Canada: Use of Sharia law by Muslims okay, report says

Toronto Star ^ | 12/20/04 | CANADIAN PRESS

[antiRepublicrat]

Once you set up a parallel legal system, be it "voluntary" or not, you're basically enslaving the Muslim women and giving them no hope of freedom.

Both countries have a long history of using arbitration to settle disputes. This arbitration is simply limited to a group of people who would accept it.

We've both said that the secular courts would be more friendly to women. But contrast it with other religous arbitration. A woman whose husband died would come off better for inheritance in a Shari'a panel than in an orthodox Jewish or old-time fundamentalist Christian panel. They would also do better when wanting to divorce an abusive husband (that right is specifically in the Quran).

Being a fan of secular courts, were I a woman I wouldn't want to go to arbitration from any of these three religions, but they are free to do so.

[NetValue]

I am trying to stay respectful but you wrote "Arbitrations under Sharia law have been legal in the US for several decades."

What if the outcome of the arbitration violates the US laws of contracts? What then, my friend? Which has superiority? What they agreed to, or the law of the land?

[Modernman]

How can you say that?

Because that's how arbitrations work. Two private parties can agree to have their dispute settled under pretty much any law they want, so long as the law does not violate American laws or public policy.

Shira law has just superseded Canadian law.

Nope. A Canadian judge can throw out any arbitration decision that violates Canadian law or public policy.

[processing please hold]

Is....should be....isn't.

[processing please hold]

"Nope. A Canadian judge can throw out any arbitration decision that violates Canadian law or public policy".

Maybe in theory and for now. Islam law has established a toe-hold. They will soon grown.

[bill1952]

No, you cannot.

When parties to the agreement are not equal under the law, then there is no arbitration at all.

By the way, a few years ago the Germans arbitrated such things as the resettlement of the Jews in exactly that way.

>Arbitrations under Sharia law have been legal in the US for several decades

Again, no they are not.

Those are properly named "Mediations" and are nothing at all like arbitrations.

I've sat in many such proceedings.

[Eva]

But women have no rights under Islamic law, they can be forced to submit to anything.

[BobL]

"Judges dealing with custody issues can supercede any private decisions by the parties."

I'm being hit from both sides.

Anyway, yes, judges no doubt can supersede, the problem is that the woman will know enough not to get near a real Canadian judge - if she ever wants to be seen by her family or community, again.

Once Sharia is an option, she has already lost. The only it can be fair to her is to have her use the Canadian courts.

As for Jews and other, I don't really care. The last time I checked, there wasn't a Jewish Jihad going on around the world, and Jewish husbands treated their wives with some degree of respect.

Remember, we're trying to help pull this "religion" out of the stone age (rather than simply exterminating all of them, as a LOT of Freepers would be inclined to support). Giving them access to their barbaric legal system doesn't help.

[Modernman]

I am trying to stay respectful but you wrote "Arbitrations under Sharia law have been legal in the US for several decades."

I was recently involved in a deal here in Virginia where the parties agreed to have certain portions of their dispute settled by an arbitrator using Sharia law. The Sharia provision in the contract is quite enforceable.

What if the outcome of the arbitration violates the US laws of contracts?

Generally speaking, the provisions of a contract trump most statutory provisions when it comes to contracts. Virginia contract law might say that doing x constitutes a default under general contract law, but you and I can agree in our contract that x will not be a default. Charging interest is legal under contract law, but you and I can decide in our contract that you cannot charge me interest for the loan you gave me.

What then, my friend? Which has superiority? What they agreed to, or the law of the land?

Unless what we agreed to is specifically illegal (a contract for prostitution) or violates public policy (a contract provision that says the husband gets custody of the kids upon divorce, no matter what the cause of the dirvorce), what the parties agreed to has priority.

[processing please hold]

All I have to say is, don't be surprised when Shira law is the law of Canada.

Protest my comments, make arguments till your blue in the face. Canada is lost.

It is an insidious religion....strike the word religious....it is a death cult.

[PGalt]

More here http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/shariacanada.htm

[BobL]

" There's also a public policy provision. Giving children to an abusive father violates public policy in both Canada and the US."

Maybe, but, of course, if the Sharia Court does not accept the woman's testimony in this area, then Canadian protections become moot. In other words, these women would at least stand a chance with a Canadian judge, but not with a cleric (I love that term).

[texasbluebell]

Why are moslems immigrating to western countries, if they want to impose shar'ia law on their populations instead of adapting to their new environments?

What's the point?

Do you think maybe it's to spread islam, and this is just one thin edge of the wedge?

I do.

[GeekDejure]

Perhaps you owe Shariah law an apology. (/sarcasm)
=====
Oak Hay, here's my apology...
I Slam Islam !!!

[OpusatFR]

"Muslims should have the same rights as Roman Catholics and Jews in the province to seek arbitration based on religious law...."

Canon Law of the RCC is not in any way like Sharia. That's a bad analogy.

[Modernman]

When parties to the agreement are not equal under the law, then there is no arbitration at all.

A foreign law that treated women as second class citizens would not be enforceable since it violates public policy.

Again, no they are not.

Those are properly named "Mediations" and are nothing at all like arbitrations.

Mediations are different, agreed. However, arbitrations conducted under non-American law are quite enforceable. For example, there are rabbinical courts in NYC that resolve disputes between members of the Orthodox community in accordance with Talmudic law and NY courts will enforce such decisions.

[Modernman]

But women have no rights under Islamic law, they can be forced to submit to anything.

Such a decision would generally not be enforceable.

[BobL]

"But women have no rights under Islamic law, they can be forced to submit to anything.

Such a decision would generally not be enforceable."

Then why bother having the Canadian Government officially sanction Sharia as a parallel legal system. No, there's clearly more to this, and we WILL be proven right.

[Modernman]

All I have to say is, don't be surprised when Shira law is the law of Canada.

Like in the US, there aren't that many Muslims in Canada and they're concentrated in a couple of cities. They really do not have any way to enforce Sharia law on the unwilling.

[processing please hold]

May I ask you a question? If not, don't reply.

Are you a muslim?