|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 11 2015 11:25 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 11:09 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2015 10:55 m4ini wrote:On December 11 2015 10:47 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2015 10:45 m4ini wrote:Religious people ask for religious advice all the time. That's all this is.
Hm, was explained to me differently. And i don't think that's entirely right, it even says so on their webpage. That doesn't really change anything, but might as well be straight. Because it's not correct. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Neither do you though, by the looks. The MAT can rule on certain things, which then can be enforced by normal courts if necessary. But, and now the important part, the MAT can not rule anything not abiding british law. They also can not call for corporal punishment, for the same reason. They can also not divorce married couples, and they have zero jurisdiction over criminal cases. So, while i agree Kwark runs a bit in the wrong direction now, you certainly are not right either. Again, are you talking about the Sharia Councils or the MAT? If it's the MAT, you are missing the last step: British courts are required to enforce the decision as a binding arbitration.
Yeah. But these decisions are made in accordance to british law. That's the important part, and the one that you heavily misrepresented. They don't rule according to sharia full stop, they rule according to sharia in a legal framework that is UK law. I have not said anything that is incorrect about that MAT, nor have I overstated its jurisdiction and authority. The bottom line is that MAT enforces Sharia law through the framework of arbitration within the UK legal system. You keep bringing up this bullshit argument that the decisions have to made within the framework of UK law, but you clearly don't know what that means. To really understand what that means, you have to understand how much discretion is given to arbiters and their decisions. It is fucking hard to overturn an arbiter's decision. There are very limited grounds for doing so. Specifically, the arbiter's reasoning cannot itself be challenged. As long as the arbiter has jurisdiction of the dispute and as long as there's no serious procedural irregularity (ie bribery, etc), the decision is binding, and the UK courts are required to approve it (it works the same way in the US). Because the arbiter's reasoning cannot generally be challenged, the MAT arbiters are free base their decisions ON SHARIA LAW WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THOSE DECISIONS WILL BE ENFORCED BY UK COURTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE STRUCTURE OF UK ARBITRATION LAWS. So what we have are Muslims using the arbitration system to create their own limited court system to handle disputes. Let me stress that there's nothing illegal about this. However, my point is that the fact they are doing this is evidence of the insular nature of their communities and the difficulty in assimilating them, all of which has a bearing on the issue of immigration. Show nested quote +The decisions being made by the arbiters are being made in accordance with Sharia law -- not British law. No, you clearly didn't overstate the jurisdiction/authority. Sharia Law calls for corporal punishment. Guess what isn't happening here? Apart from obvious fact that an arbitration needs both parties need to agree and sign a decision to make it enforcable by UK law. And in regards to discretion, a barrister/solicitor of wales/england has to be present at all times, and is integral part of the decision. And before you try to be funny about it: that barrister is declared by the UK, not by the MAT. And it's actually not needed to overturn an arbiters decision, because his ruling will be in the framework of UK law. If you don't want to have sharia law enforced on you, i don't know, nobody is fucking forcing you to go there and sign the decision. And of course they can base their decisions on religious laws, that's the whole point of it. If one party doesn't agree with that, nothing happens. You're not forced to go there. You DECIDE to fucking go there. Hell, Lord Phillips actually agrees with the idea of MAT. That's the fucking Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. edit: here. http://www.inbrief.co.uk/preparing-for-trial/muslim-arbitration-tribunal.htm#
Go read what jurisdiction means, then revisit your point about corporal punishment. You'll understand how silly it is.
Here's a hint: arbiters cannot render decisions that are outside of their jurisdiction.
Edit: Frankly, you should just stop arguing with me about this. I'm a lawyer. You're not. I understand what arbitration and how it works. You don't. Hell, I even explained it to you, and you still don't understand it.
|
Bro he cited a judge who disagrees with you at every turn. And as someone who has watched a bunch of stupid lawyers get canned for thinking they are smarter then judges, you ain't all that.
|
On December 11 2015 11:39 Plansix wrote:
Bro he cited a judge who disagrees with you at every turn. And as someone who has watched a bunch of stupid lawyers get canned for thinking they are smarter then judges, you ain't all that.
Show me where the judge disagrees with my representation of how the MAT works. I know very well that the UK's top court said that the MAT is legal. I already said it was legal. That's not the issue.
|
On December 11 2015 11:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 11:39 Plansix wrote:
Bro he cited a judge who disagrees with you at every turn. And as someone who has watched a bunch of stupid lawyers get canned for thinking they are smarter then judges, you ain't all that. Show me where the judge disagrees with my representation of how the MAT works. I know very well that the UK's top court said that the MAT is legal. I already said it was legal. That's not the issue.
The issue, apparently, is that people can settle their disputes in ways that you personally don't like.
They're not able to do whatever they want, like pistols at dawn.
|
On December 11 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 05:05 cLutZ wrote:On December 11 2015 04:43 Gorsameth wrote:On December 11 2015 04:34 cLutZ wrote: If you compare Germans in America to Germans in Germany, their performance tracks similarly, or even higher in America, and that is true across a wide spectrum of countries. You mean students willing to uproot and move across half the world to study are more dedicated then the average student? Next your going to tell me the earth isn't flat. Not just the ones that moved in the last generation. Its a deep trend that lasts even if you look at 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th etc generation Americans. On December 11 2015 04:49 Plansix wrote:On December 11 2015 04:43 Gorsameth wrote:On December 11 2015 04:34 cLutZ wrote: If you compare Germans in America to Germans in Germany, their performance tracks similarly, or even higher in America, and that is true across a wide spectrum of countries. You mean students willing to uproot and move across half the world to study are more dedicated then the average student? Next your going to tell me the earth isn't flat. Also Germany taxes its population and funds schools to an adequate level. And the testing is within reason. Americans just don't give a fuck about education and think that testing teachers is the solution. "Grade them and see how they like it. Fire the bad ones and then we can get new, better teachers. But for the love of god, don't raise the pay. No way higher pay would make the field more competitive and my taxes might go up. Test them, that doesn't cost money." There is no evidence to indicate that schools are underfunded (as a whole they are overfunded) and only specious evidence that doesn't account for Undergraduate/Graduate degree quality that teachers are underpaid (similarly, most civil servants are overpaid, so using them as a point of comparison is similarly specious). Germany spends less per student than America, so once again, nonsense. Yet Germany pays its teachers more than the US on average and with the social safety net of the German system. They also dont' quit and appear to some work 70-80 hours a week per the account below http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/apr/05/teachers-germany-quit-heavy-workloadsThe problem with teaching in the US is that it isn't a respected profession and people don't want to pay for it. You can rail against how terrible it is, but testing firing teachers isn't going make the system magically better. Same with testing. Raising standard might, but the US not undervaluing education is the root of our national problem.
Teachers are generally well respected and well paid.
|
On December 11 2015 11:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 11:41 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2015 11:39 Plansix wrote:
Bro he cited a judge who disagrees with you at every turn. And as someone who has watched a bunch of stupid lawyers get canned for thinking they are smarter then judges, you ain't all that. Show me where the judge disagrees with my representation of how the MAT works. I know very well that the UK's top court said that the MAT is legal. I already said it was legal. That's not the issue. The issue, apparently, is that people can settle their disputes in ways that you personally don't like. They're not able to do whatever they want, like pistols at dawn.
Good grief. I'd love to see one person in this thread demonstrate the capability or willingness to follow an argument.
I'm not rendering any judgment on MAT. That's not the point. The point is what the implementation of something like MAT means in the context of the assimilation of immigrants.
|
No. He didn't say "it's legal".
That's what he said:
Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said there was no reason sharia law's principles could not be used in mediation.
He said: "I think it's important to clarify that English common law already allows us to go to mediation to whichever third party we wish. "So that is why you have sharia council, that is why you have Jewish courts. It is a truly voluntary arrangement.
"There is no parallel legal system. This system cannot override English common law system at all."
And that's exactly what i said.
edit: screw quotes
|
Lol. Now you are conflating arbitration and mediation. Just stop already.
|
doesn't the jews have their own arbitration court? are they insular?
|
The judge says the British common law and Sharia law can be used in both and coexist. He sees no problems and cites that there are many similarities. I don't see a problem unless you have a problem with british common law.
|
On December 11 2015 11:55 Doraemon wrote:
doesn't the jews have their own arbitration court? are they insular?
They are definitely one of the more insular groups, but they have a rich history of successful assimilation (until persecuted).
|
On December 11 2015 11:57 Plansix wrote:
The judge says the British common law and Sharia law can be used in both and coexist. He sees no problems and cites that there are many similarities. I don't see a problem unless you have a problem with british common law.
You don't even understand what the judge is saying because you don't appreciate what mediation is and how it differs from what the MAT does.
Edit: For the record, I agree with what the judge is saying. That should give you pause.
|
On December 11 2015 11:51 xDaunt wrote:
Lol. Now you are conflating arbitration and mediation. Just stop already.
No, i actually don't. It's that the page i quoted it from worded it differently than the page i read it on.
But to be precise, since you apparently are not able to factcheck..
http://rowanwilliams.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/1233/welcome-for-lord-chief-justice-remarks-on-sharia-law
Oh, and since you never raised objection.. Beth Dins are legal in the UK too. I know, not evul brown people, but still, apparently jews felt the need to have their own arbitration tribunal.
Those who, in this country, are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator or arbitrators. There is no reason why principles of Sharia Law, or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.
The statement i cited before missed the underlined part.
|
On December 11 2015 12:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 11:57 Plansix wrote:
The judge says the British common law and Sharia law can be used in both and coexist. He sees no problems and cites that there are many similarities. I don't see a problem unless you have a problem with british common law. You don't even understand what the judge is saying because you don't appreciate what mediation is and how it differs from what the MAT does. Edit: For the record, I agree with what the judge is saying. That should give you pause.
With you, not at all. Your xenophobia is pretty obvious, not matter how you dress it up.
|
edit, nvm
Edit: For the record, I agree with what the judge is saying. That should give you pause.
Funny, considering he contradicts your argument.
|
On December 11 2015 12:06 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 11:51 xDaunt wrote:
Lol. Now you are conflating arbitration and mediation. Just stop already. No, i actually don't. It's that the page i quoted it from worded it differently than the page i read it on. But to be precise, since you apparently are not able to factcheck.. http://rowanwilliams.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/1233/welcome-for-lord-chief-justice-remarks-on-sharia-lawOh, and since you never raised objection.. Beth Dins are legal in the UK too. I know, not evul brown people, but still, apparently jews felt the need to have their own arbitration tribunal. Show nested quote +Those who, in this country, are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator or arbitrators. There is no reason why principles of Sharia Law, or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution. The statement i cited before missed the underlined part.
Okay, so he talks about arbitration in that speech too. Again, I don't disagree with him. That's not the point, as I am turning blue in the face saying. It's clear that you don't even know what you're arguing anymore. You sure as hell aren't responding to what I'm saying.
|
On December 11 2015 12:15 m4ini wrote:edit, nvm Show nested quote +Edit: For the record, I agree with what the judge is saying. That should give you pause.
Funny, considering he contradicts your argument.
No, he doesn't.
Just for shits and giggles, what do you think my argument is?
|
On December 11 2015 12:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 12:15 m4ini wrote:edit, nvm Edit: For the record, I agree with what the judge is saying. That should give you pause.
Funny, considering he contradicts your argument. No, he doesn't. Just for shits and giggles, what do you think my argument is?
That having tribunals for certain religions etc prevents assimilation, and that ruling under sharia law somehow is a bad thing, neglecting the fact that this is done for jews etc as well.
|
On December 11 2015 12:25 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 12:22 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2015 12:15 m4ini wrote:edit, nvm Edit: For the record, I agree with what the judge is saying. That should give you pause.
Funny, considering he contradicts your argument. No, he doesn't. Just for shits and giggles, what do you think my argument is? That having tribunals for certain religions etc prevents assimilation,
inhibits is probably the more appropriate word
|
On December 11 2015 12:25 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 12:22 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2015 12:15 m4ini wrote:edit, nvm Edit: For the record, I agree with what the judge is saying. That should give you pause.
Funny, considering he contradicts your argument. No, he doesn't. Just for shits and giggles, what do you think my argument is? That having tribunals for certain religions etc prevents assimilation,
Prevents? No. It is evidence of the difficulty of assimilating a population.
and that ruling under sharia law somehow is a bad thing, neglecting the fact that this is done for jews etc as well.
Nope. Haven't argued this at all. I've merely pointed out how the system works. For the sake of clarity, I agree with the right of Muslims (or any other religion) to use arbitration in the way that MAT does because I believe in the freedom of parties to contract with one another. That said, there are large portions of Sharia Law that I vehemently disagree with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
