Eurabia? British Law Now Allows ENFORCEMENT of SHARIA

More for Paladin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Judy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People's_Court

Not everything in court is handled by a judge. People have agreed to a set of rules. They also agreed to let either a judge, arbiter or hearing examiner make the final decision.

Oh, look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_Court#Current_version_.281999-present.29

And you know what's great about the People's Court?

If the woman doesn't want to go on you might get to see an honor killing!

Any argument that Sharia isn't fundamentally coercive is just damn ridiculous. Even in so-called Western societies. A woman who agrees to it won't get the same legal protections as in a secular court, and if she doesn't agree to it she can face ostracism in her local community, or worse.

Why are you posting this stuff? Before each show they make a statement as to what kind of litigation will take place.

Fuck the UK. Let them fuck themselves and their subjects over.

I'm tired of watching Leftists (in America), Euro and Aussie assholes defend shit like this.

Exactly. It is no secret that all the "court" shows in America are arbitration hearings. DUH.....It's the only way they could do it since a real court could be run only by the government and not a private entity.

To demonstrate to Paladin that was he is arguing against would already be allowed in his own country.

That's entirely the point though, under the precedents that have already been made in your country they could make a "Muslim Divorce Court" television show that would be perfectly legal and would be exactly the same thing as what you are screaming EURABIA!!!!! over.

So lay down exactly how you would word the law to prevent it.

It woulld not be perfectly legal. They follow the laws of the state from which the case come from.

What, you thought Judge Judy was The Wizard of Oz or something?

I'm sorry you don't get it, Bailey. I'll try to be more clear:

I have no problem with resolving civil affairs through voluntary arrangements made by cognizant, independent adults.

But in the kind of household likely to practice sharia, a female is unlikely to be cognizant or independent. Even if she's aware of her rights as a British citizen (doubtful), she's likely to face INTENSE pressure to conform by "voluntarily" accepting sharia.

It would only be the same thing if the women in question was free from coercion. Since we know that most Islamic women are not then your arguement falls flat on its face.

No one forces a woman to go onto Divorce Court or any other TV "Court" show.

Another leftist who supposedly is all for women's rights supporting an evil system. Damn I just can never get my head around the fact that people like Bailey support Islam.

Islam treats women like property. LIKE CATTLE.

So Bailey must think that we could allow Snoop Dog to hear civil cases using his own set of laws to follow.

Two words to consider.

Legally binding.

I am not seeing the dispute between us then.

In that sort of situation where one of the parties has been unfairly pressured I am agreeing that the signed contract/waiver should be invalid.

I also agree that Sharia is not a good thing a lot of the time.

However I see no legal way of saying "You cannot use Sharia law as the basis for your arbitration" without preventing any out of court arbitration.

When you think about it though, in that sort of situation you just described it is extremely unlikely she would take the matter to a civil court anyway. I have no doubt that this is already happening everyday in the UK, Australia, and even the USA, and is perfectly legal.

So I ask you again, given that this is already a problem in your own country, exactly what would you do about it?

Rather than laws which seek to limit the ordinary legal rights of people based on their religion, I think the effort would be better spent and show more results in programs designed to spread information about peoples rights under secular law.

Let's look at the whole article and allow me to bold the scariest part:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html

Anyone who doesn't think this this a stepping stone is naive and fooling themselves.

So you propose wording the law like that?

As Islam has been known to mistreat women, no Islamic guidelines are allowed to be used in the resolution of disputes.

Seems to me like the type of law that would be very quickly overruled. How are you going to enforce it anyway, have a court appointed witness in every office to make sure that nothing off a checklist of Islamic words or phrases is mentioned?

As I said above, if a woman has been forced into agreeing to this type of resolution then the agreement would be legally void anyway. If she is unwilling/unable to speak up about that situation then she would never take the matter to a civil court anyway.

You are totally misrepresenting what I have said in this thread.

I probably not the best person to answer this. We all just know the deal.

Lets say a married couple go to a priest to handle their divorce. The priest can only approve, disapprove of the divorce. Or annul the marriage.

He can't legally determine the civil aspects like property division and whatnot.

He can if they agree but it wouldn't be legal.

With the court shows, you more or less have the same thing as real court. just made nice for TV.

The only thing that religions do that is legal is marry people. If you have a civil case you can't take it to church.

Regardless of the actual legal consequences of this decision, I don't like it at all. Just because Sharia is only going to count in civil cases, I can see where Muslim men can use this bit of news to fool their wives into thinking the actual courts in Britain will always back Sharia, and they better get in line.

It creates two different legal systems, at least in perception, that will lead to confusion for those who don't know better.

You realise that the rulings in those TV courts are only legally binding because the participants have signed a legal waiver to say they will accept them as such? From a legal standpoint Snoop Dog has as much authority as any of the tv judges.

Then you're blind. You're unable to grasp distinctions even when they are pointed out to you. You continue to say "it's the same in your country" when I've stated--repeatedly--how it is manifestly different. You do not address how I've said it's different; you make no effort to dispel what I've said. You only repeat the same line, over and over again...

Great. So the person who is kept ignorant of her civil rights can magically appeal after they're violated. Great.

THEN WHY ALLOW IT?

Sure you can. Require that any out of court arbitration be only between consenting adults who read and sign (before a witness) a statement that gives full disclosure to what they are giving up by choosing arbitration and which contains a clause that declares they are doing so without duress or coercion.

If you think a Brit, Aussie, or American woman and a newly imported arranged bride from Yemen have an equal understanding of the pertinent civil law, you're taking an awful lot on faith.

It isn't a problem in my country. In my country, women aren't property. Which you don't seem to grasp.

Yes, I'm sure those striving to establish Islamic Law will be really receptive to that message. And I'm sure they'll want their daughters hearing it, too.

The waiver is not the only thing that makes it legal. PAY ATTENTION.

Since the court tv judges follow actual law the odds are that a very same decision would be made in a real court.

These are not unique rulings. My scenario with Snoop Dogg includes HIS own set of laws. That won't fly over here.

I agree with that 100%. I think it is naive of you however to believe that would prevent any cases being decided through Sharia based arbitration.

They are crazy to allow anything but the law of the land. Period.

Maybe not, but at least society could be reasonably certain that those who voluntarily engaged in arbitration did so from a reasonably informed position.

Sort of.

The legal knowledge of the judges on these shows just gives them the ability to ensure the agreements stay within what can be legally enforced through an arbitrated agreement.

That does not mean the judgments or the logic used to reach them are the same as in a real courtroom.

As it should be.

Correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it does seem like we are both on the same page. Ultimately there are no legal grounds for not allowing Sharia arbitration, but it should be discouraged through ensuring that anyone involved knows what rights they would have in a real courtroom (as well as what rights they retain even if they do choose the arbitration)

Bailey, Lets say on Judge Judy a tenant has been kicked out by a landlord for no reason. No notice to vacate. Wrongful eviction.

The tenant is gonna win. That's the law in America. Judge Judy can't come up with some hairbrained decision of her own making.

She can't try it anyhow. It's not a small claims court issue.

Here in Tennessee, issues such as you describe may be hadled through an arbitrator, but an actual judge has to sign off on it.

Every other case is landlord tenant. What are you talking about? Sign off on it?

Are you saying that people from Tennessee can't bring such cases to Judge Judy?

Edit:

I get it. I said wrongful eviction only. I'm talking about a situation where the landlord owes back rent and security. Not the eviction. I understand what you mean. I think.

It depends on how the waiver they sign is worded, but apart from that there is absolutely nothing that requires the judgements to be made in line with US law, just that they do not overstep what they can order. Here is one example:

The issue there was not that the judgment was decided through incorrect laws, but rather that she overstepped the boundaries of what an arbitrator could decide regardless of which way the decision went.

As I said earlier, if the Judge Judy waiver said that cases would be decided based on a coin flip, then that would be equally legally valid.