|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Multiculturalism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 378 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
b) Try getting your knowledge of Islam from somewhere that isn't a rival religious group Yeah I hesitated but the picture was so shocking and matched right up with my preconception that Sharia law is a barbaric and ignorant approach to justice. No amount of apologetics around the details are going to make up for the clash of core principals.
c) The Attorney general was only talking about the settling of civil disputes, so much of your list is obviously not applicable d) Sharia only would be allowed as dispute resolution as long as the resolution is within Ontario law. Thus murder, dismemberment and child abuse are automatically excluded anyway. Well yes they have to start somewhere. Our law has a mechanism for change where as Sharia does not. If we mix the 2 which one do you think is going to yield over time? Will the fresh immigrant appreciate the distinction or will they carry on as usual when they find the same system over here? What about divorce? Will the uneducated 14 yr old wife be able to file for a divorce or will she need permission from her husband? What do you think about the situation in the UK where I read that
quote: Source We cannot let our zeal for tolerance diminish our foundational principal of equality. I just don't see why we would even entertain the idea of allowing such an archaic and discriminatory system to exist here. We have absolutely nothing to gain beyond a temporary peace and everything to lose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The story revealed that The Law Society -- the body which represents and advises solicitors in England and Wales -- has drawn up guidance for its members on how to draw up wills in accordance with Islamic law. The document can be seen here. As the Telegraph pointed out, High Street solicitors in England and Wales will now be assisted in drawing up documents that refuse women an equal share of inheritance and that discounts the potential inheritance of non-believers entirely. We cannot let our zeal for tolerance diminish our foundational principal of equality. But such a principle has never applied in this case. A testator of any religion could always leave more money to son A than to daughter B, and none to son C 'cos of him being an apostate. It's the testator's money. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but nor is it some unheard of novelty that now, for the first time ever, people can make wills that you wouldn't approve of.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But such a principle has never applied in this case. A testator of any religion could always leave more money to son A than to daughter B, and none to son C 'cos of him being an apostate. It's the testator's money. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but nor is it some unheard of novelty that now, for the first time ever, people can make wills that you wouldn't approve of. One need look no further than the inheritance laws\rules for English royalty ... the eldest son gets all; if he dies first then the next eldest son gets all; all daughters are passed over. There was talk last year iirc about making some changes to these archaic rules. Personally I think all assets should revert to the government, to dispose of as appropriate (ie a 100% death tax). You can give away assets before death however you wish, and then you live with the ramifications of those decisions however equitable they are. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Personally I think all assets should revert to the government, to dispose of as appropriate (ie a 100% death tax). That might be one of the most retarded things I've ever read. If you want to start a new thread I'll participate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Yeah I hesitated but the picture was so shocking and matched right up with my preconception that Sharia law is a barbaric and ignorant approach to justice. No amount of apologetics around the details are going to make up for the clash of core principals. So it confirmed your biases and served your agenda and who cares that it was nothing to do with the proposal in discussion - scaring people about Islam is more important than having a rational discussion right? What about Beth Din? Christian Conciliation?
Our law has a mechanism for change where as Sharia does not. Wrong.
If we mix the 2 which one do you think is going to yield over time? Nobody is mixing the two. Religious laws and codes exist and some people follow them. What is your alternative?
Will the fresh immigrant appreciate the distinction or will they carry on as usual when they find the same system over here? It's not the same system.
What about divorce? Remains, as ever, a matter between the two consenting adults unless there are children involved (see the document we are discussing for its recommendations regarding children in arbitration cases). They can settle the issue themselves, request an arbitrator they both agree to either informally or as part of official mediation proceedings, or take it to a secular court.
Will the uneducated 14 yr old wife be able to file for a divorce or will she need permission from her husband? However, assuming we are talking about someone who could legally be considered a wife: A Muslim Ontarian woman would have the same rights as a Christian Ontarian woman to divorce her husband. In the UK, you must file for divorce to a UK divorce court (paying the court costs). Then you need 'permission from your spouse' for the easy route otherwise you need to go in front of a secular judge to hear the case and decide if you have permission to divorce.
What do you think about the situation in the UK where I read that {people distribute their money according to their conscience and the people who are paid to manage the distributions have an advisory board who are sharing advice on the subject} I think it's kind of normal. I certainly don't want the government mandating where my money goes when I die, do you?
We cannot let our zeal for tolerance diminish our foundational principal of equality. And we can't let our fear of The Other diminish freedom.
I just don't see why we would even entertain the idea of allowing such an archaic and discriminatory system to exist here. The alternatives? If you forbid people to sort out family disputes in their own way, they will still do it, only without the safeguards and regulations, just as they will seek out abortions even if it is banned and unregulated. Indeed, there are certainly more unofficial Sharia courts than official ones already. There are some Muslim women who state that Sharia is empowering even if it is not always equitable on the grounds that male family members are under tremendous pressure to listen to and comply with the religious authority figure giving women more leverage than they would otherwise have. Those women are clearly in a crap position if they find that worth celebrating, but that's how it is. I prefer to have regulatory oversight and the requirement for documentation and legal avenues for disputing rulings clearly being communicated to all parties, the allowance of legal representation and encouraging those kinds of avenues than the coathanger-in-the-alley equivalent which I would suggest is more harmful to women. Also, and I repeat. You are talking as if Sharia is a single system and it is not.
quote:EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW BY LORD PHILLIPS, LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
It would be best if you read what I actually write and not try to make up things you wish I would write.
That's totally dishonest.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond Is this like Dr. Kent Hovind? He has a doctorate in Missiology from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Maybe you have a better source?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 378 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
But such a principle has never applied in this case. A testator of any religion could always leave more money to son A than to daughter B, and none to son C 'cos of him being an apostate. It's the testator's money. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but nor is it some unheard of novelty that now, for the first time ever, people can make wills that you wouldn't approve of. No the inequality comes from applying different laws to the act of executing a will depending on your religion. This is not a condition that should exist in a democracy (or anywhere) as it is a direct violation of the principal of equality under the law as well as the principal of seperating church and state. As you point out we can already leave money to whomever so what is it that the new law accomplishes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
You can give away assets before death however you wish, and then you live with the ramifications of those decisions however equitable they are. Surely you understand that the law provisions you discuss here would not affect anyone would could afford the necessary legal advice to minimize the ramifications to essentially nothing. Instead it would be poor people who would lose the tiny amounts that are all of the assets that their ma and pa had managed to accumulate who would be affected by your policy. Family house now owned by the state? Is that really what you want?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
As you point out we can already leave money to whomever so what is it that the new law accomplishes? There is no new law. What is described is providing legal guidance. You are already allowed to use a will to disenfranchise one or more of your children. The advice would be providing ways to make such elections difficult to challenge after death. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
That's totally dishonest. You wish I had made them up. I quoted your words exactly as you provided them and I did not leave out any portion of them. I did indeed lift the quote from another discussion, but there is no question that you wrote it. If you think there is some context that will help, you are welcome to supply it. Here is your starting point Message 12 Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 378 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
- scaring people about Islam is more important than having a rational discussion right? While I am not actually frightened I am concerned and I think that others should be as well. My source certainly has an opinion but this doesn't mean that their information is wrong. All of the punishments listed are acceptable under some interpretations of Sharia.
Wrong. How do you go about changing the requirements for a women to seek a divorce under Sharia law?
Nobody is mixing the two. Religious laws and codes exist and some people follow them. What is your alternative? The alternative is for the government to concern itself with laws that apply to everybody in the country.
PT did not writes: I think it's kind of normal. I certainly don't want the government mandating where my money goes when I die, do you? What do you think about the situation in the UK where I read that {people distribute their money according to their conscience and the people who are paid to manage the distributions have an advisory board who are sharing advice on the subject} The point is that there are 2 sets of laws and that is ridiculous. What people do is their own business as long as it does not contravene the standing law that should apply to everyone. Enshrining some weird religious beliefs in secular law is like injecting someone with an incurable disease.
And we can't let our fear of The Other diminish freedom. This is not a case of fearing what we do not understand. What I understand about Sharia law is enough for me to reject it out of hand.
If you forbid people to sort out family disputes in their own way, they will still do it, only without the safeguards and regulations, just as they will seek out abortions even if it is banned and unregulated. Indeed, there are ce rtainly more unofficial Sharia courts than official ones already. I think that this is an excellent point and I am not sure how we should address it but I don't think that instant capitulation under the name of tolerance is the answer. We have our standards of equality and principals of law for a reason.
Those women are clearly in a crap position if they find that worth celebrating, but that's how it is. I prefer to have regulatory oversight and the requirement for documentation and legal avenues for disputing rulings clearly being communicated to all parties, the allowance of legal representation and encouraging those kinds of avenues than the coathanger-in-the-alley equivalent which I would suggest is more harmful to women. I don't know man. This is like the abused women saying that she does not want to press charges because sometimes he is really nice. I agree that we need to keep this behaviour out in the light but I don't think that we should excuse it or accept it. My neighbour can beat his wife quietly in the dark but he better not let me see him doing it.
Also, and I repeat. You are talking as if Sharia is a single system and it is not. I get this but the first sentence from your quote is enough for me to dismiss it as anything that I could get behind.
quote: I appreciate that the same sort of language appears in my country's constitution and that there is some mention of the big Cheese in the court room but our legal systems are fundamentally different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No the inequality comes from applying different laws to the act of executing a will depending on your religion. [...] As you point out we can already leave money to whomever so what is it that the new law accomplishes? There is no new law. There are no different laws. As the practice note from the Law Society states:
Some clients are domiciled for succession purposes in England and Wales, but still wish to pass their assets in accordance with Sharia rules for religious reasons. Such clients may prefer a Sharia compliant will, notwithstanding the freedom of disposition provided by English law. Provided the will is signed in accordance with the requirements set out in the Wills Act 1837, there is nothing to prevent an English domiciled person choosing to dispose of their assets in accordance with Sharia succession rules. There is also nothing preventing them from disposing of their assets in the manner decreed on the Pillars of Hammurabi. It does not take a new law, or a different law, to allow them to do that. It just takes care in the drafting of the will. The practice note is about how to draft the will so as to make succession sharia-compliant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
While I am not actually frightened I am concerned and I think that others should be as well. My source certainly has an opinion but this doesn't mean that their information is wrong. All of the punishments listed are acceptable under some interpretations of Sharia. And slavery is acceptable under some interpretations of Christian Law. So what? We're talking about something specific. And for reasons I've given and I'm just waiting for formal concession on, the corporal punishments are not part of Canadian law.
How do you go about changing the requirements for a women to seek a divorce under Sharia law? No need. Variety in said requirements already exists, so pick your poison. But if you must know how you can do it - just become an Islamic scholar and say it is so and your job is done.
The alternative is for the government to concern itself with laws that apply to everybody in the country. That's not an alternative, it is already the case. Also, the government doesn't 'concern itself' with Sharia Law, it just says 'if you want to settle certain disputes using it, you are free to do so {within limits}'.
The point is that there are 2 sets of laws and that is ridiculous My point is that there are not 2 sets of laws, so it is not ridiculous. There's just the Arbitration Act {or its equivalent, your country may vary}. Different mediators will mediate on different principles. The proposal is to allow religious principles to be used. Both parties agree ahead of time what principles are being used, which person or persons they want to act as mediator/arbitrator and agree to be bound by the decisions. By law, an appeal can be made to civil courts if there is standing to so. Is allowing people the freedom to choose their mediators such a terrible thing? Is limiting freedom here worth it, just because the dominant culture doesn't generally like something it read in the papers or saw on TV?
What people do is their own business as long as it does not contravene the standing law that should apply to everyone. That's what the Ontario Attorney General suggested and you complained about it (Message 136)! Now I'm utterly perplexed as to what your problem with their position is! Have you read what the Attorney General was proposing yet?
Enshrining some weird religious beliefs in secular law is like injecting someone with an incurable disease. Fine. But since this isn't happening I don't know why you bring it up.
What I understand about Sharia law is enough for me to reject it out of hand. Great! Guess what? You are free to do so!And if someone else has an understanding of it that means they accept it, then that's their business as free adults, right? Do you want to reduce freedom by saying people can't live by Sharia rulings if they so choose?
I think that this is an excellent point and I am not sure how we should address it but I don't think that instant capitulation under the name of tolerance is the answer. What capitulation? Allowing people to arbitrate their communal and familial problems in their own way if they want and providing legal oversight, certain rights, and avenues of appeal? How is that capitulating? Seems to me it's being proactive and 'handling' it. Capitulating would be to let it go on and be essentially self-regulated, allowing the older male Muslims of communities complete latitude to say what they want and rule how it advantages themselves, with no transparency whatsoever.
We have our standards of equality and principals of law for a reason. And they still exist, and Muslim women can utilize them if they so choose, or not as they wish. Just like you have a right to remain silent upon being arrested, but you can waive that. As you can waive your right to representation if you are deemed a competent adult. So to can you waive your rights to equitable {by our standards} distribution of finances in divorce proceedings, if you want. That is to say - you have a right to not exercise your rights. If my wife cheated on me and assaulted me, I have a right to a divorce. And the right to continue the marriage. My choice, right? I could divorce my wife and agree to give her all of my money and property in exchange for the cat, if I so chose to do so. I could go to a mediator who overvalues feline assets, and believes women are better with money and men better caregivers, who might decide to rule this. I could appeal, depending on laws, on the grounds of it not being in the interests of the animal's welfare - or I could choose to accept the ruling. My choice!
Those women are clearly in a crap position if they find that worth celebrating, but that's how it is. I prefer to have regulatory oversight and the requirement for documentation and legal avenues for disputing rulings clearly being communicated to all parties, the allowance of legal representation and encouraging those kinds of avenues than the coathanger-in-the-alley equivalent which I would suggest is more harmful to women.
This is like the abused women saying that she does not want to press charges because sometimes he is really nice. Those women are clearly in a crap position if they find that worth celebrating, but that's how it is.
I agree that we need to keep this behaviour out in the light but I don't think that we should excuse it or accept it. I guess I'm a fan of letting consenting adults choose how to live as long as it is within the law. I don't think that is excusing it. It is accepting it, I suppose, but not without criticism, of course. I mean, Arbitration is more of a grey area in the USA than in the UK it seems - but it exists. And religious arbitration exists. There is PeacemakerMinistries whose mission is to glorify God by helping people to resolve disputes". They state they do about 100 arbitrations a year (Religious Arbitration in the United States and Canada, Nicholas Walter, 2012) and have led at least one group astray when they were involved in arbitrating over two child abuse claims. quote: A blog post with lots of links about it. Beth Din in America mediates about 400 family matters and a 100 commercial matters (Walter, 2012). They don't generally advise people they have a right to legal representation, and bringing a lawyer to a Jewish court can be considered bad taste.
quote: The Collision of Church and State: A Primer to Beth Din Arbitration and the New York Secular Courts, Ginnine Fried, Fordham Urban Law Journal, 2003 This has been going on for considerable time! Are you proposing to single out Islam, or just ban all religious arbitration from having any legal standing?
My neighbour can beat his wife quietly in the dark but he better not let me see him doing it. Sure, but then assault is a criminal offence, so is entirely irrelevant to this particular discussion.
I get this but the first sentence from your quote is enough for me to dismiss it as anything that I could get behind. I'm not asking you to accept Sharia law, just understand it and its interaction with secular governments. I suggest you read the rest of it. I think you'll find the author, The Rt Hon. The Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers KG PC, is not a Muslim and doesn't actually believe that Sharia is the actual law of God, he's just describing it to an audience of Muslims and is clearly adopting their perspective for rhetorical purposes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I haven't read up on the Sharia issue, but from the comments posted I don't think there is much to be made of it. Giving people the right to follow any religious customs that do not violate established laws is pretty much the essence of church-state separation.
I would honestly be more concerned if the government were dictating which religious customs could and could not be followed without any evidence that the banned customs violated secular laws. There's nothing saying you can't leave all your property to your sons when you die; and there is nothing saying you can't call that 'Sharia'. At any rate, the whole matter seems much less pertinent than the USDA's involvement in Kosher labeling (which is undoubtedly government legislation that specifically aids the observance of certain religious customs). Ensuring against false advertising is certainly important, especially regarding food. Labeling standards are required to protect consumers from unscrupulous plants that might market harmful products under labels declaring or implying their safety. But should the government's labeling standards be used to protect consumers' religious safety? Should government money be spent helping people avoid offending their God? Is this an example of Multiculturalism overriding the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land?Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024