Malaysia imposes dress code for non-muslims, THE FRENCH WAY

PM, you still don't get it do you? Canada is not a Muslim nation. While it has Muslim citizens, the country itself is not based on Muslim foundations. It's a bad idea. This would mean that the law is split up into different sections for each section of the community based on religious doctrines. And the way the law appears to be structed in Canada, if a Muslim is unhappy with a decision in the Sharia Court on a civil or divorce matter, they may still seek recourse from the Canadian Civil system. This is doomed to fail PM, I'm sorry, but with all due respect, it will end in unrest. The same kind of unrest as if Christians in a Muslim country insisted that they be allowed to operate a strict Christian legal doctrine. In one country there should only be one system of law in operation. Otherwise there is confusion and resentment on both sides of the spectrum.

The results could be catastrophic PM. You'd have some Muslims who decide to follow the Sharia Law and others prefer to follow the Canadian legal system. Those who choose not to follow Sharia Law may be persecuted by those who do follow it. Unrest can and will result. A law should not be followed by choice. It should be implemented to apply to the whole and not just the few. But I doubt that the Government in Canada could or would legally separate all Muslim Canadians from Canadian law to follow the civil system under the Sharia Law.

 

You're right PM, she is a hero for all men and women. And she was the only one really deserving to win the Nobel Peace Prize. But what angered me when she did was the uproar that she did not wear a hijab when she accepted it. It was her choice yet so many muslims protested against her not wearing it. I even heard some Christians complain about her not wearing it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Instead of praising her for her achievements, people concentrated on her not wearing the hijab

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

PM, you choose to refuse to even accept that there could be unrest then so be it. It's not my job to convince you. Personally I dont think this will work. and you ask about freedom of choice? How much freedom of choice will the Muslims who choose to not follow Sharia Law actually have? How do you think the general Muslim community receive that if they are fully observing the Sharia Law? Don't you think that the non-Sharia practicing Muslims will face some backlash from their Muslim neighbours and friends and family? Give me a break PM, you are blind to the true reality of what can occur in Canada. I was not saying that the laws were making Canada a Muslim country. I was just saying that such a practice will most likely fail because it is only to apply to the Muslims who choose to follow it. And the Canadian Courts will also be wasting time and resources in cases where they end up having to order some Muslims to follow the Sharia Law ruling.

I'm not approaching this from an 'us versus Muslim' thing here PM, I'm approaching it from a legal standpoint. Canada already has a legal system and a Constitution, you can't now split that up for any particular group (be they Christian, Jewish or Muslim) to allow one group or other to follow their own laws within the Canadian borders while ignoring the national laws altogether. This means that as has been the case in Australia in the link that Lucy supplied, if one party refuses to follow the religious law, the Canadian Courts may be put in the position to force that person to follow that law, regardless of the national civil law that exists in Canada. It is not for the Canadian Court to be handing down religious rulings. That goes against the doctrine of separation of Church and State.

And Lucy thank you so much for that article. It seems we here in Australia are still and will continue to be having battles in the High Court as to whether s116 of our Constitution would even allow a Federal Court to enforce a religious observance. And here I thought there was a doctrine of separation of Church and State in this country

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. And I have heard of this case before but because I'm not involved in family law, I just tend to glance over it and look away.

 

Proud_Muslim:

I could so easily accuse you of the same thing, but I don't need to. It comes out in every post you make.

A few errors there. It was <b>me</b> who first posted the per capita statistics, actually. You didn't even appreciate the difference between a per capita stat and a raw stat until I explained it to you. And you still don't get the point about the limited validity of crime statistics. I have explained this point carefully to you six times now, but you still don't seem to understand. And if you want the UN's view rather than mine, well, I gave it to you, remember? Read the quote from the page you found yourself containing the statistics - you know, the part which I put in bold in a previous part and which backs up what I was saying 100%.

I have never claimed superiority for my "western life style". Nor have I been preaching. I have been trying to convince you to examine some of your prejudices.

Been there, done that.

 

Bells:

I think I understand where Lucysnow is coming from too. Thanks for the references, though. I will be interested to read them when I have some time.


Lucysnow:

Yes, I know that. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. Perhaps with an election coming up this year, the US people should consider changing their President for somebody with more respect for international law.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In reality, the US cannot completely ignore the UN. Other countries are watching what the US does, and they exert pressure on it in subtle and also more obvious ways. The US cannot exempt itself from the world community, however much it may want to. It has to trade with other nations, and therefore the opinions of other nations have an impact on its actions. The UN as a body acts as at least a small brake on the US's (and other countries') ability to adopt a total "might is right" international policy.

True.

No. I would argue it is actually a small counter-weight <b>against</b> global imperialism.

Exactly. What you do is get alternative ideas into the culture, and let them propagate by themselves. You can't really impose these things by force. You have to provide people with information, and eventually they will come around to the right choices themselves - most of the time, anyway.

Of course I can see, and I take your point. None of this is news to me, Lucysnow. As I said before, I think we agree about much more than you think.

Yes, but I'm not talking of individuals specifically here, but progressions in societal attitudes. These things are gradual.

Yes, even often unaware that there may be an alternative.

I'm not sure if polygamy is necessarily a bad thing. Where's the harm?

Again, it is difficult to argue generically that all arranged marriages are bad. You can't really compare these things to something like rape, which is universally agreed to be a bad thing.

There are multiple layers here. When you talk about mistreatment of a wife by her husband, many factors could be at work. Possibilities include:

1. The wife believes such treatment is acceptable.
2. The husband believes such treatment is acceptable.
3. The wife is educated about women's rights, but has no escape from her situation due to the nature of her society or particular cirumstances.
4. The husband is aware of women's rights in the abstract, but believes his own whims take precedence, for whatever reason (perhaps religious reasons, perhaps pure selfishness or disregard for others).
5. The husband is aware of women's rights in the abstract, but does not accept them as valid for religious reasons.

How do we deal with these possibilities? In some cases, education may help. In others, the finger should be pointed at the society or laws which condone the immoral behaviour.

That last point is important. Making something legal does not make it moral. Laws should always be judged by whether they are morally right.There is actually a moral duty to disobey an immoral law. How do we decide what is moral or immoral? The only defensible way is through <b>reason</b>. Religion is authority-based, and authority is the very thing we're examining when we look at law. Reason is the deeper, more fundamental, level here.

Jimmy's childhood cannot excuse Jimmy's violence, even if it partially explains it. Education may help Jimmy to recognise his propensity to take out his frustration in a violent manner. Of course, the normal reaction to domestic violence (if there is a reaction at all) is to simply lock Jimmy up in jail, where if he learns anything it will probably be how to be a better criminal. Maybe we should re-think our approach, don't you think?

A person can dislike whomever they like, for whatever reason they like. We don't have thought police. It is only where that dislike leads to an impingement on the freedom or rights of another person (such as a member of the disliked group) that we need to take action.

I think that's an extreme. But, if it comes to that, then I would certainly advocate overriding national sovereignty if it meant that the citizens of that nation get to live according to the standard of human rights they would wish to have were they given free choice in the matter.

And before you respond to this by saying "what if they want a religiously oppressive society", ask yourself whether it can ever be said people really want that. In such situations, it is always particular group who benefits from oppression at the expense of another group.

I agree that the US, in particular, should stop blundering into other countries without first attempting to learn about the culture they are dealing with.

Well, to use your examples, actually there is much condemnation from other countries of the US on issues of racism, lack of universal health care, and neglect of the environment. I suspect the difference you really have in mind here is backing up the condemnation with physical force. Clearly, the Danish cannot attack the US if it does something Denmark doesn't like.

At least US citizens get a say at each election.

Such organisations already exist.

I agree, but I would also like to see a more even distribution of wealth among nations. The world as a whole could easily end starvation globally if the will was there.

This supports my point.

Sad, but true. This is the age-old problem of putting selfish interests ahead of humanitarian concerns.

You'll get no argument from me about that.

 

Excuse me while I scream...

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!