[Lemmy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

xerxes xerxes:

Is this at all different from the Christian Heritage Party?

Yes, yes it is. The CHPC died once from a lack of support in 2000. Well it didn't die it was just deregistered. They came back in 2014 and in the last election picked up a staggering 0.09% of the popular vote. Which is 0.01% more than they had in 2000.

The CHP has run a candidate (the same candidate) in my riding in every election, provincial and federal, over the past 20 years.

PA9 PA9:

And if you compare the tactics that "Sharia Parties" have used throughout Europe to get their representatives "elected" at various levels of govt, well they make the CPC robo-calls seem quaint by comparison.

If that's a fear, wouldn't it be prudent to give them what they want rather than forcing them to make it an election issue?

Sharia happens in Canada already. It happens in every Muslim community. So it's not like anyone's preventing it from happening by not allowing it in courtrooms. On the other hand, if it were allowed in civil courts, its procedures and rulings would be formal and, thus, would have to conform to the constitution and be subject to judicial review.

So, whatever, but the anti-Sharia stance isn't one, it just keeps it underground and marginalizes its supporters. If your position is that Sharia shouldn't be allowed because its rulings are unjust and discriminatory, the best way to change that would be to have Sharia rulings held formally under direction of the civil courts system.

[andyt]

We don't need religious courts in this country. We don't legalize crimes because "they are already happening." If they have to meet the standards of our civil courts, what's the point of having Sharia courts? What would be different? Also, they are calling for a caliphate and sharia for everyone - you really want to be governed by that? Not just civil sharia, but sharia replacing our system of justice.

But, if they used legal means to put their view forward, as Xerxes said, it's no different than other religiously motivated parties, or the commies or what have you.

[Lemmy]

What do you mean "governed by it"? Sharia is a disputes resolution process. It has no use beyond civil disputes. It has nothing to do with the criminal justice system.

[2Cdo]

Lemmy Lemmy:

What do you mean "governed by it"? Sharia is a disputes resolution process. It has no use beyond civil disputes. It has nothing to do with the criminal justice system.

A little naive this morning aren't you.

[andyt]

Have a coffee, Lemmy. You're not firing on all cylinders right now. These people are not advocating for civil sharia, but for a caliphate governed by Sharia. You know, like Saudi Arabia.

[Lemmy]

They can advocate for anything they want but we have this thing called a constitution that protects us from any of that nonsense.

Sharia is a word that makes people recoil like "bomb" or "rattlesnake". But it's a non-issue. If it makes Muslims happy to have their unpaid loans or divorces settled this way, let 'em. They're already doing it that way anyway.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

They can advocate for anything they want but we have this thing called a constitution that protects us from any of that nonsense.

Sharia is a word that makes people recoil like "bomb" or "rattlesnake". But it's a non-issue. If it makes Muslims happy to have their unpaid loans or divorces settled this way, let 'em. They're already doing it that way anyway.

Agree with the first sentence

You're out to lunch on the second.

[Lemmy]

Maybe. Wake me up when it's time for me to be outraged.

[andyt]

$1:

Sharia, Islamic sharia or Islamic law (Arabic: شريعة‎ (IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa]) for law) is the basic Islamic legal system[1] derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. The term sharia comes from the Arabic language term sharīʿah, which means a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation.[2][3][4]
Sharia deals with many topics, including crime, politics, marriage contracts, trade regulations, religious prescriptions, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, everyday etiquette and fasting.

Sounds like a wonderful system. In SA they have few written laws. Instead Sharia is administered by religious figures who make it up on the fly. It's why you get beheadings for witchcraft and such.

[N_Fiddledog]

I've been hearing about this new way of looking at Islam where rather than look at it from what they call "radical" to what they want to call "moderate" you see the overview from a perspective of how close they are to a caliphate.

So the way you would look at Sharia there is ISIS claims to have a caliphate. The Ottomans did have one.

What does or did Sharia look like there? Basically if you're a civilized person you don't want it.

You can have an Islamic government governing under sharia law that wouldn't necessarily be governing under a caliphate. That would be like Saudi Arabia, or Iran where you can see mass beheadings for questionable crimes as you see under the Saudis, or gays hanging from cranes as you see in Iran.

If you go a tiny bit farther from the Caliphate you might get something like what they have in UAE.

$1:

The UAE has sharia courts but its civil and criminal courts also apply elements of sharia, codified into its criminal code and family law, in a way which discriminates against women,” said a spokesman.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatn ... e-UAE.html

I've heard of cases in - I think it was - Qatar where western victims of rape did time in Qatari prisons for adultery. That's Sharia at that level of closeness to the caliphate.

If you get far away from the idea of a caliphate you might find a level of Sharia like what Lemmy seems to think is sympatico with a Western society such as we see in say Australia.

$1:

Muslim communities in Australia have been quietly practising sharia law in negotiating divorces, disadvantaging women in custody and property arrangements.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-dept ... 2a31d64f18

Read the article and discover how even there it's not as koombayah as Lemmy is telling you. I've heard it's even worse in the no-go zones of Europe.

In any case what Hizb ut-Tahrir is claiming as an ultimate goal is Sharia under a caliphate like what ISIS has or the Ottomans had.

Good luck with that right now, but the Muslim demographic is the most rapidly growing one in Canada. Not too far away down the road is 5%. At 5% the problems begin. At 30% you're done.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2011/01/F ... -Feb10.pdf

These Hizb ut-Tahrir guys want to run candidates on the way there.