Britain Adopts Islamic Law, Gives Sharia Courts Full Power to Rule on Civil Cases

[MannyIsGod]

Ugh, this could be a disaster for Britain. Bad move. The foundation of any country is to have one unified code of ethics and laws for everyone.

It is?

[2centsworth]

I understand what you're saying Pete, but I don't see how that makes any for of arbitration bad.

arbitration can be good and viable alternative to US courts. Most arbitration panels that I'm aware try to enforce the law, but are used because they are cost effective and sometimes provide better insight into a particular industry. I don't see how allowing religion to infiltrate makes any sense. Especially since "voluntary" means you can voluntarily decide not to own a car.

btw, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think someone can voluntarily surrender certain rights. For instance, a lot of waivers do not hold up in court.

[MannyIsGod]

arbitration can be good and viable alternative to US courts. Most arbitration panels that I'm aware try to enforce the law, but are used because they are cost effective and sometimes provide better insight into a particular industry. I don't see how allowing religion to infiltrate makes any sense. Especially since "voluntary" means you can voluntarily decide not to own a car.

btw, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think someone can voluntarily surrender certain rights. For instance, a lot of waivers do not hold up in court.

Certain rights cannot be relinquished (IE you can't commit suicide etc etc) but I'm not sure thats the case in civil matters. I'm not a lawyer so I can't say that with a certainty but I believe it to be true.

Whether religious in nature or secular the only thing that matters to me is that it is a set of rules 2 parties are agreeing too. I see no reason to deprive individuals of a choice in what rules they choose to abide by in these civil cases. If they want to raise the bar then I see no reason to tell them they can't.

The example you use is completely incorrect, btw. I believe what you meant to say was FINANCING a vehicle because as far as I know I can purchase a vehicle cash without having to agree to any form of arbitration. Furthermore, I don't believe anyone has a fundemental right to be able to finance a vehicle, do you?

[MannyIsGod]

Basically what it boils down to is should people have the right to decide for themselves what rules to play by in civil proceedings. Of course they should. Why not?

[2centsworth]

Certain rights cannot be relinquished (IE you can't commit suicide etc etc) but I'm not sure thats the case in civil matters. I'm not a lawyer so I can't say that with a certainty but I believe it to be true.

Whether religious in nature or secular the only thing that matters to me is that it is a set of rules 2 parties are agreeing too. I see no reason to deprive individuals of a choice in what rules they choose to abide by in these civil cases. If they want to raise the bar then I see no reason to tell them they can't.

The example you use is completely incorrect, btw. I believe what you meant to say was FINANCING a vehicle because as far as I know I can purchase a vehicle cash without having to agree to any form of arbitration. Furthermore, I don't believe anyone has a fundemental right to be able to finance a vehicle, do you?

no brother, an arbitration agreement is required whether you finance or not. I just bought a Jeep Patriot cash and had to sign an arbitration agreement. I could have voluntarily walked away. However, the arbitrators aren't going to stray too far from actual civil court. How about if Car dealers required Christian Arbitration would you be ok with that?

Also, what was your stance on Convenant Marriage?

[MannyIsGod]

no brother, an arbitration agreement is required whether you finance or not. I just bought a Jeep Patriot cash and had to sign an arbitration agreement. I could have voluntarily walked away. However, the arbitrators aren't going to stray too far from actual civil court. How about if Car dealers required Christian Arbitration would you be ok with that?

Also, what was your stance on Convenant Marriage?

I wasn't aware that even purchasing a vehicle cash required signing an arbitration agreement. What would they mediate?

I honestly wouldn't care if they had forms of Christian arbitration. I wouldn't enter into any agreement I didn't feel comfortable with personally.

What is covenant marriage?

[DarkReign]

I wasn't aware that even purchasing a vehicle cash required signing an arbitration agreement. What would they mediate?

I honestly wouldn't care if they had forms of Christian arbitration. I wouldn't enter into any agreement I didn't feel comfortable with personally.

What is covenant marriage?

Google is your friend.

[whottt]

but you're not bothered about a fair shake for US women, aka, unequal pay for women doing the same jobs as men, are you?

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/3...less-than-men/



On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. [b]Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one — Obama’s administrative manager — was a woman.[b]
The average pay for the 33 [b]men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91.[b] (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)
McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain’s staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain’s office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.






Go yourself boutons....

[Oh, Gee!!]

For instance, a lot of waivers do not hold up in court.

courts would come to a grinding halt (esp. criminal courts) if rights couldn't be voluntarily waived.

[2centsworth]

courts would come to a grinding halt (esp. criminal courts) if rights couldn't be voluntarily waived.

that's why I put some rights, but you're right about criminal courts. I've been told that injury waivers are suspect.

[boutons_]

"The foundation of any country is to have one unified code of ethics and laws for everyone."

Your naivete is amusing. One of the most pervasive American, childish myths is that everyone is equal before the law, that no one is above the law. What "justice" you get in court is a function of lawyering, legal technicalities, and how much you can spend.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I've been told that injury waivers are suspect.

perhaps, but if someone signs a waiver in exchange for a cash settlement, most courts will enforce the waiver against the injured party even though they received less than fair market value or less than they would have through a lawsuit. The lesson is to be careful what you agree to.

On the topic of the thread, I think this is a bad idea for Brittain because I can forsee the probability that the British court system may have to abide by arbitartion agreements that would otherwise be illegal if done by non-Sharia arbitration courts.

[101A]

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/3...less-than-men/



On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. [b]Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one — Obama’s administrative manager — was a woman.[b]
The average pay for the 33 [b]men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91.[b] (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)
McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain’s staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain’s office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.






Go yourself boutons....

Damn, that ad writes itself. I get the feeling that the McCain campaign is holding back a series of surprises to the bitter end.

Obama at the Acropolis shouting "Equal Pay for Equal Work", followed by these stats....

[101A]

I wasn't aware that even purchasing a vehicle cash required signing an arbitration agreement. What would they mediate?

I honestly wouldn't care if they had forms of Christian arbitration. I wouldn't enter into any agreement I didn't feel comfortable with personally.

What is covenant marriage?

It's a stereotypical response on by part, but I question whether women, especially, in Muslim households get to make such choices themselves. The courts should protect them at all costs.

[Wild Cobra]

So, do you lefties here agree with this?

It is now legal for a man to kill his wife and daughters.

[2centsworth]

perhaps, but if someone signs a waiver in exchange for a cash settlement, most courts will enforce the waiver against the injured party even though they received less than fair market value or less than they would have through a lawsuit. The lesson is to be careful what you agree to.

On the topic of the thread, I think this is a bad idea for Brittain because I can forsee the probability that the British court system may have to abide by arbitartion agreements that would otherwise be illegal if done by non-Sharia arbitration courts.

I'm gonna mark down this day. You and I agree on something.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You and I agree on something

yeah, but for different reasons I'm sure.

[Spurminator]

Out of curiosity, do we have anything similar in American Amish communities or other places like that?

[2centsworth]

yeah, but for different reasons I'm sure.

No, but I'm not going to argue with you today.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, but I'm not going to argue with you today.

fair enough

[MannyIsGod]

So, do you lefties here agree with this?

It is now legal for a man to kill his wife and daughters.

Can you ever be intellectually honest? Ever? Just once?

[MannyIsGod]

On the subject of covenant marriage - I feel its silly as . However, I respect a couples right to enter into it. For the record I also feel Sharia court is ridiculous but within certain limits I believe it should be allowed. Obviously - lest we make Wild Cobra's stupid statment correct - there has to be limits.

I agree that there is reason to be suspect on whether or not these women are able to make a clear choice, but I do believe that societal pressures are not to be legislated against. Its not the governments job to protect people against moral pressures or any other pressures their society enacts on them.

its a tough line to walk, but I do believe that people should be able to choose the set f rules they play by in civil matters. Obviously there are quirks to be worked out and many times we won't agree or understand what these people decide to do but thats not the the point. The point is that they get to decide.

[Wild Cobra]

Can you ever be intellectually honest? Ever? Just once?

What do you mean? Honor killings are a part of their 'civil' justice!