Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Ovinomancer]

It's the conflation of the entire issue. There have been, as stated, precisely two women who requested to wear the niqab during the swearing in ceremony. Both of these women removed the niqab, in private and with appropriate officials, for the ACTUAL swearing in (not the public ceremony). So now the Conservatives crank it up to 11 for this issue, which is a non-issue, in an effort to capture the xenophobe vote.

Let's be plain here. I freely admit that the niqab makes me uncomfortable. I've worked with a woman who for the first 5 years I knew her didn't wear one, then suddenly started to. It still makes me jump a little. I think that in cases in which positive identification is needed (passport, driver's license, citizenship documentation) the niqab should be removed. I also think that covering your face from your fellow citizens, when taking the symbolic pledge, has very bad optics. Im also, however, not the one who is doing it and feels that it's a religious requirement. (There's a debate to be had over that also, that could go on for weeks.) The Cliff's Notes is that it's two people, out of literal millions, and so is a drop in the bucket. It's a non issue as when it's required, those same two women did remove it for identification.

Thanks. I have an odd fetish for arguments. That's pretty much exactly what I had understood from my reading of the issues prior to your post, and I don't have any problems with your assessment.

But that leads to the discussion of why there's enough Canadians that are angry over these issues that the Conservative's wedge issue has legs? I've read from both sides of the politics on this issue (from Canadian sources (hey, I have an eclectic reading list), and boiling it out it seems that there are a number of Canadians that think accommodating some Muslim practices is eroding Canadian culture. I'm not endorsing this view, I'm merely restating what I've gleaned from reading. Any thoughts?

 

[Kramodlog]

Thanks. I have an odd fetish for arguments. That's pretty much exactly what I had understood from my reading of the issues prior to your post, and I don't have any problems with your assessment.

But that leads to the discussion of why there's enough Canadians that are angry over these issues that the Conservative's wedge issue has legs? I've read from both sides of the politics on this issue (from Canadian sources (hey, I have an eclectic reading list), and boiling it out it seems that there are a number of Canadians that think accommodating some Muslim practices is eroding Canadian culture. I'm not endorsing this view, I'm merely restating what I've gleaned from reading. Any thoughts?

Islamophia is strong right now in the Western world. Bashing Muslims for any reason is acceptable, like bashing Jews at the turn of the 20th century was acceptable. In Canada it is rather ironic, as multiculturism is supposed to be the norm. Sharia courts were briefly considered to be made legal in Ontario a while back. The public push back was strong so that was dropped. There was no push back against rabbinic courts.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Islamophia is strong right now in the Western world. Bashing Muslims for any reason is acceptable, like bashing Jews at the turn of the 20th century was acceptable. In Canada it is rather ironic, as multiculturism is supposed to be the norm. Sharia courts were briefly considered to be made legal in Ontario a while back. The public push back was strong so that was dropped. There was no push back against rabbinic courts.

That's a bit disingenuous, as Rabbinical courts are only allowed legal power in civil cases, and then only when both parties agree in advance to be bound by arbitration. Further, Rabbinical courts only deal with civil issues, and they're decisions are not binding except as noted above. Mostly, the courts only deal with religious issues specific to Judaism, like what's kosher, the religious aspects of divorce (not the civil ones), who's a Jew, and conversions. They're very limited and do not assume any legal authority.

Sharia, on the other hand, or, at least, the courts you're discussing, were trying to assume full legal status, including the determination of criminal cases under Sharia law, not just civil cases. They were claiming full legal power to enforce Sharia laws. That's a bunch different from Rabbinical courts, who do not assume any legal authority outside of agreed civil arbitration.

I get that it's easy to conflate them because, hey, religion, but the actual impacts are very different, and those are the reasons that Rabbinical courts are widely tolerated in Western democracy and Sharia courts aren't -- the Rabbinical courts don't try to assume legal power and stay in their narrow lanes while Sharia insists on assuming the force and power of law.

That said, there where Sharia courts operate like Rabbinical courts -- limited to only religious matters, no criminal prosecutions, and only civil authority in agree arbitration -- there would be room to criticize a difference in reactions. There are a few cases like this in the US and the UK, and complaints there are focused on the courts operating outside of that narrow corridor -- ie, assuming civil authority outside of arbitration and/or criminal authority. No such reports of similar Rabbinical abuses succumbed to my Google-fu, although I may just have weak technique and they're out there.

 

[Kramodlog]

That's a bit disingenuous, as Rabbinical courts are only allowed legal power in civil cases, and then only when both parties agree in advance to be bound by arbitration.

From what I understand it would have been the same for Sharia courts. But you know, Islam bad.

The irony in all of this is that Muslims women have more freedom than orthodoxe women. Both have to cover their hair, of course, but if Muslim women are more visible is that hey are allowed to go get jobs outside their community. Can't say I've seen orthodoxe women behind the counter in a store even in neighborhoods with a high dencity of orthodoxes. I guess it is in part because Muslim women interract more with us, thus are more visible, that they feel more bothersome for some folks.

And then there is the subtle difference we make. I've said Muslims, as if I was talking about an homogenous group, but use orthodoxe or Hasidic to mark a difference among the different types of Judaism there is.

 

[Ryujin]

That's a bit disingenuous, as Rabbinical courts are only allowed legal power in civil cases, and then only when both parties agree in advance to be bound by arbitration. Further, Rabbinical courts only deal with civil issues, and they're decisions are not binding except as noted above. Mostly, the courts only deal with religious issues specific to Judaism, like what's kosher, the religious aspects of divorce (not the civil ones), who's a Jew, and conversions. They're very limited and do not assume any legal authority.

Sharia, on the other hand, or, at least, the courts you're discussing, were trying to assume full legal status, including the determination of criminal cases under Sharia law, not just civil cases. They were claiming full legal power to enforce Sharia laws. That's a bunch different from Rabbinical courts, who do not assume any legal authority outside of agreed civil arbitration.

I get that it's easy to conflate them because, hey, religion, but the actual impacts are very different, and those are the reasons that Rabbinical courts are widely tolerated in Western democracy and Sharia courts aren't -- the Rabbinical courts don't try to assume legal power and stay in their narrow lanes while Sharia insists on assuming the force and power of law.

That said, there where Sharia courts operate like Rabbinical courts -- limited to only religious matters, no criminal prosecutions, and only civil authority in agree arbitration -- there would be room to criticize a difference in reactions. There are a few cases like this in the US and the UK, and complaints there are focused on the courts operating outside of that narrow corridor -- ie, assuming civil authority outside of arbitration and/or criminal authority. No such reports of similar Rabbinical abuses succumbed to my Google-fu, although I may just have weak technique and they're out there.

The consideration for Sharia courts took roughly this long: Yeeeeeeeeeah, no we don't want them. We're open to non judicial settlement of issues as long as they conform to our laws and regulations. As you stated, that was the issue.

As to Canadians who think that Muslim practice is eroding Canadian values, it's a numbers game. In the last Federal election a little over 61% of eligible voters showed up to polls. The vote break-down was as follows:

Conservative 39.62%
NDP 30.63%
Liberal 18.91%
Bloc Québécois 6.04%
Green 3.91%
Others 0.89%

That means less than 1/4 of all eligible voters elected a majority government. It doesn't take much to tip the balance and if a couple of percent worth of backwoods bigots can be persuaded to come out and vote, when they normally wouldn't, it's a win.

But that's not all that it is. Otherwise reasonable people are buying into the panic based, as goldomark stated, on Islamophobia born of terrorism. The terrorism angle was played up to support changes in law that are every bit as bad as, if not worse than, the United States' Patriot Act. Not that they needed to drum up support for it in Parliament, because a majority government pretty much passes whatever it wants, but they did it for public support. Prime Minister Harper has used former Bush Jr. advisers and, most recently, an Australian advisor who excels at politics of division. FUD is rampant and unless you actually dig, something that the average voter will not do, you're left with whatever government and media choose to spoon-feed to you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

From what I understand it would have been the same for Sharia courts. But you know, Islam bad.

Strangely, that's exactly how it works in the US for the very few Sharia tribunals set up. Also how it works in Great Britain. In Canada, they decided to not have any religious based arbitration, so there isn't any Rabbinical or Catholic arbitration either.

The irony in all of this is that Muslims women have more freedom than orthodoxe women. Both have to cover their hair, of course, but if Muslim women are more visible is that hey are allowed to go get jobs outside their community. Can't say I've seen orthodoxe women behind the counter in a store even in neighborhoods with a high dencity of orthodoxes. I guess it is in part because Muslim women interract more with us, thus are more visible, that they feel more bothersome for some folks.

Wow. Okay, I'm not Jewish, but that's a gross misrepresentation. Orthodox Jewish women can work if they want, and I've seen quite a few in the workplace myself, just as I've seen a number of Muslim women working. I've never seen a Muslim woman in hijab or burka working, though, but I recognize that as merely representative of things I've personally seen, and not a blanket truth. You would do well to do the same.

And then there is the subtle difference we make. I've said Muslims, as if I was talking about an homogenous group, but use orthodoxe or Hasidic to mark a difference among the different types of Judaism there is.

That's not subtle. You use gross stereotypes to paint Orthodox Jews as something other than they are while inventing some magically homogeneous group of Muslims that are really just the Westernized liberal Muslims, and attempt to say there's some valid points of comparison. Given that your statements about Orthodox Jewish women working are a mere google search away from being debunked, and you continue to use stereotypes of Jews in place of real arguments, it's difficult to take your arguments here seriously. Which is a shame, since there are valid points and discussions to be had on the topic if you could step outside of half-truths and stereotypes.

The consideration for Sharia courts took roughly this long: Yeeeeeeeeeah, no we don't want them. We're open to non judicial settlement of issues as long as they conform to our laws and regulations. As you stated, that was the issue.

From what I've read and understand, since there were concerns by many over the status of women under Sharia law (ie, not Muslims bad, but a specific concern about Sharia law), Canada decided to just get rid of all religiously based arbitration, including Jewish and Catholic panels.

As to Canadians who think that Muslim practice is eroding Canadian values, it's a numbers game. In the last Federal election a little over 61% of eligible voters showed up to polls. The vote break-down was as follows:

Conservative 39.62%
NDP 30.63%
Liberal 18.91%
Bloc Québécois 6.04%
Green 3.91%
Others 0.89%

That means less than 1/4 of all eligible voters elected a majority government. It doesn't take much to tip the balance and if a couple of percent worth of backwoods bigots can be persuaded to come out and vote, when they normally wouldn't, it's a win.

But that's not all that it is. Otherwise reasonable people are buying into the panic based, as goldomark stated, on Islamophobia born of terrorism. The terrorism angle was played up to support changes in law that are every bit as bad as, if not worse than, the United States' Patriot Act. Not that they needed to drum up support for it in Parliament, because a majority government pretty much passes whatever it wants, but they did it for public support. Prime Minister Harper has used former Bush Jr. advisers and, most recently, an Australian advisor who excels at politics of division. FUD is rampant and unless you actually dig, something that the average voter will not do, you're left with whatever government and media choose to spoon-feed to you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the CBC hostile towards the Harper government? My impression is that Canadian media isn't exactly rolling over for Harper, and the opposition gets lots of airtime to make their points, too. Doesn't seem like the media is an obedient dog parroting the government line. I'm not a primary or constant consumer of Canadian media, though, so I don't know if my assumptions are correct.

As for a few percent of backwoods bigots (a little stereotypical, no?), don't they risk losing a similar percent of voters that disagree with their bigotry? Also gives a big stick to the opposition to beat you with in the press. It doesn't seem to be that the Conservatives are feeding this so much as it's so widespread that the Conservatives can use it. Ghastly, sure, but if you're looking for primary causes, I don't think it's reasonable to assume this is being pushed down, it looks like taking advantage of a groundswelling anger. And, from what I've read, it's less about terrorism and more about incompatible ideals held between devout Muslims and Canadian cultural expectations. Also the number of concessions made by Canadian culture to Muslims. Again, not condoning it, just relaying what I've read.

 

[Kramodlog]

In Canada, they decided to not have any religious based arbitration, so there isn't any Rabbinical.

There are Rabbinical courts in Canada. One example: http://jewishtoronto.com/directory/beis-din-vaad-harabonim-of-toronto

Fascinating how there isn't any public blow back with those. It isn't like women are treated well by those laws.

That's not subtle.

Sort of the point. Rarely are Muslims and Sharia that vigorously defended from stereotypes like you just did. But you did make broad stereotypical statements about Sharia in the same post to Ryujin. Fascinating.

inventing some magically homogeneous group of Muslims

Muslims are lump together even if they are a diverse group. Lumping Muslims into one group is sadly something that is very present in our current societies. These hosts are a great example of that mentality that fuels islamophobia.

[video=youtube;PzusSqcotDw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw[/video]

 

[Ovinomancer]

There are Rabbinical courts in Canada. One example: http://jewishtoronto.com/directory/beis-din-vaad-harabonim-of-toronto

They have no legal standing or authority, nor do they claim such. They certify kosher, deal with religious divorces aspects, determine standing (who is a Jew), and other such things that are entirely religious and have no legally binding decisions. Muslims can do this as well (and do).

Fascinating how there isn't any public blow back with those. It isn't like women are treated well by those laws.

Probably because they don't do legally binding stuff? I'm out on a limb there, but I'm willing to risk it.

Sort of the point. Rarely are Muslims and Sharia that vigorously defended from stereotypes like you just did. But you did make broad stereotypical statements about Sharia in the same post to Ryujin. Fascinating.

Where? Do you mean the part where I specifically call out what I'm reading in Canadian sources as to feelings towards Muslims? Yes, fascinating that I might try to accurately summarize a position I don't hold.

Muslims are lump together even if they are a diverse group. Lumping Muslims into one group is sadly something that is very present in our current societies. These hosts are a great example of that mentality that fuels islamophobia.

So it's okay? I'm confused, you seem to be arguing that people stereotype Muslims as a defense for your use of stereotypes of other groups. "You did it, too" arguments are not strong or persuasive.

Also, the use of Islamophobia is a pejorative that's fatuous. Phobias are irrational fears, but people I see being critical of Islam all seem to have rational reasons for doing so. You may disagree with those reasons (I disagree with many of them), but their criticism isn't irrational. Using the term is a quick way to dismiss any and all points made because arguer is irrational. It's a shortcut to not even having to argue. At least go with bigoted, which would be much closer to true in many cases -- people are often bigoted towards Muslims.

 

[Ryujin]

From what I've read and understand, since there were concerns by many over the status of women under Sharia law (ie, not Muslims bad, but a specific concern about Sharia law), Canada decided to just get rid of all religiously based arbitration, including Jewish and Catholic panels.

That would be accurate and why I mentioned our laws and regulations. I might have also stated our national values, but those have been under attack for the last decade or so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the CBC hostile towards the Harper government? My impression is that Canadian media isn't exactly rolling over for Harper, and the opposition gets lots of airtime to make their points, too. Doesn't seem like the media is an obedient dog parroting the government line. I'm not a primary or constant consumer of Canadian media, though, so I don't know if my assumptions are correct.

As for a few percent of backwoods bigots (a little stereotypical, no?), don't they risk losing a similar percent of voters that disagree with their bigotry? Also gives a big stick to the opposition to beat you with in the press. It doesn't seem to be that the Conservatives are feeding this so much as it's so widespread that the Conservatives can use it. Ghastly, sure, but if you're looking for primary causes, I don't think it's reasonable to assume this is being pushed down, it looks like taking advantage of a groundswelling anger. And, from what I've read, it's less about terrorism and more about incompatible ideals held between devout Muslims and Canadian cultural expectations. Also the number of concessions made by Canadian culture to Muslims. Again, not condoning it, just relaying what I've read.

Despite the general liberal bent of those who commonly gravitate toward a life in media, the CBC has also been pretty tough on Liberal governments. In this case I would say it's just that the Harper government gives them far more ample opportunity for criticism. If you've read Canadian ideologically conservative based media, like the Sun newspaper chain, then you'll have a pretty skewed view of it. Harper have been axing CBC's funding, so ideologues think that every shot they take at him is some form of revenge. You can look at other conservative leaning papers like The National Post and The Globe and Mail, and see that they are essentially just as critical of Harper.

I use "backwoods bigot" as a catch-all term, rather than specifically aiming it at rural folk. I do also, however, use it to apply to my own family "back east." The "backwoods" thing is more a comment about mental process, than it is about geographical location. When it comes to the risk of losing potential votes, they really don't care. Or don't believe. It's really hard to say because today's politicians so tend to wrap themselves in like-minded individuals who will tell them that their every idea is gold, that they are completely out of touch with the electorate. My personal view, based solely on anecdotal evidence, is that they prefer to use wedge issues to further split the electorate. This results in a deep chasm between political stripes and many disenfranchised voters, who simply will not vote. This leaves them with the dyed in the wool Conservative supporters, who will never vote differently, and the voters who don't dig deeply into issues, and can be swayed by a catchy sound-bite. This makes their strategy far easier to formulate.

Remember; "If you're not with us, then you're with the terrorists." It still works.

Also consider; "Look at this one horrible case in which the justice system failed. Obviously it's completely broken and we need more jails, mandatory sentences, and real life terms. Don't like it? You must love violent criminals."

This isn't something that most Canadians would agree with, but Canada actually is a Christian country. Our titular Head of State is 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'. We work for tolerance, but that is our origin. Very different from the USA.

 

[Kramodlog]

They have no legal standing or authority

So? What makes Sharia less discriminatory toward women? You made this argument:

since there were concerns by many over the status of women under Sharia law

Probably because they don't do legally binding stuff?

That is speculation, not a poll.

Yes, fascinating that I might try to accurately summarize a position I don't hold.

What is your position?

I'm confused

Its been obvious for a while. What I said is that the language used points toward amalgamation. Don't you agree?

Phobias are irrational fears

Quote me saying they aren't.