Come on, man, you know the answer to this one. We Canadians love to talk about ourselves!
I think the objection to that is, if a commission can fine you (as it indeed can) then it is in some way judicial. Worse still, the defendants don’t get their costs recuperated, so you effectively lose before you start. Honestly, it’s not one of Canada’s prouder institutions.
I’m skipping most of your post, but you do need to realize that this simply isn’t true. Language accommodation is quite likely the largest expense that Canada deals with in terms of accommodation. Moreover, there are lots of not-recent-immigrants for whom there is an enormous gulf between them and the government — the Doukhobors, FLDS, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers for a long period, and converts to whatever other religious group come to mind. And that’s before we even get to differences among the non-religious!
Indeed. That is why the government (in Ontario, at least) chose to abandon all religious based courts. In truth, though, neither the Christian or Jewish parallel courts threatened basic rights in the same way that Sharia might have. So, a case could have been made for specifically excluding it notwithstanding the continued permission for Christian and Jewish courts to exist. But that would have been a tad ballsy, ergo all of them were closed.
As an aside, Sam Stone was chastised repeatedly earlier in this thread for pointing that there was a movement in Ontario to allow a parallel system of Sharia courts. He is absolutely right about that - the criticism directed at him in this regard is unfounded.
What in the world makes you think that? The Muslims have no monopoly on oppressive religious dogma. If a parallel Muslim system could have threatened basic rights, then so could a Christian or Jewish one just as easily.
Ironically, I don’t know of any particular sexist laws that a Sharia panel would uphold in a divorce case, nor a Catholic panel — but some Jewish groups (see here) don’t allow for divorce without the husband’s permission (and whether the court punishes stubborn husbands varies). So there’s certainly that issue.
A recent immigrant coming to a new country can have a number of issues. Obviously, communications is one. Culture is another. A French or English person moving from/to Quebec has to primarily deal with a language issue. Culturally they are very close, so much so that it is unlikely to cause problems. You can’t say the same thing of people moving from most third world countries. Again that is the point of this thread.
And yet many Sikhs don’t wear turbans. Are they not Sikhs? Who actually is unreasonable? The subset of Sikhs who think that to be a ‘true’ Sikh you must wear the turban? What are their actual motivations? To just make a point? That is the problem with allowing religious reasons to determine or change policy, you can’t get a straight answer. It comes down to some subset (large or small) saying their wearing of a symbol is required. No proof from the deity required.
Utter nonsense. Criticism is not equivalent to wilfully promoting hatred.
Nonsense. There was a push by parts of the Muslim community to permit binding arbitration based on Sharia Law. The Ontario government looked at it and shot it down years ago, along with all religious based binding arbitration. There is no general movement to revisit it.
And the Sikhs also publicly supported the right of a young lad of Scottish descent in Alberta to wear a kilt to his school graduation. You are presenting narrow-mindeness as being a Canadian value.
If you want to have a serious look at multi-culturalism in Canada, have a look at aboriginal issues in Canada, including the Indian Act, the effect on the Charter on land claim settlements, and the general acceptance of the validity of some degree of aboriginal rights over “traditional territory” outside of defined reserves.
One person’s “criticism” is another person’s “willfully promoting hatred”.
When the movie Schindler’s List came out, a number of Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan banned it on the grounds that it “promoted hatred of Germans”.
I think most people reading this would disagree with that.
Perhaps. But, empirically, there had been to that time no (highly publicized) incidents of human rights suppression stemming from either the Christian or Jewish parallel systems in Ontario. On the other hand, in other jurisdictions (e.g. Pakistan, Nigeria, etc.), Sharia courts had already established a reputation for their zealous and unapologetic repudiation of what most of us would consider basic human rights (especially those concerning women).
Of course not. Do you really think anything like that would get anywhere near the publicity that anything that can be blamed on Islam would? Look how many decades the Catholic church managed to keep its child molesting priests secret, thanks to the collaboration of just about everyone involved. Almost nobody (at least in this country) would have looked the other way if an imam had been involved (or even anywhere nearby); but for a Christian priest they would and did.
Der Trihs, you are way off base here. Before you go making such absurd assertions about Ontario family law, dig out some examples to support you assertions. Specifically, set out the cases in which Christian or Jewish religious based family law arbitration in Ontario was found to be contrary to the Charter but still held to be binding. Go on. Do it.
How could an arbitration court violate the rule of law when they are bound by it? Arbitration courts tend to be the lowest level of the court hierarchy, nobody established them as Supreme Court, anywhere.
I thought it was an informed post, I see that I was mistaken. How could anyone in his right mind say there wasnt any problem with Jewish and Christian arbitration courts, but suddenly there is a problem with Muslim ones because of “Sharia courts” in the Middle East. This is bias on a Himalayan level. And not even owning up to it, as you had to hide behind insinuation and did not even make the effort of producing one bit of a solid argument. Funny how bias and lazyness make for such consistent companions.
Somewhere in your hyperbole you seem to be saying that I, personally, feel that way. And, indeed, to some extent I do, but mostly I was reporting on my recollection of much public and media sentiment when this was an issue in Ontario.
Regarding my personal take on it, I never for a moment said that the more oppressive measures of Sharia would be sanctioned by a “real” court. Notice my phrasing - I used words like “might” or “could”. Further, by using the phrase, “no (highly publicized) incidents stemming from . . . Christian and Jewish courts . . .”, I was acknowledging explicitly that Sharia had no monopoly on oppressive rulings. Yet you make up stuff like me saying “there wasn’t any problem with Jewish and Christian arbitration courts”. I guess you simply fabricate and prevaricate when you run out of facts and logic.
My point then, and still now, which is/was shared by many, was that some Muslim women might be compelled by their families or by their social situation to opt for a Sharia court when they, themselves, would much prefer a secular court. As I recall, this was a particular concern regarding divorce, custody, etc.
And, if that public sentiment I refer to above was utterly misguided as you and Mr. RickJay ("So you’re comparing the result of religious dogma in Ontario to the result of religious dogma in Pakistan? ") seem to be alleging, then why was Sharia not permitted in Ontario when there had been a long established precedent in the province for Jewish and Christian “courts”?
BTW, are you or RickJay aware of there being various versions or implementations of Sharia? (especially one where women’s rights are on an equal footing with those of men?) If so, please elaborate or provide a cite - such information would go a long way to reassuring those who might otherwise fear that establishing Sharia courts in, say, Ontario, might lead to violation of women’s human rights.
So, there’s no actual proof that Muslim based arbitration courts were threatening rights as they are known in the Western world any more than Jewish or Christian courts did. But, since they’re Muslims anyway, rather than allow them to use the very same system, might as well shut the whole thing down, since you neve know with the Muslims. And, on top of that, I have to provide evidence that actually Muslim arbitration court are harmless.
As I said, there must be some deep link between heavy bias and intellectual lazyness.
No, but there is quite a history in the rest of the world that Muslim courts are not paragons of virtue when it comes to women’s rights. So, why take a chance with any of our citizen’s rights and cancel the whole can of worms? Especially when it should not have been allowed in the first place.
You do realize that during the rule of the Ottoman Empire one of the things Christians and Jews regularly squealed about was how many of their women would convert to Islam when they were divorcing their husbands because Islamic courts were far more generous to women than either of their Christian and Jewish counterparts?
I know lots of people(no, I’m not lopping you in with them) ignorantly rail about honor killings and other such silliness but while Islamic courts are certainly capable of making horrific rulings, as any Iranian can testify to, if anything, traditional Islam is less sexist than either traditional Christianity or traditional Judaism.
Sorry, but anyone who thinks that having Jewish arbitration courts(which don’t allow women to get divorced without their husbands’ permission) are okay, but not Islamic arbitration courts is a fool, a bigot, or both.