Re: Canada to Enforce Islamic Law

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miguel Cruz) staggered to the nearest keyboard and
wrote:

>Go Fig  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
>>> Charles Farley  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?  
  


--
hambu n hambu hodo