Sorry if this has been discussed here, but I found no references to it...
You know how I am often bitching about my fellow Canadians being irritatingly way too tolerant... Well here's another example of how recent immigration patterns are stressing Canadian secularity to a fracture point. I wasn't living in Canada at the time this was happening, so I am only finding out right now :( I realise it's a bit old, but IMO it's a lesson that needs to be digested, remembered, and valued. This is the kind of shit that people too easily forget and it comes back later to bite us in the butt.
Excerpt... read full CTV news item here
CTV.ca News Staff , Sep. 12 2005
Ontario, the most populous province in Canada, has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters such as divorce on a voluntary basis since 1991.
The practice got little attention until Muslim leaders demanded the same rights.
Officials had to decide whether to exclude one religion, or whether to scrap the religious family courts altogether.
McGuinty said such courts "threaten our common ground," and promised his Liberal government would introduce legislation as soon as possible to outlaw them in Ontario.
"Ontarians will always have the right to seek advice from anyone in matters of family law, including religious advice," he said. "But no longer will religious arbitration be deciding matters of family law."[...]
As far as action atheism is concerned, I think it would be a good idea to keep a registry of which secular states/provinces/nations, allow faith based arbitration. This is mind blowing to me.
Interesting article on Faith Based Arbitration, along with its inherent 'privatisation of law' and its consequences on women's rights in secular states.
from a website called "Rights and Democracy"
Interesting article by The Economist on Faith based arbitration in Europe and the USA.
Sharia in the West
Whose law counts most?
Finding an accommodation between Islamic law and Western legal codes is difficult. But there are some ways forward
Oct 14th 2010
In the United States both secular and religious arbitration are firmly established, operating under a Federal Arbitration Act that gives robust standing to the procedure but also allows the parties to counter-appeal to ordinary courts on certain grounds (though America’s church-state separation stops courts hearing arguments about doctrine). Christian and Jewish arbitration is well-organised. The Muslim variety is lower-key and less formal, but so far not (barring outbursts from tea-partistas like Ms Angle) especially controversial.
The legal and political systems in continental Europe are most prescriptive and leave little room for cultural exceptions, at least in theory. But knotty issues of Islamic family law have arisen in courts all over Europe. Many residents of France and Germany remain citizens of their native countries. Courts usually deal with foreign passport-holders in the light of their home countries’ law, while also upholding the principle that outcomes must not violate “public order” (ie, outrage local opinion).
What the hell happened to equality before the law? Really it seems these religious nuts really want to live in the the dark ages. Can we not create a special country for them with a big ass wall around it? Pity Startrek's Prime Directive cannot be applied here.
Being from South Africa, you should know that "Can we not create a special country for them with a big ass wall around it?" doesn't work.
Not to be a dick but Sharia means "Law". To say Sharia Law is to literally say "Law Law". Just found this out myself just recently.
More importantly the idea of tolerance of all religious viewpoints is one that we in the U.S. are proud of until it is a religion like islam which is culturally foreign.
When are we going to stop being hypocrites and regard all religions for what they are. An obstacle to the real progress of a just and fair society for all mankind. I mean come on already. Why are we hanging on to this crap?