Actually this juridical process can serve 2 ways. For instance the
aboriginal population has on their reserve lands instituted it's own
'policing' system, and methods of correction. This benefits the 'wrong doer'
in many cases because in criminal law most offenders found guilty are
sentenced to prisons for their first crime. Those convicted often are not
corrected, but rather punished, and they continue in a life of escalating
crime. Whereas in the native justice system the wrong doer [often a
teenager] is allowed within the reserve lands and community to continue to
live there but with strict controls, and disciplining, rather than
punishment for a crime, in the larger Canadian system, wrong doers are often
never corrected, and educated. Of course the crimes have to be minor in
nature for the native justice system to be effective. Serious crimes of
course would end up in the Supreme or Provincial Courts.
In the Sharia model of the Islamic faith, the Canadian Criminal Code would
not be used for the 'trying' and 'trial' but rather 'civil codes' like
family relations items. So that has already been in practice here in Canada
and it does not mean 'stoning' or 'amputation' but rather 'division of
family assets', etc., after a permanent separation.
Anyway how is 'guilt' established? Neglect a kid, and they turn to their
peers for leadership and role modeling. Is that the fault of the community
or is it the fault of the kid? So who needs to be 'corrected' for a crimes
like minor property damage or minor theft or being caught toking on an
'illegal' smoke?
Thrusting the young offender into a minimum security prison for 4-6 months
does not correct, and it is a form of punishment. So why?
Lacking a conscience according to Heidegger shows as not having any guilt.
Having felt guilt is the opposite, wanting to have a conscience. In cases of
theft under $500 we see the provincial court judge sentence young offenders
who are repeat criminals to 2 years less a day. But who is really guilty and
who is really the criminal? Is their parents at fault if they are under 21,
or is it the community? Why would they think it was acceptable? Recently
some 12-13 year olds in Ontario were robbing convenience stores. They did
this crime repeatedly with the assistance of small 2 way radios, and
mountain bikes at night. The RCMP originally believed that their was a very
sophisticated crime network, but one thing was wrong with this hypothesis:
the robbers were not very big. So they asked some school children about the
appearance of any 'money' and 'stolen goods' in the schools. This was where
they got their lead: the kids were selling cigarettes or something.
Basically these kids were doing the crimes for 'recognition' and 'status'.
All they need to learn is to find recognition and meaning doing something
more community minded.
chao
john
----- Original Message -----
From: <GEVANS613@xxxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<heidegger-dialognet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<analytical-indicant-theory@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:25 AM
Subject: Canada's Shame
>
> (http://www.rationalistinternatio)
>
> The plan to establish Islamic courts in the Canadian province of Ontario
and
> leave the Muslim minority to the mercy of Sharia, has unleashed a wave of
> protest. Muslim women are horrified about the idea that a secular western
> democracy like Canada invites archaic religious laws, deeply committed to
the
> concept of gender inequality, to strike root in its legal system. Growing
> resistance against the threatening human rights crisis has forced the
government of
> Ontario now, to reconsider the matter.
>
> "We see no compelling reason to live under any other form of law in
Canada
> and we want the same laws to apply to us as to other Canadian women",
demands
> the national Canadian Council of Muslim Women. But some self nominated
Muslim
> leaders have different plans, and the government of Ontario seemed
willing
> to cooperate.
>
> Entry point for the 1400-year-old Quran-based Sharia is the Ontario
> Arbitration Act of 1991. It allows religious and other groups to settle
civil legal
> disputes among their members according to their own rules and
arbitrations.
> Under this act, Hassidic Jews are running their own Beit Din, based on
Jewish
> law. Catholics, Ismaili Muslims (followers of Aga Khan) and aborigines,
too,
> are maintaining their traditional arbitration. In October 2003,
conservative
> Muslim Sharia campaigners discovered that this legal loophole could be
used to
> enforce Islamic law in Canada. Securing acceptance of representatives of
> some major Muslim groups, sects and national communities, they were fast
to
> create an Islamic Institute for Legal Justice and declare it the highest
Islamic
> arbitration board in the country.
>
> If the government does not act fast, Sharia courts may soon start handing
> down their rulings in Ontario. Those rulings would be final and binding,
as the
> full authority of the Canadian judiciary is conferred on them and
guarantees
> their enforcement by Canadian police and local Canadian courts - without
> them having any discretion in the matter. There will be ghettos of
religious law
> in Canada, pressing the secular democracy's executive machinery into
> service.
>
> That does not mean that adulterers will be stoned to death, the
authorities
> are fast to explain. They feel they have already done enough by
establishing
> certain "safeguards" against such excesses: Sharia courts will - for the
time
> being - not be in charge of criminal cases, but civil cases only
(divorce,
> separation, child custody, division of property etc.). Their decisions
are
> required to be consistent with Canadian laws and the Human Rights
Charter. And
> finally, they can only act, provided all parties involved give their
consent
> to the process.
>
> So everybody is equal - but some are far less equal than others. To get
> their fair share, inhabitants of the ghettos would have to bluntly refuse
the
> participation in religious tribunals or challenge decisions, passed in
the name
> of Allah, in an ordinary Canadian court. That is certainly possible.
>
> The "model Ontario", once practiced, will set new standards. It will help
to
> legitimize the demands of fundamentalist religious leaders to establish
> autonomous legal ghettos all over the secular world. Delegates of the
> International Islamic Conference in Cairo in April urged already the
incorporation of
> Sharia and its moral values into the International Law.
>
>
> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
aboriginal population has on their reserve lands instituted it's own
'policing' system, and methods of correction. This benefits the 'wrong doer'
in many cases because in criminal law most offenders found guilty are
sentenced to prisons for their first crime. Those convicted often are not
corrected, but rather punished, and they continue in a life of escalating
crime. Whereas in the native justice system the wrong doer [often a
teenager] is allowed within the reserve lands and community to continue to
live there but with strict controls, and disciplining, rather than
punishment for a crime, in the larger Canadian system, wrong doers are often
never corrected, and educated. Of course the crimes have to be minor in
nature for the native justice system to be effective. Serious crimes of
course would end up in the Supreme or Provincial Courts.
In the Sharia model of the Islamic faith, the Canadian Criminal Code would
not be used for the 'trying' and 'trial' but rather 'civil codes' like
family relations items. So that has already been in practice here in Canada
and it does not mean 'stoning' or 'amputation' but rather 'division of
family assets', etc., after a permanent separation.
Anyway how is 'guilt' established? Neglect a kid, and they turn to their
peers for leadership and role modeling. Is that the fault of the community
or is it the fault of the kid? So who needs to be 'corrected' for a crimes
like minor property damage or minor theft or being caught toking on an
'illegal' smoke?
Thrusting the young offender into a minimum security prison for 4-6 months
does not correct, and it is a form of punishment. So why?
Lacking a conscience according to Heidegger shows as not having any guilt.
Having felt guilt is the opposite, wanting to have a conscience. In cases of
theft under $500 we see the provincial court judge sentence young offenders
who are repeat criminals to 2 years less a day. But who is really guilty and
who is really the criminal? Is their parents at fault if they are under 21,
or is it the community? Why would they think it was acceptable? Recently
some 12-13 year olds in Ontario were robbing convenience stores. They did
this crime repeatedly with the assistance of small 2 way radios, and
mountain bikes at night. The RCMP originally believed that their was a very
sophisticated crime network, but one thing was wrong with this hypothesis:
the robbers were not very big. So they asked some school children about the
appearance of any 'money' and 'stolen goods' in the schools. This was where
they got their lead: the kids were selling cigarettes or something.
Basically these kids were doing the crimes for 'recognition' and 'status'.
All they need to learn is to find recognition and meaning doing something
more community minded.
chao
john
----- Original Message -----
From: <GEVANS613@xxxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<heidegger-dialognet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<analytical-indicant-theory@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:25 AM
Subject: Canada's Shame
>
> (http://www.rationalistinternatio)
>
> The plan to establish Islamic courts in the Canadian province of Ontario
and
> leave the Muslim minority to the mercy of Sharia, has unleashed a wave of
> protest. Muslim women are horrified about the idea that a secular western
> democracy like Canada invites archaic religious laws, deeply committed to
the
> concept of gender inequality, to strike root in its legal system. Growing
> resistance against the threatening human rights crisis has forced the
government of
> Ontario now, to reconsider the matter.
>
> "We see no compelling reason to live under any other form of law in
Canada
> and we want the same laws to apply to us as to other Canadian women",
demands
> the national Canadian Council of Muslim Women. But some self nominated
Muslim
> leaders have different plans, and the government of Ontario seemed
willing
> to cooperate.
>
> Entry point for the 1400-year-old Quran-based Sharia is the Ontario
> Arbitration Act of 1991. It allows religious and other groups to settle
civil legal
> disputes among their members according to their own rules and
arbitrations.
> Under this act, Hassidic Jews are running their own Beit Din, based on
Jewish
> law. Catholics, Ismaili Muslims (followers of Aga Khan) and aborigines,
too,
> are maintaining their traditional arbitration. In October 2003,
conservative
> Muslim Sharia campaigners discovered that this legal loophole could be
used to
> enforce Islamic law in Canada. Securing acceptance of representatives of
> some major Muslim groups, sects and national communities, they were fast
to
> create an Islamic Institute for Legal Justice and declare it the highest
Islamic
> arbitration board in the country.
>
> If the government does not act fast, Sharia courts may soon start handing
> down their rulings in Ontario. Those rulings would be final and binding,
as the
> full authority of the Canadian judiciary is conferred on them and
guarantees
> their enforcement by Canadian police and local Canadian courts - without
> them having any discretion in the matter. There will be ghettos of
religious law
> in Canada, pressing the secular democracy's executive machinery into
> service.
>
> That does not mean that adulterers will be stoned to death, the
authorities
> are fast to explain. They feel they have already done enough by
establishing
> certain "safeguards" against such excesses: Sharia courts will - for the
time
> being - not be in charge of criminal cases, but civil cases only
(divorce,
> separation, child custody, division of property etc.). Their decisions
are
> required to be consistent with Canadian laws and the Human Rights
Charter. And
> finally, they can only act, provided all parties involved give their
consent
> to the process.
>
> So everybody is equal - but some are far less equal than others. To get
> their fair share, inhabitants of the ghettos would have to bluntly refuse
the
> participation in religious tribunals or challenge decisions, passed in
the name
> of Allah, in an ordinary Canadian court. That is certainly possible.
>
> The "model Ontario", once practiced, will set new standards. It will help
to
> legitimize the demands of fundamentalist religious leaders to establish
> autonomous legal ghettos all over the secular world. Delegates of the
> International Islamic Conference in Cairo in April urged already the
incorporation of
> Sharia and its moral values into the International Law.
>
>
> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---