Yesterday, some of my co-workers asked if I had heard about the Shariah law controversy here in Ontario? My reply was, “What is Shariah law?” While reading the following links I nearly flipped. So I have decided to share the insanity. Enjoy!!!!

“Ontario report criticized by Shariah opponents” http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/20/sharia-boyd041220.html

“One law for all”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_fatah/20040401.html

Franz

---

If you mean Sharia in sense of the islamic point of view to the law:
I say f*ck it!!
It's non human in their own countries and it's non human all over the world!!

...and this is not in any kind rassistic!!!
BTW: I'm german and i hate Nazi's and so i hate any kind of inhuman law enforcement!!!

---

Aloha, Uli

>
This sums up the mindset of people in some parts of the world that refuse
to wake up and join Humanity.

Thanks Franz!

---

I dont think it's the business of the state if people feel they can settle a dispute by going to a spiritual advisor or some administrative branch of their religion.
Here in the Caribe lots of people go to the church when there's a family problem and the participants belong to the parish.- Of course I'm not talking criminal matters.
Personally, I'll go to the botanica and talk to a witch before even considering contacting a lawyer.
Their advice is always better and you dont leave feeling you've been fleeced.
If the parties involved both have confidence in a religious arbiter, I see no harm.

Oh, WOW, we all got negative votes either from people who are hard core islamistic or simply so narrow minded that they simply don't realise, what we are talking about...

This is sick...

---

Aloha, Uli

>
> I dont think it's the business of the state if people feel they can settle a
> dispute by going to a spiritual advisor or some administrative branch of their
> religion.
> Here in the Caribe lots of people go to the church when there's a family
> problem and the participants belong to the parish.- Of course I'm not talking
> criminal matters.
> Personally, I'll go to the botanica and talk to a witch before even
> considering contacting a lawyer.
> Their advice is always better and you dont leave feeling you've been fleeced.
> If the parties involved both have confidence in a religious arbiter, I see no
> harm.
>

I'm actually inclined to agree, however, there are some issues (mostly not addressed in the article not sure about the current practice). First, both parties (or more in cases of inheritences) have to agree to the arbitor (case cited doesn't seem to bear that out). Second, it should be non binding, requiring review by both parties to sign off on it (at that point it would be binding). Third, judges should be willing to refuse to sign off on a blattently unequitable decision.

I'm not saying the legal system is all that fair in this case by any means. It tends to have the opposite bias.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

>>First, both parties... have to agree to the arbitor
>>Second, it should be non binding
>>Third, judges should be willing to refuse to sign off on...unequitable decision.

It doesn't scare me because I'm not a participant. And having had no exposure to it in practice, all I can say is if it's part of peoples beliefs then they deserve what they tolerate.
It should be noted though that some inhuman practices have been sanctioned by twisted interpretation by religion (like female circumcision) that assaults the human rights of adhereants.
And that kind of behavior, religious or not warrents criminal proceedings.