quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Presumably. Chuck Norris must be slacking off on the job, so it'll be up to Poopey to hold off the Mooslim horde single handed...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
"For the establishment of Zion : the gospel and government of God working in harmony for the improvement and sanctification of all things. The kingdom of heaven on earth. "
Do you realize from where that statement came ?

Mormons.

Nope, it is an EXACT quote from the Protocols.

Exact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

While this judge was overturned by the appellate court, I am sure that the plaintiff would disagree with calling it 'just paranoia.' After all, rape and abuse are OKAY if it is cultural.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

I argued that sharia is not likely to be instituted as law in any western country any time soon, and that a lot of people make a fuss about ideas of conspiracies between governments and caliphate agents to place the west under sharia. Clearer now?

{snip}

Health,
al-Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

Personally I would oppose arbitration according to the religious laws of any faith. In the UK for example Sharia courts have some capacity to enforce rulings but this may change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto
Has anyone who has the fear of Sharia law in the U.S. ever considered the "danger" of Roman Catholic Canon law or the danger of Halakha law?

(Halakha law, FYI, is the divine law as laid out in the Torah {First five books of Moses}, rabbinical laws, rabbinical decrees and customs combined and is considerd by Orthodox Jews, even those living in he United States, as more binding and "superior" to United State civil law).

Roman Catholics have used the "superiority" of Canon Law over civil law to justify not turning over priests and nuns who commit child abuse to civil legal authorities, and an Orthodox Jewish American woman who receives a divorce in civil court is still considered married until she also gets a divorce under Halakha law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
So long as both parties choose to be members of a group, with knowledge of the rules of that group, it follows that there's nothing inherently undesireable about having the group arbitrate issues concaerning only members of the group in an internal organ that is recognized by the group, so long as a defined nationwide standard is applied to the criterion for proper judicial proceedings, along with defined limits on permissible measures and a defined enforcement model.

quote:


That is quite far from what is the case in the UK, and- ironically- closer to the case in Jordan.

For a non-monopoly on law to work (which augments freedom when it does), this would mean seperating the structure, function and form of the judicial apparatus and building a framework for alternative jurisdictions to coexist with the common baseline that applies to people with no attachment to an alternative one (or in cases where not all parties are attached to the same alternative jurisdiction). Also, it is an absolute requirement that one be able to detach from such alternative jurisdictions (prior to any crime falling under said jurisdiction) and that children are subject only to the common baseline until they are of an age to make an informed choice.

As a hypothetical example, a duelling-positive community might then exist, wherein a duel that does not affect non-members would then be subject to the jurisdiction of that community's appointed judicial body. The proceedings would still require a jury of peers, still have an identical burden of proof, and so forth. Apart from making it effectively legal for those people to duel to the death in a designated space they've purchased and secured from the general public (though documentation/evidence is still required to establish jurisdiction, since a killing is unlawful under the common baseline), it would also make it possible for them to impose penalties for breaches of the conduct required of the participants, limited by the overarching framework (i.e. there's no capital punishment in the UK, so it cannot be issued by an alternative jurisdiction).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

Personally I oppose arbitration according to faith based laws especially if the are in significant conflict with the laws of the land. One of the big issues with Sharia is its harshness toward women. This is an the UK for example where Sharia courts have some capacity to enforce rulings http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece but hopefully this will change soon with a new bill being forwarded by the present government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Personally I oppose arbitration according to faith based laws especially if the are in significant conflict with the laws of the land. One of the big issues with Sharia is its harshness toward women. This is an the UK for example where Sharia courts have some capacity to enforce rulings http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece but hopefully this will change soon with a new bill being forwarded by the present government.

Your example is not only three years old, but flawed in its content. Sharia courts havent had, and still dont have, any capacity to enforce anything. They have only been allowed to act as  an arbitration service if both parties agree. See the difference between agree and enforce, it applies the same to Jewish courts used for arbitration services, nothing supercedes UK Law. So lets stop the alarmist crap about "Some capacity to enforce" eh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I told you once, nothing supercedes UK Law, not Sharia Courts, not Bin Deth (sp) Courts.

quote:


If you want a link plenty are available, when you know what you are talking about then get back to me.

quote:


Edits to add, as I am feeling charitable.

You state Sharia courts can enforce UK law, then you say you never said they supercede UK law. They do neither, then only mediate on situations where both parties are agreeable.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Anax, this is what you said.

"This is an the UK for example where Sharia courts have some capacity to enforce rulings"

quote:


ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

quote:


Its bullshit, you know it and I know it. They have no capacity to "Enforce" anthing. So stop backtracking and editing your original post.  

quote:


Arbitration is entirely voluntary, no "In theory at least" about it. The same applies for the Jewish arbitration courts that have operated for years in the UK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Howz about instituting some sharia law down there in croydon.