Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Islamic law proposal draws protests

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Islamic law proposal draws protests

    Last Updated Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:01:39 EDT
    CBC News

    Hundreds of demonstrators around the world this week protested a proposal to let Ontario residents use Islamic law for settling family disputes.

    Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is weighing a recommendation, by former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd, to allow Muslims to establish Shariah-based tribunals similar to Jewish and Catholic arbitration bodies. McGuinty says the Liberal government is reviewing Boyd's report and will come forward with its own recommendations some time soon.


    A woman argues with Joanne Siska during a protest against Sharia law in Toronto, Sep. 8, 2005. (CP PHOTO/Adrian Wyld)

    "We will not tolerate the interference of religion in our justice system," said Homa Arjomand, who organized a protest in Toronto that drew hundreds of people Thursday.

    The protests were generally peaceful, but on the outskirts of the Toronto demonstration, pro-Shariah activist Mubin Shaikh and his wife, Joanne Sijka, verbally sparred with protesters. Shaikh said the misuse of Shariah doesn't mean it should be excluded from Canadian civil law. "Abuse of the process is not a proof against a process, just as people wrongfully imprisoned is not a proof against Canadian law," Shaikh said.

    In Montreal around 100 people gathered Thursday to protest the tribunals. In Ottawa more than 100 others, mostly women, protested in the rain in front of the parliament building.

    And in the western German city of Dusseldorf, about 25 people protested at the Canadian consulate.

    "If the Shariah is used in Canada, I also feel threatened here," said protester Nasrin Ramzanali, who said there should be a clear separation of church and state.

    Other protests were planned this week in Waterloo and Victoria, and in Europe in Amsterdam, Dusseldorf, Stockholm, Goteborg, London and Paris.

    Ontario has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters on a voluntary basis since 1991, but the practice got little attention until Muslim leaders demanded the same rights.

    According to the latest census in 2001, some 600,000 Muslims live in Canada, just over 100,000 of them in Quebec.

    http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...-20050909.html

  • #2
    "Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is weighing a recommendation, by former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd, to allow Muslims to establish Shariah-based tribunals"

    No I don't believe it

    Comment


    • #3
      ....a proposal to let Ontario residents use Islamic law for settling family disputes.
      Only in my dumbass country! Will you Yankees quit sending your liberal scum north of the border?!!!, better yet...shoot ours!

      Islamic law.......for %*$% sakes......why don't we just make laws for every ethnicity!!
      Last edited by smilingassassin; 11 Sep 05,, 05:21.
      Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

      -- Larry Elder

      Comment


      • #4
        "better yet...shoot ours!"

        Sorry US policy is to only off our own liberals

        Comment


        • #5
          Will you if I say please?
          Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

          -- Larry Elder

          Comment


          • #6
            That is ****ing ********.


            "If the Shariah is used in Canada, I also feel threatened here," said protester Nasrin Ramzanali, who said there should be a clear separation of church and state.

            I'm guessing she is Muslim. Even they feel threatened. Which son of a ***** bastard gave this stupid proposal?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by smilingassassin
              Will you if I say please?
              Just as soon as I finish the ideological cleansing process in my country.

              Comment


              • #8
                NO WAY. You need a clear separation of church and state.

                to allow Muslims to establish Shariah-based tribunals similar to Jewish and Catholic arbitration bodies
                Why do they even have that? Of course the Muslims will demand something like that with these arbitration bodies around. Precedence has been set, in a lot of ways the court might just let this one fly.

                Comment


                • #9
                  to allow Muslims to establish Shariah-based tribunals similar to Jewish and Catholic arbitration bodies
                  The Moslems cannot be faulted if there is already precedence!

                  But, given the experience of India, Canada will surely come to grief since the so called Islamic tribunals will overrule all secular laws since the Islamic people unfortunately whatever be their personal and liberal views, are enslaved to the interpretation of the Mullahs and their theological schools of interpretation.

                  If they protest, then they will be socially hounded and ostracised!

                  They have no option but to obey the Mullahs and the theological schools of thought.

                  Put their shoes on your feet and walk a mile and think.

                  You would have taken their shoes and they wouldn't be able to run after you barefoot! ;)
                  Last edited by Ray; 11 Sep 05,, 08:57.


                  "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                  I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                  HAKUNA MATATA

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This isn't surprising since Canada has joined the many nations who accept terrorists. DID YOU KNOW THAT? Hezbollah is still a tax exempt charity in Canada. I think that saids a lot, pay some money to kill a Jew and Canada will not do anything about it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It is true that Canada is taken to be a very liberal county,

                      Terrorists of many hues find refuge and respectability there.


                      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                      HAKUNA MATATA

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This Canadian does not support terrorists as do ALL other true Canadians. Its the bleeding hearts who think everyone should have freedom of religion et all that are allowing the terrorists to gain some usefull tools within our society.

                        If I knew the name of the moron that preposed this idea I'd be speaking to him personally to tell him how much of an idiot he is and that I won't stand for it.
                        Ontario is my birth province, which I'm now quite happy to have left given this type of lunacy, to live on the west coast.
                        Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

                        -- Larry Elder

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Whats so bad about this? If Catholics can have their own religious court, and jews have their own, then why not muslims? I don't know how much power this court is going to have, but I doubt it'll be anything meaningful, afterall who decides who is subject to the court and who isn't? If you disagreed with the ruling you could just say you aren't a muslim, and the court would lose all its power.

                          Either way, I doubt the court is going to follow Taliban or Nigerian style sharia, it'll be the more goody goody liberal form of islam.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Where there are the Mullah to arbitrate, unfortunately, nothing can be goody goody.

                            They are the prime reason for the sad state Islam has been placed in.


                            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                            HAKUNA MATATA

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Steyn sees this as part of the larger war on Islamism:


                              Terror war all but forgotten on home front

                              September 11, 2005

                              BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST




                              Sept. 11, 2005 -- the fourth anniversary of the start of the war. That is, if you believe it's a ''war'' A lot of people didn't want to, even in those first days.

                              About a week after, one of my local radio stations held a fund-raiser and this is how their trailer for it opened. Cue the terminal-illness-movie-of-the-week soupy piano. Then:

                              ''After the tragic events of Sept. 11 . . .''

                              And, by the time I'd heard it half-a-dozen times, I retuned the dial and never listened to the station again.

                              It wasn't a "tragic event" or even one of a series of unfortunate events. It was an "attack," an "act of war." I sat at the lunch counter with a guy who'd tuned out the same station on the grounds that "I never heard my grampa talk about 'the tragedy of Pearl Harbor.' " But, consciously or otherwise, a serious effort was under way to transform the nature of the event, to soften it into a touchy-feely, huggy-weepy one-off. As I wrote last year: "The president believes there's a war on. The Dems think 9/11 is like the 1998 ice storm or a Florida hurricane -- just one of those things."

                              I didn't know the half of it. If an act of war is like a hurricane -- freak of nature, get over it -- it's evidently no great leap to believe that a hurricane is an act of war. Katrina was thus "allowed" to happen because Bush "hates black people." The Army Corps of Engineers was instructed to blow up New Orleans' 17th Street levee so that the flood would kill the poor people rather than destroy the valuable tourist real estate.

                              Whatever. As part of their ongoing post-9/11 convergence, the left now talks about Bush the way the wackier Islamists talk about Jews. I thought the Australian imam who warned Muslims the other week to lay off the bananas because the Zionists are putting poison in them was pretty loopy. But is he really any more bananas than folks who think Bush is behind the hurricane? Bush is apparently no longer the citizen-president of a functioning republic, but a 21st century King Canute expected to go sit by the shore and repel the waters as they attempt to make landfall. Instead, he and Cheney hatched up the whole hurricane thing in the Halliburton research labs to distract attention from their right-wing Supreme Court nominee . . .

                              On this fourth anniversary we are in a bizarre situation: The war is being won -- in Afghanistan, Iraq, the broader Middle East and many other places where America has changed the conditions on the ground in its favor. But at home the war about the war is being lost. When the media look at those Bush approval ratings -- currently hovering around 40 percent -- they carelessly assume the 60 percent is some unified Kerry-Hillary-Cindy bloc. It's not. It undoubtedly includes people who are enthusiastic for whacking America's enemies, but who don't quite get the point of this somewhat desultory listless phase. If the "war" is now a push for democratization and liberalization in Middle East dictatorships, that's a worthy cause but not one sufficiently primal to keep the attention of the American people. You'd have had the same problem in the Second World War if four years after Pearl Harbor we were postponing D-Day in order to nation-build in the Solomon Islands.

                              Four years ago, I thought the "war on terror" was a viable concept. To those on the right who scoffed that you can't declare war on a technique, I pointed out that Britain's Royal Navy fought wars against slavery and piracy and were largely successful. Of course, since then we've had the shabby habit of presidents declaring a "war on drugs" and a "war on poverty" and, with hindsight, that corruption of language has allowed Americans to slip the war on terror into the same category -- not a war in the sense that a war on Fiji or Belgium is a war, but just one of those vaguely ineffectual aspirational things that don't really impinge on you that much except for the odd pointless gesture -- like the shoe-removing ritual before you board a flight at Poughkeepsie. The "war on terror" label has outlived whatever usefulness it had.

                              And, as the years go by, it becomes clearer that the war aspects -- the attacks in New York, Washington, Bali, Madrid, Istanbul, London -- are really spasmodic flashes of a much more elusive enemy. Although Islamism is the first truly global terrorist insurgency, it shares more similarities with conventional terror movements -- the IRA or the Basque separatists -- than many of us thought four years ago. Terror groups persist because of a lack of confidence on the part of their targets: the IRA, for example, calculated correctly that the British had the capability to smash them totally but not the will. So they knew that while they could never win militarily, they also could never be defeated. That's what the Islamists have bet.

                              Only a tiny minority of Muslims want to be suicide bombers, and only a slightly larger minority want actively to provide support networks for suicide bombers, but big majorities of Muslims support almost all the terrorists' strategic goals: For example, according to a recent poll, over 60 percent of British Muslims want to live under sharia in the United Kingdom. That's a "moderate" Westernized Muslim: He wants stoning for adultery to be introduced in Liverpool, but he's a "moderate" because it's not such a priority that he's prepared to fly a plane into a skyscraper.

                              As with IRA killers and the broader Irish nationalist population, these shared aims provide a large comfort zone in which terror networks can operate. And it enables the non-violent lobby groups to use the terrorists -- or the threat of terrorists -- as part of a good cop/bad cop routine. Thus, the Islamic lobby groups pressure governments to make concessions to them rather than to the terrorists -- even though both elements share the same aims. You can pluck out news items at random: In London, a religious "hate crimes" law that makes honest discussion of Islam even more difficult; in Ontario, the moves toward sharia courts for Muslim community disputes; in Seattle, the introduction of gender-separate, Muslim-only swimming sessions in municipal pools. The 9/11 terrorists were in favor of all these things.

                              So four years on we're winning in the Middle East and Central Asia, floundering in Europe and North America. War is hell, but a war that half the country refuses to recognize as such staggers on as a very contemporary kind of purgatory.




                              Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
                              All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X