Tim H. coffee or hockey out of the first generation.  How would
China integrate the Canadian?  Probably difficult in some ways.  Only the next
generations of the Canadian family would be comfortable in China.

Sharia law may be applied in matters of legal arbitration but its not Canadian law or
found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Even two Saskatchewan farmers
may opt to go into legal arbitration and sort out issues by other methods if
thats how they mutually choose.  To me thats Canadian and so be it.  I don't
know if the original article of this thread is entirely factual or biased in some way,
but I believe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms defines (or
the best yet) what a Canadian is under the law.  It addresses what we
all believe in and what applies to everyone.  It must be preserved if thats
what we think we are. 

Yet, arbitration is not the law but a method.  It may use customs from other
lands but how else do you integrate new Canadians?  The original
article presents a challenge to the arbitration method where ideally the parties
should or did "mutually" agree but we know one party in this case really didn't.
That and its apparent "contradiction" to canadian rights and freedoms what needs
to be looked at and fixed in my opinion.








 
Lots of interesting information on Sharia in this thread, not to mention on the dreaded Charter and Supreme Court of Canada. It strikes me however, that the problems (and there WILL be problems ...) in this initiative won't come from applying sharia to a dispute between two more or less reasonable people who agree to abide by the decisions of a sharia court. The rub will be when someone doesn't agree, or agrees initially and then wants to back out once the decision involves public flogging or something (I'm being facetious about that, but you get my point) Then the whole mess winds up in front of a Supreme Court to which has just been added two of the most left-wing judges in the country and we're all stuck with what they decide unless Parliament invokes the notwithstanding clause, which they're loath to do. Trudeau has a lot to answer for ...
This ridiculous initiative is all down to politics. The government wanted to curry favour with a particular segment of the voting public, a legal community dominated by touchy feely "multiculturalists" eagerly jumped on board, and the result is an ill-considered scheme with potentially drastic ramifications being foisted on the entire population.
What isn't getting a lot of press (in connection with this sharia nonsense or in general) is the alarmingly conservative -- to put it mildly -- bent of many imams and mosques in the Canadian Muslim community. It may well be true that the majority of Canadian Muslims are peace-loving, liberal and find the al-Qaeda/Wahabbi brand of Islam as offensive as the rest of us. But there are also many who hold and preach views that would not be out of place in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and I really, really, really hope that the CSIS boys are keeping an eye on them. My fear is what will these characters do with something like this sharia idea. The Islamic Republic of Canada anyone?
 
The fear implied in many posts is the perceived threat to Canadian laws, rights, and freedoms from these communities.   Actually, Europe's situation is more intense as recent migrant populations are gaining a political foothold.   The countries in Europe are smaller in area and the pressures perceived by the traditional population are more visible.

A paradoxical quality emerges in this analysis, most European countries are governed by civil law, not common law jurisprudence except the Brits. In Canada, [except Quebec] we share the common law with Brits, Aus, and NZ, and with growing frequency the US. In Europe, the civil law society has been very welcoming to immigrants as a matter of policy, not law. In the common law countries, mulitculturalism is a poli-centric matter taken into consideration as one segment of a Courts legal analysis, except for 1 country: Canada. Section 27 of the Charter may require de facto consideration, thus the Courts are intrinsicly bound to make determinations which are inclusive of cultural traditions. To date, this section has lain dormant, unfortunately the framers of the Charter gave us a clause which is a tad paraliptic as a substantive principle, but we'll see what happens. This is an intersection of legal rights, already described in a preceding post as a dangerous path upon which to tread.        

Sharia law may be applied in matters of legal arbitration but its not Canadian law or found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  

See above and below

Even two Saskatchewan farmers may opt to go into legal arbitration and sort out issues by other methods if thats how they mutually choose.   To me thats Canadian and so be it.  

Yes that's true, the Charter ordinarily does not apply to relations between citizens in acting in private capacity. The Charter would most certainly apply if a province or the feds passed a law interefering with those relations. Person "A"   cannot ask person "B" tp contract out of a human right [not necessarily a Charter right] - any contract that requires this is unenforceable.

I don't know if the original article of this thread is entirely factual or biased in some way, but I believe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms defines (or the best yet) what a Canadian is under the law.  

Nope, it makes no representations about that whatsoever. All of the non-repealable freedoms pre-existed the Charter by operation of the common law. The Charter has actually retrenched a few rights, especially in the area of property.

It addresses what we all believe in and what applies to everyone.   It must be preserved if thats what we think we are.  

Only certain portions of the Charter apply to everyone. The Charter specifically excludes entire classes of people. See section 15.

Yet, arbitration is not the law but a method.   It may use customs from other lands but how else do you integrate new Canadians?   The original article presents a challenge to the arbitration method where ideally the parties should or did "mutually" agree but we know one party in this case really didn't.

As long as the contract is not void for legal interpretation, an arbitrators decision is binding law, and may be overturned only on certain administrative law principles, all of which must survive a second, more intense [hence more boring] Charter analysis. Arbitration with respect to contract analysis is almost always enforced without variation by the Court. A contract formed under duress, which you seem to suggest, is void ab initio [from the start] .... no exceptions, including religion. There was a form of Jewish marriage contract requiring chastity for women only in the event of a divorce. The contract had to be signed in order for the marriage to proceed. These contracts were challenged under the Charter, and the contracts were enforced WRT all provisions that did not discriminate on the basis of gender. Hence, no contract can "touch the skin of another."   However, the suggestions so far in this thread inidcate a structural power imbalance in the contract, as well as some sort of bias in the decision maker [the arbitrator.] My gut feeling, based on the preceding factors and other posts contained here, is that Sharia would not stand in it's traditional form in Canada. The Courts are always alive to discrimination, and they would simply characterize Sharia in pith and substance not as a cultural tradition protected by the Charter, but rather a discriminatory practice that cannot survive Charter scrutiny under a gender analysis.   Although the Sharia has been in the Court for rare interpetation as to a property clause, it has not been subjected to thorough Charter analysis.    The list of intervenors in such a case would be miles long....

That and its apparent "contradiction" to canadian rights and freedoms what needs to be looked at and fixed in my opinion.

100 percent ... see above.








 
I'm not going to ramble on about shit I don't know anything about! All I know is that the real problem in our country has always been our charter of rights and freedoms! This arbitrary charter doesn't apply in Quebec, where english rights have been trampled on since it's inception. Thank you Trudeau! If something like that can happen in a 'free' country, then we need to have it changed. The melting pot theory is a much better way to go, just look at Vancouver now - a typical Canadian can't even afford to buy a house there now due to rich Hong Kong people buying their way into the country.
 
PM calls for spies in Australian mosques
Canberra   | Agencies | 25/08/2005 |
   

Prime Minister John Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spies monitoring the nation's mosques.
He was speaking just hours before bidding farewell to a unit of Australian elite troops heading for combat duty in Afghanistan.

 
"We have a right to know whether there is, within any section of the Islamic community, a preaching of the virtues of terrorism, whether any comfort or harbour is given to terrorism within that community."
John Howard

 
A day after holding a summit with 13 moderate Australian Islamic leaders, Howard said the government had a right to know if parts of the Islamic community supported or preached violence, and he favoured infiltration of mosques and schools if needed.
"We have a right to know whether there is, within any section of the Islamic community, a preaching of the virtues of terrorism, whether any comfort or harbour is given to terrorism within that community," Howard told Australian radio.

Tuesday's summit agreed to examine the training of imams and what is taught in Islamic schools.

Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network convenor Waleed Kadous said Howard should be consulting more with the Muslim community. "Such hardline talk only isolates some parts of the Muslim community even further and makes it harder for cooperation between the Muslim community and the government," Kadous said.

But Education Minister Brendan Nelson said on Wednesday that Muslims who did not support Australian values should "clear out" and leave the country.

In Sydney, Treasurer Peter Costello told national television late Tuesday that Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law should get out of Australia.

Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament."If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," said Costello, who is seen as heir-apparent to Howard.

Australia has about 280,000 Muslims, who live mainly in the largest cities of Sydney and Melbourne.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/WorldNF.asp?ArticleID=178775



Meanwhile in Canada, we see the Liberals caving in and allowing Sharia Law.  What a difference of opinion between our two governments.

 
Back
Top