* sigh* No dummies. Why are you so dumb, dummies?
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
. It was simply a municipal resolution supporting a house bill from the state that forbids any use of any foreign law to take precedent over existing law.
Foreign Law, by definition is something that has no effect in other countries. Foreign means "of, from, in, or characteristic of a country or language other than one's own." Or to dumb it down for you: "not from this country, but from some other country". You don't need a bill to declare that foreign laws have no effect because it is possible for a foreign law to have any effect. Even for extradition, it is only possible if the offense is illegal in both countries. Get it?
LESSON 1 EXAMPLE: The RCMP will never come and arrest you for insulting Kim Jong Un, even though surely there is a foreign law in North Korea against such a thing and even though the NORKS may send an extradition request to Canada for you. Why? Because only Canadian law matters in Canada.
Bart and NF and others Bart and NF and others:
An Islamic court using Sharia law...UK has sharia law
Discredited by Snopes
hereNo government is the US, UK or Canada has recognized Sharia or any other religious law. Look dummies let me break it down for you because you're confused by mixed terms. Just do your best to follow along:
ANY cooky religion can claim to have "laws" like 'don't eat pork' or 'don't eat fish on fridays' or whatever. THOSE ARE NOT REAL LAWS. LAWS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF THE STATE AND THE COURTS. A person can say they do this or that in accordance with their religious law but this person is not protected from any criminal code violations and their practise is not recognized by the government.
LESSON 2 EXAMPLE: If a man who follows "Church of the Spaghetti Monster" moves to Canada, and marries a pig according to "Church of the Spaghetti Monster" Law, does this mean that "Spaghetti monster law" has come to Canada? No. Does it mean he's legally married to a pig and can open a joint bank account with the pig, and file an income-split tax return with the pig? No. Why? Because the state defines what is and is not marriage and does not recognize the man's pig as his spouse. For the same reason, the man would be arrested for being a pig-fucker because bestiality is against the criminal code regardless of what the man says is allowed by his 'religious law'.
PA9 PA9:
Yep, just like Islamic violence was never going to be an issue in Canada. People just like you regularly "assured" us that Muslim violence would never happen here
No, we didn't. We just said you don't need to hide under your bed because you're more likely to die from a slip in the shower or a drunk driver. You're the the one with the ideology-based fantasy...one where we say things that we never said and where thousands of Canadians are dying from daily attacks on home soil and building are crumbling to the ground daily.
$1:
Still think Sharia law will never be or has ever been an issue in Canada? Reread your previous post. Look at what you stated in the quoted part. You then followed it up by commenting on Ontario's stint with "religious adjudication". So it obviously was an issue in Canada. An issue serious enough for the Ontario Liberals to put the kibosh on it.
No YOU re-read again. Let's break it down:
1) First read the part where I said any civil agreement made between 2 parties under this religious adjudication provision had to comply with the Charter Rights and had to ultimately be signed off by a judge before it come into effect. So Child marriages, dispossessing widows or whatever awful thing that you think would've happened would actually not have been allowed to happen. Secular laws of the State and Charter Rights remain supreme and will always be supreme.
2) You should probably know that even while this practice was in effect in Ontario, the Muslim community had never participated - which required a formal application, people have to register as the delegated officials, etc. The Catholic Church and Jewish communities had done so, but the Muslims? Nope. Not one. The whole program was just a cynical attempt by the Conservatives to pander to the Religious Right. Pre-9/11 the Conservatives loved devout Muslims (for vote getting anyway) because they were susceptible to the shrieks about "fornication!" "alcohol!" "Marily Manson!"
$1:
An issue serious enough for the Ontario Liberals to put the kibosh on it.....On the one hand they stomped on the idea of Sharia law in Ontario, and yet they also grossly violated the rights of farmers and rural property owners in order to shove turbines
Why does it surprise you that the Liberals are secular? It's the conservatives who have all the bible-thumping religious nuts and as I said, often pander to other religious communities Are you one of the people who think atheism and Islamism are the same thing? Also, what does any of this have to do about wind turbines??? Confuse issues much?
CKA Uber 
