What is always striking about stories like this is the eagerness with which proponents of Sharia-approved practices regarded as unacceptable in the West attempt to invoke Western human rights laws to defend their behavior, while in countries enforcing Sharia law, Western standards of human rights are disregarded out of hand, or even deemed licentious.
The demands boil down to this: In the name of Western human rights, let us implement practices from Sharia law that are wholly incompatible with Western human rights. And the case cited in the editorial below demonstrates that Islamic polygamy results in the same oppression and deceit in North America as anywhere else.
"Sharia by stealth — Ontario turns a blind eye to polygamy" by John Turley Ewart for the National Post, May 29:
It’s an issue the Liberal govenrment of Ontario, led by Premier Dalton McGuinty, doesn’t want to deal with — polygamy in the Muslim community. Last week the Toronto Star told the story of Safa Rigby, a 35-year-old mother of five children who recently learned her husband of 14 years had two other wives. Ms. Rigby’s life is in tatters. She followed her husband’s advice that she leave Toronto and live in Egypt for a year on the grounds that it would be better for their children to spend more time in a Muslim country. Now she knows it was a ruse. He used her time there to marry two other women.
Ms. Rigby does not support polygamy, which has been illegal in Canada for more than a century. But Toronto Imam Aly Hindy, who runs the Toronto Salahuddin Islamic Centre, does. He married Ms. Rigby’s husband knowing he already had a wife and counselled him to keep the marriage secret from Ms. Rigby for as long as possible. Hindy has by his own admission performed 30 ceremonies in which men were married who already had wives. When Ms. Rigby confronted Hindy his response was reportedly cold and unsympathetic: “You will have to stand beside him in these difficult times,” Hindy told her. “You should stop causing problems to (sic) him. You will not get anything by divorce except destroying your life” he went on to say.
For Hindy this is not about Ms. Rigby or her husband’s desire to marry another woman — but making a broader political point.
Hindy is using polygamy as a proxy for his fundamentalist version of Islam, something he wants to see legitimized in Canadian society as a whole. It is part of an attempt at empire building, a bid that if successful will enhance his influence within the Muslim and demonstrate that Ontario and Canada is too ignorant and too afraid of Islam to uphold its own laws. He has admitted as much, challenging Ontario’s government to dare stop him. “If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that,” he told the Star. Interviewed after the Star story appeared on the John Oakley Show on AM 640Toronto, Hindy was not apologetic and argued that freedom of religion in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms trumped prohibitions against polygamous marriages.
When he and another Imam from Toronto, Steve Rockwell, were challenged on the appropriateness of polygamy by a Muslim caller to the Oakley Show, the caller was immediately attacked and his identity as a true Muslim questioned because he did not follow Hindy’s view that polygamy is a foundational pillar of Islam that grows out of Sharia Law. This speaks to a troubling absolutist interpretation of Islamic law, which runs against the reality that Sharia law is much more flexible that Hindy allows for, a fact well documented by Anver Emon, a specialist in Islamic law at the University of Toronto. Moreover, as noted in the Star article on Ms. Rigby, there is grave doubt that the Charter protects Islamic polygamy, as Hindy believes. Nik Bala, who teaches family law at Queen’s University, points out that “Islam permits polygamy, but doesn’t require it to be a practising Muslim.” This is key, and may mean Hindy’s attempt to find shelter behind the Charter will fail. Moreover, the impact polygamy has on women's equality and children could also sway the courts to uphold Canada's ban on polygamy.
But there is little chance at the moment that this will become a Charter issue down the road. Dalton McGuinty’s government has responded to the revelations about polygamy in the Muslim community by denying its existence. On Wednesday Liberal MPP Ted McMeekin responded to a question on the issue in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario saying:
“Polygamy is a serious crime in Ontario . It’s not something that’s tolerated. As you know, the best advice I can give the honourable member opposite is that if she has any evidence that someone is engaging in multiple marriages, she should report it, because our Registrar General and our official reporting mechanisms have no evidence that that’s happening. As you know, Mr. Speaker, marriage is a contract. A contract require a licence, and once a marriage occurs, it has to be registered. There are no multiple marriages being registered in the province of Ontario.”
Mr. McMeekin’s response is a shameful twisting of the law. The criminal code is clear. Section 293. (1) reads: “Every one who (a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into (i) any form of polygamy, or (ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or (b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”
There is no provision in the law, contrary to Mr. McMeekin’s assertion in the Ontario Legislature, that a polygamous marriage has to be registered before the government can act. The opposite is in fact true.
By turning a blind eye to polygamy, Premier McGuinty is giving licence to Sharia by stealth.
Exactly. Read it all.
I'm pretty sure that if we want to boil the left and break the stranglehold of feminism on the minds of women all we have to do is propose seriously that western men be afforded the prerogatives of sharia.
Personally, being a person of if-fy moral character, I am all in favor of having lots of "wives" who I can "divorce" with a phone call, and beat down when they get too uppity.
As a matter of fact, I have spent a good deal of effort in my life, under the tutelage of people of superior moral character, in the effort to overcome those particular failings on my part.
So I volunteer gladly to demonstrate to the left the implications of the surrender that they propose.
I'd like to start my demonstration with the more attractive daughters of the more prominent jihaddi apologists.
This is looking like a win-win-win to me.
My pastor is going to be seriously pissed.
This is insanity. First the Native Americans get to smoke peyote, next the Islamists get polygamy... hey, bring back Molech and Chemosh and start having child sacrifices again -- it's a "key" requirement of your religion, eh? Let's take those Mayans right up the NAFTA Superhighway, and start ripping hearts out for sacrifice.
Anyone who wants more than one wife must have more than a few slates missing off the roof.
I've got one ... and that's one too many! :o(
here's a link to the am 640 interview with Aly Hindy
http://reportonarrakis.blogspot.com/2008/05/aly-hindy-calls-for-polygamy-to-be.html
Europe (specially Denmark, Sweden, Holland, France and The UK)together with Canada, The USA and Australia are in danger of becoming muslim nations if they give in to the wishes of these beasts now.
They will certainly rue the day they gave an inch so that these idiots grabbed a mile...
I live in Australia and already the press is cowed into not offending muslims as they did not dare to print the islamic cartoons, but that does not stop them from making fun of Christianity all the time.
Seems like I would have to emigrate once again into a 'muslim-free' nation if these idiots ever colonize the places that have been foolish enough to welcome them.
This insufferably arrogant Muslim cleric is openly thumbing his nose at the laws, customs and institutions of Canada.
From the article:
"Hindy is using polygamy as a proxy for his fundamentalist version of Islam, something he wants to see legitimized in Canadian society as a whole. It is part of an attempt at empire building, a bid that if successful will enhance his influence within the Muslim and demonstrate that Ontario and Canada is too ignorant and too afraid of Islam to uphold its own laws.
"He has admitted as much, challenging Ontario’s government to dare stop him.
“If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that,” he told the Star.
" Interviewed after the Star story appeared on the John Oakley Show on AM 640Toronto, Hindy was not apologetic and argued that freedom of religion in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms trumped prohibitions against polygamous marriages."
Oh yeah? And one must presume, therefore, that it ALSO trumps, the Canadian laws that would forbid, for example, forced marriage to a pre-pubescent girl a la Mohammed and Aisha, or the stoning of adulterers, or the cutting off the hand of a thief, or talaq divorce, or beating your wife? And what about Canadian laws on freedom of conscience and freedom of speech?
Suppose Hindy 'executes' a Muslim who has converted to Christianity, and claims a 'freedom of religion' defence - 'my religion says I have to kill people who try to leave it'!
Out with him!
If Canada had a grain of commonsense and self-preservation instinct left, the RCMP would have this man arrested, in the clink, and on the first cargo boat out of Canada, booted out by the seat of his pants and the scruff of his neck.
Having been first tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail, by the indignant citizens of Canada whose laws and customs he has openly declared he looks upon with total contempt.
And if he has citizenship, it should be stripped from him forthwith.
Out with him! Out with him!
I think that the Muslims will eventually win this one. Recently, in New York, the governor moved to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of the state of New York. That decree would include same-sex marriages taking place in countries outside of the USA where those marriages are legal. So, polygamous marriages, legal in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, will also be legal in the USA. If not, the word 'discrimination' will rear its head and politicians and judges will act on behalf of those "disfranchised." Educators, get used to parent/teacher conferences with Omar, and his three wives coming to school for a whole evening of discussions about their fifteen children.
This article leaves one confused about the Canadian 'Charter'.
Here's the orginal Star article:
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/429490
GTA's secret world of polygamy
"Islamic laws on polygamy, while based on religious texts, differ from the Mormon example. While the Qur'an permits polygamy, it is not a requirement of the faith...
[...]
While the Muslim factor may be a minor one in the larger debate around polygamy, which for years has focused on Bountiful, B.C., there is consensus on both sides that the practice will soon be forced to face a constitutional challenge.
Muslims have thought that if such a challenge on the basis of religion is launched [by Mormons], they would also benefit. But Nik Bala, a family law professor at Queen's University, believes the case for Muslims is much weaker than that of the Mormons.
"In Bountiful, the argument of freedom of religion applies, since polygamy is a requirement necessary to get to heaven. Islam permits polygamy, but doesn't require it to be a practising Muslim," said Bala. "The freedom of religion argument doesn't hold up as strongly."
And here are the Star's 'LETTER TO THE EDITOR' page in response:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/429807
Polygamy has no place in Canada
This one for example:
As a Muslim, polygamy has been hard to reconcile with my belief in equality.
[No kidding!]
I try to explain polygamy as a practice designed to be a social-security system for women during sixth-century Arabia. Women did not usually earn income and suffered from a gender imbalance.
These marriages are not Islamic by any means. If the allegations are true, I hope Imam Aly Hindy is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Do not forget that he swore to obey Canadian law when he became a citizen. If he felt that Canadian law would deny him the reasonable expression of his faith as he defines it, he should not have made that oath.
My praise goes to Safa Rigby for having the courage tell her story. I hope others come out of the shadows.
Junaid Alam, Toronto
Lets just ignore the problem pretend it does not exist and it will go away. We live in a time where values are being degraded for some stupid notion, of appeasement and PC and Multiculturalism. When attacking a belief system it that contradicts values of equality and human dignity it is morally right.
There's some interesting implications to this. If polygamy is allowed for Muslims only, isn't that basically discrimination against non-Muslims? So then technically, to stave off a flurry of lawsuits, wouldn't polygamy have to be legal for everyone? And then by everyone, wouldn't that also mean that women could have multiple husbands? And would either case benefit our society as a whole?
I think that might fly in Europe and Canada, but I'm thinking polygamy for all isn't going to go over well in the Bible belt.
Polygamy is bad for several reasons:
- no reciprocity,
- no respect of the woman,
I repeat, as a christian, I am fully against polygamy.
However, I do not feel that my Western civilisation is better on the marriage topic.
Indeed in the West, divorce is so easy ... is it much different than polygamy (except the man woman equality)? Several kinds of alternative sexuality are encouraged like homosexuality ... African friends are astonished to see how Western European consider homosexual marriage and adoption by homosexuals as normal. Is it really better than polygamy (except the equality criteria of the West)?
The Western civisation has still one advantage on Islam: in the West, there is equality and reciprocity in rights between man and woman.
Indeed, as I studied a little bit the Coran and the Islam, I prefer obviously very much my religion (Jesus, the Evangiles), but I do not consider the Western civilisation as still christian (however of christian origins) and even if it is indeed much better to live in the West than in any islamic country, I do not believe that the western civilisation as lessons to give to the islamic world as the western civilisation is nowadays a genocide civilisation (abortion: millions of legal assassination every year, disabled people loose their right to be born, ...) to a larger extent than the islamic world.
Polygamy is VERY BAD, but it is just a straw in regards of the abortion genocide BEAM.
When do we get to sacrifice newborns?
"But Toronto Imam Aly Hindy, who runs the Toronto Salahuddin Islamic Centre, does. He married Ms. Rigby’s husband knowing he already had a wife and counselled him to keep the marriage secret from Ms. Rigby for as long as possible. Hindy has by his own admission performed 30 ceremonies in which men were married who already had wives."
-- from the article above
Imam Aly Hindy is violating the laws of Canada. He should be arrested, and charged with that violation. If he is not a Canadian citizen, he should be deported to a land where polygamy, which he intends to support and protect, is allowed. If he is a naturalized Canadian citizen, then his (presumed) oath of allegiance to the government and laws of Canada should be reexamined to see if he meant it, and if that oath made to acquire such citizenship is, it is assumed, meant for all time, and once one can no longer pledge loyalty to the government and laws of Canada, one should be eligible for being stripped of one's citizenship. It is a high privilege to be a Canadian, as it is to be an American or a citizen of an advanced country in Western Europe. It is, or should be, difficult of attainment. It is, or should be, a privilege that can be revoked if the most minimum standards of loyalty cannot be met.
And if the laws are not yet in place to do all this, then those laws should -- all over the Western world -- be put in place, promptly.
Dalton McGuinty, after thinking about it for several weeks, turned down a request from Muslim community groups to have some aspects of Sharia administered through "family courts" in Ontario. This was about two years ago.
Some of the opposition to the proposal came from Muslims, particularly women, who thought they had escaped from Sharia forever and found it on their heels in their new country. McGuinty's reasoning, which apparently took a lot of thought, was: "There is one law for everyone in Ontario".
Actually applying this principle seems to take a little more than thought.
Hugh's comment above is the plainest common sense, but in one respect it is, unfortunately, the merest wishful thinking. It is not difficult to become a Canadian citizen. As far as I can see - and I've lived in Canada all my life - falling of a log onto a cushion would be harder.
The thinking here, at least among the articulate élite and the politicians who control the agenda, seems to be that virtually anything other than complete openness to immigration from everywhere, and the easiest imaginable citizenship process, would be tantamount to fascism.
No one supposes for a minute, of course, that most of the electorate think this way. But they can be safely ignored. The slightest suggestion that immigration ought now and then to be an election issue is greeted with accusations of "racism". An urban planner working for the City of Toronto was instantly silenced in this way when he suggested about a year ago that Toronto does not have the infra-structure it needs for its projected influx of people over the next twenty years.
This attitude has turned Canada into a clearing house for Sikh terrorism. That it will do the same for Muslim terrorism is just about certain. But don't worry America, we're good friends.
"This is in our religion and nobody can force us to do anything against our religion," he said. "If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that."
The disdain, the contempt and intolerance for the west is clearly evident here and this guy should be in Saudi or Pakistan, tomorrow morning wouldn't be soon enough.
So, coming back to the fundamentals of the issue again: why do you propose that the Government should have the right to prohibit consenting adults from living in a state of marriage? Why do you think the Government should accord special status to consenting adults in one particular type of relationship, but not others?
Coaltaxapeuh
nice piece of tu quoque and pressing the guilt button in order to induce paralysis and stop us condemning Muslim polygamy.
Won't work. Just because the West currently has a distressingly high abortion rate, shouldn't stop us from punishing Muslim polygamists who show open contempt for the laws of our lands.
Anyway, what makes you think abortion is not practised in the Islamic world? Sure, they have a high birthrate, because they can marry women off at puberty - or before, good god - and force them to have a baby every ten months if possible, and all those macho Muslim men wouldn't dream of using condoms, I'll bet.
But I suspect there's still a whole lotta babies that never get born. They just don't get into the statistics. Remember, the Islamic system isn't based on truth. It's based on shame/honour; on show, on looking good, on maintaining an external illusion of order and perfection. They're NEVER going to own up to abortions. Remember Ahmadinejad swearing black and blue that there were no homosexuals in Iran?
I'm sure that when a wealthy Muslimah has an illicit fling - and people do get up to mischief, even in the stiflingly socially-controlled societies of Islamic lands - and finds herself pregnant, and has to get rid of it quick or face the possibility of being found out and PUBLICLY EXECUTED for immorality, or 'honor' murdered by her nearest and dearest, she finds and bribes someone who can end the pregnancy for her. (After all, there's also a booming trade in 'hymen restorations', I understand).
I would hazard a guess that many a young Muslim woman, either raped or seduced, and thus made pregnant, doesn't have an abortion, sure - but she and the baby too, die anyway, because
a. she commits suicide
b. her father/mother/uncles/brothers/ other relatives MURDER her (and thus, also, the baby) for 'shaming' the family
c. she has a 'backroom' or 'coathanger' abortion, the sort that doesn't get into the statistics, and dies. (Though this latter case, if she's very lucky, if she's somewhere like Israel, she may encounter a sympathetic Infidel doctor who saves her life and hushes things up).
I read a perfectly harrowing story, on either ali sina's or ibn warraq's website, by an apostate whose journey out of Islam began when they witnessed the death by stoning of an older sister who had gotten pregnant - to the man with which said sister had been very much in love. The young man fully intended to marry his lover, but wasn't the parents' first choice. The young couple 'anticipated' the wedding and got pregnant, hoping to force the parents into decreeing a shotgun wedding.
Sadly, instead the parents and the village decreed a stoning. Mother and unborn baby died under a hail of stones. Father of the baby was not, for some reason, sentenced to stoning - I think he got off with a flogging. But, heartbroken by the murder of his beloved, he took his own life soon after.
You might also like to reflect on just how many young girls, in places like Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, North Africa, perish in their first childbirth because they are ten or eleven or twelve and their underdeveloped bodies cannot allow the child to pass. Or all those who die as a result of FGM - massive bleeding and/ or infection.
Then there's the wife-beating...
I do not think that the fact that there are abortions, in the modern west, should stop us from resolutely naming, and challenging, the evils that exist in the Islamosphere: in particular, the downright murderous 'war on women' that is coded into so much of what Nonie Darwish calls 'family sharia'. Polygamy is only part of a whole system of general devaluing and abuse of women.
There is a much better chance that the 'western' world will change, experience spiritual renewal and soul-searching, and reduce the number of abortions, than that Islam will formally and finally renounce the abusive practice of polygamy.
Why? Because we don't think we're perfect - whereas Islam thinks that its barbaric system, that preserves and makes possible ugly things like polygamy, child marriage, wife-beating and stoning of women (including pregnant rape victims whose rapists can get off scot free due to sharia's bizarre and unfair laws about rape), is absolutely perfect.
I should add - because we in 'the west' don't think we're perfect to start with, we are open to change, and able to change. We are free to fall into sin - but we are also free to rise. Nothing says that our present 'abortion epidemic' (which has only got going in the past 50 years or less, whereas polygamy has been entrenched within Islam for 1350 years!) *must* or *will* continue.
Whereas Islam is so convinced that it's perfect already - no matter how abominable so many of its practices are, in the eyes of sane and decent outsiders - that it refuses the very idea of change. It will cling obstinately to polygamy like it clings to so much else.
Nonie Darwish once said, 'being Arab means never having to say you're sorry'.
Here in an article called "What a Muslim Learned on Yom Kippur", is her dissection of the pathological unwillingness of Arab/Muslim societies to acknowledge personal or group responsibility for wrongdoing, an unwillingness that cripples them:
"To admit one’s flaws and mistakes, to correct and repent, challenges a person of any nationality.
" In Muslim culture, however, it is inconceivable.
"To acknowledge one's shortcomings before first blaming others would bring deep shame and dishonor not only to the individual but to his or her entire family.
"Those who admit fault, even unintentional guilt, are regarded as foolish. If the mistake is a cultural taboo, one's reputation may be scarred for life and the perpetrator might end up brutally punished.
"In Arab {Muslim} society, I was discouraged from sinning out of fear of a wrathful God – and fear of society's cruel punishment, which awaited sinners right here on earth.
"There was no reward for loving humanity as whole, striving to improve oneself, and bringing out the best in the human spirit.
Many aimed only to please brutal dictators, currying favor and wealth at the expense of their fellow Arabs {fellow Muslims}.
"Such widespread corruption in a religious society may seem paradoxical. But in Friday prayers at the mosque, no one mentioned the common sin of wronging one’s neighbor, of stepping on him in a rush to self-promotion. Evil was always out there, never in here.
"Arabs {Arab Muslims} talked eagerly of old glory and the Middle East’s contributions to the world, but they refused to tolerate discussion of what their communities can do to end terrorism.
"Those who had the courage to be self-critical were harshly punished.
"Many others feared shame – and having to face uncomfortable truths – surrounding the negative aspects in Arab and Muslim culture."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1EC4D8C9-FB6C-4EDE-A880-7A24F4145117
Duncan Bayne -
nicely disingenuous question there.
Presumably you mean that a society that permits "gay marriage", has no right to forbid Muslims from practising polygamy.
I'm sorry.
I don't agree with you.
The 'gay marriage' lobby seems to want to allow for one male and one male, or one female and one female, to enter a publicly-sworn, publicly witnessed one-on-one relationship, ideally permanent, with reciprocal legal obligations, analogous to those applying to classical western monogamy.
I am a Christian and I take a 'lesser of two evils' approach to gay marriage - if two gay people seriously intend to live in a faithful and permanent relationship, and do in fact do so, I view that as much less harmful psychologically and socially than if they were, for example, cruising the bath houses.
I may add that I have a (non-Christian) lesbian female cousin who lives with her female partner; they employed AI so that my cousin could bear a child, whom they are raising together.
If a gay guy wanted a 'harem' of two or three or five other guys, or a gay female wanted a 'harem', I'd argue that the pro-monogamy position in our existing laws should forbid that just as firmly as it forbids a man from taking multiple wives, or for that matter, a woman from taking multiple husbands. (Not all convicted bigamists have been men).
In any case: 'gay marriage' is part of the internal dialogue of the 'west', as it experiments, fails, and self-corrects. Read the Phaedrus.
On the other hand: Muslim polygamy is an integral part of an entirely different, alien, uniquely inflexible and hostile gestalt; a gestalt that intends not coexistence but CONQUEST.
It's the camel's nose in the tent. If it manages to get itself recognised here, it will be the thin end of the wedge for forcing recognition of sharia law, which in its entirety totally negates all the key principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I reject Muslim polygamy because I reject sharia as a whole.
When I said 'read the Phaedrus' I should also have said, 'read Plato's "Symposium', the speeches by 'Aristophanes', which is one source for the whole romantic idea of the 'soul-mate'", be that 'soul-mate' same-sex or opposite-sex."
"I do not believe that the western civilisation as lessons to give to the islamic world as the western civilisation is nowadays a genocide civilisation (abortion: millions of legal assassination every year, disabled people loose their right to be born, ...) to a larger extent than the islamic world.
Polygamy is VERY BAD, but it is just a straw in regards of the abortion genocide BEAM."
Posted by: Coaltaxopeuh
To dumbeldore's army: it's pointless to try to reason with a religious fanatic like this one; he/she clearly isn't very well-educated (can't spell, can't write grammatically, commits the unforgivable offense of mixing obscure metaphors) and spouts views as extremist and irrational as both the Islamists and the loony far-Left. "Genocide civilization" indeed. Don't live here, then, if you feel that way! No one will miss you.
Dumbledoresarmy,
I agree fully with you on the fact that the Western civilisation has a much higher level of respect of the persons than Islam: free will (volonty), equality, ...
I am also happy that people efficient in arguing (as you seem to be) defend our freedom (of speech, of religion, of ...) against a slow "dhimmisation".
It is very probably true that the islamic systems forces directly or indirectly several woman to have an abortion. It is certainly true that countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran shall lie on this topic.
Indeed my text above "says" to stop fighting against polygamy, we should firt fight against abortion.
I wrote that, but I did not mean that.
I mean: Keep fighting against polygamy here and there, but start fighting with the same efficiency against abortion!
I was certainly not doing "tu quoque" nor "culpabilisation". I spoke just about straw (or flaw?) and beam according to Jesus: get first the beam out of your eye (abortion) before getting the straw (or flaw? even if polygamy is more another beam) out of the eye of your neighbour.
I do not agree with you when you write that the West can change on abortion without political actions and argumentation.
I am sure you realise that abortion here is FULLY helping islamisation (and dhimmisation) in London, Milan, Paris, Bruxelles. (It is not therefor that I am against abortion, but it is a good argument).
To Coaltaxopeuh, Abortion is not the problem it is a sypmtom. Quit whining about it. And quit whining that divorce is too easy. High divorce rates, like abortion, are a sypmtomof a loarger problem. I speak from experience on both counts. Both decisions were very difficult for me to make. I could go on about it, but I won't. Stop with the judgements on topics you don't appear to understand. Banning abortion, and making divorce more difficult than it already is will NOT solve our muslim/sharia problem. Got it?
PS to dumbledorsamry: Well said! All of it!
Dear Angloirishslav,
I am not stupid, I am only a foreigner.
My first language is French (home and most of my education), my second language is Dutch (three years of university), my third language is Italian (one year of university) and my forth language is English.
At school, I had only ONE year of English two hours a week when I was 14 - 15 year old. It is because I prefered (we had the choice in my country) to learn Latin and Ancient Greek.
So I make several mistakes in English. Is this a reason to insult me?
The real topic is that you do not agree with me about abortion. Just try to accept people with another opinion. Just look at corpses of abortion on Internet if you really want to know what abortion is about.
You write that I am a fanatic. I am certainly not. If you were really pro-choice, you would encourage the mothers to let their embryo-children choose if they want to live or not when they will be old enough to choose alone. Thus, I am really pro-choice (of the most concerned ones) and pro-life. You are pro-choice of the powerfull ones against the choice of the weak ones.
Sorry for the disgression, it is just because I felt insulted.
Linked to the polygamy topic, there has been in France, Lille, a marriage between two muslims that has been annulled by a French tribunal because ... the woman was not anymore virgin ... and the virginity was an essential element of the marriage for the husband.
Several persons question on the reciprocity problem: was the man "puceau" (male virgin). It cannot be demonstrated ... If the muslim men can require virginity of their women for the marriage, how could the reciprocity thereof be demonstrated? Compromissing photos of the past life of the man? Shall it be specific enough?
Conclusion: it is a new limitation of the rights of muslim women in comparison with the rights of their muslim men
This might be a new dhimmisation of France.
P.S. To all people with English as native language: try to understand that there is no link between unability to write correctly in English and stupidity. If you do not understand it, just try to discuss as I do on a forum in your forth (third foreign) language.
If we are speaking generally of marriage laws then serial marriage and easy divorce is pertinant. If we are speaking of societal breakdown and lack of compassion in relationships then abortion is pertinant.
Since we are speaking of polygamy and what seems to be a willful denial of a canadian imam who has decided to openly, brazenly scoff at the laws of the nation where he has taken up residence this is what I think.
If the nation of canada would prefer to have polygamy then change your laws to reflect that, if not then enforce the laws. It is not rocket science.
Good Lord, we're not having a discussion about "soulmates" in Plato's Symposium are we?
This reaction by the Honorable Ted McMeekin is not surprising: a politician practicing taqqiya, how shocking.
To acknowledge that a problem exists, and to do something about it are two different levels of commitment. This is the same government that paid the previous CEO of a public utility 1.5 million dollars per year, discovered that he was hiding $45,000 in illegitimate spending on his secretary's credit card (called embezzlement by any other organization) and allowed said CEO to resign, with a golden handshake of $2.5 million. So don't be surprised if Dalton and the boys do absolutely nothing about this one.
The principle is simple - if a law exists, it should be enforced, regardless of who has broken it, otherwise the law becomes meaningless. If the law doesn't make sense, then it should be modified, but only after due process and rigorous debate, and a firm understanding of the fundamental principles upon which it is based. I have yet to see an argument anywhere, from history, or logic, that makes polygamy a good idea.
And I totally agree that the use of personal insults is beneath all of us who attend this website. In writing this response, I had to self censor my feelings with respect to this current liberal administration and politicians in general.
Finally, if you disagree with the Ontario liberal government, then write the offending parties and politely disagree.
My husband was traveling a few weeks ago and brought home a copy of the Houston, Texas Chronicle. I ran accross this story in the "Religion" section--this was just as the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints "Yearning for Zion" polygamy and forced underage marriage story was breaking.
"Who's to Say What a Sect is?"
. . .Buns and long dresses . . . it's interesting like hijab is interesting, which means it could be a catalyst for dialogue or criticism.
You could dismiss it as "pioneer style" or you could praise it as modest. I feel for those women.
I've begun to wonder about my opinion of the FLDS group--both the religion and the practitioners. I had judged them on media reports about the alleged evils they committed, the way they treated their women,
and especially the polygyny. Isn't that what Muslimns always complain about? Hasn't it become a kind of mantra for Muslims, that people judge us based on biased media coverage, that if they only had the chance to learn about our religion they would truly understand and accept us?
. . . It seems clear that removing hundreds of women and children from their homes is a questionable choice, and I know exactly what I would think if it were Muslims being treated that way.
I know that if I saw a line of women wearing long dresses and scarves holding children by the hand as they were herded onto buses, I would wonder why our explanations and denials left us still so grossly misunderstood.
I would wonder what it takes to validate a religious practice in a country offering a fundamental right to free practice of religion."
So who is writing this anguished plea for understanding modest women? Ruth Nasrallah, who appears in severe black hijab in her accompanying photo. She writes a blog called "The Straight Path" for HoustonBelief.com.
I'm sure Ms. Nasrallah has been thrilled by the recent Texas courts decision to return all the children to the compound, because there are no legal records proving polygamy or underage marriage. That this sect--like Muslims--does not recognize the laws of the state does not seem to have crossed the minds of authorities in Texas or Ontario.
It's harder to fight an evil when so many refuse to even acknowledge the problem exists.
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/06/re-ontario-turns-blind-eye-to-polygamy.html