Canada the UK and the Archbishop

[Sidenote: I very nearly finished what follows once and was about to post it when it was erased. This is the second time.]

Oh Canada – well sort of. We should sort out terminology in Canada first: Province = state. Premier = Governor. Washington is Ottawa in Canada. And Ottawa is located in the province of Ontario unlike the US capital located in a district. Provinces are very nearly the ideal of what Southern state’s rights partisans argued for in 1860. In Canada, the power is held by the provinces in a very shaky agreement that provides the federal government with major powers of treaties, defense, and medical and leaves most all other powers to the provinces.

In 1991 the province of Ontario passed the Arbitration Act. This law was to permit groups to use the guiding principles of their faith to help settle civil disputes. Disputes such as: property issues, divorce, child custody, family issues, inheritance, disputes over any issue civil. An simpler method of figuring it out – anything not criminal.

So who could use this method – Catholics and Jews to name two groups.

We should suspend further discussion of the serious nature of this act and spend a few sentences sorting out what and how these groups would sort out their issues. Further, what is Canadian law based upon if they need to turn to religious law to remedy their civil issues.

Canadian law is based upon, in LARGE part, almost entirely- British Common Law. British Common Law has at its base, a foundation rooted in Judeo-Christian values / principles.

Back to the Catholics and Jews – they would apply religious principles – Judeo-Christian principles (also very much similar to Canadian legal standards) to their disputes. Would it be any surprise to discover that a majority of cases, if they were reviewed by religious groups would have their decisions nearly mirror those of the Canadian court system. No.

Therefore, extending the opportunity to Catholic and Jews would not inextricably change anything nor would it ever pose a threat to changing anything, except in the entwining of religion and the state (Courts). That however seemed to play a secondary role or was non-existent as an argument in Canada.

The issue arises when the religious group involved are the Muslims and they would like to implement shari’a law in Canada.

I will fast forward to 2003 and sort out the debate. Questions arose about the viability of these religious groups to run their own “court systems” and the premier of Ontario appointed a former attorney general (Marion Boyd) to review the law and its application. She concluded that all was well and to leave well enough alone.

The Canadian Courts intervened and they decided that it was fine.

We have the state in the guise of the political branch (executive) and the Courts (judicial) accepting the premise that it is fine for Canadians to go to their local religious leader for civil deliberations. After all, the Courts are crowded.

First – it is not the same you nit wits. Canadian law, Catholic principles, Jewish principles are all premised on the same system. They are quite familiar and similar. Canadian law does not differ in any noticeable way from Jewish or Catholic teachings. It does however differ greatly from Islamic law, if not in its outward manifestations than in its intent. To a Muslim, all laws have failed but Shari’a. For a Muslim, they are obligated to adhere to shari’a and to follow the laws of the country they are in, always working to change the laws and work toward the full acceptance and incorporation of Islamic life and law in all lands. First we accept as equal, then we move it further from civil to civil and some criminal. By that point, you have no argument as to why they may not go all the way and live under shari’a law exclusively after all, are not tolerant and open societies supposed to be compassionate and understanding.

Muslims in Canada denied they were using shari’a law. They claimed no shari’a courts would dot the landscape and no one was living under divided rule, rather “Muslims simply wish to use Islamic principles to resolve their disputes.” Sounds like shari’a to me.

Man’s laws are fallible and Canadian, American, and British laws have moved quite a distance from God’s laws, BUT that is the point – we have a secular society. If you wish to pretend we are secular and the left so fears the evangelical right (which if it had its way would work to reverse laws that were contrary to God’s) is ironic they accept the argument from the Muslims that they simply wish to live under Islamic principles (which for any idiot – is religious). And for the liberals – Islamic religious law makes the Christian evangelical ideals look downright secular.

Enter the UK.
February 2, 2008, thisislondon.co.uk (The Evening Standard)

Adoption of Islamic Sharia law in Britain is unavoidable says Archbishop of Canterbury.
This fool sees no problem with saying the above statement nor in the realization of such a change. Rather, he sees it as a natural progression to allow accommodation of a system that is not alien to the British nor is it a rival. He said he didn’t believe that the British people “should spring to the conclusion that the whole of the world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights just because it doesn’t immediately fit with how we understand it.”

Give it a try. Why not, it isn’t alien, it isn’t a rival system, and for Muslims, it would allow them a legal system that would be more fair and understanding.

Let’s go back – British and Canadian and American and several other systems of jurisprudence are based upon Biblical teachings. The same teaching he, as the Archbishop, believes and defends. He has stated that the belief system he ascribes to the Savior, Son of God – is not good enough for Muslims, it is not fair enough.

Understandably the interview, given by the fool with the pointy hat, has resulted in a clamor for his job. I admit I am unaware of how he and others get the job they do, but however they get it, it should be undone. He secretly loathes his faith and doubts his belief. He no longer accepts Christ as the lamb of God, but is now just a man, like Mohammad. Islam is incompatible with Christianity. It is a rival. Islam cannot tolerate the blasphemers of the desecrated books. They do tolerate but barely - jizya and verbal taunts and jeers ( laid out reasonably clear in the Koran) are acceptable.

He is correct – sharia law is already being used in Britain. thisislondon.co.uk (The Evening Standard) had an article titled: Sharia court frees London knife youths dated 2/8/08 by Martin Bentham. The Somalia community in Woolwich – Somalia youths were involved in a knife fight, the community told the police they would sort it out.

You cannot have two systems regardless of the benefit to the overburdened court system and in fact for that very reason you must not permit it or you have opened the door and argument to the division that will cripple the system and end what has always been the model of jurisprudence. It is ironic that many Muslims fled countries that had imposed shari'a law only to find that due to multiculturalism, it has taken root here.