Toronto, ON, Apr. 28 (UPI) — Muslims in the Canadian province of Ontario can soon turn to settling disputes in their own courts, known as sharia, the Washington post reported.
Muslim promoters of sharia arbitration said no cases have yet been decided but the process is set. Islamic leaders created an Islamic Court of Civil Justice last fall and it has chosen arbitrators who have undergone training in sharia and Canadian civil law.
\”People can agree to resolve disputes any way acceptable,\” said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ontario Attorney General\’s office said in an interview. He said the arbitration act has a number of safeguards, including the requirement that parties enter into arbitration only on a voluntary basis, and any decisions by arbitrators are subject to court ratification.
Jewish courts, using similar methods, have long been operating in Ontario. Such a court, called a Beit Din, deals with monetary, business and family disputes, but no criminal matters.
\”Jewish courts have been operating in Toronto for as long as Jews have been here, hundreds of years,\” said Rabbi Reuven Tradburks, secretary of the Beit Din of Toronto. He said he had not heard of cases decided by arbitrators in Jewish courts that had been overturned.
Harold Meyerson appears to be saying that New Orleans flooded because of libertarians\’ enthusiasm for small government, most recently manifested in the form of George Bush.
I have no idea whether libertarians think levee building is government business or not, but since when was Bush small government?
The problem seems to be incompetent government at federal and state level, made worse by spendthrift pork barrelling which I suspect is a bi-partisan activity.
Harold Meyerson\’s attack on libertarianism and his praise for big government shows his ignorance of economics and of history to be thoroughgoing. A year or two spent reading up on classical liberalism, at, say, the website of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, would undoubtedly make his writing look less pathetic.
\’if you want to be a (Canadian) millionaire – get yourself raped?\’ I suspect that Pakistani women would be willing to crawl on bloodied hands and knees to a lifetime of penury just about anywhere rather than endure the murderous, institutionalised misogyny that so disfigures Pakistan and other jurisdictions like it….
\’if you want to be a (Canadian) millionaire – get yourself raped?\’ I suspect that Pakistani women would be willing to crawl on bloodied hands and knees to a lifetime of penury just about anywhere rather than endure the murderous, institutionalised misogyny that so disfigures Pakistan and other jurisdictions like it….
I thought this site was dedicated to speaking out against fashionable nonsense, but now I see it perpetuate the fashionable nonsense of minimum-wage laws. I don\’t expect this site, or any site, to be perfect, but B&W has been pretty far from it lately.
I\’d like to ask all the anti-Freudians here why anyone would think that Richard Webster\’s \’ Why Freud Was Wrong\’ is a \’brilliant\’ book given its basic historical errors. On page one, Webster says it has been two thousand years since Plato\’s advice to know thyself – shouldn\’t that be more like two and a half thousand years? On page four hundred and ninety five he refers to the \’time of Paul and Plato\’ – but since Plato and Paul lived five hundred years apart, when precisely was this time?
This sort of thing is pathetic coming from someone who complains about \’the virtual destruction of our historical consciousness\’ (on page six). I\’ve never read any book that treated history in such a vague and ignorant way as this one. Why can\’t people like Webster be treated with the contempt they deserve?
The odd thing about your question is that it seems to assume that knowledge of history isn\’t relevant to understanding psychology. Since many of the most important insights into human nature come from the great literature and philosophy of the past, shouldn\’t it be obvious that knowledge of the past is required to make sense of them?
The odd thing about your last post is that you did not answer my question.
I trained as a physicist, so I am unimpressed by claims that to understand anything about the physical universe one needs to understand the period in which some theory that is accepted by scientists was developed. For example to understand Newton\’s laws of motion one does not need to even know the century they were published.
Pls direct me to any articles / references that compiles Freudian theories those hold valid as of now. I searched the web and found lot of criticisms on most of his papers. Even the concept of \’unconscious\’ itself has been questioned through recent scientific findings about brain functionality. I read the following link.
> Pls direct me to any articles / references that compiles Freudian theories those hold valid as of now.<
I don\’t know of any such articles. In any case, such a compilation would certainly be disputed.
> http://www.skepdic.com/psychoan.html
Does your view goes along this line? <
In general terms, yes. But without getting into details, I\’m sure that psychoanalysts would regard the presentation of how psychoanalysts proceed as simplistic.
On the final point, however, I disagree:
>There are some good things, however, which have resulted from the method of psychoanalysis developed by Sigmund Freud a century ago in Vienna. Freud should be considered one of our greatest benefactors if only because he pioneered the desire to understand those whose behavior and thoughts cross the boundaries of convention set by civilization and cultures…<
It is not the case that Freud was the pioneer of this kind of psychotherapy. Other practitioners had already engaged in such psychotherapy before Freud, e.g., Benedikt, Féré and Janet. (See H. Ellenberger: *The Discovery of the Unconscious: The History and Evolution of Dynamic Psychiatry* [1970]). It is also interesting to note that in his book *Mind Games: American Culture and the Birth of Psychotherapy* (1998) Eric Caplan writes: \”Freud has little role in this early chapter in the history of American psychotherapy… the primary factors that compelled physicians in the United States to embrace psychotherapy had little to do with ideas emanating from Vienna or from any other European city.\”
And, of course, it was Krafft-Ebing who led the way to a humanitarian understanding of what were regarded as perversions. (See H. Oosterhuis, *Stepchild of Nature: Krafft-Ebing, Psychiatry and the Making of Sexual Identity*, [2000])
How about a few more anti-Christianity or anti-Judaism articles as a break from all the anti-Islam stuff you\’re so keen on.
For a more rational view of Islamic courts in Canada…
Islamic courts get foothold in Canada
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040428-102826-6669r.htm
Toronto, ON, Apr. 28 (UPI) — Muslims in the Canadian province of Ontario can soon turn to settling disputes in their own courts, known as sharia, the Washington post reported.
Muslim promoters of sharia arbitration said no cases have yet been decided but the process is set. Islamic leaders created an Islamic Court of Civil Justice last fall and it has chosen arbitrators who have undergone training in sharia and Canadian civil law.
\”People can agree to resolve disputes any way acceptable,\” said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ontario Attorney General\’s office said in an interview. He said the arbitration act has a number of safeguards, including the requirement that parties enter into arbitration only on a voluntary basis, and any decisions by arbitrators are subject to court ratification.
Jewish courts, using similar methods, have long been operating in Ontario. Such a court, called a Beit Din, deals with monetary, business and family disputes, but no criminal matters.
\”Jewish courts have been operating in Toronto for as long as Jews have been here, hundreds of years,\” said Rabbi Reuven Tradburks, secretary of the Beit Din of Toronto. He said he had not heard of cases decided by arbitrators in Jewish courts that had been overturned.
Harold Meyerson appears to be saying that New Orleans flooded because of libertarians\’ enthusiasm for small government, most recently manifested in the form of George Bush.
I have no idea whether libertarians think levee building is government business or not, but since when was Bush small government?
The problem seems to be incompetent government at federal and state level, made worse by spendthrift pork barrelling which I suspect is a bi-partisan activity.
Harold Meyerson\’s attack on libertarianism and his praise for big government shows his ignorance of economics and of history to be thoroughgoing. A year or two spent reading up on classical liberalism, at, say, the website of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, would undoubtedly make his writing look less pathetic.
Reading this, one feels happy that there are individuals who put human dignity, individual liberty and justice before political correctness.
In solidarity,
Yogesh Kamdar
Mumbai (Bombay), INDIA
Re:Musharraff\’s \’rape\’ comments.
\’if you want to be a (Canadian) millionaire – get yourself raped?\’ I suspect that Pakistani women would be willing to crawl on bloodied hands and knees to a lifetime of penury just about anywhere rather than endure the murderous, institutionalised misogyny that so disfigures Pakistan and other jurisdictions like it….
Re:Musharraff\’s \’rape\’ comments.
\’if you want to be a (Canadian) millionaire – get yourself raped?\’ I suspect that Pakistani women would be willing to crawl on bloodied hands and knees to a lifetime of penury just about anywhere rather than endure the murderous, institutionalised misogyny that so disfigures Pakistan and other jurisdictions like it….
I thought this site was dedicated to speaking out against fashionable nonsense, but now I see it perpetuate the fashionable nonsense of minimum-wage laws. I don\’t expect this site, or any site, to be perfect, but B&W has been pretty far from it lately.
I\’d like to ask all the anti-Freudians here why anyone would think that Richard Webster\’s \’ Why Freud Was Wrong\’ is a \’brilliant\’ book given its basic historical errors. On page one, Webster says it has been two thousand years since Plato\’s advice to know thyself – shouldn\’t that be more like two and a half thousand years? On page four hundred and ninety five he refers to the \’time of Paul and Plato\’ – but since Plato and Paul lived five hundred years apart, when precisely was this time?
This sort of thing is pathetic coming from someone who complains about \’the virtual destruction of our historical consciousness\’ (on page six). I\’ve never read any book that treated history in such a vague and ignorant way as this one. Why can\’t people like Webster be treated with the contempt they deserve?
To Richard Warntock:
Have you got anything to say about Webster\’s critique of Freud?
Paul,
The odd thing about your question is that it seems to assume that knowledge of history isn\’t relevant to understanding psychology. Since many of the most important insights into human nature come from the great literature and philosophy of the past, shouldn\’t it be obvious that knowledge of the past is required to make sense of them?
Richard:
The odd thing about your last post is that you did not answer my question.
I trained as a physicist, so I am unimpressed by claims that to understand anything about the physical universe one needs to understand the period in which some theory that is accepted by scientists was developed. For example to understand Newton\’s laws of motion one does not need to even know the century they were published.
On a lighter note, The Onion reports \”Guy In Philosophy Class Needs To Shut The Fuck Up\” : http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40984
Apologies if my other post today sounds furiously angry.
Is there any other explanation to the fondedness existing between father-girlchild and mother-boychild, if seductive theory could be wrong?
Can\’t we just say seductive theory is exaggerated (into fantasy theory) to some extent, instead of saying seductive theory is wrong/does not exist?
I misunderstood.
Pls direct me to any articles / references that compiles Freudian theories those hold valid as of now. I searched the web and found lot of criticisms on most of his papers. Even the concept of \’unconscious\’ itself has been questioned through recent scientific findings about brain functionality. I read the following link.
http://www.skepdic.com/psychoan.html
Does your view goes along this line?
> Pls direct me to any articles / references that compiles Freudian theories those hold valid as of now.< I don\’t know of any such articles. In any case, such a compilation would certainly be disputed. > http://www.skepdic.com/psychoan.html
Does your view goes along this line? < In general terms, yes. But without getting into details, I\’m sure that psychoanalysts would regard the presentation of how psychoanalysts proceed as simplistic. On the final point, however, I disagree:
>There are some good things, however, which have resulted from the method of psychoanalysis developed by Sigmund Freud a century ago in Vienna. Freud should be considered one of our greatest benefactors if only because he pioneered the desire to understand those whose behavior and thoughts cross the boundaries of convention set by civilization and cultures…< It is not the case that Freud was the pioneer of this kind of psychotherapy. Other practitioners had already engaged in such psychotherapy before Freud, e.g., Benedikt, Féré and Janet. (See H. Ellenberger: *The Discovery of the Unconscious: The History and Evolution of Dynamic Psychiatry* [1970]). It is also interesting to note that in his book *Mind Games: American Culture and the Birth of Psychotherapy* (1998) Eric Caplan writes: \”Freud has little role in this early chapter in the history of American psychotherapy… the primary factors that compelled physicians in the United States to embrace psychotherapy had little to do with ideas emanating from Vienna or from any other European city.\” And, of course, it was Krafft-Ebing who led the way to a humanitarian understanding of what were regarded as perversions. (See H. Oosterhuis, *Stepchild of Nature: Krafft-Ebing, Psychiatry and the Making of Sexual Identity*, [2000])
What happened to Julian Baggini\’s Bad Moves column? It hasn\’t been updated since July. Has he stopped?