very important story MEM, the central question is how far do you go to protect freedom of religion in a liberal democracy? France is taking the opposite approach

Thanks!

This is a rather distorted account, since the arbitration is for civil and family cases, already used by Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons and other religious sects.

And it is Ontario only, and is only the bottom tier of family law.

That said, I'm in favour of eliminating any religious based arbitration. But as it now stands, it is all or nothing.

i do have to get manji's book. i heard her on the radio a while back (maybe when the book came out?) and she was very, very interesting.

I'll leave this as an exercise for the reader, but do a search and replace of sharia for a despotic ruler of a theocracy with a private army who treats women as vassals, practices ritualistic abuse of their subjects, and doesn't recognize equality under law.

And how many came up with the Roman Catholic Church.

The short answer MEM, is that all religions are abusive of human rights.

So until you take the pope, those blow-hard evangelical bastards, and mullahs out back for an arse kicking, you just look like a cheap hustler.

A country that embraces multiculturalism MUST make laws that treat ALL of its citizens equally before the law.

This will be setting a very dangerous precedent that will open the door to pandora's box. For once they allow a few exemptions to the law it will only be a matter of time before they will want more, and more concessions. It's basic human nature.

This is not unlike the age-old problem of aboriginals or Quebec separatists wanting to recreate their own little countries/governments within the body of Canada without beholding to the laws of Canada.

I can see it now. The new province of Canukistan will be realized north of the 49th parallel providing a safe haven for Osama et al.

Good grief!

A country that embraces multiculturalism MUST make laws that treat ALL of its citizens equally before the law.

And that's what the law says, but then you couldn't be bothered to actually read it could you? The law is a first stage in family arbitration disbutes which already, and has applied for more than ten years, applies to Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and other religious cults. Just like getting married. If you want to get married by Raelians or Scientologists, you have to do so under the civil law. Or you can go to city hall and get a civil marriage.

The law already treats all citizens equally. You are just spreading foo.

This is just the same thing as in the States where religious arbitration applies to civil disputes, but then you probably never looked into what is the case with civil arbitration in whatever whack-ass principality you live in. What is that anyways? Whack-assistan? So if you wound up some hung-over morning married to Tom Cruise, you'd probably wind up as step one at a civil arbitration to get that awful thing undone.

As for aboriginal in Canada (and for the most part in the States) their legal agreements as nations pre-dated the existence of the country. When there is an existing contract you can either do as Canada has done, and re-negotiate the contract, or as the US has done, and murder the original holders of the contract.

Somehow I knew you would come out flinging the "foo", or has it never occurred to you to disagree with a degree of civility? BTW, my comments were based on a well known literary term called hyperbole. Look it up. And perhaps I should have included the word 'Human Rights' which MUST be applied ALL of its citizenry or "Whack-assistans" as you so eloquently put it. So how can that be resolved if special rights are afforded to religious beliefs that are in direct conflict thereof? Or perhaps you are not that well versed with certain muslim views with respect to women, etc. Food for thought.

For crying out loud don't be so sensitive. Cheers and have a great day.

BB: [edited]

You obviously have no idea what arbitration is, and as I've said, I don't think Roman Catholics, Raelians, Mennonites, Muslims or my own personal religion should have any different rights than anybody else here in Canada. And they don't. So you are taking a fervent little wet-dream and flinging it around like it means anything. And I suspect you don't even live in Canada or Ontario.

So, if you are a some foreign loud-mouth shnook, just go suck yer arse, eh?

Jimbo, if you only knew. Your are so off-base and I don't have the time to educate you.

Perhaps I can end this silly diatribe by saying that having a law practice and lived in Canada discredits me, then who am I to argue and I acquiesce to your superior knowledge. (Notice the smiley face? :)

Work on that rage man and have a great life.

So in other words, the issue isn't what religious family arbritation is in Ontario, but how you perceive I perceive you when you don't have a valid url or email address?

What I said first off, get rid of religious arbitration altogether, but if you've got to give it to kiddy-diddler papists, heathens and semites, then under the law, you've got to give it to the caliphate.

Either abolish the law or support it. Or if you live outside of Ontario, piss off.

Jim, Jim, Jim. Pullease!

I said that you said, and... "kiddy-diddler papists, heathens and semites" (sigh).

If only you would speak english (or murican, or is it canuk-istan? - but I digress) then perhaps the rest of us could understand you (and I really am trying). Or perhaps it is just another lingual form that I am not able to wrap my tongue around.

If you are saying that those who reside outside of "Ontario" are unable to speak opines on Canadian politics, then perhaps you will kindly spare the rest of the world your anti-American rhetoric. If the shoe fits, ba-dah-bing.

You should also know that Ontario is the hotbed of Canadian politics, and what becomes law there has a trickledown effect throughout the rest of the land. Or were you not aware of that? So given that fact where do you get off on telling the rest of us pee-ons to "piss off"? (Heh... get it?)

Unfortunately your response "either abolish the law or support it" still hasn't answered the 60 million dollar question: How do you resolve the dilemma of pandering to religious beliefs that are in direct conflict with human rights legislation?

Perhaps somebody else will step to the plate on that one.

How do you resolve the dilemma of pandering to religious beliefs that are in direct conflict with human rights legislation?


The same way the current law exists. The religious arbitration, just like in the States, exists under the provincial law, which exists under the federal law. So there's no conflict, other than the faux bullshit you want to stir up.

But you were just being an asshole who wants to promulgate a fascist talking point.

As I said before, I want to abolish all religious arbitration, but as long as those mackeral-snappers continue to meddle in secular law along with those bible-banging motherfuckers, then you don't have two legs to stand on for your particular brand of vervent ass-juice.

Sigh. And you don't see the contradiction? I should have known better than to ask a serious question from... as you say an "asshole".

If it is as simple as you explained then obviously we have no problem, the world is at peace and the tooth fairy will look fondly on your inconsiderable unmentionables (wrap that one around your double negatives).

As for the rest of your crap-rap, ditto babe.

Jim C: "So until you take the pope, those blow-hard evangelical bastards, and mullahs out back for an arse kicking, you just look like a cheap hustler."

This is the kind of talk that makes me wonder about you, Jim. It's as if you suddenly realized that, in post #2, you were perfectly reasonable and civilized, so you had to type this in order to save face.

About the religion thing, I have yet to hear about Christians or Jews, no matter how evangelical, advocate "holy war." The Christian church has the Crusades marring its history, and can share the same bloodlust-for-God status as Islamic jihad, but that's in the past. The only religious based terror these days is coming from the Islamofanatics.

So, it's just one short step from arbitrating civil family law to resolve disputes before they have to go to court, to "holy war". If that's your agenda, fine.

But if you want to rock the casbah, and sharia don't like it, you rock the casbah, that's right, you heard me, rock the casbah.

(Well, somebody had to say it).

MEM: About the religion thing, I have yet to hear about Christians or Jews, no matter how evangelical, advocate "holy war."

Well, listen up!