Charles Farley

This is a grave, grave mistake. Not only does Canada refuse to fight
for the basic human right for other peoples to live in freedom, Canada
now willfully embraces tyranny.



Article excerpts:


Canada preparing to enforce Islamic law
Judges will give legal sanction to disputes between Muslims

November 27, 2003

Canadian judges soon will be enforcing Islamic law, or Sharia, in
disputes between Muslims, possibly paving the way to one day
administering criminal sentences, such as stoning women caught in
adultery.

Muslims are required to submit to Sharia in Muslim societies but are
excused in nations where they live as a minority under a non-Muslim
government.

Canada, however, is preparing for its 1 million-strong Muslim minority
to be under the authority of a Sharia system enforced by the Canadian
court system, according to the Canadian Law Times.

Muslim delegates at a conference in Etobicoke, Ont., in October
elected a 30-member council to establish the "Islamic Institute of
Civil Justice."

The institute is classified in Islamic law as a Darul-Qada, or
judicial tribunal. Its bylaws are scheduled to be drafted and approved
by Dec. 31.

Cases will be decided by a Muslim arbitrator, but the local secular
Canadian court will be the enforcer.


Source:

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/Main5.html

http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-frie...TICLE_ID=35850







.

Nicholas Fitzpatrick

In article <>,
Charles Farley <> wrote:
    >This is a grave, grave mistake. Not only does Canada refuse to fight
    >for the basic human right for other peoples to live in freedom, Canada
    >now willfully embraces tyranny.

The article below grossly distorts the facts about the whole thing.
It also has some gross inaccuracies. Canada doesn't have
"a million strong" Muslims, the numbers are only slightly more
than half that figure.
(see http://www12.statcan.ca/english/cens...rel/canada.cfm)

If you compare the article below, to the source:
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/Main5.html
you can quickly see that whoever wrote the text below, was out
to stir the flames of bigotry. All that is happening, is
that if two parties agree to arbitration (and they certainly don't
have to agree), then they can agree to have the arbitration done
under Islamic law.

    >Article excerpts:
    >Canada preparing to enforce Islamic law
    >Judges will give legal sanction to disputes between Muslims
    >November 27, 2003
    >Canadian judges soon will be enforcing Islamic law, or Sharia, in
    >disputes between Muslims, possibly paving the way to one day
    >administering criminal sentences, such as stoning women caught in
    >adultery.
    >Muslims are required to submit to Sharia in Muslim societies but are
    >excused in nations where they live as a minority under a non-Muslim
    >government.
    >Canada, however, is preparing for its 1 million-strong Muslim minority
    >to be under the authority of a Sharia system enforced by the Canadian
    >court system, according to the Canadian Law Times.
    >Muslim delegates at a conference in Etobicoke, Ont., in October
    >elected a 30-member council to establish the "Islamic Institute of
    >Civil Justice."
    >The institute is classified in Islamic law as a Darul-Qada, or
    >judicial tribunal. Its bylaws are scheduled to be drafted and approved
    >by Dec. 31.
    >Cases will be decided by a Muslim arbitrator, but the local secular
    >Canadian court will be the enforcer.
    >Source:
    > http://www.lawtimesnews.com/Main5.html
    > http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-frie...TICLE_ID=35850
    >.

Don Howe

This News Item which was mis-reported and then given a bigoted slant should
have been signed using the writers's middle inital --- making his name more
descriptive of his attitude. 'Chuck U. Farley'.


"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
news:3fc81e83$...
    > In article <>,
    > Charles Farley <> wrote:
    > >
    > >This is a grave, grave mistake. Not only does Canada refuse to fight
    > >for the basic human right for other peoples to live in freedom, Canada
    > >now willfully embraces tyranny.
    > The article below grossly distorts the facts about the whole thing.
    > It also has some gross inaccuracies. Canada doesn't have
    > "a million strong" Muslims, the numbers are only slightly more
    > than half that figure.
    > (see
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/cens...panion/rel/can
ada.cfm)
    > If you compare the article below, to the source:
    > http://www.lawtimesnews.com/Main5.html
    > you can quickly see that whoever wrote the text below, was out
    > to stir the flames of bigotry. All that is happening, is
    > that if two parties agree to arbitration (and they certainly don't
    > have to agree), then they can agree to have the arbitration done
    > under Islamic law.
    > >Article excerpts:
    > >
    > >
    > >Canada preparing to enforce Islamic law
    > >Judges will give legal sanction to disputes between Muslims
    > >
    > >November 27, 2003
    > >
    > >Canadian judges soon will be enforcing Islamic law, or Sharia, in
    > >disputes between Muslims, possibly paving the way to one day
    > >administering criminal sentences, such as stoning women caught in
    > >adultery.
    > >
    > >Muslims are required to submit to Sharia in Muslim societies but are
    > >excused in nations where they live as a minority under a non-Muslim
    > >government.
    > >
    > >Canada, however, is preparing for its 1 million-strong Muslim minority
    > >to be under the authority of a Sharia system enforced by the Canadian
    > >court system, according to the Canadian Law Times.
    > >
    > >Muslim delegates at a conference in Etobicoke, Ont., in October
    > >elected a 30-member council to establish the "Islamic Institute of
    > >Civil Justice."
    > >
    > >The institute is classified in Islamic law as a Darul-Qada, or
    > >judicial tribunal. Its bylaws are scheduled to be drafted and approved
    > >by Dec. 31.
    > >
    > >Cases will be decided by a Muslim arbitrator, but the local secular
    > >Canadian court will be the enforcer.
    > >
    > >
    > >Source:
    > >
    > > http://www.lawtimesnews.com/Main5.html
    > >
    > > http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-frie...TICLE_ID=35850
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >.
    > >

Miguel Cruz

Charles Farley <> wrote:
    > This is a grave, grave mistake. Not only does Canada refuse to fight
    > for the basic human right for other peoples to live in freedom, Canada
    > now willfully embraces tyranny.

Isn't this the same as any situation in which two parties agree to submit to
binding arbitration?

miguel

Mike Higgs

Will you folks please stop cross posting this into misc.invest.canada? It's
real easy - just delete the group out of your reply post.

Thanks,
Mike

Go Fig

In article <pc2yb.19223$>,
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:

    > Charles Farley <> wrote:
    > > This is a grave, grave mistake. Not only does Canada refuse to fight
    > > for the basic human right for other peoples to live in freedom, Canada
    > > now willfully embraces tyranny.
    >
    > Isn't this the same as any situation in which two parties agree to submit to
    > binding arbitration?
    >


I would think not, as the precedents and civil laws are not the same,
and then to have the Gov enforce those standards in very alarming.

jay
Sat, Nov 29, 2003
mailto:

Miguel Cruz

Go Fig <> wrote:
    > (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >> Charles Farley <> wrote:
    >>> This is a grave, grave mistake. Not only does Canada refuse to fight
    >>> for the basic human right for other peoples to live in freedom, Canada
    >>> now willfully embraces tyranny.
    >>
    >> Isn't this the same as any situation in which two parties agree to submit
    >> to binding arbitration?
    > I would think not, as the precedents and civil laws are not the same,
    > and then to have the Gov enforce those standards in very alarming.

I don't really understand what you're saying. Here we have two people saying
"we volunteer to have our civil disputes handled in venue X rather than in
the courts" just like when people sign an arbitration clause in a contract.
And just like in arbitration, the standards and "common law" applied may be
different from what's used in the courts.

miguel

Ian Phillips

Interesting but appears unfounded. You must be a Republican to write such
drivel
Get a grip on the world outside the US for a change.



"Charles Farley" <> wrote in message
news:...
    > This is a grave, grave mistake. Not only does Canada refuse to fight
    > for the basic human right for other peoples to live in freedom, Canada
    > now willfully embraces tyranny.
    > Article excerpts:
    > Canada preparing to enforce Islamic law
    > Judges will give legal sanction to disputes between Muslims
    > November 27, 2003
    > Canadian judges soon will be enforcing Islamic law, or Sharia, in
    > disputes between Muslims, possibly paving the way to one day
    > administering criminal sentences, such as stoning women caught in
    > adultery.
    > Muslims are required to submit to Sharia in Muslim societies but are
    > excused in nations where they live as a minority under a non-Muslim
    > government.
    > Canada, however, is preparing for its 1 million-strong Muslim minority
    > to be under the authority of a Sharia system enforced by the Canadian
    > court system, according to the Canadian Law Times.
    > Muslim delegates at a conference in Etobicoke, Ont., in October
    > elected a 30-member council to establish the "Islamic Institute of
    > Civil Justice."
    > The institute is classified in Islamic law as a Darul-Qada, or
    > judicial tribunal. Its bylaws are scheduled to be drafted and approved
    > by Dec. 31.
    > Cases will be decided by a Muslim arbitrator, but the local secular
    > Canadian court will be the enforcer.
    > Source:
    > http://www.lawtimesnews.com/Main5.html
    > http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-frie...TICLE_ID=35850
    > .

Dave Smith

Ian Phillips wrote:

    > Interesting but appears unfounded. You must be a Republican to write such
    > drivel
    > Get a grip on the world outside the US for a change.

Trust the US media to blow it all out of proportion. If you read the links or
search for other information you see that it was a conference of Muslims
trying to set up something where they would apply Islamic law and then get
the courts to enforce it. The Canadian press didn't bother publishing
anything about it because they realized that there is no legislative force
behind it.

Charles Hawtrey

(Miguel Cruz) staggered to the nearest keyboard and
wrote:

    >Go Fig <> wrote:
    >> (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >>> Charles Farley <> wrote:
    >>>> This is a grave, grave mistake. Not only does Canada refuse to fight
    >>>> for the basic human right for other peoples to live in freedom, Canada
    >>>> now willfully embraces tyranny.
    >>>
    >>> Isn't this the same as any situation in which two parties agree to submit
    >>> to binding arbitration?
    >> I would think not, as the precedents and civil laws are not the same,
    >> and then to have the Gov enforce those standards in very alarming.
    >I don't really understand what you're saying. Here we have two people saying
    >"we volunteer to have our civil disputes handled in venue X rather than in
    >the courts" just like when people sign an arbitration clause in a contract.
    >And just like in arbitration, the standards and "common law" applied may be
    >different from what's used in the courts.

Ordinarily there's no concern if two people agree to have their
dispute settled by arbitration or a coin toss or whatever they like.
If you read the article that was cited by the OP, the present instance
is more complicated because Canadian courts would be responsible for
enforcing the results of the arbitration carried out under Sharia.

What if Sharia dictates e.g., that the defendant be stoned to death,
or have his hand cut off?