>>>This thursday, in many cities all over the world, there have been protests against the Canadian plan to allow a sharia court for muslims in the Canadian province Ontario.
>>>
>>>This thread is MY protest against the Sharia Option in a western country. I ask the Canadian members of the UT to do the best they can to prevent this to happen.
>>
>>I'll probably be one of the few (maybe the only one) that doesn't think this is the worst idea in the legal history of Canada.
>>
>>With, of course, certain provisos!
>>
>>1. ALL parties involved must willingly agree to this. If there is any doubt about coercion the case should go to Canadian courts.
>
>That is the fly in the ointment. When the mafia coerces money from small businesses, how often does the law even get involved. The whole point of coercion would be to make sure women are too afraid to say anything. This is a bad, bad idea.
>
>>
>>2. The cases must be civil and not criminal.
>>
>>3. The court decision must be legal under Canadian law. I don't mean that the case must have been decided the same way (otherwise, what's the point), but that the punishment, etc. must not be illegal (stoning, for example)
>>
>>I would extend this to allowing allowing a Jewish court (Bet Din), or that of any other religion.
>>
>>I firmly believe that freedom of religion includes the right to practice one's religion as long as you don't intrude on anybody else's beliefs (no prayer in school) or violate civil laws (no stoning). This freedom includes the right to have a religious tribunal decide matters in which the state has no standing as an involved party.
>
>I disagree. There are laws surrounding family issues, and the laws of the land should always take precedence.


>Remember that there must also be the right NOT to practice any given religion, but if one is considered to be chattel, that right is meaningless.

In which case one simply opts not to have the case heard by a religious court. Nobody is being forced into religious court. Looking at it slightly differently........

I a country with freedom of religion, if one believes in a religion in which one is considered to be chattel; if one is willing to have his (or her - but that's a different thread) case heard by a court that considers one as chattel.... that's a personal decision.
I don't particularly believe the state has the obligation to protect people from the consequences of their informed decisions.

As long as there is informed consent by all parties, I don't have a problem with this.