[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

...

One need only read the ranting of our very own bigot Grallon earlier in this thread in support of the leglislation to see its true audience and its true purpose.

Thus confirming Viper's assessment that you put all Quebecers in the same bag since I am (according to you) a bigot

Grallon, all Quebecers are definitely not like you.  In fact you are the kind of bigot that thankfully is rare in the world. 

[Malthus]

"Quebec: a Nation of Grallons". 

Naw, not likely. 

[crazy canuck]

It's Anglo-saxon way of thinking hitting the wall of Latin thinking within the same country.

I think you are buying into the PQ line of its us vs. them.  In fact the kinds of values we have been discussing and which the Quebec Charter violates are enshrined in international human rights laws.  Not just Anglo Saxon laws.

It is convenient for the proponents of the Charter to cast this as a peculiar notion of Anglo Saxons (what ever that is) to be the only ones concerned about minority rights.  But in fact it is a universal concern.  I realize that run counter to the strong narrative being pushed by Viper et al.  But it is simply false.

[Grey Fox]

I don't know. International Human Rights laws are Anglo-saxon laws adapted. There is no international world without the British Empire & their ideas.

No, I'm trying to convey the exact opposite of US vs Them. I'm saying the Latin way of thinking is simply different & you guys are coming against it for the first time. Especially in an inner-country situation.

The French, as in France, are having the same discussions. Swiss never gives an inch to immigrants. Belgium is no stranger to this either.

[crazy canuck]

I don't know. International Human Rights laws are Anglo-saxon laws adapted. There is no international world without the British Empire & their ideas.

This is simply not true.

The British common law has notion of of what we would recognize as human rights concepts.  Before Human Rights Statutes were passed on the Provinces it was lawful under the common law to discriminate on the basis of race and religion.  It was not uncommon for some neighbourhoods to have restrictive covenants on property, for example, which prohibited the sale of the property to basically anyone who wasnt a WASP.  There was a rather infamous case in the mid 50s in which the SCC upheld such a restriction prohibiting the sale of property to a Jewish man and in the 60s the right of a landowner to refuse to rent a unit to a man who was "black" was also upheld.

Contrary to your view that human rights are grounded in "Anglo Saxon law" when the Provinces drafted their Human Rights Codes they looked to the Codes in place in Continental Europe.

The us vs them and its ok to be bigoted because we are French argument simply doesnt wash.

[Grey Fox]

You said International Human Rights laws, not Canadian humans rights laws.

Stop trying it to put it in a Right or Wrong box. I'm telling you that it's a totally different mindset, different values & different cultural heritage. It's almost normal, almost expected, that you strongly disagree with it.

[viper37]

The "get" has nothing to do with the financial aspects of divorce, which are handled, for Orthodox Jews and others, by the secular courts.

What failure to go through the "get" rigamarole means, is that under Orthodox Jewish law, the resulting secular divorce isn't religiously "valid", so the people in question cannot remarry in the faith. If you go through the "get" process as the religion itself states that you should, the secular divorce is also religiously valid and the people can re-marry as Orthodox Jews.

Failure to give the "get" is simply a spiteful refusal to process the paperwork yoiu are supposed to process. It is the equivalent of, if you are in a lawsuit, simply refusing to accept service of a claim and saying "he he, you can't go forward with your lawsuit, because I haven't accepted service". Only, in that case the courts have ways of dealing with your obstinacy (as they do now in Ontario, dealing with refusal to give a "get").

i read the other thread.  It is still an interference by the State into private people's religion.  because said religious group does not recognize equality between men & women.  So you're making a special treatment for one group.  By way of secular tribunal to force religious issues.

It is a mess.  It only gives more work to lawyers.  Wich you might support as a sign of solidarity toward the Lawyer's Guild but wich I don't like.  Heck, I don't like most of Common Law.  Seems unecessary completed and litigious to me.  Always require highly (over)paid lawyers for the simplest of things.

[Malthus]

i read the other thread.  It is still an interference by the State into private people's religion.  because said religious group does not recognize equality between men & women.  So you're making a special treatment for one group.  By way of secular tribunal to force religious issues.

It is a mess.  It only gives more work to lawyers.  Wich you might support as a sign of solidarity toward the Lawyer's Guild but wich I don't like.  Heck, I don't like most of Common Law.  Seems unecessary completed and litigious to me.  Always require highly (over)paid lawyers for the simplest of things.

Of all the crap that the Orthodox believe in, this is probably the bit that smacks least of inequality. While it is true a man must give the get (and not the woman), the point is that he's obligated to give it - so if the religious obligations work like they are supposed to, it's pretty equitable: unlike many other sects, (famously, Catholicism), there is no religious prohibition on divorce in Judaism.

This isn't the state pitting itself against the conciencious beliefs of religious people. Nor is it exactly "accomodation" of religious beliefs, because that usually means someone putting themselves at some sort of real inconvenience to take into consideration sincerely held matters of religious concience. Rather, it is legislation intended to prevent bad people from deliberately screwing someone who has sincere religious beliefs (namely, the wife) by failing to do the right meaningless mumbo-jumbo, which costs them (the husband) nothing to do, and which their own religion (assuming they believe in it) obliges them to do.

[crazy canuck]

You said International Human Rights laws, not Canadian humans rights laws.

Stop trying it to put it in a Right or Wrong box. I'm telling you that it's a totally different mindset, different values & different cultural heritage. It's almost normal, almost expected, that you strongly disagree with it.

Dude,

You claimed that international human rights laws were based on something called Anglo Saxon laws.  I am not sure what that is but I do know that it is entirely false to claim that international rights laws are based on the British Common Law because no such notion exists within that law and I used examples from the Canadian context which inherited the British legal tradition to make the point since that is the law with which I am the most familiar.

ie your thesis and that of the crowd trying to justify their bigotry is just wrong.

[viper37]

i read the other thread.  It is still an interference by the State into private people's religion.  because said religious group does not recognize equality between men & women.  So you're making a special treatment for one group.  By way of secular tribunal to force religious issues.

It is a mess.  It only gives more work to lawyers.  Wich you might support as a sign of solidarity toward the Lawyer's Guild but wich I don't like.  Heck, I don't like most of Common Law.  Seems unecessary completed and litigious to me.  Always require highly (over)paid lawyers for the simplest of things.

Of all the crap that the Orthodox believe in, this is probably the bit that smacks least of inequality. While it is true a man must give the get (and not the woman), the point is that he's obligated to give it - so if the religious obligations work like they are supposed to, it's pretty equitable: unlike many other sects, (famously, Catholicism), there is no religious prohibition on divorce in Judaism.

This isn't the state pitting itself against the conciencious beliefs of religious people. Nor is it exactly "accomodation" of religious beliefs, because that usually means someone putting themselves at some sort of real inconvenience to take into consideration sincerely held matters of religious concience. Rather, it is legislation intended to prevent bad people from deliberately screwing someone who has sincere religious beliefs (namely, the wife) by failing to do the right meaningless mumbo-jumbo, which costs them (the husband) nothing to do, and which their own religion (assuming they believe in it) obliges them to do.

I won't pretend to be an expert on Judaism, especially the Orthodox way of seeing it, but Wikipedia has a different input:

Refusal to provide a get

The laws of gittin only provide for a divorce initiated by the husband. However, the wife has the right to sue for divorce in a rabbinical court. The court, if finding just cause as prescribed in very rare cases in Jewish law, will require the husband to divorce his wife. In such cases, a husband who refused the court's demand that he divorce his wife would be subjected to various penalties in order to pressure him into granting a divorce. Such penalties included monetary punishments, and corporal punishment—including forcing the husband to spend the night at an unmarked grave (with the implication that it could become his grave). In modern-day Israel, rabbinical courts have the power to sentence a husband to prison, and to impose additional penalties within prison such as solitary confinement to compel him to grant his wife a get. Rabbinical courts outside of Israel do not have power to enforce such penalties. This sometimes leads to a situation in which the husband makes demands of the court and of his wife, demanding a monetary settlement or other benefits, such as child custody, in exchange for the get. Prominent Jewish feminists have fought against such demands in recent decades.[citation needed]

Prominent Orthodox rabbis have pointed to many years of rabbinical sources that state that any coercion can invalidate a get except in the most extreme of cases,[2] and have spoken out against "get organizations", which they claim have often inflamed situations that could have otherwise been resolved amicably.[3]

Sometimes a man will completely refuse to grant a divorce. This leaves his wife with no possibility of remarriage within Orthodox Judaism. Such a woman is called a mesorevet get (literally "refused a divorce"), if a court determined she is entitled to a divorce. Such a man who refuses to give his wife a get is frequently spurned by Modern Orthodox communities, and excluded from communal religious activities, in an effort to force a get.[4]

While it is widely assumed that the problem lies primarily in men refusing to grant a get to their wives and that it is a widespread issue, in Israel, figures released from the chief rabbinate show that women equally refuse to accept a get and that the numbers are a couple of hundred on each side.[5] However, such a husband has the option of seeking a Heter meah rabbanim, while no similar option exists for the wife.

In the Conservative movement a traditional get is required. However, in cases where the husband refuses to grant the get and the Bet Din (Rabbinic Court) has ruled that the husband's refusal is not justified, the marital condition may be terminated by hafqa'at kiddushin, or annulment of the marriage. This requires a majority vote of the Joint Bet Din of the movement, which is made up of nine rabbinic scholars. Upon their authorization of the process, the Bet Din may issue a certificate of annulment. This protocol is viewed as extreme and is invoked only in cases of dire necessity.

So, the way I read it, unless Wikipedia is totally wrong:
- there is no obligation to give the wife a get, unless a Rabbinical court has said so.
- There exist the possibility of annulment for the mariage, although rarely used.
- A man may divorce as he wish by getting a Heter meah rabbanim, but the women must get permission from his husband, there is no similar process for her.
- Israel does not seem to have this kind of problem, the Get refusal is split even between men and women, and the courts will apply harsh measures for a man who refuse divorce.

It is really different than what Ontario is doing.  And again, unnecessarily complicated in my eyes.  Just like any religion.

I forgot to add, that I am really happy that you now believe it is sometimes necessary for the State to intervene in religious affairs to protect members of certain faith against religious principles that would be twisted to "bad" use.

[Jacob]

I forgot to add, that I am really happy that you now believe it is sometimes necessary for the State to intervene in religious affairs to protect members of certain faith against religious principles that would be twisted to "bad" use.

... especially when they desire such protection.

I'm all for the law protecting people against being forced to wear headscarfs against their will for example, but that's not what the Charter of Values is about as far as I understand it.

[viper37]

... especially when they desire such protection.

I'm all for the law protecting people against being forced to wear headscarfs against their will for example, but that's not what the Charter of Values is about as far as I understand it.

What about social pressure on secular religious people?  People who feel pressure into a certain way of acting because radicals are otherwise poisoining their lives?  There's been many of that coming in favour of the charter, some amongst the PQ cabinet.  There has also been some against the religious signs part of the Charter, to be honest, but there are immigrants on both sides.

And I'm not sure a 5 year old girl with her face totally covered is really exercising freedom of choice in her clothing.  I am also unconvinced that having educators (certainly role models) weir a veil or a scarf enlightens children to make clear choices later in their life on how they chose to practice religion.

[garbon]

And I'm not sure a 5 year old girl with her face totally covered is really exercising freedom of choice in her clothing.  I am also unconvinced that having educators (certainly role models) weir a veil or a scarf enlightens children to make clear choices later in their life on how they chose to practice religion.

I'm pretty sure I didn't follow the examples put forth on how to act and dress by my teachers as a young child.

[Malthus]

i read the other thread.  It is still an interference by the State into private people's religion.  because said religious group does not recognize equality between men & women.  So you're making a special treatment for one group.  By way of secular tribunal to force religious issues.

It is a mess.  It only gives more work to lawyers.  Wich you might support as a sign of solidarity toward the Lawyer's Guild but wich I don't like.  Heck, I don't like most of Common Law.  Seems unecessary completed and litigious to me.  Always require highly (over)paid lawyers for the simplest of things.

Of all the crap that the Orthodox believe in, this is probably the bit that smacks least of inequality. While it is true a man must give the get (and not the woman), the point is that he's obligated to give it - so if the religious obligations work like they are supposed to, it's pretty equitable: unlike many other sects, (famously, Catholicism), there is no religious prohibition on divorce in Judaism.

This isn't the state pitting itself against the conciencious beliefs of religious people. Nor is it exactly "accomodation" of religious beliefs, because that usually means someone putting themselves at some sort of real inconvenience to take into consideration sincerely held matters of religious concience. Rather, it is legislation intended to prevent bad people from deliberately screwing someone who has sincere religious beliefs (namely, the wife) by failing to do the right meaningless mumbo-jumbo, which costs them (the husband) nothing to do, and which their own religion (assuming they believe in it) obliges them to do.

I won't pretend to be an expert on Judaism, especially the Orthodox way of seeing it, but Wikipedia has a different input:

Refusal to provide a get

The laws of gittin only provide for a divorce initiated by the husband. However, the wife has the right to sue for divorce in a rabbinical court. The court, if finding just cause as prescribed in very rare cases in Jewish law, will require the husband to divorce his wife. In such cases, a husband who refused the court's demand that he divorce his wife would be subjected to various penalties in order to pressure him into granting a divorce. Such penalties included monetary punishments, and corporal punishment—including forcing the husband to spend the night at an unmarked grave (with the implication that it could become his grave). In modern-day Israel, rabbinical courts have the power to sentence a husband to prison, and to impose additional penalties within prison such as solitary confinement to compel him to grant his wife a get. Rabbinical courts outside of Israel do not have power to enforce such penalties. This sometimes leads to a situation in which the husband makes demands of the court and of his wife, demanding a monetary settlement or other benefits, such as child custody, in exchange for the get. Prominent Jewish feminists have fought against such demands in recent decades.[citation needed]

Prominent Orthodox rabbis have pointed to many years of rabbinical sources that state that any coercion can invalidate a get except in the most extreme of cases,[2] and have spoken out against "get organizations", which they claim have often inflamed situations that could have otherwise been resolved amicably.[3]

Sometimes a man will completely refuse to grant a divorce. This leaves his wife with no possibility of remarriage within Orthodox Judaism. Such a woman is called a mesorevet get (literally "refused a divorce"), if a court determined she is entitled to a divorce. Such a man who refuses to give his wife a get is frequently spurned by Modern Orthodox communities, and excluded from communal religious activities, in an effort to force a get.[4]

While it is widely assumed that the problem lies primarily in men refusing to grant a get to their wives and that it is a widespread issue, in Israel, figures released from the chief rabbinate show that women equally refuse to accept a get and that the numbers are a couple of hundred on each side.[5] However, such a husband has the option of seeking a Heter meah rabbanim, while no similar option exists for the wife.

In the Conservative movement a traditional get is required. However, in cases where the husband refuses to grant the get and the Bet Din (Rabbinic Court) has ruled that the husband's refusal is not justified, the marital condition may be terminated by hafqa'at kiddushin, or annulment of the marriage. This requires a majority vote of the Joint Bet Din of the movement, which is made up of nine rabbinic scholars. Upon their authorization of the process, the Bet Din may issue a certificate of annulment. This protocol is viewed as extreme and is invoked only in cases of dire necessity.

So, the way I read it, unless Wikipedia is totally wrong:
- there is no obligation to give the wife a get, unless a Rabbinical court has said so.
- There exist the possibility of annulment for the mariage, although rarely used.
- A man may divorce as he wish by getting a Heter meah rabbanim, but the women must get permission from his husband, there is no similar process for her.
- Israel does not seem to have this kind of problem, the Get refusal is split even between men and women, and the courts will apply harsh measures for a man who refuse divorce.

It is really different than what Ontario is doing.  And again, unnecessarily complicated in my eyes.  Just like any religion.

I forgot to add, that I am really happy that you now believe it is sometimes necessary for the State to intervene in religious affairs to protect members of certain faith against religious principles that would be twisted to "bad" use.

In reality, I have never heard of a wife being refused divorce by a Rabbinical Court. However, if she was, the whole "he won't give me a get" issue would be totally irrelevant. It would simply not arise. That's just basic logic: an observant woman would not be getting a divorce at all, if the Rabbinical Court ruled that one wasn't allowed, right? And if she was, she would be doing it in defiance of the Rabbis - and would not then give a shit about the "get".

What is amusing is the lengths that the Orthodox are willing to go, to force a guy to give a "get" (at least, according to Wiki):

Such penalties included monetary punishments, and corporal punishment—including forcing the husband to spend the night at an unmarked grave (with the implication that it could become his grave).

That's hard core! 

[garbon]

I'd go for troubling over amusing but to each his own.

Also, I had thought that this was just in instances where they had already agreed to a legal divorce but then he was being a dick by refusing to give the get.  Should he be assumed to be an asshole if he doesn't think it is right to divorce or wants to still try and make the marriage work?