Canadians vote 82% against sharia law banks

The Globe and Mail had a poll whether the federal gov't should allow sharia law banks in Canada from Islamic countries. the poll was 82% against. I agree. Good. NO NO NO NO to any form of Islamic law in Canada.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...hub=VoteResult

I should think so. But who and where are the 18% who voted for such a divisive matter.

Seek them

Seriously, why would we ever want a bank that forbade interest rates and speculative investment? A loan that is repaid at parity is outrageous.

Sharia banks make loans by entering into an agreement by "selling" its liability, i.e. a deposit, to the borrower, and agreeing to buy it back at a certain time at a certain price. The difference is the implied interest rate but technically, its a repurchase agreement.

I have no problem with this at all. I believe there is a sharia bank in the United States.

I suppose that is a better way of looking at it. Is the repurchasing subject to renegotiations like interest rates?

One way or another, seems like an overreaction to the word Sharia on the part of those polled.

Interesting comment. When I heard of the proposal, I thought, "I have no idea what a Sharia Bank is, so how can I give my opinion?"...

I'd like to know how many people who voiced their opinion have even the foggiest clue what they are talking about.

Is this going to be used as some sort of back door to get Sharia Law into Canada? We all know how "give an inch" works - especially in PC Canada.

Wolf

It's only a poll for starters, and Sharia law could not be implemented without Constitutional amendments. They can have their religion, but they cannot choose which laws to follow. Our laws supersede the kind of religious freedom which would see Sharia law followed. If Muslims-and by that I mean Muslims favouring Sharia law- make up more than 50% of our country/House of representatives one day, then we might want to worry. Much more likely it will be > 50% Asian some day, not Muslim.

Not even the notwithstanding clause can help it. Sharia law is slanted towards men with women as subordinate in some rights. Gender equality is not a section which can be over-ruled by the notwithstanding clause. Also, our democratic rights are entrenched, where Sharia sets up distinctly second class (non-Muslim) citizens.

No, but inciting hatred against women can be justified by --. Why do we have that defense?

Well that's certainly true, but at least they can't make laws. There is no question there are things in the Charter I'm sure everyone would like to change one way or another. I'd like to see less redundancy for one.

Without a Sharia law bank in Canada, where do those who follow their law get their loans? I'd rather that 'buy out' profit were in our own country and on the books, than having Sharia Muslims taking out all their loans in the US, or overseas. Someone's profiting off them still, and someone's taxing that profit. I'd say we need to minimize the amount of the profit that remains in someone else's country, and take advantage.

But, admittedly, that's just my first impression. There may be more to it that I'm unaware of.

Yeah, the world of banking is insanely over regulated, in my opinion. Each year a nation with Fiat currency, which is all of them I believe, injects extra currency into the system through banks. This extra currency arises as profit from interests and investments. Were banking completely controlled by the government they wouldn't have to create money to hand out to heavily regulated private corporations, they could invest it instead into the country as was seen fit.

If banks were required to actually have in reserves the money that they provided in loans, one would quickly see the problems of the current system. It would take away from banks the power to create money.

Pretty much.

"Repos" are very common in financial markets, usually in the short-term debt market. The difference between the sale and re-purchase co-incides with an appropriate interest rate.

This is how banks operate in the Muslim world. In reality, its just like a regular bank except the agreement is worded differently.

Sharia law, what will they think of next? Good for desert people living in huts and tents. Good also for undemocratic regimes in the Mideast perhaps.

The media has to shoo religion out of politics. First, the Scientific Revolution started by Copernicus, Galileo and Newton proved that religion is not a testable hypothesis. This means religion is just another Asiatic superstition. The day of religion is over. Good ridance.

I read the Saudi royal family considers Saudi Arabia to be its personal property and everything in it. This is not a place where any progress will originate.

To my understanding how this works is that you get a property that you want, you pay a fixed payment every month and the interest is called units the more units you buy the monthly payments are decreased until everything is paid off.

If you do the math you would be paying more in the long run than a conventional mortgage,

At the same time in a traditional interest mortgage you have to renegotiate every five years causing you great stress if the interest rate increases dramatically.

If you can’t pay it then you walk away from the property.

In a traditional interest mortgage if you can’t pay you have to leave anyway due to repossession.

If you were to offer this type of loan in the traditional banks a lot more people would get this type of mortgage and be able to keep their homes and pay it off with minimal stress.

Why add another system to Canada here?

I don't see the big deal. We have unofficial loans like that among certain communities here.

Loving compound interest are we? How about a three generation mortage eh.

Funny I just watched a doco about Intelegent Design. What's with the wedge all the time? Gotta get a little religion in everytime someone turns around.

I would almost venture to suggest that redundancy can be a good thing, particularly when we have such a complex system of rights and freedoms here in Canada. Not only does our Supreme Court of Canada need to consider the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also the Canadian Bill of Rights (which remains in force today), and the relationships that those statutes have with unwritten constitutional principles and norms (as they apply to Canada by references in the Constitution Act, 1867). We would need to have comprehensive discussion and study before endeavouring to modify that framework, in my opinion.

heheheh
RIght on, Beav.

Um, either embrace multiculturalism or not, but for once and for all, make a choice. Leave it up to people where they want to bank.

What are you talking about when you say "especially in PC Canada? I thnk the give an inch approach applies far more the Liberal Party and the NDP than it does to PC's. How do you think we wound up with Gay-Marriage in Canada. It was the Liberals who introduced legislation to approve pension benefits to partners of same-sex relationships, and when the question was asked about that opening to door to other things, Canadians were assured by the then PM, that would be as far as it would ever go. The Liberals knew full well that this initiative was the first step in changing the social fabric of Canada, and not for the better. With the appointment by the Liberals of a liberal-minded judiciary who are accountable to nobody, all of that assurance went out the window.

I don't like Sharia law. I don't like making a mockery of Allah. But what law should stop sharia banks, piggy banks, or any other kind of bank? If they want to take deposits from the public and pretend to not be banking, there are regulations that they must comply with in any event. They can call the deal whatever they want, except on government regulated disclosures. The Muslims don't care if we all snicker and say that they are banking, why should they care if regulations require the deal be written in English or French and not Farsi? And why should they care if I call it a loan at interest and they call it an offer of obedience to Mohammed's Deo-economic theory?

Canadian Muslims should not take their own hypocritical posturing so seriously. Just open the sharia bank and let free enterprise rock on with all the tellers in burkas and offer whatever brand of B.S. makes a buck. If the effective, ahem, rates, are competetive, can I get a loan or what? What's the cardholder agreement look like for a sharia charge card? Do you think I care? I didn't read the last one that I signed. So as long as it meets the regs, give it to me in Farsi for all I care.

I want my tellers in burkas. I like to watch their eyes. Just because I'm not a Muslim man doesn't mean I'm not a male chauvenist pig. Will a sharia ATM charge fees directly, or will it launder the fees as well? Cool.