They'll be back with a smaller bite on Canadian culture, I'm sure.

Islam is in Canada to be the predominate religion and to have Sharia Law the law of the land.

They never give up.

Posted by: a10billr at May 27, 2005 9:43 AM

Vive la belle province!

Posted by: Kepha at May 27, 2005 9:45 AM

It is temporary their immigration policies do not allow for anything other than Kanada becoming kandastan

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at May 27, 2005 10:08 AM

Its good to see commonsence prevail in Canada. This is a good day for Canada. Though these Islamic fundamental groups may try again, I think Canadian legislatures have opened their eyes and are beginning to see what is going on here.

Now if we can just get CAIR representative John Conyers to sit down and read the Quran before he tries to get authorities involved in trying to muzzle any critisizm of the Quran and Islam in his house resolution.

Please notice in World Net Daily http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?RTICLE_ID=44478 today that in Conyers resolution he is asking local authorities to do something about people who critisize the Quran, be weary that this is a sneaky way to get local government to go beyond resolutions and possibly make laws to protect the Quran from being critisized.

Posted by: Mackie at May 27, 2005 10:19 AM

The refusal to allow ANY religion into government is of the highest priority and Quebec acted justly.

Its bad enough that we have such perfusion of Christian doctrine in the US government (and its getting worse by the day thanks to Dubya and his henchmen).

I have already refused to swear on a bible when taking an oath - I'd rather swear on a copy of the Constitution.

The wall between church and state is another crucial measure human kind has to take if we are to prevent ALL SORTS of religious extremism.

Posted by: KingTolerance at May 27, 2005 11:01 AM

Even as a non-theist, really, I don't know about that KT.

The absence of some kind of religion is - and always will be - seen as some kind of weakness by islam, and islamicists. A vacuum to be exploited. And hated. It's inevitably one of the things islamicists whine about.

I think I'd sooner have at least a nominal Christianity than nothing at all - so long as there's no interference with human rights.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at May 27, 2005 12:25 PM

The absence of some kind of religion is - and always will be - seen as some kind of weakness by islam, and islamicists. A vacuum to be exploited. And hated. It's inevitably one of the things islamicists whine about.

Well said Geoff.

There are so many brilliant minds on this site.

Posted by: Zico at May 27, 2005 1:56 PM

Kingtolerance:

America's founding fathers established the Declaration of Independence and the American constitution based of Christian values.

Posted by: Mackie at May 27, 2005 2:09 PM

I understand and share the concerns that lead to the need for this site, but I'm not sure that I agree with this particular decision.

I am in no way comparing Islam with any other religion, but the fact is that in a democracy it is difficult to place restrictions on one, no matter how much they are justified, without placing them on the others. It sounds bad to allow "a strategy to isolate the Muslim community", but if we apply the policy to other communities, it has the effect of enforcing assimilation, which we in the Jewish community have been facing to the point of extinction.

I don't know about Canada, but the fact is that in the United States it is in fact possible to settle disputes in a Jewish Tribunal (called a "Bes Din") under the aegis of the binding arbitration system designed to relieve the burden on the Courts. These are entirely voluntary, requiring the consent of both parties, and obviously do not have the power to rule in opposition to the law of the land. But they do suggest compromises based on the principles of Jewish Law.

I would hate to have such a right taken away because the Moslems abuse it. And I suspect that this ruling is more a reflection on Quebec, where the State is *not* separated from the Catholic Church, than it is a reflection on the value of the system.

Posted by: saychel at May 27, 2005 2:25 PM

Mackie cliched: "America's founding fathers established the Declaration of Independence and the American constitution based of Christian values."

King responds: Ding! Ding! Ding! Mackie gets the prize for bringing up this age-old cliche from the religious right. May I remind you, Mackie, that our founding fathers also made it very clear that our government is to observe a clear deliniation of church and state?

Geoff opined: "I think I'd sooner have at least a nominal Christianity than nothing at all - so long as there's no interference with human rights."

King responds: Of course you think this way!

Posted by: KingTolerance at May 27, 2005 3:49 PM

Geoff opined: "I think I'd sooner have at least a nominal Christianity than nothing at all - so long as there's no interference with human rights."

King responds: Of course you think this way!

And why do you think that way, KT?

Geoff is a secularist and said so. So I am curious to understand what your reasoning is.

Posted by: Gary at May 27, 2005 3:58 PM

Ding! Ding! Ding! KT has been brainwashed in one of our institutions of higher learning where he was given revisionist history.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 27, 2005 4:03 PM

The National Post has a more detailed article on this issue in today's paper. The link is:

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7d268ffa-8cc2-4272-adaa-1fb780adad29

As of 4:30 p.m. eastern time, it wasn't a subscription story.

Posted by: johnb at May 27, 2005 4:26 PM

johnb:

Thanks,I was about to post that same
article.

Those going to the Post story should take note of the reference to a 1991 conference in Washington DC where the financing Saudi's
picked Canada as the Western Country to estabilish Shariah-Law to stem the protests
for reform to a moderate Islamic rule without
Shariah as the basis for Court decission.

Several Muslim groups have denied any funding by Saudis to promote Islam and Shariah,this after several Muslims exposed Wahabbi based courses in Canadian Mosques and North American Conventions
disguised as "Anti-Islamophobic" to educate us infidels on the true Quranic tenets.

Posted by: ala-sux at May 27, 2005 7:26 PM

Yes, I'm curious to see why KT thinks this way also. Do you feel the same? And what about the issue of "state" religion vs. international (islamic) opinion on such religion?

I agree unconditionally with Zico, however - I am indeed brilliant. =)

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at May 27, 2005 8:49 PM

For many years now I've been reading that Islam is the only tolerated dissent in Arab nations, and the mosque is the only venue for protest against the injustices of Arab dictatorships, and so on.

I'm slowly beginning to have some uncomfortable sympathy for that concept. I'm finding that the only place for dissent against Islam is--outside of the Internet--churches. So long as one couches criticism of Islam in terms of religious competition things are vaguely fine, outside the dhimmi eucmenical old hippie love-fests that pass for religious establishment's services these days.

The churches-militant are so few and far away that it's not an easy task to find them on an average day; and it seems that there is only that option for the anti-jihad/anti-dhimmitude forum to speak freely in public without risking arrest for religious intolerance and inciting hatred. Unless, of course, one is in Australia where church is not a sanctuary at all for those who voice religious opinions against the wishes of Islam and the dhimmi justice system.

Outside of Australia, however, it seems still possible to speak ones mind on the nature of Islam without risking imprisonment. So far. but what does it mean for those of us not inclined to church-going, for whatever reason? Are we to be forced to attend churches to wage our battle against fascist Islam if we wish to do so in a public forum? I don't try it in coffee shops anymore. I certainly wouldn't try it at a university. If I were to stand on a public street corner with a picket sign denouncing some current Islamic travesty of Human rights I'm sure I'd be arrested on a pretext if nothing else. I begin to think that the only option for dissent against Islam is in some far away church.

I'm starting to feel hemmed in. I think I feel that my rights are curtailed to a point that I'm becoming unhappy and somewhat angry. I think something's wrong here. I think that if things don't change we'll find ourselves in a position where the voice of dissent will come only from churches, and that voice will be a strident and irrational vioce preaching things we might not waqnt to hear but have no place to counter it outside of churches. And maybe we'll be afraid to protest against the voices from the churches by then.

Or maybe I'll become one of those people I really don't like. Maybe I'm one of them already. Maybe I just don't care. Maybe I'm kind of sick of Islamic privlege and dhimmi cringeing and whineing. Maybe church isn't such a bad place for me after all. Maybe I'll see you there, and we can chat about stuff a bit.

Posted by: sonofwalker at May 28, 2005 1:24 AM

I would keep an eye on the neck of Fatima Houda-Pepin in the near future.

I don't think the Muslims in her region will be too thrilled with her affront to the 'true faith'. (Or her rejection of its superior legal system based upon the dictates of the 'one true' God.)

saychel-

The Sharia Law IS "in opposition to the law of the land", so your distinction doesn't apply.
It is a parallel 7th century set-up, with different legal formulas and outcomes.

Customs of the community differ, but without the glue of the Bill of Rights, we become Balkinized, weakened, and prey to any stronger belief system.

Why not return to Israel if you don't want to 'assimilate'? And defend the source of your truth at the root. Instead of feeling 'not at home' elsewhere?

I feel the same with anyone who doesn't want to be here. Go where your heart is.

We have enough half-hearted here already.

Posted by: BigSleep at May 28, 2005 1:33 AM

"The application of Sharia in Canada is part of a strategy to isolate the Muslim community, so it will submit to an archaic vision of Islam," said Fatima Houda-Pepin, the Liberal member of the legislature, as she introduced the motion.

"These demands are being pushed by groups in the minority that are using the Charter of Rights to attack the foundation of our democratic institutions."

This is nailing it! Right on the Bullseye.

Now, why can't Americans see as clearly as these Canadians??

Posted by: skidd at May 28, 2005 2:24 AM

"Islam is in Canada to be the predominate religion and to have Sharia Law the law of the land.

They never give up."

a10, Islam is in any nation that has them, to be the predominant religion and to have Sharia law the law of the land. USA included.

And they will eat away at your country one demand at a time, and breed at several times your native birthrate, and when they reach 25-30% of your population, they'll make their move. Your options then are:

1. Become an Islamic country.
2. Partition your country
3. Have a civil war, then partition your country.

This happened in India in 1947. They went with Option 3. After a series of bloody riots between the muslims and non-muslims, the country was partitioned into Pakistan, an islamic country, and India, a secular one.

These people are a timebomb.

Posted by: skidd at May 28, 2005 2:46 AM

>The Sharia Law IS "in opposition to the law of
>the land", so your distinction doesn't apply.
>It is a parallel 7th century set-up, with
>different legal formulas and outcomes.

I'm sure it covers a lot of ground. If two people agree to settle a property dispute according to 7th century principles, that shouldn't endanger the legal system.

>Customs of the community differ, but without
>the glue of the Bill of Rights, we become
>Balkinized, weakened, and prey to any stronger
>belief system.

If you can envision a belief system stronger than the Bill of Rights, then maybe we need to become stronger.

And I'm not suggesting allwoing the chopping off of hands. Our system, as one of many acceptable methods of binding arbitration allowed by law, certainly works within the system, obviously including the Bill of Rights.

>Why not return to Israel if you don't want to
>'assimilate'? And defend the source of your
>truth at the root. Instead of feeling 'not at
>home' elsewhere?

If a tree falls down on your propery line and damges both yoru cars, you and your neighbor may:

a) Sit down together and agree on what to do.
b) Ask a religious leader to help you come to an
agreement.
c) Hire lawyers and sue

None of the above are anti-American, or compromise American Law in any way.

>I feel the same with anyone who doesn't want to
>be here. Go where your heart is.

>We have enough half-hearted here already.

I understand your frustration with the many hyphenated-American groups who are missing the point about the American system. There is a fine line between rejecting assimilation and rejecting the country outright. But being a loyal American need not require becoming homogenized into a being that takes on aspects of many cultures but is true to none of them. It may not even be beneficial to become a nation of such people.

Posted by: saychel at May 31, 2005 3:58 PM