First Steps Taken Towards Sharia Law In Canada

[George OTJ]

I was everywhere and saw a lot. Some things, like this absurd request can happen only in Canada. How about this: come to Saudi Arabia and tell them that you recognize only Canadian law. I guarantee that you will get into deep trouble, not only in SA, but in almost all countries around a world.

Bottomline: in my house, my rules apply. Allowing things like this will lead to anarchy, it has nothing to do with democracy.

With all due respect, your post is nonsense. If you'd ready the article, you'd know that's not what the Canadian Muslims are purposing.

Bottomline: in my country, my country's rules apply. If you don't like it, you can move your house elsewhere! I'd rather have a democracy open to new ideas, then a closed-minded dictatorship.

 

[johnhenrygalt]

I was everywhere and saw a lot. Some things, like this absurd request can happen only in Canada. How about this: come to Saudi Arabia and tell them that you recognize only Canadian law. I guarantee that you will get into deep trouble, not only in SA, but in almost all countries around a world.

This is not true. Almost every properly written contract contains a "choice of law" clause. You can go any country in the world with a modern legal system, and if both parties AGREE that the laws of Swaiziland shall apply, the courts will apply the laws of Swaiziland. If the parties did not stipulate which law applies, then the court applies its own law. Moreover, all modern legal systems recognise binding arbitration as a legitimate and enforceable method of alternative dispute resolution.

 

[oldjones]

cid thanks for the PoliSci 101 (which I took BTW). But neither this thread, nor cave and I were talking about liberalism, at least not until cave disqualified the dictionary as any insight into his phrase "our secular liberal society". Apparently for that one must have PoliSci 101—and agree with the unmentioned differences between classical and modern liberalism in order to grok his full meaning. But strangely his "liberal" would seem to include the coercive power of society being used to either muzzle or remove dissidents. Granted he didn't say as much, but how else would the desired end—making those "completely unhappy" immigrants stop asking for change—be achieved? Definitely sounds like a) illiberal state oppression of individuals and b) completely irrelevant to any academic distinctions between flavours of liberal, themselves irrelevant to the thread.
Thanks to liberals—same root as "liberty"—we immigrants have freedom to express our dissatisfaction with what we find and to propose and advocate better. That's a sine qua non of "our secular liberal society" to me.

 

[George OTJ]

but I don't want them to bring their crap.

Amen! Peace to all, and to all, a good night.

 

[Cave Carson]

Oldjones!

... is somehow a statement that these folks weren't your ancestors?

They weren't my ancestors. And even if they were my ancestors, I wouldn't be responsible for their actions. And the whole question of who my ancestors were is irrelevant in the first place. Is that clear enough for you?

You say that, like Alice in Wonderland I'm to understand that when you use a word like "liberal" it means just what you intend it to mean, so I am not to trust the dictionary....

Forgive me. I didn't realize that the sum total of your knowledge of the meaning of political terms came from perusing "Alice in Wonderland" and the dictionary. Not that there's anything wrong with "Alice in Wonderland". It's a good book. And I consult the dictionary myself on occasion.

But damned if you're letting me in on your meaning.

Actually I did let you in on my meaning. One "... whose chief concern was protecting individuals from too powerful a state." The problem is that you chose to ignore it - perhaps not coincidentally. After all, the cardinal tenet of the Sharia is "submission to the will of Allah". With little or no separation between Church and State in Muslim countries, I see scant protection therein for the individual from the whims/dictates of the State. I take it that doesn't bother you.

The subject is whether newcomers are to be quiescent....

Is it now? The title of this thread is "First Steps taken Towards Sharia Law in Canada" and my initial comment on the subject was to wonder why anyone would choose Canada as a place to live if he preferred Sharia law.

It is, however, nice of you to take it upon yourself to act as the final arbiter of the subject to be discussed on this thread. It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it I guess.

I will, however, answer your question - just the way you put it. Should newcomers (these I'll define as non-citizens since it's now my turn to set the rules) be quiescent? For the most part, yes! Why?! Because they didn't have to come here! Why did they choose Canada if they don't want to live under our laws? Keep in mind that Canadian citizens don't generally have the option of going back where they came from!

And I was particularly intrigued by your description of how our laws just "change/evolve", as if people—dissatisfied, quarrelsome, reforming maybe "completely uncomfortable" people had nothing to do with it.

It's called the "political bargaining arena".

You may have missed it....

Actually, I missed little. I'm not the one who confined his readings to "Alice in Wonderland" and the dictionary.

You may have missed it, but many of the American rebels and the later Upper and Lower Canadian ones were brand new immigrants. Wasn't it their actions that forged your "secular liberal society"?

That would really be stretching it. Our secular liberal society took generations to evolve and a lot of factors went into it.

Keep in mind that if you want to go back to nineteenth century Ontario to draw an analogy, the Family Compact wasn't happy with the changes forced upon it. Does that mean present day Canadians should somehow be glad to embrace change strictly for the benefit of new immigrants? I seem to recall that immigration policy is first and foremost designed to benefit the host country. Is this something with which you disagree?

You might try to find their breadth of vision, instead of the reactionary Tory conservatism they fought against.

Hold it right there! I saw you palm that card! Using the crude technique of juxtaposition, you've slyly tried to equate Tories with reactionaries! Hmmm! Just what kind of man uses a value laden term like "reactionary" anyway? He'd have to be a sneaky old bastard for one thing! I'll let it pass for now though since it's beyond the scope of the present discussion.

I notice my Golden Rule reference evoked no response from you....

If you want someone to wax eloquent on the Scriptures, don't come to me. Your priest or minister would be a better bet.

I in turn noticed that this particular comment of mine evoked no response from you: "That in no way negates the general principle that one should not emigrate to a country if one is ... uncomfortable with its laws, society, customs, etc. Heaping abuse on one's host is, after all, rude."

What would you call a host who took in a visitor, looked after him financially and then got nothing but abuse in return? I don't know about you but I'd call him a fool and a sucker. Do you think our immigration policy should facilitate "bringing out the sucker" in Canadians?

 

[oldjones]

Sorry cave I thought my examples of the revolting behaviour of new immigrants (yes, I know, none of whom were your ancestors) on both sides of the 49th would amply illustrate that I believe "rude" behaviour happens all the time as it has throughout history, amongst the best stock (none of whom etc.).
In fact those liberals you introduced—all stripes, definitions and periods—generally have accounted the freedom to express discomfort with the current situation, as they find it, a necessary part of democracy. That is how we "evolved" "our secular liberal society". Gosh, sometimes we even imported the ideas without even waiting for immigrants to bring them. And tried to judge the new precepts by their meiits rather than the pedigree of the proposer.
Sorry if the Tory reference confused you. It was commonly a term for a no-change conservative viewpoint in the XIXthC, where you insisted we must look for the meaning of 'your' liberalism—perhaps it was the U.C. "T" that was misleading, sorry—but I actually added the word "reactionary" to "conservativism", and "Tory"—sorry "tory"—because each has it's own shade of meaning. Ooops another hot-button word.
Lastly, and sadly, I have to say the only sucker being brought out is me. The fear that inspired the original post was misplaced—these 'sharia' folks were inventing algebra and reading Aristotle when our ancestors (ok, my ancestors) were burning witches—and our Tweedledum and Tweedledee act about what's a liberal is going nowhere. I look around at all the new colours and faiths and languages that make Canada what it is and will make it what it becomes and I'm excited and thrilled by the possibilities. What am I doing being drawn into still more picking of nits?