News:

"Forbidden Fruit [L-H]"
Congratulations Mellific & Swashbuckler for completing your RP!

Main Menu

Sharia Law to be binding in Britain

Started by Vekseid, October 12, 2008, 11:43:54 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Vekseid

This is absolutely stunning - sharia courts now have the force of law in Britain. If you are a citizen of the United Kingdom and care at all about the rights of women, please take the time to sign the petition and if at all possible raise hell with any representative you can get a hold of.

Pat Condell's recently reinstated video:


Sums up his opinion.

Jefepato

Don't both parties have to agree to sharia arbitration for it to be binding?

Rhapsody

Interestingly enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAPqKFGE-l8

Since I don't know how to embed Youtube videos on this site.
|| Games I Play||
Not Available for RP
|| O&O || Requests ||  A&A ||
Current Posting Speed: 1-2 times per week

Come to me, just in a dream. Come on and rescue me.
Yes, I know. I can be wrong. Maybe I'm too headstrong.

HairyHeretic

Quote from: Jefepato on October 12, 2008, 11:48:37 AM
Don't both parties have to agree to sharia arbitration for it to be binding?

I believe so. I think it also has to work within the established framework of the law of the land. Since there are already the Jewish equivalent, and apparently have been for the last 100 years or so (at least according to that article), I don't see the need to get up in arms about this.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Trieste

Ugh. I couldn't even get all the way through that video. The guy reminds me of the guy from V for Vendetta who ends every show with "England prevails". What a load of elitist crap... videos like that undermine the views that they are pushing at us, the viewers.

Revolverman

That almost happend in Ontario, the claimed if Jewish law can be used in the courts, why not Islamic law? they ended up banning the Jewish law in the courts.

Vekseid

Quote from: HairyHeretic on October 12, 2008, 12:49:22 PM
I believe so. I think it also has to work within the established framework of the law of the land. Since there are already the Jewish equivalent, and apparently have been for the last 100 years or so (at least according to that article), I don't see the need to get up in arms about this.

It's an arbitration court.

So what happens is the (Muslim) female party in the dispute - including domestic violence disputes according to the article - gets told that in order to adhere to the tenets of her religion, she can and should use the sharia arbitration courts.

It's preying on ignorance.

Inkidu

Quote from: Vekseid on October 12, 2008, 04:32:05 PM
It's an arbitration court.

So what happens is the (Muslim) female party in the dispute - including domestic violence disputes according to the article - gets told that in order to adhere to the tenets of her religion, she can and should use the sharia arbitration courts.

It's preying on ignorance.
To quote someone, because apparently, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Trieste

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. The ignorance that's being abused here is that of how to best utilise the law.

Inkidu

Quote from: Trieste on October 12, 2008, 05:14:44 PM
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. The ignorance that's being abused here is that of how to best utilise the law.
Case and point but this is where lawyers make their bread and butter.
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

RubySlippers

#10
I hate to say this but in a free republic and England is a representative democracy people are entitled to make stupid decisions, in the case here if they care not to use the secular courts then they take their chances. But in al fairness apparently devout Jews were using this for over one-hundred years with no complaint and they can be as insular as certain Muslim groups, such as the Hasidim in New York. Who are overall very nice people and law abiding just aslo tend to take of disputes in house.


Trieste

An arbitration agreement in the U.S. (I gather britain has something similar, judging by the article and video and whatnot) is basically a contract that you agree to and sign that, in the same document, waives your right to bring the matter to court. You agree to bring the matter instead to an arbitration entity (usually chosen by some ostensibly neutral third-party) and to abide by its decision. In a standard arbitration contract, you agree that the arbitration decision has the weight of law and that you understand that you will be subjected to criminal and civil penalties of you do not abide by the arbitration entity's decision. You also agree that you will not add your complaint to that of another if THEY decide to take the matter to court, too.

They gained popularity as a measure to avoid class-action lawsuits, and have become quite popular. For instance, I had to sign two arbitration agreements when I bought my car - one with the car company itself, and one with the finance company funding my purchase. I read every word, so I know what my rights are in regards to the thing, but most people do not know that.

In light of this, it's actually not how lawyers make their bread and butter, since lawyers only rarely if ever enter into disputes governed by arbitration.

Zakharra

 I can't wait to see the outcry if a case comes up that sharia law demands the girl in the case be raped by the defendant's relatives or be stoned to death. The outcry on that would be.. drastic.

Inkidu

Quote from: Trieste on October 12, 2008, 05:28:53 PM
An arbitration agreement in the U.S. (I gather britain has something similar, judging by the article and video and whatnot) is basically a contract that you agree to and sign that, in the same document, waives your right to bring the matter to court. You agree to bring the matter instead to an arbitration entity (usually chosen by some ostensibly neutral third-party) and to abide by its decision. In a standard arbitration contract, you agree that the arbitration decision has the weight of law and that you understand that you will be subjected to criminal and civil penalties of you do not abide by the arbitration entity's decision. You also agree that you will not add your complaint to that of another if THEY decide to take the matter to court, too.

They gained popularity as a measure to avoid class-action lawsuits, and have become quite popular. For instance, I had to sign two arbitration agreements when I bought my car - one with the car company itself, and one with the finance company funding my purchase. I read every word, so I know what my rights are in regards to the thing, but most people do not know that.

In light of this, it's actually not how lawyers make their bread and butter, since lawyers only rarely if ever enter into disputes governed by arbitration.
No but a lawyer does make his money from knowing how to interpret and utilize the law to somewhat ethically unbiased workings.
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Apple of Eris

The biggest way lawyers enter into the arbitration discussion are the lawsuits filed against companies that use arbitration methods since it was shown that (and I don't remember the exact figures off the top of my head) something like 100% of all the arbitration cases (and this was in the thousands I believe) in California and some other states which were also considering lawsuits were decided in favor of the company that required the arbitration clause in the contract (mostly credit card and loan firms I believe).
Men are those creatures with two legs and eight hands.  ~Jayne Mansfield
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first, then call whatever you hit the target. ~Ashleigh Brilliant

Ons/Offs
Stories I'm Seeking

Inkidu

Quote from: Apple of Eris on October 12, 2008, 08:38:57 PM
The biggest way lawyers enter into the arbitration discussion are the lawsuits filed against companies that use arbitration methods since it was shown that (and I don't remember the exact figures off the top of my head) something like 100% of all the arbitration cases (and this was in the thousands I believe) in California and some other states which were also considering lawsuits were decided in favor of the company that required the arbitration clause in the contract (mostly credit card and loan firms I believe).
The government has its own lawyers, they might never have set foot in a courtroom, but they're there.
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Apple of Eris

Those are the ones I'm talking about Ink. And the ones defending those companies.
Men are those creatures with two legs and eight hands.  ~Jayne Mansfield
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first, then call whatever you hit the target. ~Ashleigh Brilliant

Ons/Offs
Stories I'm Seeking

Inkidu

Quote from: Apple of Eris on October 12, 2008, 08:48:12 PM
Those are the ones I'm talking about Ink. And the ones defending those companies.
Just doubling the check. :D
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Trieste

Indeed. Arbitration agreements are annoying and very very biased... what disturbed me was that when I asked the rep who was supposed to be overseeing the contract signing how the arbitration panel is chosen, he said "Huh?" I also got asked thrice during the course of that purchase if I'm pre-law... when I was simply reading what was on there.

Makes me wonder if I'm the only person they've had who bothered reading it.

Jefepato

Quote from: Trieste on October 12, 2008, 09:36:04 PM
Indeed. Arbitration agreements are annoying and very very biased... what disturbed me was that when I asked the rep who was supposed to be overseeing the contract signing how the arbitration panel is chosen, he said "Huh?" I also got asked thrice during the course of that purchase if I'm pre-law... when I was simply reading what was on there.

Makes me wonder if I'm the only person they've had who bothered reading it.

You probably are.

I've had people get annoyed with me for reading something before signing it.  And it's not like I'm a slow reader.

Trieste

I have yet to have someone say something overtly to me. I have gotten, several times, the "Oh, you just sign here" thing, but my habit of blinking at the person and saying "Thank you" seems to have stopped anyone from doing that more than once, or escalating from that at all.

Vekseid

I have refused to sign arbitration agreements. Especially here in Minnesota when there is an arbitration limit in the contract that is actually smaller than the small claims court limitation (wtf!?)

Which surprises the hell out of some people, since I tend to scan through legal code fairly quickly. "No, I'm not going to sign that." "Uhh. oh... okay."

Quote from: Zakharra on October 12, 2008, 06:36:14 PM
I can't wait to see the outcry if a case comes up that sharia law demands the girl in the case be raped by the defendant's relatives or be stoned to death. The outcry on that would be.. drastic.

I would like to think that the sharia courts in the UK are not stupid enough intercede in a rape case, much less mandate a stoning for it...

Avi

I can see why people in Great Britain are upset about this, I'm all for the authority of a central NATIONAL court overriding any regional or ethnic courts.  However, I agree with Trieste, the guy in the video was way too bigoted and anti-Muslim for my tastes.  Yes, political correctness and accommodation can get out of hand very quickly, but that doesn't mean that we should just go the opposite way and make no accommodations at all.  One must find a healthy balance.
Your reality doesn't apply to me...