Thank you. That clears up a lot for me. I remember now reading that it was only for limited family-law cases. But I didn't know that the judgements were non-binding.
(I find myself wondering how many of my misconceptions would've been cleared up if the CBC hadn't been on strike through the end of this issue? Most of what I learned, came from the Globe&Mail, early in the morning when I wasn't entirely awake. And it hasn't exactly been a simple issue...)
I agree about the coercive aspects of the plan, and more fundamentally, laws shouldn't be unfairly coercive to citizens; though government certainly does its share of "coercion for the greater good".
I'm less clear on whether state-supported ethical coercion is de facto wrong because of that, though. :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Shari'a
Date: Wednesday, 26 October 2005 04:20 pm (UTC)(I find myself wondering how many of my misconceptions would've been cleared up if the CBC hadn't been on strike through the end of this issue? Most of what I learned, came from the Globe&Mail, early in the morning when I wasn't entirely awake. And it hasn't exactly been a simple issue...)
I agree about the coercive aspects of the plan, and more fundamentally, laws shouldn't be unfairly coercive to citizens; though government certainly does its share of "coercion for the greater good".
I'm less clear on whether state-supported ethical coercion is de facto wrong because of that, though. :)