Islam And The Decline Of Wit

[JonnyBGood]

The judge in the case said he was punishing the 16-year-old for her "sharp tongue,"

Although it seems dante got off lightly :)))

The other defendant in the chastity case, an unnamed man, was reportedly sentenced to 100 lashes.

[Rumad]

sentence the woman to death and the man to 100 lashes. There seems to be some disparity there.

[JonnyBGood]

Sharia law is not exactly renowned for it's total lack of gender discrimination.


Which brings up another interesting point for me to troll, I mean discuss with sunday.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Sharia law is not exactly renowned for it's total lack of gender discrimination.


Which brings up another interesting point for me to troll, I mean discuss with sunday.

LOL

Top notch article Would give americans another reason to hate the Canadians

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by idimmu

im against canada adopting sharia law purely because i dont think a country should change how it works purely due to people from other countries moving there, if they dont like the system they can **** off back to where they came from or they can live with it

Seconded.

With the addition of they shouldn't be allowed to leave in the first place.

[G.K Zhukov]

Sharia is more than 1000 years old.
The rest of the worlds various legal system has progressed a bit since then.

Just to take a exampel from Norway: For 50 years ago, it was practicly legal to beat your wife and beat your kids (as in most western european countries). Today this is changed/has changed.

[roadrunner_0]

ah, but this is religious which everyone knows means that it has come striaght from god so of course no mortal hands can change it just to make it less discriminatory, just in case god opens up a can of whoopass on those liberals!

[Leshy]

Just implement the Codex Hammurabi and be done with it

[Deffeh]

Ban islam

Now

[Vaio]

I recon she was asking for it anyway. Those type always do, well the dead ones anyway

~Vaio~

[Nodrog]

This is disgusting - capital punishment should be reserved for real criminals, such as those who take drugs or find 12 year olds attractive.

[vampire_lestat]

so you think nearly everyone on the boards should be executed (define "drugs", if you count caffene or booze you'll probably have to kill us all ).

seriously, all countries have a far too liberal stance on imigration in my opinion. It would be a far better idea to let the best and brightest in, and leave the rest in france or summit.

[Sunday8pm]

I'd love to give some input but the bbc site is dead and #forums is farcical.

So I'll just assume from now on cause that's more fun and say jonny is wrong hah.

[Zword]

They are not really looking at her age now are they. She's 16 and can be straightend out. Ok they could do it by haning her and hope she will go the the allah. But really what is the point of haning a 16 year old. To show the world and the other kids how cruwl they are?

[Blastoderm]

Sharia law practiced by today's corrupt muslim countries aren't really implementing the true Sharia. The 16 year old girl shouldn't be hanged but instead lashed just like the boy. This is because they shagged outside of marriage (assuming that was the reason behind the punishment).

Fornication done whilst you're married carries the death penalty. Which is normally stoning.

[KlavoHunter]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This is disgusting - capital punishment should be reserved for real criminals, such as those who take drugs or find 12 year olds attractive.

Kill Dace? ffs no, he's amusing!

[Sunday8pm]

Ok I checked up on that article, on one hand we have a crazy looking guy getting press attention with absolutely no goverment comment on the situation, actually that's all that article has.

Seriously jonny must try harder, it's nowhere near on the same scale as the BNP in the UK and the seats they've won, this guy is just a fruitloop and no-one is taking him seriously here.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Ok I checked up on that article, on one hand we have a crazy looking guy getting press attention with absolutely no goverment comment on the situation, actually that's all that article has.

Seriously jonny must try harder, it's nowhere near on the same scale as the BNP in the UK and the seats they've won, this guy is just a fruitloop and no-one is taking him seriously here.

So you're in favour of sharia law being adopted in the spirit of multiculturalism, similarly to how jewish civil courts are allowed in canada, or you're against it? I am unsure what your stance on this issue is (unless it's he's not influential, let's ignore him regardless of whether he's right or wrong).

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

Sharia law practiced by today's corrupt muslim countries aren't really implementing the true Sharia. The 16 year old girl shouldn't be hanged but instead lashed just like the boy.

"Just" lashing someone for having sex is still evidence of barbarism.

[Sunday8pm]

There is a law in canada that states that the law does not get involved in trifles.

Also, it's a ****ing poor article, really ****ing poor, there are massive differences between what has been accepted and what isn't and why it hasn't been and I'm not going to pick up the ****ing stupid story that journalist tried to squeeze an article out of.

It's a load of sensationalist tripe, why dont' you ask me to start validating the enquirer's viewpoints?

[JonnyBGood]

Sensationalist tripe? The last paragraph of that article is, and I quote

Since its creation, Canada has accommodated the rights of different minorities. This is just the latest challenge to a nation built on tolerance.

Although seeing as you haven't even mentioned any of the original article yet I'll assume you're actually trolling and go to bed.

[Sandsnake]

Sharia law is fking scary. nuff said.

[Nodrog]

As far as I know, the Sharia law in Canada would only be enforced if all participants consented - ie the people in question could agree to have their case tried under Sharia, but it would require the agreement of all parties in order to go ahead. It's not like the Canadian government is going to start prosecuting Muslims for drinking alcohol or anything like that.

From a libertarian perspective, I'm not entirely sure what the problem would be. If all parties involved in a marriage (for instance) wish to get their case resolved using the prescriptions of an ideology in which they believe, rather than being forced to follow the one present in the dominant culture, is it not their right to do so? I personally have no real problem with the cases which could be subsumed under contract law (ie written contracts where everyone agrees to use a Sharia court as arbiter in event of a dispute) - surely laissez faire necessitates contractees being allowed to select their arbiter independently of the state, if they wish to do so?

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

"Just" lashing someone for having sex is still evidence of barbarism.

It's a form of punishment and seems effective to the general members of the muslim public in the sense that less people would be commiting the 'sin'. They're only punishing them for stepping over the border. A muslim can have sex but only to his wife.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

As far as I know, the Sharia law in Canada would only be enforced if all participants consented - ie the people in question could agree to have their case tried under Sharia, but it would require the agreement of all parties in order to go ahead. It's not like the Canadian government is going to start prosecuting Muslims for drinking alcohol or anything like that.

From a libertarian perspective, I'm not entirely sure what the problem would be. If all parties involved in a marriage (for instance) wish to get their case resolved using the prescriptions of an ideology in which they believe, rather than being forced to follow the one present in the dominant culture, is it not their right to do so? I personally have no real problem with the cases which could be subsumed under contract law (ie written contracts where everyone agrees to use a Sharia court as arbiter in event of a dispute) - surely laissez faire necessitates contractees being allowed to select their arbiter independently of the state, if they wish to do so?

Nod does what I couldn't be arsed doing for that half-assed article.

I think Jonny's disappointed he didn't get the chance to usurp my pro-canadian mannerisms. Keeping fishing though.

[JonnyBGood]

In fairness sunday if you're not going to bother posting an opinion please stay out of any threads I start.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

From a libertarian perspective, I'm not entirely sure what the problem would be. If all parties involved in a marriage (for instance) wish to get their case resolved using the prescriptions of an ideology in which they believe, rather than being forced to follow the one present in the dominant culture, is it not their right to do so?

Yes.

I personally have no real problem with the cases which could be subsumed under contract law (ie written contracts where everyone agrees to use a Sharia court as arbiter in event of a dispute) - surely laissez faire necessitates contractees being allowed to select their arbiter independently of the state, if they wish to do so?

As long as all the parties are consenting adults and as long as the private courts/arbiters are only dealing with commercial/property disputes. When such courts start trying 15-year-olds or hanging offenders or cutting off their hands, then yeah, I'd have a problem with that.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

In fairness sunday if you're not going to bother posting an opinion please stay out of any threads I start.

You addressed me.

[jerome]

he also addressed his wish to discuss the article with you though.

[Sunday8pm]

He was looking to troll canada if you read between the lines, I think what he wanted to say was that if I wasn't going to take the bait and stand up for all things canadian like I'm some sort of patriotic hybridisation of a beaver a maple leaf and alanis morrisette then he was going to be pissy.

[1-X]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

He was looking to troll canada if you read between the lines, I think what he wanted to say was that if I wasn't going to take the bait and stand up for all things canadian like I'm some sort of patriotic hybridisation of a beaver a maple leaf and alanis morrisette then he was going to be pissy.

you forgot the lumberjack

[Stew]

Nice avatar 1-X
Finally!

[1-X]

thanks... I was playing Muppet Party Cruise earlier and I always pick Fozzie

I'll try not to change it every day.

[Blastoderm]

Better not.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

When such courts start trying 15-year-olds or hanging offenders or cutting off their hands, then yeah, I'd have a problem with that.

16-year-olds.

But they won't be dealing with those cases since it wouldn't be considered as a trifle case.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

"Just" lashing someone for having sex is still evidence of barbarism.

Sharia law recognizes the man and woman's need to have sex so sex within marriage is fine. And I also know that:

1.If someone is considered mentallly defected then cases of adultery and fornication will be dropped.
2. Four eye witnessess are required to testify that they have seen this action.
3. And finally, a man can have four wives as long as he can tend to all of their needs and treat them equally and fairly. If not then he will be punished in life after death due to his mistreatment.

There is also the problem of countries which implement Sharia law of not being fair by giving punishment to the women and not the man.

Don't balme the law...it seems fine. It's the people who implement the law who change it to suit their evil sexist desires.


I also deem that the case in Iran was unfair.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

It's a form of punishment and seems effective to the general members of the muslim public in the sense that less people would be commiting the 'sin'. They're only punishing them for stepping over the border. A muslim can have sex but only to his wife.

I don't really care what they consider sin tbh. If they support violent punishments given out to people for sex outside of marriage they are barbarians. Simple as.

Originally Posted by Inferno

Don't balme the law...it seems fine.

Erm...no. I'll blame the law as it's fundamentally unjust.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

He was looking to troll canada if you read between the lines, I think what he wanted to say was that if I wasn't going to take the bait and stand up for all things canadian like I'm some sort of patriotic hybridisation of a beaver a maple leaf and alanis morrisette then he was going to be pissy.

No sunday. I'd have been perfectly happy if you'd never posted in this thread.


PS Bumpity bump babump.

[Vermillion]

Firstly: yes, this case in Iran IS unusual in two ways: usually the death penalty for these crimes is commuted to a lesser (though still horrible) sentence. In Nigeria for example though there have been 81 sentences of death by stoning of adulterous women in the last 10 years, there have been zero actual deaths by stoning among those cases. Now, that being said, those women are still lashed, imprisoned, ostracised and the victims of honour killings, so not exactly a point in Nigeria’s favour. Also, it’s unusual for the man to be punished at all, in most sexual related cases the woman is convicted while the man is exonerated.

Secondly, in Canada we have several parallel legal systems. There is access to Jewish religious courts as the article mentions, there are also aboriginal courts and Inuit courts, all dispensing their own brand of community justice.

However, the article fails to mention a few things. These courts are set up as joint ventures with the community in question and the federal authorities, no matter the court system the Charter of rights and freedoms cannot be violated. Secondly, anyone convicted in any community court can appeal to federal courts under Canadian law. Thirdly, community courts have strict federal observers and guidelines they must follow in sentencing and tribunal: for example all participants are considered equal before the law and all are innocent until proven guilty, no matter what the old tradition of the community courts might be. Fifthly, sentencing is bound by the restrictions of the Canadian Charter, thus cruel and unusual punishment (which in Canada includes execution) is not allowed. Sixthly, most serious indictable offences, (in the US, felonies) are automatically turned over to federal courts, and cannot be dealt with in community courts.

Were the Sharia to be established as a community justice system in Canada, it would in essence bear NO similarity to Iranian or Nigerian Sharia whatsoever. It would be a way of maintaining local customs and traditions while in no way sacrificing the principles of justice and law enshrined in the Canadian Charter.

Lastly, in aboriginal courts, which have existed for some time, they actually demonstrate a better rate of community acceptance and lower rate of recidivism then federal courts prosecuting similar crimes, aboriginal courts emphasise restitution, rehabilitation and community involvement over isolation and imprisonment.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Were the Sharia to be established as a community justice system in Canada, it would in essence bear NO similarity to Iranian or Nigerian Sharia whatsoever. It would be a way of maintaining local customs and traditions while in no way sacrificing the principles of justice and law enshrined in the Canadian Charter.

Why exactly do you have community courts then? They don't exactly seem to do much. I'm not too sure how precisely they maintain local customs and traditions if they're not actually the entire legal system and have to follow various rules not associated with the original body of laws, it seems to make a mockery of it more than anything else.

Lastly, in aboriginal courts, which have existed for some time, they actually demonstrate a better rate of community acceptance and lower rate of recidivism then federal courts prosecuting similar crimes, aboriginal courts emphasise restitution, rehabilitation and community involvement over isolation and imprisonment.

Do they do this on the same budget as the federal courts use in each case? If they show a lower rate of recidivism, and they aren't more expensive than the methods currently used, then why don't the federal courts adopt their methods of prosecution and punishment?

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

No sunday. I'd have been perfectly happy if you'd never posted in this thread.


PS Bumpity bump babump.

That's great, don't take every opportunity for some weak canada bashing to call me out on the forums though and then get huffy when I don't play the way you want me too.

p.s. you called me out...

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Why exactly do you have community courts then? They don't exactly seem to do much. I'm not too sure how precisely they maintain local customs and traditions if they're not actually the entire legal system and have to follow various rules not associated with the original body of laws, it seems to make a mockery of it more than anything else.

Ask the communities, they are the ones who wanted them set up. Canada being all nice and egalitarian said fine, as long as you do so within certain guidelines.

Do they do this on the same budget as the federal courts use in each case? If they show a lower rate of recidivism, and they aren't more expensive than the methods currently used, then why don't the federal courts adopt their methods of prosecution and punishment?

Actually they use substantially less money per case on average. The Canadian government is already looking into studies of the rehabilitative community methods used there, and who knows for the future.

Its not new though, Norway and sweeden use similar rehabilitative sentencing, anf their ecidivism rate is VERY low.