Religion changing Canadian law - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

tjinaz · 09-09-2005, 11:12 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168865,00.html

Scary stuff.

Red · 09-09-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tjinaz@Sep 9 2005, 10:12 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168865,00.html

Scary stuff.

If a minority wants it minority gets it. That's the Canadian way.

Scary stuff? Sure, but we can't discriminate agains those people, that wouldn't be nice.

________
BLACK ASIAN

Cheese · 09-09-2005, 02:49 PM

If Catholics can force millions NOT to use contraception why cant we allow this? Hypocracy of one religious element calling anothers law absurd!
How about we ban all religions or simply make 100% sure they have no say or place in politics whatsoever!

Ontario has allowed Catholic and Jewish tribunals to settle family law matters on a voluntary basis since 1991. The practice got little attention until Muslim leaders demanded the same rights.

Now officials must decide whether to exclude one religion, or scrap the whole idea of religious family courts.

What bloody absurdity!

jonesy · 09-09-2005, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cheese@Sep 9 2005, 08:49 PM
If Catholics can force millions NOT to use contraception why cant we allow this? ..... What bloody absurdity!

hold on there a minute, Catholics are not forcing anyone to do anything. If you are a Catholic you are supposed to follow their tenants, but if you don't like it, you don't have to be a Catholic.

I assume the millions they are 'forcing' are willing Catholics.

Bobblehead · 09-09-2005, 04:08 PM

It is VOLUNTARY.

If both sides agree to abide by the ruling, then I say go for it. If it is women's rights that they are worried about, then the women don't have to VOLUNTEER to abide by the ruling. It sounds to me like this is something where both sides must agree in the first place before it will even occur, or else it will go into the public court (if I'm reading that wrong, let me know). As long as the rulings do not contravene any other laws, and neither party is coerced into accepting the religious route, then anything that frees up the court system can't be all bad.

Vulcan · 09-09-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bobblehead@Sep 9 2005, 03:08 PM
It is VOLUNTARY.

If both sides agree to abide by the ruling, then I say go for it. If it is women's rights that they are worried about, then the women don't have to VOLUNTEER to abide by the ruling. It sounds to me like this is something where both sides must agree in the first place before it will even occur, or else it will go into the public court (if I'm reading that wrong, let me know). As long as the rulings do not contravene any other laws, and neither party is coerced into accepting the religious route, then anything that frees up the court system can't be all bad.

I agreed with you on first thought, but the end of your statement is the crux for me. I can see women being coerced by their religious leaders, if they want to remain good Catholics, Jews or Moslems.

Resolute 14 · 09-09-2005, 05:33 PM

And that is the problem entirely: Forcing a woman to choose her god (as interpreted by others) or her human rights is going to see human rights lose almost every time. It is voluntary in name only as only the strongest of women will be willing to stand up for their rights. Nothing good can come out of this, and quite frankly, I am not certian how this is even constitutional, as it is a very clear violation of the seperation of curch and state.

This idea should never have been considered, and it should be abandoned. The use of Christian and Jewish religious tribunals should be eliminated for the very same reason.

Bobblehead · 09-09-2005, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vulcan@Sep 9 2005, 05:20 PM
I can see women being coerced by their religious leaders, if they want to remain good Catholics, Jews or Moslems.

Coersion occurs in some religions more than others. I just don't know that you can say certain religions have rights that aren't available to others.

Edit: Yeah, what Snakeeye said. But I like the idea of reducing the court load in ways like this, and the idealist in me wishes there was a way. The realist in me doesn't see one without a whole new level of beaurocracy which may be worse than the problem.

Devils'Advocate · 09-09-2005, 05:50 PM

I just worry about women being coerced into this. Or face rejection from their community. In the words of Rick Mercer, there's nothin' like a good shunnin'.

All the women that I have met that wear a hijab claim that they wear it of their own volition. But I doubt it. There is a lot of cultural pressure put on them to wear it. The guys can wear pretty much what they want and the women have to cover up. The Quran doesn't even make it an obligation.. it is a suggestion because men cannot control themselves around beautiful women. Older muslim women are exempt from the rules because:
"Such elderly women as are past the prospect of marriage, there is no blame on them if they lay aside their (outer) garments, provided they make not wanton display of their beauty"

Blame? Sounds like that "She shouldn't have worn that dress!" defence.

But despite it being a suggestion to avoid the sin of men, most still wear the hijab. Why? Oh, they claim "wanting to stay connected to their religion and culture" or "they choose of their own free will to follow the suggestion of the Quran".

But when I speak to the ones that *DON'T* wear the hijab I hear a completely different story. Typically these women have either been excommunicated from their parents or their parents don't know. One of my best friends doesn't wear the hijab here in Canada, but when she goes back to Africa to see her mother she does. As far as her mother is concerned, she wears it all the time. There is pressure from family, friends and the whole muslim community for their women to conform to all Islamic tradition. INCLUDING Shariah.

A good essay on what this all means is here:
http://www.equalityiniraq.com/htm/hayder020104.htm

MarchHare · 09-09-2005, 06:25 PM

I'm torn on this issue.

Naturally I agree this is going to lead to human rights violations and coercion, but if we allow it for Catholics and Jews, by all rights we should allow it for Muslims.

I'm in complete agreement with Snakeeye, though, and think the Ontario government should not allow it for all three religions.

Resolute 14 · 09-09-2005, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bobblehead@Sep 9 2005, 04:38 PM
Edit: Yeah, what Snakeeye said. But I like the idea of reducing the court load in ways like this, and the idealist in me wishes there was a way. The realist in me doesn't see one without a whole new level of beaurocracy which may be worse than the problem.

There is a way. There is no reason why they can't set up a seperate tribunal or arbitrary process for these family cases outside of the courts. The catch is, it has to be religiously neutral.

The second catch, of course, is that it is merely another layer of beurocracy.

Mike F · 09-09-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snakeeye+Sep 9 2005, 04:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Sep 9 2005, 04:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And that is the problem entirely: Forcing a woman to choose her god (as interpreted by others) or her human rights is going to see human rights lose almost every time. [/b]

Women wouldn't have to choose between God and human rights -- these arbitration panels would still be branches of the Canadian goverment (established under the Ontario Arbitration Act) and are threrfore subject to the Charter.

<!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye
and quite frankly, I am not certian how this is even constitutional, as it is a very clear violation of the seperation of curch and state.
[/quote]
That's the US.

Canada doesn't have a Constitutionally mandated separation of Church and State.

As per Wikipedia: "Again like most countries, the specific form of separation unique to the US does not apply here. There is no restriction on government funding of 'faith-based' activities."

Tower · 09-09-2005, 07:01 PM

I have no issues with that, or any religion as long as it does not break civil rights of people, women and children. Right now however - women still get too many rights with divorce anyway. They say it's equal and it's written "equal" but not practiced "equal".

FireFly · 09-09-2005, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tower@Sep 9 2005, 07:01 PM
I have no issues with that, or any religion as long as it does not break civil rights of people, women and children. Right now however - women still get too many rights with divorce anyway. They say it's equal and it's written "equal" but not practiced "equal".

And men still make more money.... your point? The right to even HAVE a divorce is something that women don't get in Muslim religions, unless I am wrong... only the men can ask for one if their wife is perceived as sleeping around.

Patek23 · 09-09-2005, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FireFly+Sep 9 2005, 06:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FireFly @ Sep 9 2005, 06:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Tower@Sep 9 2005, 07:01 PM
I have no issues with that, or any religion as long as it does not break civil rights of people, women and children. Right now however - women still get too many rights with divorce anyway. They say it's equal and it's written "equal" but not practiced "equal".

And men still make more money.... your point? The right to even HAVE a divorce is something that women don't get in Muslim religions, unless I am wrong... only the men can ask for one if their wife is perceived as sleeping around. [/b][/quote]
When a women can sit on her ass for 10 years while her husband is working hard and saves up a small fortune, then they decide to divorce because now the man is home and with increased time together they don't get along, they go to divorce and she get's half that money,the house and the car. How is that percieved as fair? If a women wants to make more money than a man than she can get off her royal ass and get a job. When women get the job over men it's equal opportunity, when they don't it's because of sexism, how does that one work too?

Mike F · 09-09-2005, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Flaming Homer@Sep 9 2005, 06:59 PM
When a women can sit on her ass for 10 years while her husband is working hard and saves up a small fortune, then they decide to divorce because now the man is home and with increased time together they don't get along, they go to divorce and she get's half that money,the house and the car. How is that percieved as fair?

It's fair because if a man stays at home on his ass for 10 years while his wife works hard and saves up a small fortune, then they decide to divorce he get's half that money,the house and the car.

Just because it rarely happens doesn't mean it can't.

FireFly · 09-09-2005, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Flaming Homer@Sep 9 2005, 07:59 PM
When a women can sit on her ass for 10 years while her husband is working hard and saves up a small fortune, then they decide to divorce because now the man is home and with increased time together they don't get along, they go to divorce and she get's half that money,the house and the car. How is that percieved as fair? If a women wants to make more money than a man than she can get off her royal ass and get a job. When women get the job over men it's equal opportunity, when they don't it's because of sexism, how does that one work too?

Bitter much? Women don't generally 'sit on their ass' for 10 years while men make small fortunes. Generally they are busy taking care of children. And if you don't think that's a full time job, boy are you sadly mistaken. And if you don't think a woman deserves half after putting up with a man's BS for 10 years, you're sadly mistaken.

I have a job, and I've supported boyfriends before. It goes both ways. And when a man and a woman both get the same job with the same qualifications, and the woman makes (on average) only 80% of what the man does, yes, that's sexist.

Dude. One female who would take you for everything does not the sex make. Get over your bitterness and find someone who isn't like that. Not all of us are.

Resolute 14 · 09-09-2005, 10:31 PM

Mike - fair enough on your second point, but on your first, I am not convinced.

Certantly the panels would be subject to the charter, just how much attention does the Ontario government actaully pay to these panels? Is it the responsibility of a person who feels that they are mistreated by such a panel to complain? If that is the case, then the charter goes right out the window.

transplant99 · 09-10-2005, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Canada doesn't have a Constitutionally mandated separation of Church and State.

Funny I would read this today.

just yesterday i was the local red Cross helping load some relief supplies. One of the guys that was there is a poli-sci major and is wanting to specialize in constitutional law when all is said and done.

he made it very clear at one point that the "seperation of church and state" is penned NO WHERE in the US constitution.

I obviously haven't had the time to do any research on it, but i was astounded to hear this...anyone else heard such a claim before?

HOZ · 09-10-2005, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 10 2005, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Canada doesn't have a Constitutionally mandated separation of Church and State.

Funny I would read this today.

just yesterday i was the local red Cross helping load some relief supplies. One of the guys that was there is a poli-sci major and is wanting to specialize in constitutional law when all is said and done.

he made it very clear at one point that the "seperation of church and state" is penned NO WHERE in the US constitution.

I obviously haven't had the time to do any research on it, but i was astounded to hear this...anyone else heard such a claim before?

No he is wrong. It is the ONLy constitution to have is stated explicitly!