babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
Search | FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » auntie.com   » Religious laws cause concern

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Religious laws cause concern
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 18 July 2005 11:21 AM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This reader finds her arguments against Sharia law are weakened once someone brings up the fact that Christians and Jews both have religious laws which can be used in place of family law. She asks auntie, how should a progressive respond to these laws?

Right here


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 July 2005 11:44 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We have run into the cynical (IMHO) argument on babble that no one objected to the Arbitration Act until Muslims tried to use it -- and it has not mainly been Muslims who have made that cynical argument. Mr Magoo, more likely, or people from other communities suddenly alarmed that their own arbitration courts might be challenged.

As far as I can tell, most people knew very little of the Arbitration Act until the recent debate over Sharia law started up. I don't think that reaction against these courts is specifically anti-Sharia: when they are fully informed of what the act allows, most people are just plain surprised and bothered about all such private "courts."

It is my understanding that any decision of a private religious court that contravenes Canadian law can be successfully contested in our public courts.

The problem remains that, within sequestered communities, vulnerable people may remain vulnerable. They may not know in the first place that they have legal alternatives; or they may fear to break with their own communities in order to pursue justice.

And even if we were to strike down the Arbitration Act, that would remain true to a degree.

I favour getting rid of the act, but at the same time, I think that this debate should force us to look at what a bad job we have done in reaching out to the vulnerable, communities and individuals both.

And I think it is pretty obvious who is most vulnerable to these courts: women and children, always.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 July 2005 12:00 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As far as I can tell, most people knew very little of the Arbitration Act until the recent debate over Sharia law started up.

Shouldn't there have been horror stories aplenty? Do you suppose part of the reason that it flew under the radar for so many years might be because it didn't lead inexorably to women and children left penniless, or for that matter to the stoning of adulterers and the mutilation of thieves?

At any rate you seem to be admitting that I was in fact correct: no hew and cry until the Muslim community asked for the same rights as the rest. We can disagree on why nobody was actively fighting it before.

And to be honest, I don't think it's any more "cynical" than noting that nobody much cared about the "sanctity of marriage" until the gay community wanted a piece.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 July 2005 12:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr Magoo, there are horror stories aplenty, not that I am claiming to have caught up with a lot of them until recently myself.

F'rinstance: in the last issue of Walrus mag but one, I think, there is a hair-curling article about the way that the RC church in Canada has imposed "annulment" judgements on people who didn't want them, especially the women of the couples. I don't know whether that is online, but it should be easy enough for a sincere questing person to find in a library.

And again, you speak from the position of a liberal white male who is not grasping the situation of someone who may be sequestered in a closed and paranoid culture here. I know that there are, eg, women who have struggled against Orthodox Jewish law in this country, but I can't come up with a link or a reference just now. But it is hardly your place to mock them, just because they are still having trouble being heard.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 July 2005 12:15 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
there is a hair-curling article about the way that the RC church in Canada has imposed "annulment" judgements on people who didn't want them, especially the women of the couples.

Okay. But what does that have to do with civil law? Annulment is a religious term, no?

quote:
I know that there are, eg, women who have struggled against Orthodox Jewish law in this country, but I can't come up with a link or a reference just now. But it is hardly your place to mock them, just because they are still having trouble being heard.

I didn't mock them.

I did, however, have to wonder how it is that these Arbitration courts can cause such problems, and yet as you yourself admit, nobody had really heard of them, or formed any particular resistance to them prior to Muslims asking for the same right as anyone else.

How can it be that they caused problems, and yet effectively none of the 9000 or so progressive babblers had really heard much about them? I think one or the other of those claims has to go.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 12:25 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
It is my understanding that any decision of a private religious court that contravenes Canadian law can be successfully contested in our public courts.

I would think any extra-judicial (not the right word I'm searching for) forum can have its decisions appealed to the provincial Supreme Courts for review.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 July 2005 12:33 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd be curious to know what constitutes "contravening"?

For example, if you and I have adjoining yards, and your apple tree is dropping apples on my side, we could appeal to anyone we wish to decide who gets to keep the apples on my side, so long as we both agree to abide by that person's judgement. That's the principle behind the various judges on television (Wapner, Judy, et al.) They don't have "official" powers except by virtue of both parties agreeing to abide by their judgement.

I suppose if someone wanted to contest a judgement in an actual court, they could, but then I'm guessing they'd be on the hook for breaking the initial agreement to abide by the judgement of the third party.

Otherwise, every loser on every court television show would just go to regular court for a do-over.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 July 2005 12:34 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
EFA, I'm sure that you are right.

Mr Magoo:

quote:
How can it be that they caused problems, and yet effectively none of the 9000 or so progressive babblers had really heard much about them? I think one or the other of those claims has to go.

Honestly, Mr M: how thick can you be? Obviously, these things are happening in communities that don't mainly produce babblers, eh?

To understand the impact of the annulment decisions on RC women who didn't want them, you'll have to read that article. Of course, those women had recourse to Canadian courts for the material settlements that matter ... materially. But they still ended up feeling violated by their own church by judgements that did not take their views into account, and that might, in the future, prove dangerous to them, since they encroach on the tricky territory of psychological judgement.

Of all the possibly sequestered communities, RC women would probably be the most likely to feel comfortable contesting these things in public. For Orthodox Jewish women and, even more so, many Muslim women, going public with anything that has happened to them is going to be much more difficult.

Again, I agree: some of that is going to remain true whether we scrap the Arbitration Act or not. But we have to start a strong educational campaign somewhere.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 July 2005 12:40 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
how thick can you be? Obviously, these things are happening in communities that don't mainly produce babblers, eh?

The Jewish community? And you'd never, ever heard of sentencing circles? I'm not native, but I first heard of them years ago, by reading a newspaper.

Y'know if this annoys you we could stop right here if you'll admit that Muslims are a different case, and that's a big part of the hew and cry.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 July 2005 12:42 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr Magoo: how many Orthodox Jews do you think have joined babble? Seriously? How many?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 12:48 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I suppose if someone wanted to contest a judgement in an actual court, they could, but then I'm guessing they'd be on the hook for breaking the initial agreement to abide by the judgement of the third party.

But you're not legally obliged to uphold an illegal agreement.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 18 July 2005 12:53 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But you're not legally obliged to uphold an illegal agreement.

In many circumstances you can in fact, sign away your rights. So yes you can be legally obliged to uphold it or compensate the other person for it


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 12:57 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:
In many circumstances you can in fact, sign away your rights. So yes you can be legally obliged to uphold it or compensate the other person for it

It's true you can sign away your rights in some instances but if the original agreement was illegal or one party was coerced into it or was under a legal disability, the agreement can be presented to the Supreme Court (and, if necessary, to the Court of Appeal) to be reversed or altered.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 July 2005 12:59 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mr Magoo: how many Orthodox Jews do you think have joined babble? Seriously? How many?

Probably none.

But you don't think that pretty much anyone in the Jewish community would be aware of the existence of Beit Dins? Do you need to be a fundamentalist to know anything about fundamentalists? We seem to know all kinds of things about them, without actually being them, or even being of their various religions.

We know about adults being baptised in great big pools, even though we aren't evangelical. We know about Mel Gibson's KooKoo sect, even if we aren't Catholic. We, or at least I, know about sentencing circles even though I'm not native.

C'mon Skdadl. Why not just admit it: that the hew and cry follows the fact that Muslims, not Presbyterians or Unitarians, are asking for the right to arbitrate their civil differences is NOT mere coincidence. It's just not. What do you feel you'd be giving up to admit this?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 July 2005 01:01 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But you're not legally obliged to uphold an illegal agreement.

True, but what would make an agreement "illegal".

If, for example, you and I are neighbours and my walnut tree is making a mess of your driveway. If a third party arbitrator rules that I have to pay 60% of the cleanup cost, how would that be "illegal"? It may or may not be what the judge in Small Claims court would rule, but it seems a bit much to call it "illegal".


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 18 July 2005 01:04 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the agreement can be presented

It should be noted that 'can be' is not the same as "having a remote chance of winning" or even "money to pay a lawyer" cuz it certainly aint free or applicable for legal aid


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 July 2005 01:16 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe that everyone was pretty much okay with this legislation until the push came to include Sharia Law.

The arbitration act of Ontario was master minded by one of the lefts most active and prestigious feninists, Marion Boyd.

How can it be so bad?


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 18 July 2005 01:16 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In reply to the question about knowing about the Beit Dein's.

I am Jewish and know of the Beit Deins.

I am not orthodox but am aware of the Jewish Arbitration and the process known as Beit Dins.

I can not speak for all but here is what I know from both personal experience and discussions with Jews about the Boyd Report.

Most of the critism that I hear surrounding the work of the Beit Dins does not come from friends and family who are Orthodox and in some cases have used the Beit Dein process.

Rather I hear more critism from the Reform and Conservative circles of Judaism -- who it must be noted do not use the Beit Dins.

Many that I have talked to about Beit Dins and some here on babble do not want to see the right of Orthodox Jews to continue to use legally sanctioned religious arbitration in Family Law. Some want to see the Boyd Report whenever it is implemented remove that right from the Jewish Community. Some have posted that a law granting religious arbitration in the past should be changed today since laws modernize as society modernizes.

Well I disagree. The right of Jews to use religious arbitration in family law matters should not be taken away.

That said. The almost total focus of this issue with regards to Sharia is not helping the issue nor is it assisting the other religions that may have similar processes in place.

We talk of Sharia but what about other religions? Have they been consulted about how this legislation will effect them?

Are other religions deemed to be "radical" in their practice of religious arbitration in family law?

Personally, I fear that the government of Ontario is moving too fast and not ensuring that appropriate safeguards are also written into the law. These must include more legal aid funds available for Independant Legal Advice for woman and it is usually the female who feels pressured into using religious arbitration.

There must be criteria in place not just regarding the process but also who can adjudicate.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 July 2005 01:23 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Probably none.

But you don't think that pretty much anyone in the Jewish community would be aware of the existence of Beit Dins? Do you need to be a fundamentalist to know anything about fundamentalists? We seem to know all kinds of things about them, without actually being them, or even being of their various religions.

We know about adults being baptised in great big pools, even though we aren't evangelical. We know about Mel Gibson's KooKoo sect, even if we aren't Catholic. We, or at least I, know about sentencing circles even though I'm not native.

C'mon Skdadl. Why not just admit it: that the hew and cry follows the fact that Muslims, not Presbyterians or Unitarians, are asking for the right to arbitrate their civil differences is NOT mere coincidence. It's just not. What do you feel you'd be giving up to admit this?


Mr Magoo, if anyone from the mainstream Catholic or Jewish cultures had ever piped up on babble before, to ask us to think about what was happening in their more orthodox / literalist communities, I promise you, I would have paid attention.

But no one ever did. I mean, I read pretty closely, and I don't think that anyone ever has.

I don't know what you mean to insinuate, but I honestly think that it comes as a surprise to most Canadians to realize that this stuff has been going on for some time among us.

Walrus obviously thought that what is being done to RC women was news, just this year -- and for sure, to me, that was news. And I come from an RC family. So, like: why are you finding it so hard, Mr M, to accept that much of this shit has been suppressed?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 01:32 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

True, but what would make an agreement "illegal".

If, for example, you and I are neighbours and my walnut tree is making a mess of your driveway. If a third party arbitrator rules that I have to pay 60% of the cleanup cost, how would that be "illegal"? It may or may not be what the judge in Small Claims court would rule, but it seems a bit much to call it "illegal".



That might be an invalid judgment, not an illegal agreement. An illegal agreement would be if I agreed to pay the walnut cleanup costs in exchange for you not outing me. An invalid judgment can be appealed.

[ 18 July 2005: Message edited by: EFA ]


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 01:36 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:
It should be noted that 'can be' is not the same as "having a remote chance of winning" or even "money to pay a lawyer" cuz it certainly aint free or applicable for legal aid

I disagree. I think, as a layperson, I have a very good chance of having the EFA/Magoo Walnut Cleanup Agreement overturned.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 18 July 2005 01:48 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And to be honest, I don't think it's any more "cynical" than noting that nobody much cared about the "sanctity of marriage" until the gay community wanted a piece.


At the risk of getting banned from babble, I will say here that I am in favour of the "getting the government out of the marriage business" proposal, though not because I'm afraid of gay marriages(I do realize that a lot of people use it as a cover for anti-gay opinions, but c'est la vie). Rather, I think it's a logical extension of church-state separation, and would in fact neatly solve the issue at hand.

Here's the deal: if you wanna get married in a religious ceremony with no state recognition, then you can terminate the marriage according to whatever guidelines you want. But you would not get whatever rights as a couple that currently flow from state recognition of the relationship. However, if you want state recognition(civil union or whatever) then you agree to terminate the relationship according to strictly secular guidelines laid down by the state. No priests, no Sharia, no Beit dins, no e-meters etc.

I'm no legal scholar, so there's probably a zillion holes in that idea. Just my thoughts on the matter.

[ 18 July 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 01:51 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
A friend of mine will never marry because he says the two institutions he has the least respect for are the church and the state. So why would he approach either of them for their blessing?

Why do we have extra legal benefits for married people, anyway?


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 July 2005 01:57 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When the Romans wanted to be particularly cruel, they'd toss a stick to a man in the arena facing a pack of wild dogs.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 02:16 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
Too deep for me. Please offer another analogy.
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 18 July 2005 02:19 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Too deep for me. Please offer another analogy.

Glad I'm not the only one who missed it.

I guess the point of the analogy is that it's particularly cruel to offer someone a chance to battle against an inevitable doom. Just not sure how it applies to this topic.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 July 2005 02:22 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Single, I take it.

Here goes.

The only effect the stick would have, in the arena annology, would be to prolong the suffering of the man and increase the savagery of the spectacle.

So it is with benefits for married people.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 02:24 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
So it is with benefits for married people.

They prolong the suffering and increase the spectacle? (You've got to use a smilie if you want me to ROTFL.)


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 July 2005 02:28 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I use the wink sometimes to denote sardonic commentary.

And sometimes I don't, just to keep everyone wondering how wacked I really am.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 July 2005 02:29 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actully, maybe we should have a Henny Youngman's Violin emoticon.....?
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 02:35 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
And sometimes I don't, just to keep everyone wondering how wacked I really am.

Well, how wacked are you? And are you going to explain your Roman analogy?


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 July 2005 02:36 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe another annology will help.

Now, take my wife

Please.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 18 July 2005 02:38 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Actully, maybe we should have a Henny Youngman's Violin emoticon.....?

Take my wife, but only according to the terms of a religiously-based, Marion Boyd-approved arbitration settlement....Please!!


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 18 July 2005 02:38 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Damn, cross-posted!
From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 July 2005 02:38 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 02:40 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:
Damn, cross-posted!

Not at all. They were equally valuable.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 July 2005 02:42 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But no one ever did. I mean, I read pretty closely, and I don't think that anyone ever has.

Perhaps that's because....

wait for it....

...

..

.

maybe the world didn't stop spinning on its axis when some Jewish couple chose Beit Din.

What percentage of divorces actually end up before a judge anyway? I've heard that it's not many. Most are settled by arbitration where needed. If that's a recipe for disaster, why can't I look around me and see all the disaster?

It's exactly the same question I ask anti-SSM proponents: we've had it for a while now, and your thesis is that it will cause huge problems, so, where are these huge problems of which you speak?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 July 2005 02:46 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I think there are problems Magoo, but even if there weren't any, if the state picks and chooses which religions will and wont be included, then we have government establishing a religion or group of religions over others.

That's fundamentally undemocratic and descriminatory.

The only way out is to exclude religious arbitration alltogether.

Religion is silly, anyway.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 02:46 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
What percentage of divorces actually end up before a judge anyway? I've heard that it's not many. Most are settled by arbitration where needed. If that's a recipe for disaster, why can't I look around me and see all the disaster?

I think an opponent of alternative justice systems might point out that divorce arbitration (for all issues except the actual divorce, which only a Judge can grant) is still conducted within the scope of the Divorce Act and the Family Relations Act.

And get your fucking walnuts off my driveway!!!


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 18 July 2005 02:50 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Religion is silly, anyway.


Um didnt we already have a discussion how attacking relgion in general was a suspension/ban worthy offense for attacking peoples beliefs? Like saying feminism is bad or the NDP platform causes cancer?


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 July 2005 02:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr Magoo, as it happens, I am philosophically opposed to saying to anyone, ever, that he is "in denial," but in your case, I am gonna make an exception.

YOU ARE IN DENIAL.

I gave you, above, a great source and a great example of abuses committed within sequestered communities that the Canadian government has been very nervous about checking. Have you bothered to check it out? I seriously doubt that.

Like everyone else here, I'm an amateur, so I can't put my finger on the resistance movements that Orthodox Jewish women have, I'm sure, been building. But if that's what you need to reinforce your belief in democracy, Mr M, then by all means: go out and find those women. I guarantee you: they will be there.

[ 18 July 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 July 2005 02:56 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Actually, I think there are problems Magoo, but even if there weren't any, if the state picks and chooses which religions will and wont be included, then we have government establishing a religion or group of religions over others.
That's fundamentally undemocratic and descriminatory.

The only way out is to exclude religious arbitration alltogether.


I would agree. My interest in this isn't in promoting all kinds of arbitration. It's in being consistent. Everyone out, or everyone in. I just wouldn't want to be the one to tell the First Nations that they can't have sentencing circles any more (not that they caused grief) and the Jewish community that they can no longer use Beit Dins (not that they caused grief).

quote:
I think an opponent of alternative justice systems might point out that divorce arbitration (for all issues except the actual divorce, which only a Judge can grant) is still conducted within the scope of the Divorce Act and the Family Relations Act.

Perhaps. But that certainly doesn't mean that one or the other party didn't get badgered into accepting a deal that wasn't in their best interest. I don't know that you specifically need a religion for that.

quote:
And get your fucking walnuts off my driveway!!!

Shall we see what Judge Judy has to say about that?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 03:03 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Perhaps. But that certainly doesn't mean that one or the other party didn't get badgered into accepting a deal that wasn't in their best interest. I don't know that you specifically need a religion for that.

Most good legal agreements include a clause that says each party has had the opportunity to obtain independent legal advice. And if one party was unrepresented by a lawyer, the other side would have an obligation to make that even clearer.

And, as for our walnut problem, I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist on Judge Wapner.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 July 2005 03:06 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:


Um didnt we already have a discussion how attacking relgion in general was a suspension/ban worthy offense for attacking peoples beliefs? Like saying feminism is bad or the NDP platform causes cancer?


Quite. I see your point. In neither case do the facts support that the NDP platform causes cancer, or that feminism is 'bad'.


So, with this in mind, let me first appologize, then rephrase my comment.

Relgion isn't rational, anyway.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 18 July 2005 03:10 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks

It takes so little to make me happy


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 03:10 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
I don't see that your comment about religion should be lumped in with the others. You were putting down religion, not Christians, Jews or any other particular group. I think you should retract your retraction.

EDITED TO ADD: And the other comments would be acceptable if they were broadened, i.e. discussing human rights, rather than feminism, and talking about politics, rather than the NDP.

[ 18 July 2005: Message edited by: EFA ]


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 18 July 2005 03:11 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was the putting down of religion in general, that generated the ban/suspension EFA, not a particular version of a religion
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 03:12 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:
It was the putting down of religion in general, that generated the ban/suspension EFA, not a particular version of a religion

I wasn't around for it. What was the nature of the posts that caused the trouble?


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 18 July 2005 03:15 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Religion is a silly thing and believeing in it or believing in fairies, etc is stupid"

That got the person cautioned and the promise of a ban in future. Since it is in effect the same as attacking someones culture or society (or those 'silly' turbans, saris, seistas, etc)


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 July 2005 03:20 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Most good legal agreements include a clause that says each party has had the opportunity to obtain independent legal advice. And if one party was unrepresented by a lawyer, the other side would have an obligation to make that even clearer.

Fair enough. But nothing prevents any Canadian from seeking legal advice prior to choosing to use an arbitrator.

As for Wapner, wasn't he around when coal was formed? How about we split the difference and go with Judge Joe Brown?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 03:25 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
How about we split the difference and go with Judge Joe Brown?

Don't know him but I'm sure he does excellent work. Re Wapner, yes, I suppose I am getting on. Last New Years Eve I spent listening to the Classic Rock Countdown and throwing popcorn at the stereo and shrieking from time to time "WTF? That's not a classic! I was in high school when that came out, for crying out loud!"


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 03:29 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
Oh, maybe I do know Judge Joe Brown. Is that the show where they have that tedious little turd out on the street discussing cases with passers by and somewhere within every statement of his he includes the words "bottom line" as in "the bottom line is read the fine print first" or some equally cretinously obvious statement?

[ 18 July 2005: Message edited by: EFA ]


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 July 2005 04:14 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Probably. I think most of the courtroom shows are on in late afternoon before I get home.

I used to watch Judge Judy occasionally though. Always good for a laugh, watching people squabble over paltry stuff.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 04:27 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I used to watch Judge Judy occasionally though. Always good for a laugh, watching people squabble over paltry stuff.

I find Judge Judy intensely annoying, much as I do Dr. Laura. Too smug.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 July 2005 04:36 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't STAND Judge Wapner! He was horrible! He would ask the people before him to tell him what happened, and throughout the whole thing he'd be interrupting them, then getting mad at them because they hadn't finished what they were saying when he was the one who interrupted, etc. He was a nasty piece of work.

And Judge Rudy is very similar, although I have to admit that every once in a while I get a kick out of watching her tear a strip off of some idiot who desperately needs it. She's also one of those ones, though, that interrupt and then yell at someone for not finishing the story after she interrupted.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 July 2005 04:47 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can't STAND Judge Wapner!

Ever see the classic blooper wherein Judge Wapner is deciding on a case of who actually inherited a valuable antique clock (the kind that's ensconced under a glass bell jar, with all kinds of fancy all over it) and when he asks Rusty the bailiff to bring it to the bench, Rusty bobbles it and it smashes to bits? Oops!

quote:
although I have to admit that every once in a while I get a kick out of watching her tear a strip off of some idiot who desperately needs it.

That is, of course, the only guilty pleasure on the show. Every now and then she gets someone so utterly dense, so completely self-absorbed, that they just can't control their impulses, and she smacks them down. It's hilarious watching their faces as they realize that they have two choices:

1. control their impulses
2. lose

... and of course the best is when they end up with #2 by default.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 July 2005 05:00 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, I never saw that one! I think I was relatively young when Wapner was doing People's Court - definitely elementary school-aged, although he may have been on still into my high school years. Didn't Judge Judy's husband (I forget his first name - last name same as hers, Scheindlin) do a run on People's Court? Anyhow, that outtake sounds hilarious.

My problem is, the 10% of the time that I get the payoff satisfaction of watching her rip into some idiot doesn't make up for the 90% of the time she's acting like a bully for no apparent reason, not to mention her right-wing ideology. I mean, if you're on welfare, you lose the case, period, no matter what the merits.

I saw one episode where she shut the whole thing down 5 seconds into the proceedings, because one of the parties pissed her off by doing something dumb. Without hearing anything, as punishment to the dumb person, she found against him/her.

A relative I lived with used to watch the show religiously after work, so I often ended up watching it with him. I didn't like it much, but some of the cases were like a train wreck.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 July 2005 05:08 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wouldn't disagree. A lot of the time she was hard to take. I cannot deny though, that occasionally I'll see a commercial for the show that gives an excerpt and think "Ooooo I'd like to see that one!" Tawdry, tacky, sure. If I didn't feel guilty, it wouldn't be a guilty pleasure.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 July 2005 05:50 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh heck yeah. I mean, no one held a gun to my head when I was watching them.

Back before Springer became too stupid, and it was on around 2 a.m., my roommate and I used to watch them (I was in my early 20's and suffering from a lot of insomnia). Talk about a guilty pleasure!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 18 July 2005 07:56 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ever see the classic blooper wherein Judge Wapner is deciding on a case of who actually inherited a valuable antique clock (the kind that's ensconced under a glass bell jar, with all kinds of fancy all over it) and when he asks Rusty the bailiff to bring it to the bench, Rusty bobbles it and it smashes to bits? Oops!

Personally, this sounds like one of the most intelligent decisions ever made on court TV. Two kids squabbling over the same toy? Okay, nobody gets it. (This may actually be the only route to lasting peace in the Middle East: send both sides to their rooms and give the Gaza Strip to the Irish.)

quote:
It's hilarious watching their faces as they realize that they have two choices:

1. control their impulses
2. lose

... and of course the best is when they end up with #2 by default.


But are these mutually exclusive? Hasn't anyone lost control of their impulses and done a #2 by default on the show?


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Farmageddon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9572

posted 19 July 2005 02:16 PM      Profile for Farmageddon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
(This may actually be the only route to lasting peace in the Middle East: send both sides to their rooms and give the Gaza Strip to the Irish.)

ROLF!

F


From: The seventh ring of a watery hell... | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 19 July 2005 09:37 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tommy's right. Religion isn't rational.

Maybe the fact that religion isn't rational is why many people want it excluded from that highly rational (if often not very humanistic) institution, the legal system. Auntie may be one of those people. She's very absolutist in her advice: All religions are patriarchal. Democracy isn't possible without separation of church and state. Yup, very absolutist indeed. (But that's part of what we love about her, right?)

What interests me here is what we understand by "shariah." There seems to be some assumption that we are talking about a fully-formed legal system, or even a fully-formed way of understanding the world, and that this "shariah" is automatically sexist.

Maybe. On the other hand, maybe there's also an opportunity for Muslims living in the West to help define what "shariah" means. Because new issues come up. Not everything can be settled with reference to a 10th-century scholar's legal interpretation. To those that say "shariah" was completed centuries ago, the people actually doing shariah in Canada might have a chance to say: "no, look, we're adding to it even as we speak." They might even be able to challenge some of the abominations that go on in the name of "Islamic law." Shariah doesn't have to be some static object. It can be a creative tradition in flux.

Does that mean it needs to be grafted on to the existing court system? Not necessarily. However, i do think it's good to encourage any steps that will move people out of the adversarial and ruinously expensive courts, and into a mediation or arbitration situation. Not compel them, mind you, but offer the option if there is mutual consent. I don't know that "religious" arbitration necessarily needs to be excluded from the types of arbitraiton on offer. It would be ncie to see some non-religious mediation types getting into this game too.

I think it's OK to consider this issue on its own merits, and not rush into "one group has it, so all must, or none must." I'm not an equality fundamentalist. Special rights for aboriginal people, for instance, seem perfectly justified. Sentencing circles have definitely had some positive effects, and they should not be removed even if those Muslims who want "shariah" arbitration don't get it. The logic of denying a right to some people because it's not available to all people has always escaped me.

I'd be favouring 100% the idea of extending religious arbitration to those Muslims who want it, if not for the element of power. Can some way be found to protect women and others who might be coerced? I haven't read Marion Boyd's report, but certainly she must have done some thinking about this? The fact that there are Muslim women campaigning against "shariah" arbitration is a good sign on this front in a lot of ways. Those women, at least, won't be coerced. It just seems to me that there may be opportunity here, as well as threat.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 20 July 2005 11:30 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Maybe. On the other hand, maybe there's also an opportunity for Muslims living in the West to help define what "shariah" means. Because new issues come up. Not everything can be settled with reference to a 10th-century scholar's legal interpretation. To those that say "shariah" was completed centuries ago, the people actually doing shariah in Canada might have a chance to say: "no, look, we're adding to it even as we speak." They might even be able to challenge some of the abominations that go on in the name of "Islamic law." Shariah doesn't have to be some static object. It can be a creative tradition in flux.

Does that mean it needs to be grafted on to the existing court system? Not necessarily. However, i do think it's good to encourage any steps that will move people out of the adversarial and ruinously expensive courts, and into a mediation or arbitration situation. Not compel them, mind you, but offer the option if there is mutual consent. I don't know that "religious" arbitration necessarily needs to be excluded from the types of arbitraiton on offer. It would be ncie to see some non-religious mediation types getting into this game too.


One of the major factors that puts religion into the sphere of the irrational is a lack of a self correcting mechanism.

For example, the dietary laws we find in the Old Testament were based on observation. They were highly rational, even scientific. But in this day and age of refrigeration and greater knowledge of hygenic agricultural/food processing techniques, these dietary laws are no longer-- for the most part-- rational. But for Jews and Muslims, they are still "the law".

So I don't share your hope, Swallow, that Sharia law, or any other religious law will respond to new information or new conditions, and change.

Certainly our law courts fall short of this ideal, but they should be, first and foremost a forum for determining the truth and justice.

And how can we do that if we start from an irrational base?


The problem in the Family Court system is the backlog. Boyd and the NDP tried to solve that problem by attacking it obliquely instead of head on.

The back log in Family Court is due to judges who do not jail lawyers and their clients for contempt of court when they use cancellation as a negotiating tactic.

Do that a few times, and things should move along nicely.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 20 July 2005 11:40 AM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The problem in the Family Court system is the backlog. Boyd and the NDP tried to solve that problem by attacking it obliquely instead of head on.

The back log in Family Court is due to judges who do not jail lawyers and their clients for contempt of court when they use cancellation as a negotiating tactic.

Do that a few times, and things should move along nicely.


No, the problem in family court is that people prefer to fight with their estranged spouses rather than consider what's best for the kids.

Do you really need a judge to explain to you that, now that you're running two households, there's not going to be as much money, and that the matrimonial home is going to have to be sold?

I've heard of a Divorce Order that actually listed red lego blocks to the petitioner and blue lego blocks to the respondent. These litigants should be jailed for being assholes.

I don't see how cancellation could be used as a negotiating tactic.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 20 July 2005 11:56 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm watching two guys at work go through this at the moment. Both want to go to court and get their settlement and move on.

Both are willing to give up more just to finalize things, and it's not an uncommon sentiment amoung other guys I've talked to.

Both have had their court dates cancelled three times by either their ex, or their ex's lawyer.

Your lego block annectdote is interesting, and reminds me of something that happened during my separation.

When my ex moved out, we discussed the fact that she'd likely be moving from the basement apartment she got to a nicer one within a year or so. We were both concerned about the possible wear and tear on an antique china cabinet, and various breakables, she inherited from her Grandmother. I told her I had no problem keeping it with me until she was more settled in a place she was likely to stay for the long term.

Some time into the process, I got a letter from her lawyer that, instead of stating the truth, was worded in such a way that it implied I was witholding those things from my ex.

That's how your lego block stuff starts. Not with the wife, not with the husband, but with lawyers who want to see things go as profitably for them as possible.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 20 July 2005 02:05 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
That's how your lego block stuff starts. Not with the wife, not with the husband, but with lawyers who want to see things go as profitably for them as possible.

There's certainly some truth to what you say but I did want to say that I've been in the biz for 13 years and I've met some lawyers who are fine human beings and put their clients' interests well ahead of their own.

EDITED TO ADD: A party can dispute an adjournment, btw. And if one party is cancelling repeatedly, a judge will get to the bottom of it.

[ 20 July 2005: Message edited by: EFA ]


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 30 July 2005 02:50 AM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I must admit I have trouble with religious involvement in what are legal matters concerning marital breakdown. Having said that, I'm not sure how we can prevent people from seeking advice and mediation from whichever source they choose as they seek separation and divorce. I can reach any decision I want with my "soon to be ex" spouse after which time, it needs to go to a judge for an order. If I've agree to less than that to which I am entitled, the judge will ask questions about that and if satisfied, s/he will let the negotiated agreement stand.

In the absence of adequate legal aid for family matters, the person with the most money for a lawyer will likely prevail, no matter the rest of the circumstances. These religious "courts" are a problem because there is no balance without proper legal representation. However, that legal representation is lacking anyway -- that's where the problems lies, as I see it.

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
mimeguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10004

posted 30 July 2005 05:04 PM      Profile for mimeguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Greetings from a new guy here and my reply is a general reaction to reading through the other posts and various points made.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with devout practitioners of any religion to seek council and resolve their conflicts with religious leaders. My concern would be for any legislation that supports that these decisions be recognized as final and binding within civil law. The Canadian court system should be available to everyone as a final resolution. The answer to concerns of cloistered communities preventing this recourse or denying that it exists should be better educational tools for women and men within these communities.
I have to agree that the stereotyping of muslims within our society as a result of the Middle East conflict, 9/11 etc. has blinded us to what shariah laws encompass. Most people probably think of stoning women or community leaders in Pakistan ordering the rape of women as a punishment. The muslim community is not asking for this and I'm sure find the idea of stoning as a punishment as repugnant as anyone else. You can find reference to stoning in ancient Jewish law as well but no Rabbi has ever called for it in Canada and neither has any Muslim leader. According to some Muslim women I have talked to there is actually alot of protections accorded women within Shariah Law. The Taliban etc. are not representative of Islam.
Canadian courts I'm sure would love to have a conflict resolved through reason before ending up there. Religion is a matter of faith and the free choice to conduct oneself within a certain moral code of behaviour. The argument that religion is unreasonable using the dietary laws does not hold water. Yes they were based at one time on very logical, correct concepts of food storage, cross contamination etc. However they are not abided by today because the faithful believe these things still happen. It is done out of homage and respect to ancient ways and there is nothing unreasonable about this. Before the Roman Catholic Church recognized divorce my mother chose to abide by the Church's teaching and considered herself still married to my father. She did not date nor even consider the concept of remarriage. This was her private choice based on her belief in God and the Catholic Church. She had made a vow in the name of God, "until death do us part". Society as a whole, or any isolated element within it, does not have the right to mock her or prevent her from living with this decision if she freely chooses it. The Catholic Church has very clear rules stating, how, when, where and why an Annulment can be issued. It also has an appeal mechanism. The ruling of an individual Cardinal or Bishop is not necessarily final. You can argue against a decision being made corruptly by a Church official but this is a separate issue.
As to unscrupulous lawyers it is true that there are many but they are fed by the petty animosities of their clients. No lawyer can prevent an amicable, reasonable resolution if their clients insist upon it.

so sayeth Steve


From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lippy McFarlan
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10036

posted 31 July 2005 02:58 PM      Profile for Lippy McFarlan        Edit/Delete Post
I think this may be a situation where the individual characteristics of each culture/religion must be assessed on its own merits.

Sure the Catholic church doen't allow women to hold religious office, but it doesn't prevent them from holding political power or achieving professional success in society. Neither does the Jewish religion.

I think the Arbitration Act has worked OK so far because the people using it have generally adopted many modern viewpoints about gender equity.

Islam, however, has not. Anywhere in the world where Muslims dominate the population the government is a religiously based Islamic goverment, the law is based on Sharia principles and females are repressed.

It is what they do and what they are. And we would be foolish to allow such practices to spread to, and be legally sanctioned by, our society.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 01 August 2005 01:26 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lippy McFarlan:
Islam, however, has not. Anywhere in the world where Muslims dominate the population the government is a religiously based Islamic goverment, the law is based on Sharia principles and females are repressed.

Actually, it's not so. The largest Muslim country by population in the world is Indonesia, which is a functioning democracy despite some very real troubles. Despite the country being 90% Muslim, it is a state guaranteeing religious equality and resisting moves towards more syariah law. Historically and even now, "radical" Islamists do not make much headway in tolerant Indonesia.

The second-largest Muslim population is in India, a multi-religious secular democracy. The third, where Muslims form a majority, is Bangladesh, a democracy where both major political parties are led by a woman.

You could also look at large Muslim countries such as Turkey, which for many years enforced secularism, banned the hijab for women, etc. And so on down the list of diverse expressions of religion in diverse countries.

The Islamic world is complex and multifaceted. We in Canada are a small part of the Islamic world, because of our growing Muslim population. There are some creative things, including some very interesting Muslim feminist developments, happening here and abroad. That's why i think Canadians helping to (re)define the state of shariah might be a useful thing. Whether it needs sanction from Canadian courts for that to happen, that's where i'm undecided.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lippy McFarlan
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10036

posted 02 August 2005 12:06 AM      Profile for Lippy McFarlan        Edit/Delete Post
Hi swallow: I so deeply want to believe that Islam is not a dangerous force in the world today.

Indonesia is an area in transition. And yet bombings occur there. I sincerely hope that it becomes the exception to the rule. But that has yet to be proven.

Turkey is begging to enter the European union. Yet, terrorist bombings continue to occur.

Wherever a large number of Muslims exist, there seems to be trouble. Clearly, there is something about Islam that attracts fanatics.

There is no other religion that attracts such fanatical, suicidal believers. If you can name one, please do.

And as much as I can justify attacks against western nations in retaliation for acts of imperialism, I find it difficult to see the sense in all the bombings that take the lives of Indonesians, Turks and other non-western citizens.

Surely there is something more than just autonomy or freedom at stake here. My fear is that this is driven by religious fundamentalism. A fundamentalism that seems to be perpetrated only by Muslims.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Suzette
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7708

posted 02 August 2005 08:42 AM      Profile for Suzette     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lippy McFarlan:

There is no other religion that attracts such fanatical, suicidal believers. If you can name one, please do.

While fundamentalist Christians may not be as keen on suicide as we've seen associated with Islam in the media, (that I'm aware of, anyway) there certainly are extremists who are foaming-at-the-mouth, eye-rollingly fanatical. I absolutely would not travel into certain parts of the US on the basis of this religious extremism. I find it genuinely frightening, and consider it to be the equal of the worst Islam has to offer.

Incidentally, bombing and unrest are not a new in Indonesia. The country has been volatile to a greater or lesser extent for decades.


From: Pig City | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 02 August 2005 11:04 AM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Wherever a large number of Muslims exist, there seems to be trouble. Clearly, there is something about Islam that attracts fanatics.



Hmm so the oklahoma bombing indicates too many muslims?

Troll alert trying to ever so nicely point out that muslims are the problem in the world and without them, everything would be peachy keen


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 02 August 2005 03:37 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lippy McFarlan:
There is no other religion that attracts such fanatical, suicidal believers. If you can name one, please do.

Christianity (e.g. Jonestown)
Judaism (e.g. Masada)

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
mimeguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10004

posted 02 August 2005 05:58 PM      Profile for mimeguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hi swallow: I so deeply want to believe that Islam is not a dangerous force in the world today...Wherever a large number of Muslims exist, there seems to be trouble.... Clearly, there is something about Islam that attracts fanatics....
There is no other religion that attracts such fanatical, suicidal believers. If you can name one, please do.

There is nothing in Islam that attracts fanatics anymore than there is anything in Christianity that attracts fanatics. Fanatics find their motivation where they want to and use it to their advantage. I don't think you "deeply want to believe". Even a cursory look at the situation points to political power and control as being the motivator. Religion has very little to do with it. Islam is being used as a smoke screen for other more sinister motivations. As for naming other religions, well, name me one that hasn't attracted or been distorted by suicidal or murderous fanatics.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 02 August 2005 08:37 PM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow. Put yer foot into it there, didn't ya, Lippy?

I'm sorry, but that was a breathtakingly stupid post. I hope you figure that out, sooner rather than later. Good luck.

'Islam is a ...dangerous force in the world today.' etc.

No. I'm at a loss for words, truly.


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 August 2005 09:01 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I refuse to go along with the notion that the substitution of religious principles, whatever they may be, for civil proceedings is an innocuous thing.

Like TPaine, it is clear to me that favoritism regarding whose religion gets the legal imprimatur of backing by the state after the decisions are made is a bad idea.

Otherwise, what's to stop me from demanding that anyone who sues me has to do it by the Holy Writ of the Great Potato Chip, which, goshalmighty, says that whoever sues me automatically loses and I get whatever they own?

And if you don't think that kind of unfairness can happen, I refer you to the above-cited annulment orders forced on people by the Roman Catholic Church.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lippy McFarlan
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10036

posted 02 August 2005 10:13 PM      Profile for Lippy McFarlan        Edit/Delete Post
“Wow. Put yer foot into it there, didn't ya, Lippy?”

Yes this place abounds in crap. It’s almost impossible not to step in it.

One person actually implied that Christians in the States scare her more than the Taliban. As we all know U.S. Christians are always stoning their raped daughters and forcing their children into love less arranged marriages.

I need to know something here. Is the concept that some religions or cultures may be more dangerous than others a taboo subject here?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 02 August 2005 10:42 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, the only taboo here is against ahistorical ideas sprouted from doofuses.

The point is that the US fundies, if they ever gain open, naked power, have an actual nuclear arsenal at their disposal many many times the size of what the Taliban could ever dream of getting their hands on. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. And their secret dreams are to Talibanize the US anyway. Coated with Jeebusy sugar.

And the further point here is that the trend is usually more important than the current status. It was Christians, after all, who wrote the Malleus Maleficarum.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 02 August 2005 10:43 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh and there is an entire fundy literature in the US supporting the notion that proper Christian parents should choose husbands for their properly submissive daughters.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Suzette
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7708

posted 03 August 2005 01:43 AM      Profile for Suzette     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lippy McFarlan:
One person actually implied that Christians in the States scare her more than the Taliban.
No she didn't, actually.

quote:
I find it genuinely frightening, and consider it to be the equal of the worst Islam has to offer.
Equal. No implication of "more".

From: Pig City | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 03 August 2005 04:26 AM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll address the post I disparaged earlier, then the thread topic.

Indonesia and Turkey have 'terrorist' bombings and are therefore regarded with suspicion, from which we extrapolate that where large numbers of Muslims exist there seems to be trouble.

That England had IRA bombings, America its Oklahoma, this we ignore and do not make generalizations about 'Christian' societies. Handgun deaths in the United States, running annually into the thousands, we also ignore though this is arguably a distinct cultural expression.

Indonesia and Turkey are essentially modern 'Western' states - incidentally much beholden to the west - still in the process of implementing the first wave of colonization upon subject peoples, which they are doing in traditional western fashion, expropriation, dislocation, state terror. Turkey has depopulated swathes of Kurdish territory by military means - search and destroy missions and the like - Indonesias' 'transmigrasi' policies displace/undermine traditional cultures from Sarawak to Irian Jaya.

There is nothing characteristically 'Muslim' about these practices nor the fact that they have spawned violent resistance.

The bloodiest conflicts of the last century were, of course, between good upstanding Christian nations, at the end of good upstanding Christian arms races. We're talking tens of millions here and not the piss-ant body counts of these terrifying Muslim nations. Indeed, there is some merit to the argument that our European cultural background is in fact the most violent the planet has ever seen, witness its track record of bloody global expansion.

Most modern nations observe the practice of maintaining large 'dangerous' forces capable of industrial levels of violence and it is disingenuous to discuss 'terrorism' without reference to this.

Religious fundamentalism rears its ugly head for specific socio-economic reasons and can be found, with corresponding body counts, in Hindu, Christian, and Muslim cultures; I can't think of Zoroastrian, or Buddhist examples off the top of my head. But it is inappropriate to attribute it solely to Muslim cultures. One might as well sniff and suggest 'they' don't bathe enough and this is what prompted my dig.

The practice of Sharia in the context of a modern secular state? I'm leery of it myself, I suppose if both parties seek recourse to it voluntarily some concession might be made on the grounds that it constitutes a traditional 'known' quantity for peoples of a given background just as is the practice of religion. I would prefer a one size fits all secular problem-solving apparatus; though even without religion said apparatus is arguably brutal, error-prone and often ineffective.

It does seem to be the trend in western cultures, for centuries now, to reduce the role of traditional religious practices in the justice system. Though I have stood in a Canadian courtroom and been asked to swear on a bible. Historically our own justice systems have practiced punishments now regarded as vicious and inappropriate, the lash, the chair, wage slavery, unpaid vacations, etc.

The 'substitution of religious principles...for civil proceedings' - clear enough, I support the seperation of church and state but I'd condition that with the notion that the ethical contents of modern civil systems are transplanted from pre-existing religious systems, we don't repudiate the content because of its origins. And in examples where peoples of non-Christian ethical/cultural backgrounds may find a Judeo-Christian-descended justice system at odds with their own practices and beliefs some accommodations might be made.


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lippy McFarlan
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10036

posted 03 August 2005 11:09 AM      Profile for Lippy McFarlan        Edit/Delete Post
Some good points. Busy day though and I can only address one at this time;

"That England had IRA bombings, America its Oklahoma, this we ignore and do not make generalizations about 'Christian' societies.

1.The IRA attacks and Oklahoma were national tragedies that affected one nation only. Did The IRA take its bombings to resorts and cities around the world in order to kill ther enemies? Did they stage attacks in multiple nations? Did they tell their sons that they would get 70 virgins if they died killing the infidel brits? Did they scream 'praise jesus' as the bombs went off? Maybe. But,I doubt it.

2. As for Oaklahoma, McVeigh was a lunatic. He was not a member of an international terrorist organization. To compare what he did with the thousands of deaths in multiple of nations carried out by Hamas or Al Qaeda is nonsensical.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 03 August 2005 05:25 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The entire point of the IRA attacks is that they affected TWO nations, not one. The IRA was claiming that theirs was a separate nation, for good or ill, and that they were attacking an aggressor nation.

(I am using the trivial definition of nation as country here, as I presume you are.)

You are severely mistaken if you think that McVeigh was an individual acting alone. In fact there is a large militant infrastructure in the US, some of which aspires to be capable of further such acts. Some of these white, Christian, home-grown groups even applauded Osama bin Laden, as they despise New York (meaning Jews and other minorities).


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lippy McFarlan
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10036

posted 03 August 2005 07:40 PM      Profile for Lippy McFarlan        Edit/Delete Post
Geez, can you not just admit that radical Islam (Not all Muslims) should be irridicated? I'll admit that Western Imperialism is wrong. In fact I believe that we should pull out totally from all middle eastern nations and just let them govern themselves. It's wrong that we are there at all. But, there is something awesomely grotesque about people blowing themselves up for their god. Islam does not want this. And yet it happens. Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about Sharia law. I am sorry to have gotten so far off track.

I have some good friends who are Muslim. And we have had some interesting debates about Sharia.

I still believe that Sharia oppresses women and should not be implemented here in Canada.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 August 2005 10:58 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But, there is something awesomely grotesque about people blowing themselves up for their god.

Oh. But there is nothing awesomely grotesque in blowing up other people for cheap oil?

quote:
Geez, can you not just admit that radical Islam (Not all Muslims) should be irridicated?
That's very generous of you.

quote:
I'll admit that Western Imperialism is wrong.
So why not "irridicate" all Imperialists (not all Americans)?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lukewarm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8690

posted 04 August 2005 08:35 PM      Profile for Lukewarm        Edit/Delete Post
Excellent observations class

[ 04 August 2005: Message edited by: Lukewarm ]


From: hinterland's dark cubby hole | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
sleepswithangels
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9944

posted 08 August 2005 03:09 AM      Profile for sleepswithangels     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
please refer to "show religion the door" in the auntie.com section

many many years from now in a completely transformed world..people will study the history of earth in modern times...the 3 or 4 millenia up to the present time and wonder about how the religious organizations of this period, their followers, affiliated governments and militaries could be responsible for for so much strife and bloodshed when the "holy books" worshipped by the "faithful flocks" are all "peace and love"...

this hypocrisy trumps the atrocities of the the "godless states" any way you examine it...Dubya as a "man of god" is particularily absurd..but then this is a tres bizarro joint

once again...all you godboys and girls...**** *** you *** **** *******


From: principality of east vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Farmageddon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9572

posted 08 August 2005 02:21 PM      Profile for Farmageddon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Q: many many years from now in a completely transformed world..people will study the history of earth in modern times...the 3 or 4 millenia...


I love an optimist. In not so many years from now, Alien archeologists will wonder how a race with the inteligence to split the atom, and venture into space, shit in their nest so much as to pollute themselves into a famine senario. Then, instead of pooling thier remaining resources, exterminated each other like a pack of fat kids fighting over the last piece of pie.

But I degress.......

F


From: The seventh ring of a watery hell... | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
sleepswithangels
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9944

posted 08 August 2005 03:08 PM      Profile for sleepswithangels     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Then, instead of pooling thier remaining resources, exterminated each other like a pack of fat kids fighting over the last piece of pie."

for shame
how could you equate the boneheaded actions of our overlords with a "pack of fat kids fighting over the last piece of pie"?

isn't it more like a pack of priests fighting over the pope's prize pud pulling altar boy?


From: principality of east vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 August 2005 03:20 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
exterminated each other like a pack of fat kids fighting over the last piece of pie.

Don't you mean "like a pack of crazy loonies fighting over the last Haldol"?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 08 August 2005 03:44 PM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey!!!
From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 August 2005 03:46 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Don't you mean "like a pack of crazy loonies fighting over the last Haldol"?


Um, yeah. skdadl has a lot of problems with that reference. If you've ever seen someone subdued on Haldol, or worse, watched someone you love trying to come out of a lost weekend on Haldol, you would not be snickering, Mr M.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 08 August 2005 03:47 PM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think he was just kidding, Skdadl.

Edited to add: Weren't you, Tubby?

[ 08 August 2005: Message edited by: Gibbled ]


From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 August 2005 03:48 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, skdadl wasn't.

I agree that the previous remark was pretty putrid too.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 August 2005 04:09 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr. Magoo wrote what he did because he was showing Farmageddon how offensive it is to write what he did, by making a parallel quote where people would have no problem seeing how offensive it is. To anyone with half a clue, I think it's clear that Magoo was making the point that neither of those statements are in any way acceptable on a progressive board.

I think there's a pretty big difference between making that point, and directly calling someone "Tubby". If I wanted to see that kind of crap, I'd go back to kindergarten.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 August 2005 04:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To anyone with half a clue,

From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 August 2005 04:13 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wasn't talking about you, skdadl. You obviously saw the parallel Magoo was making, which you acknowledged in your other post. I was talking about Gibbles, who apparently thinks it's okay to make fun of people for being fat if they say something she disagrees with or uses a rhetorical device that she doesn't approve of in order to make a progressive point.

You know, I'm trying to stay away from threads where people pull this kind of crap, and I probably shouldn't have responded at all, but this was just one too many, and perhaps it hit a little too close to home.

I don't like the "ironic racism" or ironic anthingelseism thing either, but there's a pretty big difference between that and maliciously calling people names based on their physical characteristics that they've shared on this board thinking it was a safe space to do so.

[ 08 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 August 2005 04:18 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
audra has said that ironic racism is not allowed on babble. There is no way for us to play genuinely funny games with the N-word. And I agree with that position.

I also feel that there is no way to play genuinely funny games with Haldol. It isn't ironic; there is nothing ironic about it, ever.

Even "loonies" is pushing the envelope. babblers like oldgoat have said before that they would never use that language any more, even in jokes. We are probably still a minority, but I don't myself see the difference in principle.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 August 2005 04:20 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS: I didn't see Gibbled's edit until now. She seems to have written that after Mr M wrote to Farm., not before.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 August 2005 04:25 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
She wrote the whole post after Magoo's post to Farmageddon. As I said in my edit while you were posting, although I don't like ironic racism either and agree that it's not a good thing to do, there's a pretty big difference between doing that as a way of making the progressive point that you shouldn't use "fat kids" or "loonies" as a rhetorical device, and calling people names based on physical characteristics that they've shared with the group at other times.

Never mind, I edited that out since you say you didn't see that she had called Magoo that until now.

[ 08 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 August 2005 04:35 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you've ever seen someone subdued on Haldol, or worse, watched someone you love trying to come out of a lost weekend on Haldol, you would not be snickering, Mr M.

Who's snickering? Not me. I don't find this humourous.

I was, however, trying to make a point. I chose the example I did because Farmageddon's profile suggests he works with mental health patients and I thought perhaps making the example a personal one for him might get my point across. Maybe.

To Skdadl, and others: my apologies for using a distasteful example. I wasn't trying to offend you.

To Gibbled: you're offended? Too bad. I seem to recall you also like to make fun of fat kids for no apparent reason:

quote:
Yes, I suppose you're right. Did you add that comma because you didn't want Fern Hill to get on you like a fat kid on a smartie?

Don't ask for respect you won't first give.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 August 2005 04:35 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't help it. Haldol makes me see red.

It is used to incapacitate people.

If we were competent ourselves, we would not need to do that to the incapable. It infuriates me. Grr.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 August 2005 04:37 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you, Mr Magoo.

I admit to hypersensitivity on this topic.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 August 2005 04:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now, Magoo, THAT was the quote I was looking for for the last 20 minutes - I was almost POSITIVE that EFA had made almost that exact same offensive simile in the past that Farmageddon did in this thread, and I couldn't find it. I was pretty sure that's what you had in mind when you wrote what you did.

Not that this makes it okay, really, since it's true that ironic (whatever)ism isn't supposed to be used on babble.

[ 08 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 August 2005 04:50 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As always I'll throw myself at the mercy of the moderators.

Also, I'll remove my post if anyone other than Farmageddon or Gibbled requests it.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 August 2005 04:53 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ModeratoR. I'm not moderating in this forum. In fact, I should have completely avoided this thread. But addictions are hard to break.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 August 2005 05:01 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You had a brief taste of the power and now you're jonesing for it, aren't you?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 08 August 2005 05:09 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
farmageddon, i was thinking exactly what you posted after reading sleepswithangels post. that, in less than 3 or 4 millenia, the human race will probably have blown itself out of extinction, and there would be no humans studying history! sometimes, on some of my most depressing days as a peace-loving anarchist, when i'm in my darker moods and despairing the lack of power that the left has, i honestly wish this armageddon would come soon, so my dying words to all the right-wing nutbars can be, "i told you so".
From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 August 2005 05:12 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
You had a brief taste of the power and now you're jonesing for it, aren't you?

Actually, not at all. By "addiction" I meant my addiction to babble in general, not moderating.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nikita
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9050

posted 08 August 2005 05:13 PM      Profile for Nikita     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:
farmageddon, i was thinking exactly what you posted after reading sleepswithangels post. that, in less than 3 or 4 millenia, the human race will probably have blown itself out of extinction, and there would be no humans studying history! sometimes, on some of my most depressing days as a peace-loving anarchist, when i'm in my darker moods and despairing the lack of power that the left has, i honestly wish this armageddon would come soon, so my dying words to all the right-wing nutbars can be, "i told you so".

Sometimes I think about the state of the world and realise I have very little optimism for our little marble Earth. It also makes me question if I ever want to have kids, do I want to bring someone into this world? All the suffering, hatred, violence... I don't think so.

But those are pretty rare moments, because despite the negativity I have at times I am a pretty positive optimistic person.


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gibbbled
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10110

posted 08 August 2005 05:36 PM      Profile for Gibbbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, for God's sake, people ... Lighten Up!!! I was totally kidding and not in the least offended. But I get it now: No making fun of fat people or feminists but, hey, everybody else is fair game.
From: MYOB | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gibbbled
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10110

posted 08 August 2005 05:36 PM      Profile for Gibbbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
babble SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: MYOB | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gibbbled
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10110

posted 08 August 2005 05:37 PM      Profile for Gibbbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What a bunch of fucking cretins you are !!!
From: MYOB | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gibbbled
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10110

posted 08 August 2005 05:38 PM      Profile for Gibbbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My God, you're pathetic. Just pathetic. People like you drive the right wing.
From: MYOB | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gibbbled
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10110

posted 08 August 2005 05:39 PM      Profile for Gibbbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And, Fatty, how could you be hurt? I've never even clapped eyes on you!
From: MYOB | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gibbbled
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10110

posted 08 August 2005 05:39 PM      Profile for Gibbbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did anyone catch the reference to right-wing "nutbars" earlier? Nutbars?
From: MYOB | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gibbbled
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10110

posted 08 August 2005 05:40 PM      Profile for Gibbbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If it had been fat, feminist nutbars, that would have been a different story. Because, you know, we wouldn't want to, like, offend anybody.
From: MYOB | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nikita
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9050

posted 08 August 2005 06:02 PM      Profile for Nikita     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Piss off.
From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 08 August 2005 06:44 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i hereby declare that i blame thwap for my usage of the word 'nutbar'. he has a foul mouth, that sweetheart of mine. he's always swearing his mouth off at something or somebody, and boy, he has taught me so many nasty words. i really didn't used to be this way before we moved in together. sob, what is wrong with me? *wrings hands in despair*
From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 08 August 2005 06:46 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
nutbars are delicious. i especially like the bars that are packed with almonds, cashews and pistachios. they are held together with rice syrup or something. yummy.
From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 08 August 2005 06:47 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
from www.dictionary.com:
cretin

n : a person of subnormal intelligence

nut bar

n : paste of nuts and sugar on a pastry base cut into bars

from my 3-D dictionary:

fatty:

n: derogatory term for a fat person

[ 08 August 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 08 August 2005 06:56 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i should learn to type everything i want to say in just one neat little post. it is a considerate thing to do for those with low-speed internet access as it keeps the thread shorter for longer.

[ 08 August 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
sleepswithangels
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9944

posted 08 August 2005 06:57 PM      Profile for sleepswithangels     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
all this talk about nutbars..I'm drooling with anticipation..anybody know where I can jack a truck load of crunchy mouth watering nut bars?

I did notice in all the back and forth that no one seemed to have a problem with " a pack of priests fighting over the pope's prize pud pulling altar boy"...maybe some of you would have a problem with " a mosque full of mullahs fighting over a molecule of Mohammed's last masturbation"


From: principality of east vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
sleepswithangels
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9944

posted 08 August 2005 07:02 PM      Profile for sleepswithangels     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
or how about a rabble of rabbis fighting over a rusty rupee?
From: principality of east vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Farmageddon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9572

posted 08 August 2005 07:30 PM      Profile for Farmageddon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Q:Mr. Magoo wrote what he did because he was showing Farmageddon how offensive it is to write what he did, by making a parallel quote where people would have no problem seeing how offensive it is. To anyone with half a clue, I think it's clear that Magoo was making the point that neither of those statements are in any way acceptable on a progressive board

Offensive? How the hell do you get through your day with that paper skin of yours?

Don't offend the overweight, don't bash the poor, god forbid you show nothing but pleasentness towards those with mental health concerns, be a good feminist, don't rock the boat.....perhaps you shouldn't think.....yeah....just stand there, bleat and taste the grass....


Baaaaaaaa......baaaaaaaaaa...dumb shee-ple.

Christ. Life is offensive, in one way, shape or form to someone, somewhere, some how. Comments can be stated in a lightness of being, or n an off hand nature. Not everything needs to be taken so defensively. When you read these posts...are you adding inflections? Thats your insecurities biting on your ass.


F


From: The seventh ring of a watery hell... | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 08 August 2005 07:48 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't like it Farmy then leave. Them's the rules and you don't make 'em.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
sleepswithangels
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9944

posted 08 August 2005 08:22 PM      Profile for sleepswithangels     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
wtf..rules?..there are gd rules?

say it ain't so...I was looking forward to telling some jokes about fat lesbos..kidding

people..take a deep breath...if you learn to relax...you will die laughing..how sweet it is


From: principality of east vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nikita
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9050

posted 08 August 2005 08:52 PM      Profile for Nikita     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Don't offend the overweight, don't bash the poor, god forbid you show nothing but pleasentness towards those with mental health concerns, be a good feminist, don't rock the boat.....perhaps you shouldn't think.....yeah....just stand there, bleat and taste the grass....

Christ. Life is offensive, in one way, shape or form to someone, somewhere, some how.


Yeah, that's true but that does not make it alright to be offensive on babble. If you need to be offensive and make fat jokes about lesbian feminists why don't you shout it into a pillow or something? There is no reason to put more hate and hurt into the world.

[ 08 August 2005: Message edited by: Nikita ]


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
sleepswithangels
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9944

posted 08 August 2005 09:44 PM      Profile for sleepswithangels     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
hi there nikita

I guess that poor french canadian bike rider feels like that too...for those who don't already know...a guy cycling across Canada just stopped in Saskaloon..went for a bite to eat and came out to find his bike stolen...he asked a lady standing nearby if she saw anything and she mugged him and took all his travel $$$$

yeah..it's a shitty world sometimes

BTW..what's the difference between a handful of cock and a handful of snot?

you can't get a fat lessie to eat the former


From: principality of east vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
sleepswithangels
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9944

posted 08 August 2005 10:04 PM      Profile for sleepswithangels     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm such an asshole ....but I don't hate fat lezzies..or thin ones...in fact the only people I still hate are those holy wankers who get behind genocide and all the people who vote for right wing politicians
From: principality of east vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
chubbybear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10025

posted 08 August 2005 10:57 PM      Profile for chubbybear        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sleepswithangels:
hi there nikita

Quote:

"or how about a rabble of rabbis fighting over a rusty rupee?"

BTW..what's the difference between a handful of cock and a handful of snot?


So now we're repeating anti-semetic, homophobic and mysogynist jokes to show how smug we are in our progressiveness. Please, if you can't play nice, just stay out of the sandbox.


From: nowhere | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 08 August 2005 11:03 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Welcome to babble chubbybear.

I have candy.

[ 08 August 2005: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
sleepswithangels
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9944

posted 08 August 2005 11:08 PM      Profile for sleepswithangels     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
chubbybear

you nailed it..I'm smug... and hungry

you must have a large stash of munchies...wanna share?

lissen up rabble..I am a total asshole..I spent big bucks in group therapy to find this out..now I embrace my inner asshole..and I'm a much better asshole because of it

btw..if your're not a right winger..it's not personal...so lighten up

you might have noticed that this world is largely wack....so make the best of it..smile and laugh and embrace your inner asshole/bitch


From: principality of east vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 08 August 2005 11:19 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I tried embracing my inner asshole once, but I kept getting shit on. Karma I guess.
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
sleepswithangels
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9944

posted 09 August 2005 03:41 AM      Profile for sleepswithangels     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
AE

you got shit on your what?...as you imbraced your inner asshole?

Karma dude....don't get any shit on your karma..it
impacts on your resale value..down the road as it were


From: principality of east vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 09 August 2005 09:38 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SleepswiththeFISHES, more like it!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
chubbybear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10025

posted 09 August 2005 10:18 AM      Profile for chubbybear        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyBrogan:
Welcome to babble chubbybear.

I have candy.

[ 08 August 2005: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]



My mum told me not to accept candy from strangers.

From: nowhere | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Farmageddon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9572

posted 09 August 2005 11:27 AM      Profile for Farmageddon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lets keep it straight.....

Q: Yeah, that's true but that does not make it alright to be offensive on babble. If you need to be offensive and make fat jokes about lesbian feminists why don't you shout it into a pillow or something? There is no reason to put more hate and hurt into the world.

I agree, and most whole heartedly.

But I did NOT make fat jokes about lesbian feminists. That was Sleeps With Idiots, or angels, or whatever that trolls name was.

Q: like a pack of fat kids fighting over the last piece of pie.

Thats spreading hate? Lets keep in in perspective.

Q:We know about Mel Gibson's KooKoo sect.

Damn! You offended Mel gibson, Ultra Orthodox Christians, and Koo Koo's all in one sentance! How Dare you!

But seriously, all joking aside, save your critisism for a more pressing incident.
If you censor everything anyone ever would find the most remotly offensive, then you would have nothing but sterile agreement, and debate stagnates.

F


From: The seventh ring of a watery hell... | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 09 August 2005 03:41 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What I find offensive are nyah nyah nyah posts. So quit it, eh? I'm an old woman and you shouldn't offend me in my dotage.

Quit with the nyah nyah because if you don't grandma isn't going to invite you over for freezies, slushies, and the kind of unhealthy ice cream sundaes your mom and dad don't want you to have because of empty calories, dentist bills and rah rah rah .

Play nicely. Clean up your own messes. Do not dribble on the floor in front of the toilet. be sure to flush. Do not put gum under the chair seat. That's good ones. You're all good ones. Grandma love you. Kisses and hugs, then off you go with a purple freezie.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 09 August 2005 07:50 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
tee hee hee, when i was a kid, i used to put snot from my nose under the chair seat. i also used to like peeing in the pool.
From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eye Spy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10192

posted 21 August 2005 12:46 PM      Profile for Eye Spy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see there's kind of a rhythm to this babble and I may have come along too late to go back to the actual subject of the post but I did want to share a nice little report featured in one Indian paper this weekend on women defying the fatwa issued by local mullahs in Uttar Pradesh (literally, North State - a nice little province with only about 140 million people, less than 50% of whom are women... but that's another issue) to prevent them from taking part in local elections:

http://www.centralchronicle.com/20050820/2008003.htm


From: far away | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 21 August 2005 01:43 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Much of what has been written here makes me very sad. To go from questioning the religious mediation experiment to flat-out dumping on Muslims is just... horrible.

Before you leap up and yell that Muslims are suicide bombers bent on destroying "our way of life" please take a look at WHY they are doing it and to what end.

Capitalism and "western" control of too much of the world's resources seems to me to be at the root of the horror. Not "religion". I am not convinced "religion" had anything to do with 9/11, I suspect the World Trade Centre represented capitalism, and that capitalism was viewed as an enemy and so down it had to come... and the symbolism was as important as that other lesser symbolism of pulling down Saddams statue.

Surely you cannot be suggesting that because people are Muslim they are unremittingly prepared to slaughter your babies in their cribs.

I am not going to go into a litany of "christian" sins, horrors, infamies and slaughters but I will suggest the ten years of "sanctions" and bombings of Baghdad make it appear to some that "christians" have been slaughtering innocents for a decade before the invasion began.

Give it a rest, okay? We KNOW the largest single population group in Baghdad is children under the age of three. Not one single child under the age of three anywhere on this suffering globe is an enemy of mine.

I cannot say I have Muslim friends or family. For all I know, I might well have such. Even if I don't, I object to the slagging against Muslim people.

Just about the last thing this world needs is a return to the Crusades.

The amount of money which has been spent to reduce a once beautiful city to polluted rubble would have fed the world for years. But because a few greedy fucks wanted more more more blood is being spilled.

When you slag the Muslim people you advance the politics and serial mass murder of the Dubya's of the world.

Muslim or not Muslim they are our cousins!

Give your fuckin' head a shake.

Where is Audra, anyway??


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eye Spy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10192

posted 22 August 2005 01:08 PM      Profile for Eye Spy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dumping on any group of people is to be condemned but I think the debate actually started out over whether or not we should be concerned about Ontario opening the door to Sharia law. If the article by Bruce Cheadle (quoted below) is correct (I'm far away, remember, so I don't follow this stuff very closely) then perhaps this was all just a media-created, anti-Islamic scare. On the other hand, over here in India where various religion-based versions of family law (http://invest.economictimes.indiatimes.com/question/faqs/FamilyLaw.htm) co-exist, discrimination in various forms has been made legal. The laws may not be the the fundamental (pun intended) problem (http://www.infochangeindia.org/analysis49.jsp) but they don't help, either.

quote:
Rather than opening a door, Boyd's provincially commissioned report last December recommended placing limits and oversight mechanisms on an arbitration system currently open to abuse.

Under Ontario's 1991 arbitration act, civil disputes ranging from child custody and support to divorce and inheritance can be resolved through an independent arbitrator if both parties agree. Catholics, Mennonites, Jews, aboriginals, Jehovahs Witnesses and Muslims, among others, have availed themselves of this right to settle family law questions without resorting to the courts.

The arbitration concept dates back as far as the 1870s in Ontario.



From: far away | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Magical_Mongoose
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9992

posted 26 August 2005 09:32 PM      Profile for Magical_Mongoose     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How should a progressive be concerned with these laws?
Well, firstly a progressive is a person that is open to new ideas. More specifically in the legal sense, ways of promoting restorative justice in the legal system.
What you must remember that Sharia law as a cultural tool of Islam, is one that does not believe in chopping off the hands/limbs/heads of a person that steals a grape from a disfigured monkey wearing a fez. This achieves nothing, only more pain, more suffering, and less actual justice. But rather, Sharia law believes that when an individual does commit a wrongful action, not only should the individual recognize their action was wrong, but secondly, that they also go about in setting to right the wrongs they committed.
Restorative justice is essential to a humane society, and we should be joining eachother in promoting it. Instead of focusing on "Well, it says "God" in it, so it must be bad!" we should be more concerned about:

Does it respect the individuals right as a free person to make their own choice between Sharia or secular court? If the individual is clearly having Sharia law forced down their throat, whether by their partner/family/peers, then undisputably, that is wrong.

What we should be calling for is judicial responsibility. The judge themself has to be very sensitive and empathetic (the ability to mentally place oneself in anothers position), and it doesn't matter if they're a Sharia-court judge or a secular-court judge; they have the same responsibility.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 07 September 2005 03:38 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
...if anyone from the mainstream Catholic or Jewish cultures had ever piped up on babble before, to ask us to think about what was happening in their more orthodox / literalist communities, I promise you, I would have paid attention....

The whole forum would have paid attention and savagely attacked them. No straying from babble thought will be tolerated.

From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 September 2005 03:43 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This would seem to be my original post. To see the context, you'll have to scroll back a long way.

quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

Mr Magoo, if anyone from the mainstream Catholic or Jewish cultures had ever piped up on babble before, to ask us to think about what was happening in their more orthodox / literalist communities, I promise you, I would have paid attention.

But no one ever did. I mean, I read pretty closely, and I don't think that anyone ever has.

I don't know what you mean to insinuate, but I honestly think that it comes as a surprise to most Canadians to realize that this stuff has been going on for some time among us.

Walrus obviously thought that what is being done to RC women was news, just this year -- and for sure, to me, that was news. And I come from an RC family. So, like: why are you finding it so hard, Mr M, to accept that much of this shit has been suppressed?



I think that I can still sign on to all of that.

scooter, I'm not sure what your problem is, but you have quoted a single line of mine and then used it to generalize to the whole of babble.

This may come as news to you, but I do not write the whole of babble.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8926

posted 07 September 2005 06:21 PM      Profile for Fed        Edit/Delete Post
I think Skadl was referring to this article:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/article.pl?sid=05/03/29/193258

The Walrus article calls the Church's annulment process "secretive."

It's not that much of a secret.

The whole Code of Canon Law (which deals with much, much more than just annulments) is a slim volume as law codes go---I have a copy at the house and it is barely 3/4 of an inch thick.

The whole thing is available online in a number of places like:

http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0017.htm

With respect to the anulment process itself, it is likewise not that difficult to get informtion.

The Diocese of Santa Fe lists and explains the grounds for annulment on this page:

http://www.archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/Tribunal/ExplanationGr.html

"Grounds

- Lack of Use of Reason
- Lack of Due Discretion
- Inability to Assume
- Partial Simulation
- Total Simulation
- Fraud
- Force and Fear
- Error"

More pages describing the annulment process are at:

http://frpat.com/annulments.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Erickpen16/id14.html

The Walrus article quotes a woman, MacLeod thusly:

"She couldn't fathom how her thirty-five-year marriage, entered into by mature, intelligent adults, could be deemed invalid, or how her children could be rendered the progeny of an invalid union, which in her eyes meant illegitimacy."

First, even with an annulment, the children are never illegitimate. That is written right into canon law. (see the FAQ on the second link listed.)

Secondly, regardless of how long the putative marriage lasted, the declaration of nullity concerns the conditions and intentions of the spouses at the _beginning_ of the marriage.

Pete Vere, a canon lawyer and a friend of mine, has found in his 4 years practicing in marriage tribunals that psychological immaturity and the intention of the spouses going into the marriage are the most common reasons for a declaration of nullity.

See http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=29071

This is echoed in the Walrus article, which states:

"As she [MacLeod] soon discovered, 'defective consent' is the basis for the majority of nullity petitions, and the root of what critics call North America's "annulment crisis." Canon 1095.2 was added to the revised code in 1983, and it broadened the psychological grounds for annulment. The intention was to take into account advances in behavioural science that had produced a more profound understanding of relationships and the reasons for marriage breakdown. But in practice, many Catholics contend Canon 1095.2 is interpreted so liberally that virtually every petition is granted on the flimsiest of pop-psychology grounds."

That is pretty much what Pete thought before he got into Canon Law. However, now that he's been in the field for awhile, he does not think that annulments are handed out willy-nilly.

I find it particularly hard to believe that:

"At no point was MacLeod told that she was entitled to an advocate." The article goes on to quote two other women who say the same thing.

This is quite odd.

The normal procedure is that "The respondent has the right to participate, to oppose the granting of the annulment, to leave the case to the justice of the tribunal, or simply to refuse to participate at all...

Both parties may be represented in these proceedings by procurators and advocates (normally these roles are exercised by the same person), who act in place of the parties in the proceedings. These are people who have received training in the tribunal's procedures and are both resources for the parties in the case, as well as persons who monitor the process from the standpoint of the parties."

Furthermore, every Tribunal has a "Defender of the Bond"-- a third canon lawyer "who reviews the proceeding to see that the rights of the parties are protected in the case, that canon law is observed, and that any arguments in favor of the validity of the marriage are made, so that no unproved case is given an affirmative decision." (all quotes from: http://home.earthlink.net/%7Erickpen16/id14.html)

The Tribunal cannot take place without the advocates the defender. It would be like a hockey team trying to play without a goalie!

The Tribunal also hears from official witnesses you select--people who knew you before the marriage and in the early years of it would be best. Psychiatrists or psychologists may also be called as expert witnesses.

It is not "secretive" in any sense.

"Because of the seriousness with which the Catholic Church takes marriage, any decision of the court in favor of nullity (an "affirmative" decision) must be reviewed by another court of at least three judges.

In addition, either of the parties (through their advocates) or the defender of the bond may appeal the decision to the court of appeal if they are unsatisfied with the first decision (whether that was affirmative or negative)."

(also from: http://home.earthlink.net/%7Erickpen16/id14.html)

Given the slant of the Walrus article, I can only see three possibilities:
1. Perhaps the author was rushed for time to submit the article. Perhaps she didn't know where to look for information. Either way, the author of the article was honestly mistaken.
2. The author of the article was deliberately "spinning" things in the direction of the axe she was grinding. She left out information on the annulment process on purpose to suit that end.
3. The author found three cases of gross negligence on the part of a marriage Tribunal and is exposing these to public scrutiny as a journalist should.

However, that all Catholic marriage tribunals everywhere are deliberately stacked against the person trying to maintain the bond is not a possibility.

Neither is it a possibility, as Skdadl feared that the Tribunals are somehow stacked against the woman. Even the Walrus article didn't suggest that.

The Walrus author writes: "Despite such concerns, the Catholic Church seems determined to maintain a resolute silence. The Apostolic Nunciature (essentially the pontiff's embassy in Canada), the head of the National Appeal Tribunal, the Conference of Bishops, and the Ottawa diocese all declined to comment,..."

I'm not sure what questions the author was asking. If she was asking about MacLeod's case personally, I can certainly understand the reluctance of anyone to speak with the reporter! A civil lawyer certainly would not discuss the details of a particular client's case with a journalist, and I would not expect a canon lawyer to do so either.

If instead the author was asking about annulments in general, that would explain why they put her in touch with the St. Paul's University professor she quotes a few times. She also seems to have contacted only one or two practicing canon lawyers, though she does not quote them extensively. This doesn't sound like "the Church" maintaining a "resolute silence:" at least three people inside the Tribunal process were willing to speak with her.

It is most curious that the author uses various disrespectful terms like "secretive" mentioned earlier. She also talks of the "jargon-laden nuances of canon law."

C'mon: this is a law system, and all law systems have their own jargon. Moreover, it is a law system over 1000 years old---it is naive to assume it would be an easy-reader.

Another example would be this:

"MacLeod believes the Church has no credibility in portraying itself as a champion of traditional marriage. 'Absolutely not,' the feisty, sixty-seven-year-old Ottawa grandmother snaps. 'What do they know about heterosexual marriage?'"

What the Walrus article's author does not mention is that whilst many canon lawyers, including my friend Pete, are laymen (and laywomen), married, with children of their own. They certainly know quite a bit first-hand about "heterosexual marriage."

Given all of this, I am leaning to the opinion that the Walrus article was deliberately slannted to put the Catholic annulment process in the worst possible light.

Thus, Skdadl seems to have based her fears (that "...the RC church in Canada has imposed "annulment" judgements on people who didn't want them, especially the women of the couples,") on an article that presented a quite distorted view of annulment process.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the annulment process cannot start until the couple has already obtained a civil divorce.

Since the Tribunal process follows a civil divorce, allows the calling of any witnesses you choose (of whatever religion), and allows trained psychologists and psychiatrists (of whatever religion) to give expert witness, as well as having two canon lawyers (the respondent's advocate and the defender of the bond) arguing in favour of the marriage, Skdadl need not fear that this is "the situation of someone who may be sequestered in a closed and paranoid culture."


From: http://babblestrike.lbprojects.com/ | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 12 September 2005 06:28 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Shouldn't there have been horror stories aplenty? Do you suppose part of the reason that it flew under the radar for so many years might be because it didn't lead inexorably to women and children left penniless, or for that matter to the stoning of adulterers and the mutilation of thieves?

At any rate you seem to be admitting that I was in fact correct: no hew and cry until the Muslim community asked for the same rights as the rest. We can disagree on why nobody was actively fighting it before.


I would have objected to the law if I had known it existed prior to this kerfluffle, and you well know I would have.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca