Just say no to sharia law2. Comment #433446 by John Locke on November 20, 2009 at 1:16 pm
3. Comment #433450 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I like Peter Tatchell4. Comment #433456 by weavehole on November 20, 2009 at 1:38 pm
One of Saturday's speakers will be Johann Hari. Here's an article he wrote that you may be interested in:5. Comment #433458 by AllanW on November 20, 2009 at 1:43 pm
6. Comment #433472 by Linda Ward Selbie on November 20, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Back in 2005 this issue came up in Ontario. I participated in the protest and we won.There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians
However a representative from Ontario's Jewish community expressed disappointment and shock over McGuinty's decision.
7. Comment #433478 by Sandra S on November 20, 2009 at 2:31 pm
The "Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights" is a mighty interesting and revealing read.II Right to Freedom
a) Man is born free. No inroads shall be made on his right to liberty except under the authority and in due process of the Law.
8. Comment #433488 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Linda Ward SelbieThere will be one law for all OntariansThat maybe true, but it means everybody is inconvenienced now. There is less freedom for everybody to arbitrate in their own way and at low cost, and I assume more government interference in private matters.
9. Comment #433507 by Absinthius on November 20, 2009 at 3:46 pm
10. Comment #433516 by God fearing Atheist on November 20, 2009 at 4:04 pm
4. Comment #433456 by weavehole
11. Comment #433522 by Bonzai on November 20, 2009 at 4:22 pm
That maybe true, but it means everybody is inconvenienced now. There is less freedom for everybody to arbitrate in their own way and at low cost, and I assume more government interference in private matters.
12. Comment #433526 by Linda Ward Selbie on November 20, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Peacebeuponme - wrong - you don't seem to know much about law in Ontario by that remark. Arbitration is a key aspect of civil disputes.13. Comment #433529 by DeusExNihilum on November 20, 2009 at 4:51 pm
14. Comment #433534 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2009 at 5:07 pm
LWSwrong - you don't seem to know much about law in Ontario by that remark. Arbitration is a key aspect of civil disputes.Ok, fine. That I don't know much about Ontario law is correct regardless of my remark being true or false!
This only says when there are disputes, they should be settled in real courts in order that the settlements be binding.Of course a contract is only 'binding' in the first instance if there is some legal force to back it up, but no-one is suggesting that we restrict the ability to form contracts, so why restrict the manner in which contracts are resolved?
It is not 'freedom' if you are coerced into participating in these kangaroo 'courts'.Completely agree. A while ago I suggested that there should be a responsibility for all arbiters to ensure those coming before them are not coerced. In cases of Sharia there should be extra care taken to assess whether any females have been unduly influenced.
15. Comment #433535 by Tintern on November 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm
"‘silent majority’ do not see themselves primarily through the lens of their religious standpoint"16. Comment #433558 by Enlightenme.. on November 20, 2009 at 6:10 pm
17. Comment #433560 by Naser01 on November 20, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I always wonder why if these people are so concerned about Human rights in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, why do they principly attack sharia and by doing so isolate those who they want to save? Sharia is defined as the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed (pbuh). By saying the sharia law is "oppressive", one is saying, by extention, that the law of the Koran and Mohammed (pbuh)is oppressive, a clumsy blunder which does little to win over "hearts and/or minds". We may disagree over the humanity of "true" sharia (sounds like a cop out already, but the majority of Muslims do not accept the interpretation of sharia in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia etc and in fact shout out against these countries in Islamic terms rather than Secular English ones), but at least agree with me that by attacking the most fundamental core principles of a Muslim's heart is not the best way to achieve his/her support for a march like this.18. Comment #433563 by Bonzai on November 20, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Of course a contract is only 'binding' in the first instance if there is some legal force to back it up, but no-one is suggesting that we restrict the ability to form contracts, so why restrict the manner in which contracts are resolved?
To take a family matter: the Government does not say a wedding cannot take place under the banner of Islam, but you are saying that the divorce proceedings cannot. That seems a bit backward to me.
I suggested that there should be a responsibility for all arbiters to ensure those coming before them are not coerced. In cases of Sharia there should be extra care taken to assess whether any females have been unduly influenced.
19. Comment #433570 by Barry Pearson on November 20, 2009 at 6:50 pm
#433478 by Sandra S:That was an earlier version (1981):
The "Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights" is a mighty interesting and revealing read.
#433507 by Absinthius:Slight? They simply give Sharia Law a total override:
@ Comment #433478 by Sandra S
Indeed, a slight difference in the semantics of these kind of sentences changes their meaning so drastically.
20. Comment #433575 by Sandra S on November 20, 2009 at 7:27 pm
19. Comment #433570 by Barry Pearson(1990):
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm
21. Comment #433599 by BeyondBelief on November 20, 2009 at 9:21 pm
22. Comment #433607 by bethe123 on November 20, 2009 at 10:21 pm
23. Comment #433618 by Border Collie on November 21, 2009 at 12:35 am
24. Comment #433630 by Enlightenme.. on November 21, 2009 at 3:24 am
17. Comment #433560 by Naser01 on November 20, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I always wonder why if these people are so concerned about Human rights in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, why do they principly attack sharia and by doing so isolate those who they want to save? Sharia is defined as the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed (pbuh). By saying the sharia law is "oppressive", one is saying, by extention, that the law of the Koran and Mohammed (pbuh)is oppressive, a clumsy blunder which does little to win over "hearts and/or minds". We may disagree over the humanity of "true" sharia (sounds like a cop out already, but the majority of Muslims do not accept the interpretation of sharia in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia etc and in fact shout out against these countries in Islamic terms rather than Secular English ones), but at least agree with me that by attacking the most fundamental core principles of a Muslim's heart is not the best way to achieve his/her support for a march like this.
25. Comment #433636 by The_Intangible_Fancy on November 21, 2009 at 4:47 am
@weavehole26. Comment #433639 by zengardener on November 21, 2009 at 5:41 am
For these reasons, secularism ...is also the best guarantee of religious freedom, as it prevents any one faith becoming politically dominant and abusing its powers to oppress people of other faiths.
27. Comment #433640 by retep57 on November 21, 2009 at 5:58 am
28. Comment #433644 by godsbelow on November 21, 2009 at 6:12 am
29. Comment #433658 by Peacebeuponme on November 21, 2009 at 10:27 am
BonzaiWell this would be a different argument from the Libertarian position you commented from earlier. If you are against the state intruding into private affairs, why would you expect the state to back up your private agreements?I'm not so libertarian as to not recognise the value of society and the state. There are many areas in which state protection and indeed interference may be warranted. I just think the overriding principle should be to keep it to a minimum.
The government shouldn't recognize religious weddings either if I have my way.Oh I agree with this. It doesn't seem like a matter for Government to me.
But how do you ensure that? In the end you would need some kind of state oversight in monitoring the arbitration anyway (and government will intrude into private affairs by your argument) so why not just cut out the middle man?Well it doesn't really need much Government intervention. Lots of industries are self-regulated and this could be no different. Membership of an official arbiters association could require certain standards of practice. Disputees would be wise to only choose those arbiters that are a member of that association. The Government could also choose not to enforce judgements made by non-members.
30. Comment #433660 by Steve Zara on November 21, 2009 at 11:06 am
"Most liberals and leftwingers would protest loud and strong if these persecutions were perpetrated by a western regime or by Christian fundamentalists. But they get squeamish when it comes to challenging human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam."
Too true - it's called 'double standards'.
31. Comment #433782 by Border Collie on November 21, 2009 at 9:04 pm
32. Comment #433795 by fatpiranha on November 21, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I went to the rally today. A fantastic line-up of speakers but only 400 people or so there to hear them. I guess people just aren't that bothered about freedom or equality. If only they'd got some X-factor wannabe or footballer's wag to turn up ...33. Comment #433805 by God fearing Atheist on November 21, 2009 at 10:46 pm
32. Comment #433795 by fatpiranha
34. Comment #433807 by TQY on November 21, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I went to this too fatpiranha - and I agree, an excellent bunch of speakers but a very small turnout.35. Comment #433811 by TQY on November 21, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Forecast might have put some people off, but I decided to go as it was bright in South London this morning. It didn't actually start raining here until around 2.30, by which time the event had drawn to a close.36. Comment #433812 by Enlightenme.. on November 21, 2009 at 11:02 pm
37. Comment #434301 by Cernunnos on November 23, 2009 at 9:16 pm
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
1. Comment #433440 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Who wants to go first?Other Comments by Peacebeuponme