Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Tolerance

  1. #1
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Tolerance

    I'll probably be called an anti-muslim for posting this (common in this neck of the internet). Of course, just dare to smoke a cigarette in a Starbucks in the US.



    A 37-year-old American businesswoman and married mother of three is seeking justice after she was thrown in jail by Saudi Arabia's religious police for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.

  2. #2
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Tolerance

    Yeah, but they oil so apparently it's acceptable.

    Remember this one?
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/...ca/30saudi.php

    "a 20-year-old woman who was sentenced to be lashed after pressing charges against seven men who raped her"

  3. #3
    God/dess xdamage's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    5,449
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 165 Times in 119 Posts

    Default Re: Tolerance

    Things don't change if nobody speaks up. Many people see this treatment of women as heinous, so if it makes a Muslim uncomfortable that people see it this way, that is their problem to figure out what to do about it if anything. The rest of us still have the right to call it evil/wrong like we see it.

  4. #4
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 117 Times in 78 Posts

    Default Re: Tolerance

    It's sad that our dependence on oil prevents us from trying to help the suffering of women in that area...
    I can only hope that the continued influence of Western culture will eventually prevail.

  5. #5
    TheSexKitten
    Guest

    Default Re: Tolerance

    ^^^ Or that their own Middle-Eastern brand of religious righties will fall from power SOON!

    Islamic culture hasn't always been so ruthless.

  6. #6
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Tolerance

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSexKitten View Post
    ^^^ Or that their own Middle-Eastern brand of religious righties will fall from power SOON!

    Islamic culture hasn't always been so ruthless.
    Fall from power?

    They are actually expanding their influence these days.

    Take for example Londonstan:


    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436203-details/Adoption+of+Islamic+Sharia+law+in+Britain+is+'unav oidable'%2C+says+Archbishop+of+Canterbury/article.do

  7. #7
    Senior Member Tara_SW's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Tolerance

    you're only anti-Muslim if you label all Muslim people (or all of any group of people) around the world in the same negative way as those who do actually bad things.

    good points made by those who mention how the western world's dependence on middle east oil prevents us from trying to help those who suffer under tyrants.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Tara_SW's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Tolerance

    Quote Originally Posted by Deogol View Post
    I'll probably be called an anti-muslim for posting this (common in this neck of the internet). Of course, just dare to smoke a cigarette in a Starbucks in the US.



    A 37-year-old American businesswoman and married mother of three is seeking justice after she was thrown in jail by Saudi Arabia's religious police for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.
    you're only anti-Muslim if you label all Muslim people (or all of any group of people) around the world in the same negative way as those who actually do bad things.

    good points made by those who mention how the western world's dependence on middle east oil prevents us from trying to help those who suffer under tyrants.

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Tolerance

    ^^^ in regard to the Archbishop of Canturbury's opinion and MP Peter Luff's opinions on the subject of 'creeping' Sharia law in Britain, the underlying question is seemingly never discussed. Is an Islamic British female primarily a muslim, or primarily a Brit ? If Sharia law is allowed to take precedence over British common law, you won't have to go to the middle east to find females 'who suffer under tyrants'.

  10. #10
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Tolerance

    Until recently in Ontario parties to a private law dispute could agree to be adjudicated and bound under Jewish or Catholic tribunals. It didn't lead to the Jews overtaking us or the Vatican taking over our government. Look at it this way - people already submit to Sharia law to resolve private dispute in the U.K. all the time; it is just not official. This is the same thing, it is just given the power of law. The "my god we'll be stoned in the streets" is a) alarmist and b) inaccurate.

    Melonie in answer to your question - she would choose and agree to be bound under an alternate system for any given dispute, same as (for example) Jewish women do now. If muslim people were being excluded from the standard court system that would not be constitutional, or in Britian, in keeping the european convention on human rights.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  11. #11
    God/dess FBR's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Posts
    8,351
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked 342 Times in 244 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Mellow

    Default Re: Tolerance

    ^^ Jenny you got me on that one. I had no idea that there are ongoing Jewish and Catholic tribunals settling private disputes based upon their religious traditions. Does your research indicate that the judgments of those tribunals are required to stay within the traditional boundaries of western law or are they pretty much allowed to pass down whatever penalties they want? I mean, beyond monetary judgments?

    FBR
    Once again I have embraced my addiction and have put off the moral dilemma to another day.

  12. #12
    God/dess hockeybobby's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,969
    Thanks
    1,811
    Thanked 597 Times in 382 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Tolerance

    ^^^I think the same sort of tribunals or councils are available for resolving disputes in some of our first nations communities as well. The parties can opt to go this route instead of the traditional justice system. I suppose that is a little different as it's not really religion based. Just my 2 cents.
    hb

  13. #13
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Tolerance

    I don't know that much; it was an issue here when there was a proposal to introduce Sharia law on the same level. It was mainly family disputes I think; I don't know the limits or the appeal process. I would assume, that since the parties agree to be bound that you would have a higher compliance rate. I would assume that they answer to whoever they answer to; I can't imagine that they want to stray from whatever religious mandates they are there to adjudicate.
    Quote Originally Posted by FBR View Post
    ^^ Jenny you got me on that one. I had no idea that there are ongoing Jewish and Catholic tribunals settling private disputes based upon their religious traditions. Does your research indicate that the judgments of those tribunals are required to stay within the traditional boundaries of western law or are they pretty much allowed to pass down whatever penalties they want? I mean, beyond monetary judgments?

    FBR
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  14. #14
    God/dess FBR's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Posts
    8,351
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked 342 Times in 244 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Mellow

    Default Re: Tolerance

    hb, I said religious because the concept of legally ordaining Judaic or Muslim or Christian law as supreme (even in private disputes) is, to me, an interesting surrender of traditional western secular legal rights.

    I admit to being otherwise ignorant on the topic but interested in learning more.

    FBR
    Once again I have embraced my addiction and have put off the moral dilemma to another day.

  15. #15
    TheSexKitten
    Guest

    Default Re: Tolerance

    Quote Originally Posted by Deogol View Post
    Fall from power?

    They are actually expanding their influence these days.

    Take for example Londonstan:


    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436203-details/Adoption+of+Islamic+Sharia+law+in+Britain+is+'unav oidable'%2C+says+Archbishop+of+Canterbury/article.do
    Re-read what I said. I hope the Muslim fundies fall, I didn't say that they are falling.

  16. #16
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Tolerance

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSexKitten View Post
    Re-read what I said. I hope the Muslim fundies fall, I didn't say that they are falling.
    I never said you were wrong.

    I merely said Sharia law is spreading.

  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Tolerance

    ^^^ again the basic question remains. In the case of a Canadian Islamic woman, does she truly have freedom of choice to be 'tried for her crimes' under Canadian secular law (which may not even consider what she did to be a crime), or will the fact that she is a declared Islamic force her to subject herself to the decisions of a Canadian Islamic community Sharia judgement ?



    It's one thing to voluntarily choose or reject an option for binding arbitration in lieu of litigation in a secular courtroom. It is something else when the voluntary choice is removed. And it is something far worse when a country's secular laws are rewritten to provide de-facto force of law for Sharia judgements which run contrary to that country's basic constitutional rights i.e. equal treatment for men and women.

  18. #18
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Tolerance

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ again the basic question remains. In the case of a Canadian Islamic woman, does she truly have freedom of choice to be 'tried for her crimes' under Canadian secular law (which may not even consider what she did to be a crime), or will the fact that she is a declared Islamic force her to subject herself to the decisions of a Canadian Islamic community Sharia judgement ?
    I don't think this was ever an actual question. If muslim people were denied access to the secular courts THAT would be discrimination. Not to mention that "crimes" of any variety were never under consideration; private disputes could be adjudicated. Nobody was suggesting an extra criminal law system. So the answer to your basic question is - no, she doesn't have a choice because she doesn't have the option to be tried under Sharia law for crimes. The only system available to criminal actions is the Canadian legal system; if it is not in the Criminal Code, it is not a crime and the law will not exact or enforce a criminal punishment. For private disputes - under the proposed tribunal; yes, she would have the choice of which tribunal to have her complaint adjudicated, provided the other party was also willing to be bound by a sharia tribunal; if a muslim woman was married to, for example, a jewish man he might not agree to be bound by sharia law, just as she might not agree to be bound by rabbinical law. This was not really a hot issue under contention.

    It's one thing to voluntarily choose or reject an option for binding arbitration in lieu of litigation in a secular courtroom. It is something else when the voluntary choice is removed.
    Well I agree. Which is why under the proposed law in Ontario (and in Britain) both parties (whether male or female) would be agreeing to be bound by an alternate tribunal; the same as they would in any alternative dispute resolution. Honestly - this is not the hot, scary and hard to navigate issue you are making it out to be. Nobody suggested or proposed anything like anything that you are so worried about.

    And it is something far worse when a country's secular laws are rewritten to provide de-facto force of law for Sharia judgements which run contrary to that country's basic constitutional rights i.e. equal treatment for men and women.
    Interesting point; I would point out that any woman who didn't want to be bound by sharia law would only have to refuse to have her case so arbitrated. The sharia law specialist at my school suggested simply making the adjudication subject to the Charter, the same (again) as any other alternative dispute resolution.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  19. #19
    Featured Member flickad's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,860
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 103 Times in 67 Posts
    My Mood
    Pensive

    Default Re: Tolerance

    You can point out breaches of human rights without being a bigot. I would not call you anti-Islam for only drawing attention to any such breaches, whether or not they occur in the Middle East. It would, however, look bigoted if you were only concerned with wrongs committed by Muslims and not comparable wrongs committed by others.

  20. #20
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Tolerance

    I don't think this was ever an actual question. If muslim people were denied access to the secular courts THAT would be discrimination
    It would, however, look bigoted if you were only concerned with wrongs committed by Muslims and not comparable wrongs committed by others.
    well, here you go !

    (snip)"Here's a story that's drawn a lot of furious commentary from the blogosphere. The Associated Press reports:

    The archbishop of Canterbury on Thursday called for a limited application of Islamic law in Britain. . . .

    The unusual suggestion from Britain's highest ranking Christian leader would, if adopted, allow British Muslims to choose to resolve marital and financial disputes under Islamic law, known as Shariah, rather than through British courts. . . .

    Williams said he was not advocating that Britain allow extreme aspects of Shariah, which has been associated with harsh punishments meted out by Islamic courts in Saudi Arabia and some other countries and has been used to undermine the rights of women.

    "Nobody in their right mind" would want to see that, he said. He called for "a clear eye" when discussing Islamic law.

    The government was quick to reject the proposal--probably rightly so. But the case isn't as clear cut as some make it out to be. For one thing, as the Web site of Britain's United Synagogue explains, Orthodox Jews already have a parallel legal system:

    In Jewish Law, Jewish parties are forbidden to take their civil disputes to a secular court and are required to have those disputes adjudicated by a Beth Din [rabbinical court]. The London Beth Din sits as an arbitral tribunal in respect of civil disputes and the parties to any such dispute are required to sign an Arbitration Agreement prior to a hearing taking place. The effect of this is that the award given by the Beth Din has the full force of an Arbitration Award and may be enforced (with prior permission of the Beth Din) by the civil courts. At a hearing before the Dayanim, the parties do not require legal representation although they are allowed to have legal or other representation.

    And, as Eugene Volokh points out, it is possible for Muslims to enter into Shariah contracts in the U.S.:

    Oddly enough, the American courts treat this as a perfectly normal matter. In the first two cases I cited, the parties entered into a contract that provided for Sharia arbitration; the courts considered challenges to the arbitral process, and upheld the awards. The third case involved a contractual provision expressly stating that disputes about the contract would be resolved under Saudi Arabian law; the court then dutifully investigated what the Saudi rules (which are built on Sharia) would call for, and rendered judgment "based upon this Court's review of various academic texts, the testimony of the experts, the submissions of the parties, and the Court's understanding of the fundamental principles of Islamic law as they would be interpreted by a court in Saudi Arabia."

    And of course the application of Sharia law was indeed a perfectly normal matter. American courts are governed by American law, but American law has long provided that parties to contracts can provide for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (such as arbitration). American law has likewise long provided that some contractual disputes would be resolved with reference to foreign law, especially when the law is expressly provided for by the contract. It doesn't matter whether the arbitration or the foreign law is secular or religious--secular and religious rules are treated basically equally, on the principle that the parties' contractual choices should be honored unless some extraordinary circumstance makes it unfair to do so.

    If this is what Rowan is proposing, it seems unobjectionable enough. On the other hand, talk of officially sanctioning the use of Shariah to resolve marital disputes raises a red flag, since the mores of traditional Muslim societies are very much at odds with contemporary Western ideas about equality of the sexes.

    We noted Monday that a British court had effectively legitimated polygamy for the purpose of welfare benefits. This leads us to fear that British courts, in enforcing Shariah, would not be resolute about seeing that Muslim women do not become second-class citizens."(snip)

    from

  21. #21
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Tolerance

    Well, I see where you got confused - I'm assuming it's here: In Jewish Law, Jewish parties are forbidden to take their civil disputes to a secular court
    Note that it says Jewish Law. Not British, American or Canadian law. So the parties, presumably if they were both Jewish would voluntarily agree to be legally bound by such a tribunal. Note that "the parties to any such dispute are required to sign an Arbitration Agreement prior to a hearing taking place". If they do not sign it, it will not be so arbitrated. Although their religion may make certain dictates, the secular law will not make parallel ones; if it did the parties denied access to secular law would have (in Canada) a Charter claim, in the U.S. a Constitutional claim and in Britian, ultimately, a claim under the European Human Rights Convention. There are sound and serious legal principles and documents preventing the ball you fear from rolling down the hill.

    Courts uphold awards and decisions made under ADR all the time - otherwise there would be no point to ADR. I don't know what the standard of review is, but it would be pretty high, since ADR is meant to funnel disputes out of court, not back in. That doesn't speak to the voluntariness under which the parties were bound.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  22. #22
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Tolerance

    ^^^ again the point I am questioning is the real world feasibility of a Jewish / Muslim woman refusing to abide by the dictates of their religious community that they MUST submit to a Beth Din or Shariah court decision rather than pursue their claims in a secular court. While this might be theoretically possible under the criteria of 'voluntary' acceptance or rejection of ADR by both parties, in the real world one can easily imagine the daily consequences within her community of a Jewish / Muslim woman insisting on taking her case to a secular court over the objections of family members, friends and neighbors, and community / religious officials.

  23. #23
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Tolerance

    Oh, I see. Well that concern is hardly addressed by not making a public and transparent process available; a woman who is in a position in which she feels she must choose religious binding arbitration over a secular tribunal is not likely to feel more able to defy her community merely because the proceedings then lack transparency and legal analysis; the consequences will not be less. I can't imagine how you think you are helping this hypothetical woman at all. On the other hand, if later she can show that she was unfairly pressured or that she wasn't really aware of what she was agreeing to or that the agreement was gained unconscionably, she still has legal options.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  24. #24
    Featured Member Hello_Kitty27's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,818
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: Tolerance

    The comments in the first article posted here are particularly amusing (and in some cases, sad).

    I love how educated some of you are on things like this ....I have some serious reading to do, it seems.






    (just click to donate FREE food to those in need...REALLY!)

Similar Threads

  1. no tolerance with the stupid questions being asked by custys
    By mermaidnz in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-28-2007, 10:27 AM
  2. What's your tolerance level?
    By luvsdancers in forum Customer Conversation
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 10-15-2006, 06:01 PM
  3. piercings, tattoos, pain tolerance, etc
    By meimei in forum Body Business
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-19-2006, 06:07 PM
  4. How do I increase my "asshole tolerance"?
    By Dylan Tyler in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 04-10-2005, 09:47 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •