http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008 ... 3-sun.html
A few years ago-I would have thought that a society could not legalize gay marriage and subsidize the imposition of Sharia Law at the same time-But Canada is apparently trying really hard to figure it out and is getting really close.
Canada-I salute you
-
etaoin22
- FNGD Forum Moderator
- Posts: 3655
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:09 pm
Dont read the Toronto Sun for politics. Ever.
Gets things wildly wrong even within the purview of its right wing orientation.
To begin with, the legislatures of both Ontario and Quebec have essentially unanimously specifically rejected the application of Sharia in any fashion, as part of Family Law, or for that matter any other legal area. The question was raised of the appropriateness of referring Muslim families on the point of break-up to lay (non-Canadian-lawyer) arbitrators schooled in Sharia, in order to obtain a more culturally appropriate result. The answer was NO, from public opinion, from the legislatures and from womens' support groups working in those communities. And so it has happened.
The definition of "spouse" as being determined by location of marriage is not unusual, as Spock I am sure knows.
Welfare meant for support of women and children usually diminishes in presence of an acknowledged spouse.
Here is what to read the Toronto Sun for:
(spoiler: sexist material ahead....)
[/spoiler]
Gets things wildly wrong even within the purview of its right wing orientation.
To begin with, the legislatures of both Ontario and Quebec have essentially unanimously specifically rejected the application of Sharia in any fashion, as part of Family Law, or for that matter any other legal area. The question was raised of the appropriateness of referring Muslim families on the point of break-up to lay (non-Canadian-lawyer) arbitrators schooled in Sharia, in order to obtain a more culturally appropriate result. The answer was NO, from public opinion, from the legislatures and from womens' support groups working in those communities. And so it has happened.
The definition of "spouse" as being determined by location of marriage is not unusual, as Spock I am sure knows.
Welfare meant for support of women and children usually diminishes in presence of an acknowledged spouse.
Here is what to read the Toronto Sun for:
(spoiler: sexist material ahead....)
Spoiler
Last edited by etaoin22 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Spock
- Posts: 4784
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:01 pm
etaoin22 wrote:Dont read the Toronto Sun for politics. Ever.
Gets things wildly wrong even within the purview of its right wing orientation.
To begin with, the legislatures of both Ontario and Quebec have essentially unanimously specifically rejected the application of Sharia in any fashion, as part of Family Law, or for that matter any other legal area. The question was raised of the appropriateness of referring Muslim families on the point of break-up to lay (non-Canadian-lawyer) arbitrators schooled in Sharia, in order to obtain a more culturally appropriate result. The answer was NO, from public opinion, from the legislatures and from womens' support groups working in those communities. And so it has happened.
The definition of "spouse" as being determined by location of marriage is not unusual, as HD I am sure knows.
Welfare meant for support of women and children usually diminishes in presence of an acknowledged spouse.
Here is what to read the Toronto Sun for:
(spoiler: sexist material ahead....)
[/spoiler]Spoiler
The details you cite are fine-but the way I see it you have a welfare and immigration system that places no requirement or thought that these individuals should be productive members of society.
How is Canada made better off by letting these individuals (polygamous husbands from the Muslim world) in?-FTR-I would absolutely support their admittance in the absence of the modern welfare state.
They apparently enter and draw welfare immediately. It seems to be treated as a matter of course that men with numerous wives(and children) from wherever have an absolute right to enter the country, draw welfare and with no expectation that the head of household support his family and lifestyle.
Where does Canada draw the line?
Last edited by Spock on Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Appa23
- Posts: 3768
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm
I do not know if "HD" is meant to refer to me, but I can advise you that there are instances where the definition of "spouse" is not determined on the location of the "marriage". Under the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state. Therefore, for example, there have been cases where the State of Nebraska did not have to recognize a gay marriage or civil union from Mssachusetts or Vermont. This has caused issues with divorce and child custody cases, as the couple needs to return to the state where their "marriage" is legal in order to handle these issues.etaoin22 wrote:Dont read the Toronto Sun for politics. Ever.
Gets things wildly wrong even within the purview of its right wing orientation.
To begin with, the legislatures of both Ontario and Quebec have essentially unanimously specifically rejected the application of Sharia in any fashion, as part of Family Law, or for that matter any other legal area. The question was raised of the appropriateness of referring Muslim families on the point of break-up to lay (non-Canadian-lawyer) arbitrators schooled in Sharia, in order to obtain a more culturally appropriate result. The answer was NO, from public opinion, from the legislatures and from womens' support groups working in those communities. And so it has happened.
The definition of "spouse" as being determined by location of marriage is not unusual, as HD I am sure knows.
Welfare meant for support of women and children usually diminishes in presence of an acknowledged spouse.
Here is what to read the Toronto Sun for:
(spoiler: sexist material ahead....)
[/spoiler]Spoiler
-
etaoin22
- FNGD Forum Moderator
- Posts: 3655
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:09 pm
I have corrected my error. Dumb as it was.
The issues of refugee policy are complex, and there is a principled view which is conservative, I admit.
Of the arguments against any conservative POV, I find the strongest argument to be that Canada is underpopulated. Over generations, refugees have proven to be excellent stock for population.
As for the SUN -ots of refugee claimants buy it -- if only to look at the Sunshine Girl.
But for politics in Canada, the right-wing view is ably represented by The National Post, and not by the far less relevant urban tabs, usually off-the-mark and swinging wildly.
My point about the definition of spouse was existence, not universality.
The issues of refugee policy are complex, and there is a principled view which is conservative, I admit.
Of the arguments against any conservative POV, I find the strongest argument to be that Canada is underpopulated. Over generations, refugees have proven to be excellent stock for population.
As for the SUN -ots of refugee claimants buy it -- if only to look at the Sunshine Girl.
But for politics in Canada, the right-wing view is ably represented by The National Post, and not by the far less relevant urban tabs, usually off-the-mark and swinging wildly.
My point about the definition of spouse was existence, not universality.