The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[Valmy]

It can be, and if he suggests the law specifically lists faiths, he's wrong.

Well what was the contents of this 1991 law then? Simply a helpful reminder these kinds of private agreements can be reached?

[viper37]

You can say a lot about conservative Catholics, Hindus etc. in less developed parts of the world being creepy or backward, but none of them are beheading gays, stoning adulterers, punishing rape victims and the like (I don't mention female genital mutilation, as I am not sure if this is not practiced by non-Muslims).

Gay rights in Africa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Africa#Legislation_by_country_or_territory

Most African countries have adultery laws, don't know about stoning.  Rape victims are punished in many countries, muslim or not, or more simply, the crimes aren't taken seriously and the agressors rarely convicted; just look at India.

[Malthus]

It can be, and if he suggests the law specifically lists faiths, he's wrong.

Well what was the contents of this 1991 law then? Simply a helpful reminder these kinds of private agreements can be reached?

I added the link to it in my post above, so you can, if you like, read it for yourself  ... basically, it is nothing but bog-standard arbitration infrastructure. Stuff like: "9.  If the arbitration agreement does not specify the number of arbitrators who are to form the arbitral tribunal, it shall be composed of one arbitrator.". Exciting! 

As pointed out above, the only thing remotely interesting about it is that it restricts "family arbitration" in various ways.

Point is, if Otto is trying to make an argument that this law is an example of Canadian stupidity, he's far out to lunch. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

I had to look into this more, so it appears that since many years ago when I last debated this argument, Ontario actually banned faith based arbitration under its 1991 Arbitration Act. Meaning that Malthus' arguments saying it's all just fine and good is in contravention to what the political leadership of Ontario actually thought--it was done away with because Muslims were wanting to set up religious arbitration on Sharia law, so Ontario just decided to end all faith-based arbitration.

So yes, I was referring to an Ontario law as a "Canadian law" because I had forgot it was limited to one province. However, given how often "America" collectively gets blamed for things that are State laws I don't feel too bad about this mistake. Secondly, I wasn't aware that in the intervening years this practice had been stopped--but I cannot be expected to be up to date on countries as minimally important as Canada. It's frankly top 1% of Americans territory in terms of knowledge of Canada that I even knew this law had ever existed.

[Malthus]

I had to look into this more, so it appears that since many years ago when I last debated this argument, Ontario actually banned faith based arbitration under its 1991 Arbitration Act. Meaning that Malthus' arguments saying it's all just fine and good is in contravention to what the political leadership of Ontario actually thought--it was done away with because Muslims were wanting to set up religious arbitration on Sharia law, so Ontario just decided to end all faith-based arbitration.

No it didn't.

What it did was add significant restrictions to "family arbitration", in Ontario. You can still have "faith based arbitration" as much as you like on any other issue.

I mean, I quoted the specific law and everything.

So yes, I was referring to an Ontario law as a "Canadian law" because I had forgot it was limited to one province. However, given how often "America" collectively gets blamed for things that are State laws I don't feel too bad about this mistake. Secondly, I wasn't aware that in the intervening years this practice had been stopped--but I cannot be expected to be up to date on countries as minimally important as Canada. It's frankly top 1% of Americans territory in terms of knowledge of Canada that I even knew this law had ever existed.

The practice hasn't stopped. All that has stopped is "family" arbitrations based on alternative laws. All other arbitrations - still going. Just as, it may be pointed out, in the US.

[jimmy olsen]

Where is that 750,000 figure coming from? I've always seen Civil War deaths listed at 600,000.

It was updated a couple of years ago. I posted a thread about it, but it didn't get much notice.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sorry, Minsky, but this is completely obfuscating the issue, and at least in two ways.

Islamic violence is not a recent phenomenon - violence has been present in Islam since its very beginning. Sure, it has also been present in Christianity and Judaism - but these religions "grew out of it". Islam didn't.

As for Islamic terrorism - terrorism, generally is a very recent phenomenon because terrorism only makes sense as a practice if it stands out from the general standards of the era. And Islam has been pretty active in this field even in the 19th century already (see the Mahdi Uprising, as an example).

The Islamic regions of the world historically did not stand out for extreme levels of violence.   Timur was an exception but he was a Mongol first, Muslim second.  You could argue that the West "grew out of it" but its an argument that has to start pretty recently (certainly post 1945). 

The Mahdi uprising was an anti-colonial uprising, one of many in all different parts of the world.

Terrorism in the Middle East has been a familiar phenomenon in recent decades but it for many years it was nationalist or pseudo-Marxist.  The religious Islamic variety is a very recent development.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I had to look into this more, so it appears that since many years ago when I last debated this argument, Ontario actually banned faith based arbitration under its 1991 Arbitration Act. Meaning that Malthus' arguments saying it's all just fine and good is in contravention to what the political leadership of Ontario actually thought--it was done away with because Muslims were wanting to set up religious arbitration on Sharia law, so Ontario just decided to end all faith-based arbitration.

No it didn't.

What it did was add significant restrictions to "family arbitration", in Ontario. You can still have "faith based arbitration" as much as you like on any other issue.

I mean, I quoted the specific law and everything.

So yes, I was referring to an Ontario law as a "Canadian law" because I had forgot it was limited to one province. However, given how often "America" collectively gets blamed for things that are State laws I don't feel too bad about this mistake. Secondly, I wasn't aware that in the intervening years this practice had been stopped--but I cannot be expected to be up to date on countries as minimally important as Canada. It's frankly top 1% of Americans territory in terms of knowledge of Canada that I even knew this law had ever existed.

The practice hasn't stopped. All that has stopped is "family" arbitrations based on alternative laws. All other arbitrations - still going. Just as, it may be pointed out, in the US.

Nope.

[The Minsky Moment]

Such a thing as faith-based arbitration, of course, could never happen in the US. 

http://peacemaker.net/icc/

This is not an officially sanctioned government arm. This is basically the same as going to counseling.

No it is not the same - it is a full-fledged arbitral tribunal.
For example, a Christian school could include a requirement in its employment contracts that all employment disputes be adjudicated by the Peacemaker Ministries, with the principles of scripture to be applied.
In fact, some schools have done this and US courts have enforced the clause.

[Malthus]

I had to look into this more, so it appears that since many years ago when I last debated this argument, Ontario actually banned faith based arbitration under its 1991 Arbitration Act. Meaning that Malthus' arguments saying it's all just fine and good is in contravention to what the political leadership of Ontario actually thought--it was done away with because Muslims were wanting to set up religious arbitration on Sharia law, so Ontario just decided to end all faith-based arbitration.

No it didn't.

What it did was add significant restrictions to "family arbitration", in Ontario. You can still have "faith based arbitration" as much as you like on any other issue.

I mean, I quoted the specific law and everything.

So yes, I was referring to an Ontario law as a "Canadian law" because I had forgot it was limited to one province. However, given how often "America" collectively gets blamed for things that are State laws I don't feel too bad about this mistake. Secondly, I wasn't aware that in the intervening years this practice had been stopped--but I cannot be expected to be up to date on countries as minimally important as Canada. It's frankly top 1% of Americans territory in terms of knowledge of Canada that I even knew this law had ever existed.

The practice hasn't stopped. All that has stopped is "family" arbitrations based on alternative laws. All other arbitrations - still going. Just as, it may be pointed out, in the US.

Nope.

Are you contending the US doesn't have faith-based arbitration? 

Again, I posted a link to a place offering it. So you may have to re-think that position.

[viper37]

U.S. Investigators Struggle to Track Homegrown ISIS Suspects

For F.B.I. agents, watching an Islamic State suspect in the United States is a study in anxiety. Being an Islamic State sympathizer is not against the law. Neither is expressing hatred for the United States on Twitter. Buying guns is also legal, and investigators have watched nervously as terrorism suspects passed background checks and purchased guns more than 2,000 times in the past decade, according to government data.

[...]
"They're targeting the school-shooter types, the mentally ill, people with dysfunctional families and those struggling to cope with different issues," said one senior law enforcement official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to speak to reporters. "We have been pretty successful in disrupting these cases because they are not very sophisticated or smart."

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Islamic violence is not a recent phenomenon - violence has been present in Islam since its very beginning. Sure, it has also been present in Christianity and Judaism - but these religions "grew out of it". Islam didn't.

Christianity and Judaism did not "grow out of it", they were dragged out of it kicking and screaming by the societies around them.  The Jews were held in check by strings of external powers and the resulting Jewish Diaspora.  The Christian world required a string of violent uprisings by "heretics" to break the Church's power over the lives of the people, and it really hasn't been all that long since that period ended.

[The Minsky Moment]

The real problem is with the Irish.  The Irish are inherently prone to violence.  Their national epics celebrate brutal cattle raids and their entire national history is filled with endemic violence.  Part of the problem is their adherence to the Catholic faith, which throughout most of European history has glorified the violence, torture and murder of heretics and unbelievers.  Of course other European peoples are violent, but other than the similarly-inclined Basques, no other people has been so associated with the most horrific forms of terrorism.  The Irish honed he techniques of modern political terrorism during their struggle for independence and home rule, and continued it for decades in the north.  The clear linkage between the Irish and terrorism is a historically undeniable fact, and the principles of res ipsa locutur lead inevitably to the conclusion that the linkage is inherent in their culture and identification as Irish Catholics. 

Some people may point to the peace accords and suggest that perhaps the Irish have changed and now can be trusted after all.  Of course this is naïve - absent the renunciation of one's Irish heritage and culture and rejection of Catholicism, the tendency to violence will always exist, and it is just a matter of time before the Troubles resume.  There is an old Irish tradition of tactical truces before the next round of violence begins and no doubt that is what is happening now.

[The Brain]

I already mentioned the Irish as a death cult. They fool no one.

[Valmy]

The real problem is with the Irish.

I disagree. The Serbs are the guilty ones. I am enraged by the cultural relativism.