Should Sharia Law be recognized, in Ontario, for settling family disputes

[Pure]

Should Islamic sharia law be officially recognized for use in settling family disputes? It is assumed that both parties voluntarily go to the religious court, AND that the settlement does not contravene Canadian criminal law.

According to a proposal by a member of the *liberal* government, he courts would enforce the settlements, under the Arbitration Act, which recognizes abitrators' decisions when both parties participate voluntarily, and by agreement, in an arbirtration process.



How multicultural should one be? This one makes me uneasy, but it's already in effect for Orthodox Jews, among others.
The debate is fairly heated, and here is a sample. What does 'liberalism' dictate, on this matter?


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...geid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1103583009849



Dec. 21, 2004. 06:49 AM

Report called 'betrayal' of women

Proposal backs use of Islamic principles in settling disputes
Ontario heading in 'dangerous direction,' opponents say


CAROLINE MALLAN
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF

A proposal to allow the use of Islamic principles in settling family disputes in Ontario has been met with outrage by opponents of the plan.

Former NDP attorney-general Marion Boyd made the recommendation yesterday in a 150-page report in which she also called for new safeguards to protect the rights of women.

But she ultimately concluded that "Muslim principles" should be considered an acceptable method of religious arbitration as long as they do not violate Canadian law.

Boyd was asked by the provincial government to review the 1991 Arbitration Act and assess whether a plan by the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice to use the guiding principles of their faith in settling marital and inheritance disputes should be halted.

Catholics and Jews already have made use of the act, which is intended as a way of avoiding costly court fights when both parties to a dispute agree to do so. A divorcing couple could use the act to decide on a division of property, for example.

Opponents were quick to condemn Boyd's report, calling it "naive" and a betrayal of women.

Marilou McPhedran, counsel for the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, labelled Boyd's report "naive" in its assumptions that Muslim women would have the same choices as other women.

McPhedran said many women who could be affected are recent immigrants who might not speak English and are not given a true choice in how a divorce might be settled.

"This is a dangerous direction. It is the thin edge of the wedge. This has to be stopped now," she said.

Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress said Boyd has lent credibility to a system of law that has disadvantaged women in Muslim countries for centuries.

"Marion Boyd today has given legitimacy and credibility to the right-wing racists who fundamentally are against equal rights for men and women," Fatah said of the endorsement of some form of sharia law.

"The proponents of sharia in Canada are not concerned about family law, they are concerned about bringing justification for introducing sharia and legitimizing it."

But Boyd repeatedly stressed that the term "sharia" is not what is being proposed by the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice, adding the 1,400-year-old set of rules and laws covers criminal and civil matters and is often incompatible with Canadian law.

"We're being very clear, this is not sharia law," Boyd told a news conference. "This is Muslim religious principles within Canadian law."

But, she conceded, in all cases of arbitration, whether religious or not, it is up to the people involved to stand up for their own rights. "It's a bit of consumer beware that I think is very real in this area."

Boyd also said in an interview later, "I'm not naïve enough to think this is the end of it."

Although some critics are firmly opposed to the use of the Arbitration Act by any religious group, she said she couldn't "in good conscience" tell the government to end it because "it would set back family law by 30 years."

But anyone who interprets the report as giving priority to multiculturalism over female equality is "misreading" it: "It's a recognition that (sharia arbitrations) are already happening — the first one here was in 1982. But there is no way to scrutinize them.

"If they stay underground, Muslim women will be more vulnerable."

Boyd also told the news conference she believes strengthening the existing system of arbitration, including mandating domestic violence awareness training for arbitrators, will help reduce the number of informal, religious-based family dispute resolutions that happen without any oversight.

Critics of any use of sharia law in Canada point to examples of what some Muslim societies consider to be acceptable levels of spousal support when a marriage ends — anywhere from three months to a year's worth of support — compared to a Canadian norm of much more long-term support for a former spouse and children.

"I think Boyd made up her mind before she even started because she hasn't taken into consideration anything we said. It's like she didn't hear us," said Alia Hogben, executive director of the 900-member Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

Boyd's report recommends a greater right of appeal for arbitrations, but puts the onus on Muslim women to take that step, said Hogben, "but how would many women have the wherewithal to do that?"

"We just hope that the attorney-general freezes the report until a proper investigation is done," said Homa Arjomand, head of the International Campaign to Stop Sharia Courts in Canada.

The campaign argued that while, technically, Muslim women will have access to Canadian laws and court, and the legal system will undoubtedly reject oppressive decisions, "the reality is that most women (will) be coerced socially, economically or psychologically" into participating in sharia tribunals.

Boyd's report calls on arbitrators to affirm that they have interviewed the couple in dispute separately to determine that both parties are participating of their own free will and to rule out any possible domestic violence issues.

All of the groups opposed to any use of sharia said they will aggressively press the Liberal government and Attorney-General Michael Bryant to reject Boyd's findings and put an end to arbitrations that rely on Muslim laws.

But Syed Mumtaz Ali, a lawyer for the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice, said he was "delighted" with Boyd's findings and added that many of the 46 recommendations for strengthening the Arbitration Act came from him.

"It's a model for the whole world to see how sharia law can be used in a Western society," Mumtaz Ali said in an interview. He added that while sharia is a misnomer in terms of the type of family disputes at issue, he said it is the term most people recognize and associate with Muslim beliefs being applied through the law.

Mumtaz Ali said Muslim principles require Muslims to believe in one God and to commit to obeying the law in the country where they live. He said the advantage of sharia-type arbitration is that participants are compelled by their religious beliefs to uphold the law, an extra onus that will make for fair treatment of all parties in the dispute.

"Canadian laws prevail, sharia law takes a backseat," he said of the plan he envisions for arbitration.

He said many people in the community are anxious to proceed with sharia-based arbitration and plans have been in limbo awaiting Boyd's report.

Len Rudner of the Canadian Jewish Congress said the group felt Boyd struck a fair balance between the needs of the individuals and those of the community. "She appears to have done a good job of that," he said.

with files from Lynda Hurst
---
{see also "Sharia: It's about religious freedom."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...geid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1103628501920}

 

[rgraham666]

I have no idea what the 'liberal' take on this is.

But I am willing to cut the Muslims a break.

It seems that it has worked for Catholics and Jews, perhaps it can work for Muslims as well.

But we had better keep a close eye on what the arbitrators do. If they contravene federal or provincial law, the law should come down hard on them.

Women aren't property.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

If both parties agree to abide by an arbitrator's ruling and know the rules under which the arbitration is being conducted, then it's their business.

I assume, of course, that any decisions made under Sharia won't violate existing Canadian law.

---dr.M.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If both parties agree to abide by an arbitrator's ruling and know the rules under which the arbitration is being conducted, then it's their business.

I assume, of course, that any decisions made under Sharia won't violate existing Canadian law.

---dr.M.

To be honest, I don't kmow that much about Sharia or whatever religious law would be used. I also don't know that much about Canadian law but I would presume it is not heavily weighted in favor of the men involved. Within those limits, I would have to say that, as long as all parties concerned are making informed decisions and are willing to abide by the arbitration, all religions should be considered equal.

However, the strenuous opposition of the Muslim women cited in the article makes me wonder if it can ever be fair to women. They obviously know more about what is involved than I do and probably more than anybody who is contributing to this thread and more than the legislator making the proposal.

According to the article, Syed Mumtaz Ali, a lawyer for the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice essentially wrote the proposal. That in itself would make me tend to have serious doubts about the whole notion.

 

[Weird Harold]

Report called 'betrayal' of women

...
Former NDP attorney-general Marion Boyd made the recommendation yesterday in a 150-page report in which she also called for new safeguards to protect the rights of women.

But she ultimately concluded that "Muslim principles" should be considered an acceptable method of religious arbitration as long as they do not violate Canadian law.

...
But Boyd repeatedly stressed that the term "sharia" is not what is being proposed by the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice, adding the 1,400-year-old set of rules and laws covers criminal and civil matters and is often incompatible with Canadian law.

It sounds to me like this is a decision that couldn't go any other way without completely eliminating all religious particiption in the arbitration process.

I think the "new safeguards" mentioned are the key to knowing wheher this is a good idea, but it's the only possible decision leglly consistent with allowing catholic and jewish arbitrators.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The problem I see with this is that Islamic law is extremely weighted against women. Removing that bias would be extremely difficult. Finding arbitors who were conversant in Muslim law, but were not practicing muslims would be difficult I think.

If two people enter into arbitration knowing the rules by which the arbitor is working, that is their affair, but the true safeguards would have to be safeguards that kept pressure off Muslim women to enter into arbitration. In other words, the option to arbitrate would have to be closely watched, lest it became the kind of thing where a woman who refused to enter was ostracized.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I didn't know you could do that.

By that I mean bypass Governmental Law and go straight to Religious Law. I thought the Law's job was a non-denominational enforcement of Justice (in ideal of course, I'm hardly one to insinuate the infallibility and lack of bias in our justice system).

But I guess if it doesn't violate secular law and both parties are verified to understand what they're choosing by an unbiased and non-partisan secular party and all the other religions are allowed this option, I suppose I have no real complaint other than a private belief that that doesn't sound so hot.

So godspeed the idjits.

 

[snooper]

Disclaimer I do not know Canadian Law. I am using UK Law as a suitable analogy.

... It is assumed that both parties voluntarily go to the religious court, AND that the settlement does not contravene Canadian criminal law. ...

There is where the whole thing falls down. Catholic and Jewish law do not prescribe behaviour and punishment which are contrary to UK law.

Sharia law accepts no possibility of amendment - from the Muslim viewpoint, either society accepts the whole thing in every detail, or that society is wrong.

Therefore the parts of Sharia which contravene UK law cannot coexist with it.

Until the day when a parliament is elected in the UK which passes the necessary legislation (or Brussels imposes it) to incorporate Sharia into the legal code of the UK then such a twin-track system could not work.

 

[scheherazade_79]

Sorry for being politically incorrect here, but the very idea of Sharia Law in the Western world (even just for the sake of family disputes) makes me shudder. This is what I don't understand about the whole issue of asylum / immigration. Presumably these people move to different countries because they don't like the way things are run in their own country... and then they start wailing and bellyaching that their rights are being trampled on because they can't enjoy an identical life to the one they ran away from.

Introducing Sharia Law 'just' for family disputes is probably the thin end of the wedge. What will be next? Sharia Law for criminals of a certain faith? Sharia Law for certain areas of a country that are dominated by Muslims?

I'll be honest - I don't want to live in a society where criminals are beheaded.

I don't want to live in a society where women who commit adultery are stoned to death.

I don't want to live in a society where men and women are permanently segregated.

I don't want to live in a society where women are required to cover themselves from head to toe so that they look like ninjas.

I don't want to live in a society where a teenage single mother can be given 100 lashes for adultery, despite the fact that she was raped by three men.

I don't want to live in a society where people's hands get chopped off for stealing.

I don't want to live in a society where my own sexuality could result in the death penalty.

I don't want to live in a society where women are second class citizens.


I know there are some who'll see me as both unreasonable and prejudiced. I have nothing to say in my defence. If standing up for a way of life means that I am these things, then so be it. I'll wear the label with pride.

It's all very well to make these people welcome in their new countries, but it really is time they learned the old motto - When in Rome do as the Romans do.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I have no idea in what way Christian and Jewish religious laws are used in arbitration of family disputes. Can anyone explain that to me?

 

[oggbashan]

As I see it, and I may be wrong, Sharia Law is what the local imams say it is. There is no such thing as a commonly accepted definition of Sharia that applies to all Muslims everywhere.

IF the local imams are moderate then Sharia is moderate too. If the local imams follow a very strict interpretation of the Koran and Islamic traditions then their version of Sharia would be draconian and not compatible with any democracy's legal system.

That is not a criticism of Islam. I would be equally worried about some of the 'hell-fire and damnation' Christian preachers or some of the stricter manifestations of Catholicism exercising quasi-legal powers.

I am even more concerned that the proposal is an attempt to make Muslims different from the rest of the community. In my view Muslims and Christians should be allowed to practise their faith under the laws of the country they reside in and not try to separate themselves from the wider community. Religous tolerance is one thing. Suggesting that a person is above the law or subject to different civil and criminal laws (except as members of that religion) is very dangerous. If Western democracies oppressed particular religions then I could understand resistance. When religious tolerance is built into a country's law then there should be no other changes except through the normal legal processes available to any group in a democracy.

In the UK such arguments led to the martyrdom of St Thomas A Becket and Henry VIII's changes. After Henry VIII the citizens of England were no longer torn in temporal loyalty between the King and the Pope. 'Render unto Caesar' is as valid now as it was then and should be valid for all faiths.

Og

 

[CharleyH]

I have no idea in what way Christian and Jewish religious laws are used in arbitration of family disputes. Can anyone explain that to me?

I have no idea, and I live here but nothing surprises me about introductions in Queen's Park.

First they legislate 20 minutes of excercise, then they make laws telling you which dogs you can and cannot own, next on the list is banning transfats - oh it's an endless headache of important decisions.

As for the NDP? They are kind of like a Kangaroo Government. No one really listens to them anyhow. Must be a slow day downtown.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I am with Og on this, but from a different angle.

I have been told that Islam is based upon the New Testament of the Bible, but carried forward into a new religion (like Mormonism), so perhaps they will also accept Christ’s advice upon this point.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

 

[Pure]

Lauren Hynde said, {notes to RG [Charley]and Virtual}


I have no idea in what way Christian and Jewish religious laws are used in arbitration of family disputes. Can anyone explain that to me?

It works, afaik, just as is proposed in the Muslim case: If there is a Christian couple that wants to (agrees to) submit their dispute to their own religious authorities (minister, bishop, other official body), they may, and then the decision is binding, i.e., enforceable in the ordinary courts. Same for an Orthodox Jewish couple.

BUT, were that official or body to deny some basic right, let's say, the woman's right to visit her children, the decision would be 'null and void' from the pov of the government. (Let's suppose that the couple are negotiating a separation on grounds of her adultery.) In that case, the woman would have the usual 'remedy' in civil court (*assuming she's willing to take legal action*): sue for (say) equal access, if hubby was blocking it (to penalize her for her behavior). IOW, assuming the religious official or body had agreed with hubby and decided for 'no access,'
that decision would be ignored/nullified by the civil court.

----
Note to RG {error: It was Charley}

you{Charley} said,
.... I live here but nothing surprises me about introductions in Queen's Park.

First they legislate 20 minutes of excercise, then they make laws telling you which dogs you can and cannot own, next on the list is banning transfats - oh it's an endless headache of important decisions.

As for the NDP? They are kind of like a Kangaroo Government. No one really listens to them anyhow. Must be a slow day downtown.

Hi rg, I think you're missing something. Although the drafter of the report is a NDP (social democrat) person, the liberal government is strongly considering the proposal. Some Muslim authorities strongly favor it.

As to dogs, three family rottweilers in a city in British Columbia just tore apart a three year old, so 'dangerous dog' legislation is hardly a bizarree socialist idea. And, in my opinion, specifying 'dangerous breeds'(=breeds that are incredibly strong and agressive and can be made lethal by master's training or lack of it) is not completely 'out to lunch.' For example, those breeds, assuming they could be owned, would have to be muzzled in public places.
---
Note to Virtual
I have been told that Islam is based upon the New Testament of the Bible, but carried forward into a new religion (like Mormonism), so perhaps they will also accept Christ?s advice upon this point.

I'd doubt your sources. In Islam, afaik, Jesus is thought to have lived, been a prophet, etc., possibly even crucified, but did not die as recounted, and did not 'rise' 'ascend' etc. As to 'render to Caesar' etc., afaik, the orthodox/traditional muslims do not approve, contemplate or envision a separation of church and state (like the US puritans, for example). Of course, I'm sure many NT ideas are shared with Jews and Muslims and, even atheists-- e.g., that it's generally a good idea to tell the truth.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I have no idea in what way Christian and Jewish religious laws are used in arbitration of family disputes. Can anyone explain that to me?

It was kind of like going to the Godfather but without the murders. Very orthodox Jews often used to take their disputes to their rabbi for arbitration, and he made decisions based on Torah and in accordance with Jewish law and tradition. The disputes were usually civil in nature and involved things like divorce or breach of contract or civil suit: things where you just needed someone to make a fair decision.

I think that kind of thing is common when you have an unassimilated ethnic group that wants to settle disputes according to their own laws and customs and don't quite trust the host country's legal system.

A lot of Mormons do the same these days, taking their disputes to church Elders and agreeing to abide by their decisisions. I'm not aware of any other Christian sects that do this.

You have to keep in mind though that in arbitration the parties agree to accept the decision before they go into the arbitration process. No one forces them to arbitrate by religious or ethnic means. As citizens, they always have recourse to the law, and the law supercedes any religious decision.

No religious court could demand that someone have a hand cut off for theft, for example. At least not in Canada. That violates Canadian law.

---dr.M.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

It works, afaik, just as is proposed in the Muslim case: If there is a Christian couple that wants to (agrees to) submit their dispute to their own religious authorities (minister, bishop, other official body), they may, and then the decision is binding, i.e., enforceable in the ordinary courts. Same for an Orthodox Jewish couple.

BUT, were that official or body to deny some basic right, let's say, the woman's right to visit her children, the decision would be 'null and void' from the pov of the government. (Let's suppose that the couple are negotiating a separation on grounds of her adultery.) In that case, the woman would have the usual 'remedy' in civil court (*assuming she's willing to take legal action*): sue for (say) equal access, if hubby was blocking it (to penalize her for her behavior). IOW, assuming the religious official or body had agreed with hubby and decided for 'no access,'
that decision would be ignored/nullified by the civil court.

It was kind of like going to the Godfather but without the murders. Very orthodox Jews often used to take their disputes to their rabbi for arbitration, and he made decisions based on Torah and in accordance with Jewish law and tradition. The disputes were usually civil in nature and involved things like divorce or breach of contract or civil suit: things where you just needed someone to make a fair decision.

I think that kind of thing is common when you have an unassimilated ethnic group that wants to settle disputes according to their own laws and customs and don't quite trust the host country's legal system.

A lot of Mormons do the same these days, taking their disputes to church Elders and agreeing to abide by their decisisions. I'm not aware of any other Christian sects that do this.

You have to keep in mind though that in arbitration the parties agree to accept the decision before they go into the arbitration process. No one forces them to arbitrate by religious or ethnic means. As citizens, they always have recourse to the law, and the law supercedes any religious decision.

No religious court could demand that someone have a hand cut off for theft, for example. At least not in Canada. That violates Canadian law.

---dr.M.

So, the whole thing is just a process of easing the pressure off the overworked civil family courts. I see nothing wrong with that...

 

[Pure]

I'm with Colly on this one,

If two people enter into arbitration knowing the rules by which the arbitor is working, that is their affair, but the true safeguards would have to be safeguards that kept pressure off Muslim women to enter into arbitration. In other words, the option to arbitrate would have to be closely watched, lest it became the kind of thing where a woman who refused to enter was ostracized.

But I'd add, how does a civil government deal with 'pressure' from a religious community.? The civil/ordinary government, for instance, can say, "We'll give you a divorce, and we'll remarry you if you want." However the 'religious' woman who's told, 'no divorce' (or in the Orthodox Jewish case, 'no divorce without the husband's agreement')---what is she to do?

To take a present, similar case, a Catholic woman can ignore her church and get a civil divorce. Further, ignoring her church's NONrecognition of the divorce, she can remarry at city hall or the Unitarian church. But that remarriage is NOT recognized by her Catholic church. How they choose to deal with her, is up to them (refuse her sacraments, etc.). Further, IF she works as a teacher for the Catholic school board, she stands to lose her job, if she follows the civil procedure I've outlined. The only consolation is that our city has many ex Catholics, there are other school boards, etc. She would be welcome(and not disapproved of) at many other Christian churches.

In simple terms, the RC woman, at present, in most North American settings does have some relief from 'pressure' *to the extent that the RC church is one among many and lacks influence or control of the civil authorities.* Several posters have noted this issue, whether the civilly approved alternatives are 'live' and livable options.

 

[Pure]

But Lauren, if it's simply a way to expedite resolution of disputes,
why are many Muslim women worried? Though I'm no expert on Islam, I have to wonder if where's there's smoke (opposition), there's fire (real danger).

From the newspaper article: "I think Boyd[writer of the report recommending Islamic principles be recognized] made up her mind before she even started because she hasn't taken into consideration anything we said. It's like she didn't hear us," said Alia Hogben, executive director of the 900-member Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

Boyd's report recommends a greater right of appeal for arbitrations, but puts the onus on Muslim women to take that step, said Hogben, "but how would many women have the wherewithal to do that?"

====
Question: For posters, do you know of the issue arising elsewhere? For states in the US, or for other countries, is anyone on this forum familiar with a similar question arising about [recognizing] applying Islamic law?

 

[rgraham666]

Oh Pure? You mistook Charley's post for mine.

I'll confess that I am more than just a little nervous about this proposal.

I know there are a lot of pressures on people in a seperate community to abide by the laws of the community. A Muslim woman might, in many cases, be back home for all the freedom she has.

Still, if the government is careful about upholding the rights of women and makes a major effort to educate people about their rights and responsibilities, things should turn out OK.

Besides which, since they live in a Western country they can't help but become aware of Western values. I imagine that in a couple of generations the descendants of recent immigrants will be pretty thoroughly assimilated.

 

[Pure]

sorry, rg, it did seem a little surprising, as your pov. i corrected the mistake.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

But Lauren, if it's simply a way to expedite resolution of disputes,
why are many Muslim women worried? Though I'm no expert on Islam, I have to wonder if where's there's smoke (opposition), there's fire (real danger).

Because they think it's a Trojan horse, of course, but that doesn't mean they're right. There simply is no reason to believe Canadian law and the rights protected by it would ever be at risk.

Question: For posters, do you know of the issue arising elsewhere? For states in the US, or for other countries, is anyone on this forum familiar with a similar question arising about [recognizing] applying Islamic law?

Portugal is 98% Roman Catholic and I don't think anyone would ever even propose resorting to Catholic law to settle family disputes, at this point in time. That's why I asked what it meant, because the concept is so completely odd. No one even has the right to ask if I'm Catholic.

 

[rgraham666]

sorry, rg, it did seem a little surprising, as your pov. i corrected the mistake.

De nada.

 

[SlickTony]

I'm inclined to agree with Scheherezade.

 

[Pure]

One point sways me to favor the proposal.

"It's a recognition that (sharia arbitrations) are already happening — the first one here was in 1982. But there is no way to scrutinize them.

"If they stay underground, Muslim women will be more vulnerable."

Women in strict religious communities are going to have this problem of (what others consider) 'unfair'; it can't be controlled (e.g., the community putting her on the shit list), so it might as well be brought to light. Hopefully an independent civil judiciary has some longterm effect. The agunah in Israel are an example of non independence of the civil authority (women who can't get the husband's permission for a divorce, and are left in limbo).

---
NOTE: I can't believe the problem has not arisen in other areas of high Muslim concentration (but not majority), say, England, Australia, Michigan, not to say some African countries. Anyone have info? I do know the 'female circumcision' problem has arisen in England, and the law is against practicing that African Muslim custom in England (which probably happens, nonetheless).

 

[Tongue lasher]

Sorry for being politically incorrect here, but the very idea of Sharia Law in the Western world (even just for the sake of family disputes) makes me shudder. This is what I don't understand about the whole issue of asylum / immigration. Presumably these people move to different countries because they don't like the way things are run in their own country... and then they start wailing and bellyaching that their rights are being trampled on because they can't enjoy an identical life to the one they ran away from.

Introducing Sharia Law 'just' for family disputes is probably the thin end of the wedge. What will be next? Sharia Law for criminals of a certain faith? Sharia Law for certain areas of a country that are dominated by Muslims?

I'll be honest - I don't want to live in a society where criminals are beheaded.

I don't want to live in a society where women who commit adultery are stoned to death.

I don't want to live in a society where men and women are permanently segregated.

I don't want to live in a society where women are required to cover themselves from head to toe so that they look like ninjas.

I don't want to live in a society where a teenage single mother can be given 100 lashes for adultery, despite the fact that she was raped by three men.

I don't want to live in a society where people's hands get chopped off for stealing.

I don't want to live in a society where my own sexuality could result in the death penalty.

I don't want to live in a society where women are second class citizens.


I know there are some who'll see me as both unreasonable and prejudiced. I have nothing to say in my defence. If standing up for a way of life means that I am these things, then so be it. I'll wear the label with pride.

It's all very well to make these people welcome in their new countries, but it really is time they learned the old motto - When in Rome do as the Romans do.

No way is this opinion unreasonable or prejudiced. And didn't I hear recently that in England a religious group got a play taken off because they didn't like it?????? Okay, not exactly a 'legal' scenario....but who needs the law when you can get your way through violence....and then scream 'Discrimination' at anyone who protests this. Maybe this is the thin end of the wedge that Sche mentions.