In an unsigned editorial, National Post ridicules the idea that Canadians need be concerned about the prospect of the implementation of the Sharia.
The editorial explains that a possible Sharia court in Canada "will invite consenting Muslims to submit disputes about marriage, money and other civil matters to arbitrators schooled in the precepts of Islamic religious law. Assuming the decisions are otherwise consistent with federal law . . . , these Sharia judgments would then be enforceable in Canadian courts."
That consistency with federal law makes all the difference: "The question of how much would be left of Sharia after courts strip away everything that is sexist or otherwise prohibited is an interesting question -- but not one we need to deal with here. Our point is that giving Muslims the right to apply Sharia in the resolution of mundane civil disputes will not lead to the stoning of adulterous women -- or any other scandalous result. In other words, while the combination of Ontario arbitration law and Sharia may titillate the blogosphere, Canadians have little to fear."
That sounds reasonable, and I'm sure that that is indeed the framework within which Sharia is being introduced in Canada. However, I wonder what will happen when a group that is growing rapidly in numbers and influence begins to call for changes in that federal law on multiculturalist grounds, charging that their freedom to be who they are is being infringed by statutes that restrict full implementation of Sharia among themselves. Then if that group becomes a majority in the country, I wonder if any among them will remember the pronouncements of many learned jurists of their faith to the effect that once their group is a majority in a nation, Sharia must become of the law of the land.
Will any of this happen? Maybe not. But I wouldn't go so far as to assume that it cannot happen.
And this after so many thought Europe would be the first to submit!
Why do people think that Muslims would rest content with less than full implementation of Sharia law since Muslims see it as the directive of God?
Amazing and truly chilling.
At this point in time, concessions are given to the Muslims. Soon concessions will be demanded and shortly after that concessions will be taken. I feel sorry for the Canadian people but they are bring this on themselves.
Most non-Canadians cannot appreciate how far the 'multiculturalism' argument will take you up here. It has been the unofficial state religion since 1967. For an American citizen, Robert is very 'with it' in terms of our present climate and culture. And I can't believe the National Post, now run by the Asper family of all people, is being so sanguine about this. Oh Conrad Black, why did you give up on your newspaper? :-)
The prototype target of the "Muslim Personal Law" campaigns, is the Indian constitutionalization of same. Indian Muslims have now successfully transplanted MPL to both Canada and South Africa. America is the next target state. President Bush's "faith based initiatives" reflects his rejection of separation of church and state, which presents a window of opportunity for Muslim usurpers of the secular state.
http://muslim-canada.org/sitedex2.htm
It seems that Canada is making a deal with the devil with the hope that the devil will behave. But when has the devil ever done that?
This is just so much piffle. While I despise everything about islam, these arbitrations mean nothing, even in the "what if" universe. Frankly, your analysis is beneath you...
I think this is the beginning of another "Frog in the Kettle" scenario. Changes will be made little by little without anybody noticing until basic human rights have vanished. What are they going to do about "husbands beat your wives if they do not submit?"
Are they going to begin by imposing a written reprimand to the wife, then a fine, then a
thump on the ear, then a spanking, then a full beating?
Also, who is going to decide who the "Sharia
arbitrators" are?
Mohammed's recitation (koran) 4:34 imposes a strict shariah obligation on husbands, to commit spousal battery. In "secular" India, Muslim males can marry 4 women. In secular France, Muslims prohibited a French Cabinet Minister from entering their neighborhood, claiming "dar-islam" privileges. The above is the tip of the iceberg. Shariah is creeping in North America. It will gallop, if smug idiots deny its perversity. Just as no bonafide religion - Islam is a male bonding cult -contains prohibitions and enablements viz "division of the spoils of plunder" in their nominally sacred text, it is insulting to compare Islamic shariah to Hammurabin, Jewish, Hindu, canon law, etc. Only Islam outlaws the secular state, and makes its slaves ("abd allahs") venerate their enslavers. Moral equivocation is self-degrading. Commentators: cease degrading yourselves.
Faith-based initiatives are not a denial of separation of church and state, a vastly exaggerated concept if there ever was one (as opposed to there being no state church, which is accurate). The initiative simply refuses to deny funding to charitable organizations on the basis of their faith.
Now as to that the Shirah law arbitration means nothing, that is plainly not so. Someone went through effort to create it and to draft such provisions into law. Now it is being used. In the future it will be leveraged.