Instilling a Respect for Revealed Truths

If All Else Fails, Kill Them!

Uzza: But in Québec, I don’t have to wear a scarf?

Archie: That is another country. They have a Charter of Values and we have a Charter of Rights.

Uzza: Why would that make a difference?

Archie: Values are values, they are what they are. Rights are different.

Uzza: What do values and rights have to do with my having to wear a scarf to get service?

Archie: Everything, in the weird times we live in. Rights can be ranked, and in the Canadian Charter of Rights, religious rights are right up there …

From Remembering Uzza

The number one ranked freedom in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is religion. Expect a Charter challenge by Jewish and Islamic traditionalist should the Trudeau government follow through on its promise to repeal Section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code which allows parents to physically discipline their children. The recommendation to do so comes from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Battered children and those who witness the violence done to others, including that done to their mothers, grow up to accept violence as a legitimate means of settling grievances and imposing their will. This has to stop. First Nations seem to be willing to let the law intervene if that is what it takes.

Islam operates under a different set of laws where violence in the home is sanctioned by God. The most quoted example is the God-given of a husband to beat his wives if he fears they will do something that might displease him or God.

4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made some of them excel the others, and because they spend some of their wealth. Hence righteous women are obedient, guarding the unseen (their sex) which Allah has guarded. And those of them that you fear might rebel, admonish them and abandon them in their beds and beat them. Should they obey you, do not seek ways of harming them; for Allah is Sublime and Great.

Where children are concerned, under the Sharia, whose meaning is God's Law, both parents can beat their children to get them to behave like good little believers, such as spending what ordinary people would consider an inordinate amount of time memorizing a book (in 2012, a British mother who accidently beat her seven-year-old son to death for failing to learn the Qur'an by heart was sentenced to seventeen years in prison) and performing the mandated prayers at the time prescribed and as demonstrated by Allah's martinet of a messenger.

Under the Sharia, a parent is justified in beating a child between the ages of ten and fifteen who will not submit to Allah's Will and the example of the Prophet as to how you do this.

Under the Sharia, unlike for a wife where a husband will always be there to administer a beating when necessary, a parent who fears that a child will abandon Islam when they are no longer there to enforce a respect for the teachings of Allah and His Messenger, the Koran, in the example of Khidr expects them to kill the offspring who they anticipate will one day dishonour them and the one-and-only god.

If past decisions of the Supreme Court where religion is the argument are any indication, even where the welfare of children is concerned, e.g. the Kirpan Decision, I expect the Court to allow parents some leeway in physically disciplining their rebellious offspring if the violence is meant to instill a lasting respect for revealed truths (immutable facts revealed to a mortal by a god) which the Charter implicitly recognizes as being superior to whatever is revealed by any other method.

Bernard Payeur, January 30, 2016