Stop sharia law in Britain

[Eejit]

Anyway to bring this back more to the original topic - you can't disallow religious arbitration of civil cases without disallowing all the non-religious arbitration too (which would be rather problematic) without discriminating based on religion.
The same freedoms that protect people you think retarded against discrimination are there to protect the godless amoral devils like us too - and as a minority themselves atheists should be very careful not to advocate any such measures.

 

[jverne]

Anyway to bring this back more to the original topic - you can't disallow religious arbitration of civil cases without disallowing all the non-religious arbitration too (which would be rather problematic) without discriminating based on religion.
The same freedoms that protect people you think retarded against discrimination are there to protect the godless amoral devils like us too - and as a minority themselves atheists should be very careful not to advocate any such measures.

i'd say that if these courts do not abide by the human rights declaration then they shouldn't exist , may they be religious or non religious. i'm sure we can all agree on that?


as stern pointed out...the problem would be to decide which is morally better, allowing religious worshiping or that every person has the right to a fair and equal trial despite of sex, color, race,...
obviously in sharia law equal rights and being a women don't go hand in hand.

this is the problem as i see it...but it would be nice to hear any other possible solutions.




if we'd get rid of these courts then the problem would be solved, but we'd end up in the same debate like a few minutes ago. so this idea is on hold for now...i'm open to other suggestions


upon further reading i didn't find any sentence in the declaration of human rights that gives religious people the right to have an alternative law establishment. so i'm guessing the freedom to worship anything you like probably refers to the rights which you are entitled to only in your private life not public. if this is the case then this declaration is not in conflict with the decision of banning arbiter courts.

 

[Kadayi]

Yeah, that is a minority opinion. So why try to force it on everyone else? Is freedom of belief meaningless to you?

well excuse me if i want proper science to be taught in public schools...instead of some fictional guy walking on water. silly me for not bowing down to the majority.

Uh yeah you're forgiven for missing the point jverne, as usual.
Freedom of belief has nothing to do with the teaching of science.

i think i didn't miss the point.?

WTF? You completely missed the point of what Eejit said entirely and instead of acknowledging peoples right to freedom of belief as rational and reasonable human being should, you've sidetracked into a completely different argument. On a scale of 1 to ****, you are **** I'm afraid. :dozey:

You drag atheism down....

 

[Eejit]

i'd say that if these courts do not abide by the human rights declaration then they shouldn't exist , may they be religious or non religious. i'm sure we can all agree on that?


as stern pointed out...the problem would be to decide which is morally better, allowing religious worshiping or that every person has the right to a fair and equal trial despite of sex, color, race,...
obviously in sharia law equal rights and being a women don't go hand in hand.

this is the problem as i see it...but it would be nice to hear any other possible solutions.




if we'd get rid of these courts then the problem would be solved, but we'd end up in the same debate like a few minutes ago. so this idea is on hold for now...i'm open to other suggestions


upon further reading i didn't find any sentence in the declaration of human rights that gives religious people the right to have an alternative law establishment. so i'm guessing the freedom to worship anything you like probably refers to the rights which you are entitled to only in your private life not public. if this is the case then this declaration is not in conflict with the decision of banning arbiter courts.

I know there may be problems, but what I'm saying is that it would be at least as bad as what they might do to discriminate against sharia civil arbitration.
The point of civil arbitration is that it does not necessarily follow the laws of the land in the same way normal courts do. This does have advantages as well as these potential disadvantages you are predicting.

Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, wherein the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal"), by whose decision (the "award") they agree to be bound. Other forms of ADR include mediation (a form of settlement negotiation facilitated by a neutral third party) and non-binding resolution by experts. It is more helpful, however, simply to classify arbitration as a form of binding dispute resolution, equivalent to litigation in the courts, and entirely distinct from the other forms of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, mediation, or determinations by experts, which are usually non-binding. Arbitration is most commonly used for the resolution of commercial disputes, particularly in the context of international commercial transactions.

You can't discriminate against one particular form of arbitration (even if you wanted to it would be difficult in practice), and to disallow all arbitration would be to flood the law courts with petty cases of commercial disagreement and haggling over divorce settlements.

Also arbitration courts can usually only award damages or fines, they aren't going to be sentencing people to imprisonment or having thieves' hands cut off...

 

[jverne]

WTF? You completely missed the point of what Eejit said entirely and instead of acknowledging peoples right to freedom of belief as rational and reasonable human being should, you've sidetracked into a completely different argument. On a scale of 1 to ****, you are **** I'm afraid. :dozey:

You drag atheism down....

so you just missed this part

freedom of belief is an essential aspect of being a modern culture...it's just hard of being passive about it when God tells Bush to invade Iraq or when the only legitimate presidential candidates are Obama the God fearing islamic terrorist and McCain the second cumming of Christ.
let me not start on the creationism being taught in schools thingie...

the creationism in school part also perfectly fits in...since freedom of belief might eventually lead to having a particular beliefe being "forced" or taught even if it is wrong, trough the will of the majority. but that's just the inescapable truth of a democratic system, like i agreed with Eejit later on.
as an example look at certain US states where creationism is wining by popular demand. which is sad but understandable.

now stop acting like you actually did something smart and buzz of like you did in the previous thread. and stop mine quoting me, which is really pathetic.
read the post before that and my statement will be clearer to you.

I know there may be problems, but what I'm saying is that it would be at least as bad as what they might do to discriminate against sharia civil arbitration.
The point of civil arbitration is that it does not necessarily follow the laws of the land in the same way normal courts do. This does have advantages as well as these potential disadvantages you are predicting.


You can't discriminate against one particular form of arbitration (even if you wanted to it would be difficult in practice), and to disallow all arbitration would be to flood the law courts with petty cases of commercial disagreement and haggling over divorce settlements.

Also arbitration courts can usually only award damages or fines, they aren't going to be sentencing people to imprisonment or having thieves' hands cut off...

well that is true...but i said multiple times sharia law is not the only one i'm against.
as for the advantages and disadvantages we can't really tell right now, which one will prevail.

i suggested the banning of courts that do not abide by the civil rights declaration not just courts that don't look nice. but i cant seem to find your answer on this suggestion?

well a divorce might seem petty to you but not for the one involved. i don't see why the official legislation can't cover this aspect as well, it's hard to see why a jewish couple would be entitled to a different sentence/fine outcome than a Muslim couple?

if the woman gets 30% of the shared household wealth it's not really fair even if no arms are being cut off, don't you think?

 

[Kadayi]

the creationism in school part also perfectly fits in...since freedom of belief might eventually lead to having a particular beliefe being "forced" or taught even if it is wrong, trough the will of the majority. but that's just the inescapable truth of a democratic system, like i agreed with Eejit later on.

So let me get this right, your saying that if people are free to believe what they want, then they might try and spread those ideas around and that would be a very bad thing? So you're against freedom of personal belief in it's entirety? You hold to state tyranny as the way forward? A tyranny of your devising of couse, because your so reasonable naturally? :dozey:

as an example look at certain US states where creationism is wining by popular demand. which is sad but understandable.

Show me exactly where in the Bible it says creationism must be taught in schools, or in fact anywhere were it says the Earth is X number of years old and man walked with the dinosaurs? Chapter and verse preferably. I want to know that these creationist are following their 'gods plan' exactly, and that it's not a case of them coming to their own conclusions.

Also where exactly is creationism winning? Has creationism usurped the entire US education system and has evolution been debunked and all Darwins works been burnt for the heresy it contains yet? Or is it simply a case that a few far right Christian fanatics are making a lot of noise, in a similar way to a few Islamic fundamentalist are making a lot of noise in the Middle East, or the way a few IRA used to make a bit of noise in Northern Ireland? :dozey:

now stop acting like you actually did something smart and buzz of like you did in the previous thread. and stop mine quoting me, which is really pathetic.
read the post before that and my statement will be clearer to you.

Buzz off? You mean leaving you to your delusions of innocence regarding your inherent racism and bigotry? The Dawkins forbid I have other things to do in this life than waste all my time doubled over reading your feeble arguments.

 

[Eejit]

FYI the Northern Ireland troubles in the second half of the 20th century had very little to do with religion.
The driving force for the IRA was nationalism and self-determination, rather than some religious feud as it's often portrayed to be. It's just that class, politics, ethnicity and religion all divided evenly into two big groups.

 

[Kadayi]

FYI the Northern Ireland troubles in the second half of the 20th century had very little to do with religion.
The driving force for the IRA was nationalism and self-determination, rather than some religious feud as it's often portrayed to be. It's just that class, politics, ethnicity and religion all divided evenly into two big groups.

I wasn't using it as a reference to religion, more a point of a small faction of individuals not necessarily being representative of the vast majority. The vast majority of Christians are not foam at the mouth pro-life creationist end timers, the vast majority of Muslims are not wife beating suicide bombers in waiting and the vast majority of Irish and Northern Irish weren't that fussy about unification.

 

[jverne]

So let me get this right, your saying that if people are free to believe what they want, then they might try and spread those ideas around and that would be a very bad thing? So you're against freedom of personal belief in it's entirety? You hold to state tyranny as the way forward? A tyranny of your devising of couse, because your so reasonable naturally? :dozey:

oh and i don't imply that freedom of belief is wrong (that would be insane), i'm just saying it has it's critical shortcomings.

back to the habit of ignoring my posts are we now?

Show me exactly where in the Bible it says creationism must be taught in schools, or in fact anywhere were it says the Earth is X number of years old and man walked with the dinosaurs? Chapter and verse preferably. I want to know that these creationist are following their 'gods plan' exactly, and that it's not a case of them coming to their own conclusions.

where the **** did i ever claim that?

Also where exactly is creationism winning? Has creationism usurped the entire US education system and has evolution been debunked and all Darwins works been burnt for the heresy it contains yet? Or is it simply a case that a few far right Christian fanatics are making a lot of noise, in a similar way to a few Islamic fundamentalist are making a lot of noise in the Middle East, or the way a few IRA used to make a bit of noise in Northern Ireland? :dozey:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

read the tables...the naturalistic belief is in the minority by alot.

The decision, passed last month by a 6-to-3 vote, makes the 3,600-student school district about 20 miles south of Harrisburg the first in the United States to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools, putting it on the front line of the growing national debate over the role of religion in public life.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/30/MNGVNA3PE11.DTL



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

there you'll find states that are are in some way supporting creationism. and i never said creationism is winning over the entire US.

as an example look at certain US states where creationism is wining by popular demand. which is sad but understandable.

Buzz off? You mean leaving you to your delusions of innocence regarding your inherent racism and bigotry? The Dawkins forbid I have other things to do in this life than waste all my time doubled over reading your feeble arguments.

lol...as always you keep taking words out of context and and inventing stuff i never said...you are truly pathetic you know that? it's the second time you did that and i have it all documented...so please just leave for your own good.
your attempt to discredit me is so pathetic, that i laugh every time i see one of your new post

 

[Kadayi]

back to the habit of ignoring my posts are we now?

Actually I'm asking you a question, that doesn't answer it. Try again.

where the **** did i ever claim that?

When you crossed over from talking about religious belief to talking about militant creationism.

read the tables...the naturalistic belief is in the minority by alot.

But strict creationism, the sort that 'threatens' society as you would have us believe is not the majority view. Fact of the matter is, the vast majority of people hold with evolution, just some of them also hold with the idea of a god, the beliefs aren't incompatible. Creationism as a theory that has no real religious support outside of the US, so when taken from a global perspective it has even less relevance.

there you'll find states that are are in some way supporting creationism. and i never said creationism is winning over the entire US.

Then why go running to it at every opportunity in every debate as a point of argument? The vast majority of people that make up the world aren't hardcore Creationists, in fact the vast majority of Christians aren't even hardcore Creationists. Yet every time religion comes up, here comes Verne prattling on about Creationism again. Frankly given most of us posting here don't live in Assfuggin, Hicks county, Alabama we give a shit what the Reverend Inbred says on a Sunday morning to a bunch of gullible hayseeds.

Yadda Yadda Yadda....

He's the one whose doing it, I can see him through the wall...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pdd9VBSoag&feature=related

;( :x :dozey:

 

[jverne]

Actually I'm asking you a question, that doesn't answer it. Try again.

oh so...stating how i do not take freedom of belief as wrong, doesn't answer your question "So you're against freedom of personal belief in it's entirety?"...well maybe a "no" would suit you better.

When you crossed over from talking about religious belief to talking about militant creationism.

nope buddy...you just invented that, if that is what i'd believe i'd probably mention it, don't you think?

But strict creationism, the sort that 'threatens' society as you would have us believe is not the majority view. Fact of the matter is, the vast majority of people hold with evolution, just some of them also hold with the idea of a god, the beliefs aren't incompatible. Creationism as a theory that has no real religious support outside of the US, so when taken from a global perspective it has even less relevance.

Then why go running to it at every opportunity in every debate as a point of argument? The vast majority of people that make up the world aren't hardcore Creationists, in fact the vast majority of Christians aren't even hardcore Creationists. Yet every time religion comes up, here comes Verne prattling on about Creationism again. Frankly given most of us posting here don't live in Assfuggin, Hicks county, Alabama we give a shit what the Reverend Inbred says on a Sunday morning to a bunch of gullible hayseeds.

well i can't totally disagree here...because it is correct that creationism isn't really the vast majority view. but isn't it obvious that people with religious beliefs prefer an evolution derived from god which the pols really show. so my point again, was showing that society is influenced by the beliefs of the majority.
well i agree that creationism is not the best benchmark, but you still can't deny the previous. which is all that really matters.

He's the one whose doing it, I can see him through the wall...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pdd9VBSoag&feature=related

;( :x :dozey:

it wasn't funny the first time, nor is it now.

 

[Kadayi]

oh so...stating how i do not take freedom of belief as wrong, doesn't answer your question "So you're against freedom of personal belief in it's entirety?"...well maybe a "no" would suit you better.

So why rally against these people who want to be able to live as they choose? If people wish to have their civil lives assessed through religious courts, then they should be allowed to then?

nope buddy...you just invented that, if that is what i'd believe i'd probably mention it, don't you think?

I'm neither your buddy friend, or your friend, guy, or your guy, buddy, let's be quite clear on that. Secondly Eejit discussing religion freedom, you then countering with an all out attack on creationism being potentially being taught in schools is not me inventing anything, it's me merely pointing out your illogical segue.

well i can't totally disagree here...because it is correct that creationism isn't really the vast majority view. but isn't it obvious that people with religious beliefs prefer an evolution derived from god which the pols really show. so my point again, was showing that society is influenced by the beliefs of the majority.
well i agree that creationism is not the best benchmark, but you still can't deny the previous. which is all that really matters.

From a very young age we are taught to believe in 'love', to 'love' our parents, to 'love' our friends and family, and that one day we'll fall in 'love' and get married and live happily ever after, because 'love' is like some kind of magical end game to human existence, and no further explanation is necessary. In fact Love is the 387th most commonly used words in the English language. Not even Jesus, or God make the top 500

http://www.world-english.org/english500.htm

Yet 'Love' in the modern western perception was pretty much invented by the early advertising agencies as a hook to encourage you as consumers to buy shit, shit to make you more 'loveable'. At best 'love' is a collective hallucination we are all encouraged to buy into, which simply constitutes emotional helplessness and all the myriad problems that stem from being that position. As a belief it's no more real than 'God' at the end of the day, and causes far more problems in terms of making people act irrationally. Should we start rallying against the evils of this pointless and life consuming delusion?

it wasn't funny the first time, nor is it now.

Yet, you know it's the truth though, just as you know this is as well:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZLQW2qr5Hs&feature=related

:dozey:

 

[jverne]

So why rally against these people who want to be able to live as they choose? If people wish to have their civil lives assessed through religious courts, then they should be allowed to then?

having freedom of belief is not the same as having legal religious courts inside an official legal system IMO. in the event they are the same...why don't English Nazis/nationalists have their legal arbiter court also (altough i have no idea how would that court look like, it's for argument sakes)?

prove to me that women wont be peer pressured into choosing such courts and that they will have equal rights as men.
i further mentioned that i wouldn't support any court that doesn't abide by the universal human rights. if the sharia courts will be fair and just then i really wont have that much of a problem with them. but i'm eager to see how will they implement sharia law to be equally fair...care to expand on that?

to even more simplify my point...if a country is obligated to abide to the human rights declaration, where's the logic of having courts that might be unfair (i repeat...might be unfair)?

now let me use your logic of debating..."does equality and fairness mean nothing to you?" (just an illustration...don't take that that as a real question if you don't want)

I'm neither your buddy friend, or your friend, guy, or your guy, buddy, let's be quite clear on that. Secondly Eejit discussing religion freedom, you then countering with an all out attack on creationism being potentially being taught in schools is not me inventing anything, it's me merely pointing out your illogical segue.

actually me and Eejit were discussing about the courts not freedom of belief.

all out attack on creationism?? i just used as an example, but like i said it's not a good benchmark, my true point is still there and you haven't answered me on that.


this is the part you invented:

Show me exactly where in the Bible it says creationism must be taught in schools, or in fact anywhere were it says the Earth is X number of years old and man walked with the dinosaurs? Chapter and verse preferably. I want to know that these creationist are following their 'gods plan' exactly, and that it's not a case of them coming to their own conclusions.

so you just jumped from the bible demanding to teach creationism to accusing me of making a all out attack..please explain this logic of yours?


you still fail...do you realize that?
oh and i really wonder why do you like to pick on a thing, i said ,that isn't really a topic of the debate. it seems to me that you are desperate searching for any "mistakes" that i make, but disregarding everything else in the process. you're the worst case of a cherry picker i've ever seen.

since i'm getting pissed of you're pathetic attempts to undermine me, i suggest a duel to end this debate in a civil manner?

 

[Eejit]

having freedom of belief is not the same as having legal religious courts inside an official legal system IMO. in the event they are the same...why don't English Nazis/nationalists have their legal arbiter court also (altough i have no idea how would that court look like, it's for argument sakes)?

prove to me that women wont be peer pressured into choosing such courts and that they will have equal rights as men.
i further mentioned that i wouldn't support any court that doesn't abide by the universal human rights. if the sharia courts will be fair and just then i really wont have that much of a problem with them. but i'm eager to see how will they implement sharia law to be equally fair...care to expand on that?

to even more simplify my point...if a country is obligated to abide to the human rights declaration, where's the logic of having courts that might be unfair (i repeat...might be unfair)?

Arbitration isn't so much 'inside' the official legal system as 'alongside'.
Anyone can go into one choosing to abide by whatever crazy rules or logic they wish, pretty much anything goes if both parties agree to it.

English Nazis (for example) could make up their own legal code and have their own members use arbitration during disagreements with each other.

Similarly ex-pats from another country could decide to follow a system more similar to where they originate from.


But the most common use is by companies solving monetary disputes by whatever conditions they agree on.
You can't ban one particular type of arbitration without banning them all because they could just go back in, follow the same code, but call it something else. And for the hundredth time, it would also be discrimination.

 

[jverne]

Arbitration isn't so much 'inside' the official legal system as 'alongside'.
Anyone can go into one choosing to abide by whatever crazy rules or logic they wish, pretty much anything goes if both parties agree to it.

alongside sounds even worse, as it is more stand alone instead of being under control by the official court.

that both parties agree...on paper that sounds all fine and dandy, but considering the highly patriarchal community that Muslims usually have i really find it hard to believe things will turn out to be fair.
maybe women will choose to participate in a sharia court, just because it feels less alien to them than our western in other words they will choose the trough fear and unawareness/ignorance.

English Nazis (for example) could make up their own legal code and have their own members use arbitration during disagreements with each other.

Similarly ex-pats from another country could decide to follow a system more similar to where they originate from.

well in theory you're right...but here's the problem...why would the official legal system allow different outcomes for the same dispute...let's say of a catholic pair or a Muslim pair, or a non believer.

i believe that everybody is entitled/(must adhere) to the same procedures directed by one official law. if someone want a different code of law, they should solve the matter in their own private manner.

even worse would be that the tax payers must fund these courts.

But the most common use is by companies solving monetary disputes by whatever conditions they agree on.
You can't ban one particular type of arbitration without banning them all because they could just go back in, follow the same code, but call it something else. And for the hundredth time, it would also be discrimination.

monetary or nonmonetary disputes, it doesn't change the point of being unfair.

i've said i many times...i'm against courts that do not abide by the universal human rights.
is that discrimination towards the ones that don't abide?...it's funny because these courts discriminate against others...so it's kind of a never ending loop of discrimination, but i want to at least draw a line.
am i mistaken or do you support all kinds of courts despite their unfairness? i can't really find your position on this issue, you just keep going in circles.

 

[Eejit]

I support the principle of arbitration courts. They're on the whole a Good Thing.
They prevent a whole bunch of unimportant civil cases from clogging up the criminal courts as well as allowing rulings which can be enforced in every signatory country of the New York Convention (1958).

It's not just that it would be religious discimination to single out Sharia practicers as being unable to use arbitration in whatever way they want - like anyone else can - but it would also be practically a big problem to enforce.
All that because some people might be pressurised into agreeing to a form of arbitration that they might not want?
Seems like a storm in a teacup to me.

In the end everyone is subject to the same criminal laws. This isn't sharia law replacing anything, it's just using some of the existing institutions in the country.

 

[Kadayi]

actually me and Eejit were discussing about the courts not freedom of belief.

Only in your imagination, after all WTF does creationism (an irrelevant and globally unimportant belief) have to do with the British Justice system? :dozey:

so you just jumped from the bible demanding to teach creationism to accusing me of making a all out attack..please explain this logic of yours?

I was merely extending your illogical segue. As it appears you couldn't support it, it seems clear it was ill founded. :dozey:

you still fail...do you realize that?

Success by your standards would be true failure. :dozey:

since i'm getting pissed of you're pathetic attempts to undermine me, i suggest a duel to end this debate in a civil manner?

LOL. You're not worth the flick of the wrist necessary to despatch you.

 

[jverne]

I support the principle of arbitration courts. They're on the whole a Good Thing.
They prevent a whole bunch of unimportant civil cases from clogging up the criminal courts as well as allowing rulings which can be enforced in every signatory country of the New York Convention (1958).

civil cases in criminal courts...what about a civil court.
actually why would they end up in a crime court in the first place? disputes such as marriage and divorces don't actually end up in the crime court, at least not in my country

It's not just that it would be religious discimination to single out Sharia practicers as being unable to use arbitration in whatever way they want - like anyone else can - but it would also be practically a big problem to enforce.

it's also discrimination against women in a sharia law based court (in the case if the women was unwillingly persuaded to choose it)...where do we draw the line?

there's a limit at how much anyone can practice their own code of laws.
take honor killings for example...they might be normal for some people/culture, that doesn't mean the UK supports these acts or this kind of law.
but ok...i'm not implying that these arbiter courts will be in charge of such cases, i'm just pointing out that there is a limit to how much freedom of action anyone has.

as for enforcing...well just don't make them legal and supported by the state, that would pretty much do it. it's not like they need to be cracked down or something.

All that because some people might be pressurised into agreeing to a form of arbitration that they might not want?
Seems like a storm in a teacup to me.

that is just your opinion which is equally valid as mine.

In the end everyone is subject to the same criminal laws. This isn't sharia law replacing anything, it's just using some of the existing institutions in the country.

aren't you a bit contradicting yourself here? in the first paragraph you mention that these arbiter courts will take the burden of those petty cases off from the main legal system and now you're saying that they are just complementary to the main system.
but ok it's not really that crucial for this debate in either case.



hers some info that i found...ok it's not that relevant to this particular case, but it's an interesting example of fraud.

There are many ways to capitalize on people?s ignorance in order to rip them off, ranging from the rather obvious and naive to the more refined.

One self-constituted tribunal residing in Prague 3 belongs to the latter group; it claims it can summon you, sentence you in absentia and even seize your possessions.

The Ministry of Justice recently received a letter that would surprise even the most seasoned legal clerk. Sent by Marie L?talov?, a lawyer, it tells the almost unbelievable story of Agrozetcentrum Hronětice s.r.o.

Some time ago, the company was notified that an individual, V?clav ?afr, was launching a legal proceeding concerning unpaid rental property charges to the tune of Kč 1,643,483. Agrozetcentrum was asked to express its opinion.

The lawsuit, however, was not sent through a court of justice but by the Vnitrost?tn? a mezin?rodn? arbitr?? ad hoc (the National and International Ad Hoc Arbitration organization) of Vinohrady. (See ?Tipping the scales? CBW, May 30-June 5, 2005.)

An attachment to the lawsuit provided procedural rules and instructions ? the most surprising of which stated that ?if the defendant does not provide its opinion on the presented evidence and the resulting arbitration award, it will be understood that it agrees with both.?

Similar threats have recently been received by a whole range of other firms. Should they be concerned? Are the decisions of a self-constituted arbitration court legally binding and enforceable, for instance, through an execution?

and

Both arbitration proceedings and the execution of arbitration awards are addressed by Act No. 216/1994 of the Collection of Laws. Arbitration is applicable only in commercial disputes and not, for instance, in criminal cases.

http://www.cbw.cz/en/shady-arbiters-pray-on-the-naive/1460.html

Only in your imagination, after all WTF does creationism (an irrelevant and globally unimportant belief) have to do with the British Justice system? :dozey:

of course it doesn't because it was never meant to be connected, you manipulated to have it seem like that.

I was merely extending your illogical segue. As it appears you couldn't support it, it seems clear it was ill founded. :dozey:

ahaha lol...you were extending it...in other words you just made up some shit. how honorable.

Success by your standards would be true failure. :dozey:

you can't even adhere to the red line of the debate and you're accusing me of failing...you must be joking right?

LOL. You're not worth the flick of the wrist necessary to despatch you.

coward

 

[jverne]

double post

 

[Eejit]

civil cases in criminal courts...what about a civil court.
actually why would they end up in a crime court in the first place? disputes such as marriage and divorces don't actually end up in the crime court, at least not in my country

They'd end up in a more official court if you get rid of civil arbitration.

it's also discrimination against women in a sharia law based court (in the case if the women was unwillingly persuaded to choose it)...where do we draw the line?

You're basically saying "IF IF IF MIGHT MAYBE IF - so let's scrap the system!"

there's a limit at how much anyone can practice their own code of laws.
take honor killings for example...they might be normal for some people/culture, that doesn't mean the UK supports these acts or this kind of law.
but ok...i'm not implying that these arbiter courts will be in charge of such cases, i'm just pointing out that there is a limit to how much freedom of action anyone has.

...Yes? Civil arbitration means you can decide civil disagreements however you want. Sharia law, Hasidic, Cloud Cuckoo, Monster Raving Looney, whatever.

as for enforcing...well just don't make them legal and supported by the state, that would pretty much do it. it's not like they need to be cracked down or something.

As I understand it arbitration is supported by default. It would be a case of disallowing rather than allowing.

that is just your opinion which is equally valid as my barely rational fears.

Fixt?

aren't you a bit contradicting yourself here? in the first paragraph you mention that these arbiter courts will take the burden of those petty cases off from the main legal system and now you're saying that they are just complementary to the main system.
but ok it's not really that crucial for this debate in either case.

It's an additional system besides the main courts. afaik it doesn't require qualified judges or juries to sit for verdicts. If you outlaw arbitration you're gonna have a whole lot more pressure on the legal infrastructure.

 

[jverne]

They'd end up in a more official court if you get rid of civil arbitration.

nothing wrong with that. if anything it's the problem of the official court not being able to cope with the demand.

You're basically saying "IF IF IF MIGHT MAYBE IF - so let's scrap the system!"

they are not just some impossible hypothetical scenarios.

...Yes? Civil arbitration means you can decide civil disagreements however you want. Sharia law, Hasidic, Cloud Cuckoo, Monster Raving Looney, whatever.

yes, so?

As I understand it arbitration is supported by default. It would be a case of disallowing rather than allowing.

it doesn't change the point. the final outcome is the same

Fixt?

if i'm paranoid then you are naive.

off topic:
remember the video "undercover mosque", where they infiltrated the same mosque two years consequently. after the first video the leaders there said they would get rid of the offensive material. the next year the situation remained the same.
was the UK government too naive in trusting them, instead of making supervisions?
(this is just an illustration not to be taken in the context of the debate)

It's an additional system besides the main courts. afaik it doesn't require qualified judges or juries to sit for verdicts. If you outlaw arbitration you're gonna have a whole lot more pressure on the legal infrastructure.

this is just a technical problem not a moral one.
and besides...i'd really like to know how much are these arbiter courts used?

 

[Eejit]

I just can't debate with you anymore.

One minute you attack sharia arbitration specifically, but say you have no problem with arbitration in general, so I defend against that.
Next you say arbitration is a bad thing overall and 'official' courts should deal with it, so I respond.
Then you attack sharia arbitration specifically, but say you have no problem with arbitration in general, so I defend against that.
Next you say arbitration is a bad thing overall and 'official' courts should deal with it, so I respond.

.........


Please stop talking in circles, try to grasp the entire argument I've put forward instead of cutting it into bite-sized pieces.



All I'll respond to here is the core of your whine, "they are not just some impossible hypothetical scenarios. those "if, maybe, might" have solid foundations." - they are HUGE assumptions nonetheless.
You want a Western country to become religiously intolerant in order to avoid becoming like religiously intolerant middle-eastern countries.

 

[jverne]

I just can't debate with you anymore.

One minute you attack sharia arbitration specifically, but say you have no problem with arbitration in general, so I defend against that.

no i made it clear many times i'm against arbitration courts that don't abide by human rights. should i quote every single time i said that, just to prove i'm not lying?

Next you say arbitration is a bad thing overall and 'official' courts should deal with it, so I respond.

i support only one official law i made that clear, but since it's not possible to totally remove them all i suggested a compromise.

i'd say that if these courts do not abide by the human rights declaration then they shouldn't exist , may they be religious or non religious. i'm sure we can all agree on that?

Then you attack sharia arbitration specifically, but say you have no problem with arbitration in general, so I defend against that.

nope...i used sharia just as an example of a court that might not adhere to the human rights.

Next you say arbitration is a bad thing overall and 'official' courts should deal with it, so I respond.

since the beginning i supported only one official law until i offered that compromise which you didn't really gave a clear answer.

.........

Please stop talking in circles, try to grasp the entire argument I've put forward instead of cutting it into bite-sized pieces.

you should look at your posts again and rethink who's doing the circles.

All I'll respond to here is the core of your whine, "they are not just some impossible hypothetical scenarios. those "if, maybe, might" have solid foundations." - they are HUGE assumptions nonetheless.

well...since i can't prove that they will happen nor you can't disprove them, we should just wait an see how will things turn out, what do you say?

You want a Western country to become religiously intolerant in order to avoid becoming like religiously intolerant middle-eastern countries.

no i never said that...never.

i'm opposed to any belief that has inbuilt inequality...religion is a good candidate for that position, especially the extremist versions of islam.
that's why i'm against religious courts that practice unfair religions (such as islam with sharia law for example)

 

[Kadayi]

ahaha lol...you were extending it...in other words you just made up some shit. how honorable.

You made the segue from religion to creationism, I merely asked you to confirm the direct connection by asking for evidence.

you can't even adhere to the red line of the debate and you're accusing me of failing...you must be joking right?

Verne you're a rent-a-mouth sensationalist whose dangerously beholden to the blind immediacy of the 'Now', over genuine timeless reasoning, and one who is disturbingly obsessive in your need to refute all criticism, even to the extent that you will actively deny what you previously said. In all honesty I really think you need to consider some sort of personal counciling/psychotherapy.

coward

Killing you would certainly end your mental torment, but quite frankly given the absurdity of your proposal on top of your general conduct I suggest you seriously consider my advice above.

 

[jverne]

You made the segue from religion to creationism, I merely asked you to confirm the direct connection by asking for evidence.

i never did that...you would be a lot more credible if you could quote me making that.

i used creationism in just one sentence before you came barging in ("as an example..."). it was you who grabbed that sentence and demanded that i post proof showing where does the bible force to teach creationism. so just quit it because i never did that, and until you show me some proof i'm just ignoring you.

Verne you're a rent-a-mouth sensationalist whose dangerously beholden to the blind immediacy of the 'Now', over genuine timeless reasoning, and one who is disturbingly obsessive in your need to refute all criticism,

your personal opinion, irrelevant

even to the extent that you will actively deny what you previously said. In all honesty I really think you need to consider some sort of personal counciling/psychotherapy.

i suggest to you again to show me where did i do that, or else i will just ignore you.

Killing you would certainly end your mental torment, but quite frankly given the absurdity of your proposal on top of your general conduct I suggest you seriously consider my advice above.

i suggest you grow a pair

 

[Kadayi]

i never did that...you would be a lot more credible if you could quote me making that.

i used creationism in just one sentence before you came barging in ("as an example..."). it was you who grabbed that sentence and demanded that i post proof showing where does the bible force to teach creationism. so just quit it because i never did that, and until you show me some proof i'm just ignoring you.

The only time you've talked about it as 'an example' was when you started denying it, you certainly didn't talk about it like that at the time. Why bother quoting you? All you'll do is deny that it's what you really meant again.

your personal opinion, irrelevant

Actually it's my honest opinion, you are quite clearly mentally disfunctional, and should definitely seek some form of counselling.

i suggest to you again to show me where did i do that, or else i will just ignore you.

You do it all the time, in every thread and everyone here knows it. No here even bothers to side with you these days because they all have come to realise just how tripped out you are.

i suggest you grow a pair

I'm not the one in denial.

 

[jverne]

The only time you've talked about it as 'an example' was when you started denying it, you certainly didn't talk about it like that at the time. Why bother quoting you? All you'll do is deny that it's what you really meant again.

when did i deny it? i've said creationism was not the best example to prove my point, that is not denial.

this is the first time i directly connect creationism with US

the creationism in school part also perfectly fits in...since freedom of belief might eventually lead to having a particular beliefe being "forced" or taught even if it is wrong, trough the will of the majority. but that's just the inescapable truth of a democratic system, like i agreed with Eejit later on.
as an example look at certain US states where creationism is wining by popular demand. which is sad but understandable.

now show me where before or after, i started denying it? please do that
i can hardly find more solid evidence that proves you wrong and a manipulating liar.

well i can't totally disagree here...because it is correct that creationism isn't really the vast majority view. but isn't it obvious that people with religious beliefs prefer an evolution derived from god which the pols really show. so my point again, was showing that society is influenced by the beliefs of the majority.
well i agree that creationism is not the best benchmark, but you still can't deny the previous. which is all that really matters.

if anything that was a poor and possibly incorrect example, but that isn't even close to denial.


how come i always show proof of my words, wheres you on the other hand keep throwing vague words such as "segue". maybe it is fine with you but that won't cut it.

Actually it's my honest opinion, you are quite clearly mentally disfunctional, and should definitely seek some form of counselling.

well my honest opinion is that, you are a misleading, manipulating coward but does that change anything?

You do it all the time, in every thread and everyone here knows it. No here even bothers to side with you these days because they all have come to realise just how tripped out you are.

well, then make a pol about it if you're so sure, or maybe it comforts you thinking that they do.
i can't remember once that you actually gave proof of what are you accusing me, you rarely ever start a debate from the beginning or actually argue about the main point.

maybe nobody sides with me because they don't agree with me, nothing wrong with that.

seriously, i offer you a challenge where supposedly you can easily kill me...why won't you accept it if you're so sure of yourself?

I'm not the one in denial.

oh...so you admit of being a coward?




on topic (directed for Eejit):

wait wait...here's some interesting news

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
Being able to use the legal system of the UK against itself is a masterful approach to hastening the total process of Islamification. The form of taking on the control of "minor" cases of neighborhood disputes, Islamic divorces, and marital disputes including domestic violence is now set to take on the inclusion of "minor" criminal cases.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of ?smaller? criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. ?All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,? said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.
The problem which has not been addressed by the UK court system is the abrogation of the previously lawful court system as the sole arbiter of the "community affairs" cases of domestic violence, divorce, unruly neighbors, and also the criminal complaint cases.
That is after all is said and done the primary responsibility of a court system is it not?

biased source, but fact is fact http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259868

another source to support the previous

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of ?smaller? criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. ?All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,? said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

i thought criminal cases were not their authority...the fact that they are "smaller" doesn't really change the point that arbiter courts don't have the authority to process such cases.
domestic violence...was it serious or not? my guess is that if they went to court because of it it probably isn't just a slap on the wrist.
and lol at the sons receiving more than the daughters.
after all my fears were not so unfounded...the only thing left unanswered is why the family choose an arbiter court...but i have a bad feeling about it

Eejit...your input is welcome

(oh and this doesn't mean i'm picking just on sharia law, this is just a good example of a broader issue)

 

[Kadayi]

seriously, i offer you a challenge where supposedly you can easily kill me...why won't you accept it if you're so sure of yourself?

Because it's a preposterous suggestion made by a mentally unhinged individual perhaps? Duelling illegal? murder illegal? Do you not understand these concepts? :dozey:

oh...so you admit of being a coward?

Seek therapy little boy.

 

[jverne]

Because it's a preposterous suggestion made by a mentally unhinged individual perhaps? Duelling illegal? murder illegal? Do you not understand these concepts? :dozey:



Seek therapy little boy.

1. since you failed to defend yourself in regards to

now show me where before or after, i started denying it? please do that
i can hardly find more solid evidence that proves you wrong and a manipulating liar.

you are now officially a manipulating liar.

2. i'm not sure if you're just joking or if you're really handicapped... do you realize this is not a duel for life and death but a challenge to a debate?

3. it's obvious you skipped your therapy sessions



edit: ahahah...i'm still laughing in regards to the duel thing...that's probably the most idiotic misconception one can ever make...lol, you're a riot kadayi

 

[nurizeko]

ALLAHU AKBAR ALLAHU AKBAR ALLAHU AKBAR!

:sniper::sniper::sniper::sniper::sniper::sniper::sniper::sniper::sniper::sniper::sniper::sniper:






















Naw I kid, we aren't brainwashed Muslims yet, and I've yet to get stoned to death for my consumption of alcohol and pork and eyeing up other mens wives or talking to women without their male relatives about, or you know, failing to tell them to cover up.

:cheers:

 

[Kadayi]

Naw I kid, we aren't brainwashed Muslims yet, and I've yet to get stoned to death for my consumption of alcohol and pork and eyeing up other mens wives or talking to women without their male relatives about, or you know, failing to tell them to cover up.

You say that, but according to Verne what you're really saying is:-

DURKKA DURKKA MUHAMMED JIHAD!!!!

 

[jverne]

You say that, but according to Verne what you're really saying is:-

are you competing with a monkey at who can make up more idiotic statements?

seriously aren't you one bit ashamed of yourself? how can anyone fail that much and still be so confident is beyond me.

you haven't done one constructive thing in this thread...why the hell do you even consider yourself able of debating...beats me
now, unless you actually have anything on topic to say or at least excuse yourself of being a dishonest prick then begone.


i'm hoping eejit will respond to my previous post in regard to the news i've shown earlier, i think that ignoring those facts would be really dishonest.

 

[Kadayi]

are you competing with a monkey at who can make up more idiotic statements?

seriously aren't you one bit ashamed of yourself? how can anyone fail that much and still be so confident is beyond me.

you haven't done one constructive thing in this thread...why the hell do you even consider yourself able of debating...beats me
now, unless you actually have anything on topic to say or at least excuse yourself of being a dishonest prick then begone.


i'm hoping eejit will respond to my previous post in regard to the news i've shown earlier, i think that ignoring those facts would be really dishonest.

Yes of course we're all dishonest, you're the only honest one amongst us aren't you

 

[jverne]

Yes of course we're all dishonest, you're the only honest one amongst us aren't you

compared to you i'm a saint...now gtfo

 

[Kadayi]

compared to you i'm a saint...now gtfo

Not with that mouth your not. :dozey:

 

[nurizeko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haz3i35vV8A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J09ngNip5zE



Becoming a puppet state of the grand Sharia conspiracy against America has its perks to.



Good comedy!.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Ah, I love that guy so much. I saw him on "Have I got news for you" as well.

 

[Gemma]

hmm
for some reason all i can think of right now is thw wombles
wtf

uhhh
shi....t
now i forget wut i was guna say


nm