P.C.gone mad?

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Eric

There was an item on CBC (Colonial Broadcasting Corporation, operating out of an Igloo in Tuktuyaktuk) about the Archbishop. It was rather kind to him saying that his comments were made, but were taken out of a complex context, and exploded by the media. That, I understand. Maybe the good prelate should have been clear and straightforward in his comments like Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty in Sept. of 2005: "There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians." Now that is not difficult to understand.

probably cos your lot are not obsessed by P.C. but common sense.

[Eric]

This whole thing seems to be making rather a stir world wide. When the Archbishop comes out of hiding he will probably screw things up even more by trying to explain what he really meant. I kinda feel sorry for the guy, he is in a real mess. As he is looking for a way out he would do well to consider the words of the wise one: "When you are up to your ass in alligators, it is hard to remind yourself that you were sent to drain the swamp."

[Acrylic-bob]

Any attempt to introduce part or all of Sharia into the UK's legal system will fall foul of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, on appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, would be found to breach the European Convention on Human Rights and so the inclusion will be declared invalid and the Act which permitted its inclusion would then have to be repealed.

Loathe though I am to admit it, Europe does have some uses.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

Any attempt to introduce part or all of Sharia into the UK's legal system will fall foul of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, on appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, would be found to breach the European Convention on Human Rights and so the inclusion will be declared invalid and the Act which permitted its inclusion would then have to be repealed.

Loathe though I am to admit it, Europe does have some uses.

Well, that's one thing in the European Rights Act's favour.

That is the first - and probably last - time I will ever say that.

[MikeSz]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

MikeSz's post regarding de Tocqueville's impressions of America are worth noting. However, we have always had a separation of church and state here, although not an absence of faith. This fact has long been a source of strength for our country.

As to the Archbishop.....he seems to be implying that the law is a lifestyle choice. It is not the first foolish thing he has said and I doubt it will be the last. He is, to quote Henry II, a meddlesome priest. Under his scenario, Muslim women - who happen to British - will become second class citizens under Sharia.

Glad someone thought that was useful, although the comments were made on Radio 4's thought of the day by a Rev who's name has escaped me. I just pasted the text in.

whilst the differences between the two countries and the constitutional arrangements, especially concerning separation of powers have clear and contrasting differences, I think the text does qualify a broader theme which can apply in any political institution. It is a fine line however. Government is there to govern - in essense, make sure the country runs, when that and religion has always been (traditionally) the only mechanism for rules and citizenship (whether you agree with it or not). The democratic government that we all currently live under is only a historically recent development. the degree to which Religion makes and potentially enforces rules for our lives and the degree to which government deliberates on spiritual issues is always going to result in overlap - and questionable merit, but I think the comments above provide useful guidance.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by Eric

There was an item on CBC (Colonial Broadcasting Corporation, operating out of an Igloo in Tuktuyaktuk) about the Archbishop. It was rather kind to him saying that his comments were made, but were taken out of a complex context, and exploded by the media. That, I understand. Maybe the good prelate should have been clear and straightforward in his comments like Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty in Sept. of 2005: "There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians." Now that is not difficult to understand.

Really? Canada, Britain and Europe have already boarded the Sharia Train......and I don't think it's a stopping service.

By the way, the Greater Toronto area, (which, the last time I checked, was in Ontario,) has hundreds of polygamous Muslims who are receiving welfare and benefits for multiple spouses. Is that not a contradiction of Western law?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

Really? Canada, Britain and Europe have already boarded the Sharia Train......and I don't think it's a stopping service.

By the way, the Greater Toronto area, (which, the last time I checked, was in Ontario,) has hundreds of polygamous Muslims who are receiving welfare and benefits for multiple spouses. Is that not a contradiction of Western law?

I know that you understand Canada well; so, you must realize that there is a wide variety of laws in our country. And you should know that welfare is delivered not by the Federal govt. or the Provincial govts. but by municipalities although the rules and the levels of payments do have some loose consistency. What Premier McGuinty was talking about was the law of Ontario, the law which applies to all Ontarians not just those four or five million living in the GTA. And you are no doubt aware that Premier Jean Charest in Quebec with the support of the PQ is even more outspoken about Sharia, and Quebecers are adamant that Quebec will maintain its unique status, its "distinct society" status, in the Canadian mosaic. The only people in Canada who receive a measure of preferential treatment, or different treatment, are the members of the more than 600 First Nations. But most of the priveleges they have under the law come from a series of Treaties dating back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

By the way, I know it's a little late, but happy Ground Hog day I know the little rodents disagree. Phil predicts a long winter, but our Wiarton Willy predicts an early spring. I hope our rodent is right

[bullseyebarb]

Eric, don't fool yourself, sugar.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

Eric, don't fool yourself, sugar.

What? About the ground hog I quit fooling myself when I found that fools don't actually live in Paradise ... which is OK because I don't want to go somewhere full of suicide bombers complaining about the shortage of virgins

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by Eric

What? About the ground hog I quit fooling myself when I found that fools don't actually live in Paradise ... which is OK because I don't want to go somewhere full of suicide bombers complaining about the shortage of virgins

Forget the hog. Beyond that, I'm losing you.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

Forget the hog. Beyond that, I'm losing you.

Don't worry about it hon. I think that we're just disagreeing again