[size=18]Sharia move in Canada draws anger[/size]Women's rights activists are to march in 11 cities in Canada and Europe against plans to allow Sharia law tribunals in the province of Ontario.
Islamic law could be used to settle civil and marital disputes under a proposal made by former Ontario Attorney General Marion Boyd.
Roman Catholic and Jewish arbitration tribunals already operate Ontario.
Opponents of Sharia law say allowing Islamic tribunals could lead to discrimination against women...
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4226758.stm]BBC News[/url]
Hmmm...
[b]Feminism:[/b] let us meddle in your affairs, but you betta keep out of ours!
And I am sure that the only time these tribunals will be called is when both parties agree to it...
Yes I am pretty sure that that is one of the conditions for implementation of this. Strange that even following sharia with secular law giving he backing and with all parties freely choosing to participate is still unpalatable to the deviant women.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
Whoa - from a legal standpoint I don't like the idea of [i]any[/i] religious courts getting sanction from the state...
Especially Sharia courts because that would be a fantastic tool (especially here) for the government to meddle with islamic affairs.
I don't like the direction of that at all - bad idea.
I am probably naiive here, But I would not expect the gov to meddle.
I just see this as shariah courts having a legal (and equal with judaic/catholic courts) standing if differing parties decide they need to use them.
Or is this a way to legitimise meddling?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
See that's what I think. The US constitution (and I am sure the Canadian is like this as well) allows for the creation of new courts from time to time by the legislature - however they may control those courts through the legislature or by appointing higher courts over them.
Imagine for a moment a Sharia court in the US rightly declares a polygamists second marriage "legal" - the koran says it, so it's good to go. What happens on appeal by the state when that goes to the federal court of appeals where federal law dictates polygamy to be illegal?
It gets swatted down - and as a matter of common law from then on all lower courts must hold to that ruling.
Shariah courts included... if they are to be connected to the state like canada is doing.
To me that is a perfect way to whitewash western islamic priorities to make it look legit - and even if it doesn't should a shariah court in the US or Canada make a favorable ruling the Islamic world would assume it is to cater to their western masters and will be angry all the same.
Lose lose for westerners and muslims... I think it's a really bad idea.
Would you trust a shariah court that knows it has to answer to the state?
For you legal people in UK can you bring two wive to UK from abroad if both marriages are considered legal in the original country.
Eg A man has two wives legally and recognised by law in pakistan. Can he bring both wives to UK because I know for a fact that pakistan legal marriage is now recognised in UK so doesnt that mean you can ship both wives to uk? what about if u were feeling adventuroues and married 3 maybe even 4 times privded you could afford to look after them without resorting to dole money.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
dunno...
don't really care.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I think you missed the point of my example...
No. I get the point of your post dave. I was just asking generally.
What you are saying is that initially shariah court gives a correct islamic ruling. Then on appeal a higher court rules otherwise. In the next case the shariah court will necessarily HAVE to go along with the higher court. Yes?
Hence Shariah court will ultimately be controlled by the secular normal courts anyway so theres no real substance to them.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
I suppose there would be nothin wrong with them if they were religious courts and didn't have to answer to the State like they do here...
But those courts usual rule on matters of who is a muslim/jew/catholic. And religious rulings... they don't often float into the federal court structure except on the right of return cases for Jews.
The state claims no power in those instances and the courts are seperate.
Which I always though was kinda cool - you will see DA's trying to learn several thousand years worth of Talmud, Canon or Islamic law and argue succesfully.