Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Student interrogated and suspend for wearing Halloween costume (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Student interrogated and suspend for wearing Halloween costume
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not precisely, you can agree to have your divorce finalized by a mediator.
Not in Michigan. I used a mediator, who drew up the settlement agreement that was presented to the judge, who approved it after asking both of us individually if we had entered into it willingly and still were willing to abide by it.
quote:
It really is key to recognize that it's possible to separate the religious and the non-religious, but that its also possible to deliberate entangle the two. You can't pretend that this issue isn't real because of the first possibility, when the second is what is actually contemplated.
I don't understand why you take that position. The religious institution cannot dissolve a marriage in the eyes of the state. I imagine it's possible for the legal agreement to stipulate religious obligations, but then again, why would a secular judge accept those conditions?
quote:
So, suck it Atheists? You can't force this religion out of the secular world and law? You're literally arguing for religious law being enforced by the courts of the United States here, even though you seem to be honestly confused (unlike some others) into thinking this is an attempt to interfere in the purely religious lives of people.
I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote. My point was that before people tell Muslims how to run their religion they should make sure their own doesn't abuse its members or violate laws. Pity the poor atheist who has no religious axe to grind or swing.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like these lovely people.

More helpful hints.

Lest we think that Muslims have a monopoly on dysfunctional notions of gender roles.

[ October 28, 2015, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a quote from the group you've carefully chosen as a comparison to Islam:

quote:
This is when a wife just comes out and says “NO!” or pushes your hands away. As I said in my post on “8 steps to confronting your wife’s sexual refusal” you as a husband should not tolerate refusal. If your wife says “NO” and slaps your hand away that is a disrespectful and unloving response by your wife to your sexual initiation and there is no sin in you trying to initiate sex with your wife.
Since the contents of this advice are literally incitement to commit rape (even the advice itself is criminal) we can trivially assert that no serious group espouses views such as these. Why go for such a straw man? We're talking about Sharia law as it's actually practised in several nations, and you're quoting the equivalent of the man-boy-love association as some kind of counterpoint? And this isn't even getting into the fact that this kind of ridiculous advice is just that, whereas what we're actually talking about is the issue of legally binding arbitration. If you found some Christian group conducting such arbitration where both parties agreed for the man to rape the woman, then of course such a group would also be in violation of the law and should be investigated. What does that have to do with whether one should investigate Muslim arbitration systems or not?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not really as a comparison. It showed up in my FB feed and, after going to the source and doing some research, I thought it was useful to show that all sorts of religions are capable of messed-up rules for men and women. What I thought was particularly interesting was the step where the man was advised to bring the woman in front of the congregation so that the congregation can admonish her. It seems not dissimilar to other religious arbitration.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you found some Christian group conducting such arbitration where both parties agreed for the man to rape the woman, then of course such a group would also be in violation of the law and should be investigated. What does that have to do with whether one should investigate Muslim arbitration systems or not?
It makes it clear that the elements that are illegal are already illegal, and do not new new laws to be passed, despite the disingenuous claims that abuses that exist under other legal systems are somehow magically going to become legal here unless we selectively persecute legal exercise of religious arbitration here as well by rallying islamophobic votes against it.

If you found Islamic groups making such decisions they would equally already be illegal agreements. The lie lies in spreading the false rumor that there are currently legal Islamic tribunals making such rulings in the US. Your first statement above is effectively an accusation that Muslims are, to any significant degree, secretly doing this, and that legitimate courts might have to uphold such in the cases where they do occur.

You're playing right into the lie when you suggest that there's any problem with or objection to dealing with such issues where they arise. The core of the islamophobia is in projecting abuses that arise in other cultures onto US Muslims, then using that as a justification to persecute them on a religious basis here. It's an active effort to single out Muslims as "foreign" (especially by using "foreign law" as a legal euphemism to whitewash the targeting of Islamic principles) and to falsely accuse ISlam as a whole of being fundamentally abusive and fundamentally in violation of US right and laws.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This example is extreme, but so are many of the characterizations people use for Islam.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is it worth pointing out that when Muslims sued Ontario to get the same arbitration venues that were available to Jews and Christians, Ontario just got out of the business altogether?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Not really as a comparison. It showed up in my FB feed and, after going to the source and doing some research, I thought it was useful to show that all sorts of religions are capable of messed-up rules for men and women. What I thought was particularly interesting was the step where the man was advised to bring the woman in front of the congregation so that the congregation can admonish her. It seems not dissimilar to other religious arbitration.

Socially pressuring someone into accepting a situation disfavorable to them is crappy, but it's not illegal. Advocating that someone commit a crime violates the criminal code regardless of the feelings of the put-upon party. But in the case of Sharia law we're ostensibly talking about the potential for arbitration agreements that are unconstitutional; no one has said anything about criminal (although that's within the realm of possibility as well). Being forced to engage in binding arbitration would make the contract legally void, and if the contents of the agreement violate anti-discrimination laws then it would likewise be void.

If one asks why investigate Muslim arbitration rather than other groups, I don't think anyone is saying that only Muslims should be investigated on this basis. All religious arbitration should openly meet the standards of law. Perhaps someone here who knows more can shed light on to what extent Jewish/Christian arbitration proceedings have already been investigated or vetted as being legit.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
If one asks why investigate Muslim arbitration rather than other groups, I don't think anyone is saying that only Muslims should be investigated on this basis. All religious arbitration should openly meet the standards of law. Perhaps someone here who knows more can shed light on to what extent Jewish/Christian arbitration proceedings have already been investigated or vetted as being legit.

But Muslims *are* the only religious groups being targeted under these laws. That is the point. No one even asks about about arbitration proceedings under other religious auspices.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have never even heard of Jewish or Christian arbitration proceedings. Are they commonplace?
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If one asks why investigate Muslim arbitration rather than other groups, I don't think anyone is saying that only Muslims should be investigated on this basis. All religious arbitration should openly meet the standards of law. Perhaps someone here who knows more can shed light on to what extent Jewish/Christian arbitration proceedings have already been investigated or vetted as being legit.
Fenring, this is the problem you had with the Mayor of Irving, that this only became an issue in the context of Muslim practices. Nobody in Texas apparently ever tried to create a law like that until the perceived Muslim epidemic arose. Be honest, would she have pushed for the law in the absence of any concern about the Muslim Shariah court she heard *might* be started in or near Irving?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I have never even heard of Jewish or Christian arbitration proceedings. Are they commonplace?

I'm not a rabbi, so this is drawn from my readings and personal experiences. Consultations with a rabbi when couples decide to divorce are very common. The issue of child custody is the most thorny one, given that Jewish law and custom are usually at variance with civil law. In theory, in some Jewish denominations both parents sacrifice their rights to their children while retaining full responsibilities. Puzzle that one out, if you can.

I personally know of a couple of cases where a rabbi pushed to make both partners commit to conform to religious expectations after the divorce, which I think would be described as arbitrated or mediated agreements. It's pro forma among some Jews that the ex-partners are not supposed to contact each other (except for the difficulty of children), because taking the step of getting divorced is viewed as extreme. OTOH, it's considered a good thing (mitzvah) if they do remarry each other, but OTOH it's not allowed if the man is a Kohen.

In theory, a divorce is so simple that it happens if a man writes a "get" (simple document of severance) that he and the wife sign in front of two witnesses and perhaps a rabbi. OTOH (that makes three hands so far, if you're counting, which is typical of anything two (or even one) Jews do) it can be so complicated that a Jewish divorce is never supposed to be overseen by just a rabbi and two witnesses, but a panel of experts are included in the discussions. I've never seen such a thing myself.

I've never heard of anything like a "standard contract" that couples had to sign before they could divorce within the religion.

Bottom line if you get a religious divorce, it's easy, it's hard and the OTOH's will get you every time. And it's not legal, except I think in Israel.

[ October 28, 2015, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
If you found some Christian group conducting such arbitration where both parties agreed for the man to rape the woman, then of course such a group would also be in violation of the law and should be investigated. What does that have to do with whether one should investigate Muslim arbitration systems or not?
It makes it clear that the elements that are illegal are already illegal, and do not new new laws to be passed,...
As previously pointed out you are factually wrong on this point. It is unclear absent such laws that "voluntary" arbitration that applies religious laws, even ones that would be unconstitutional in a court, are in fact unenforceable. I specifically pointed out that secular arbitration allows for curtailment of constitutional rights (by limited disclosure, or the number of depositions that can be admitted) and is enforceable.

Do you have any basis for making this claim, or are you just asserting your opinion of the way things work as if it were fact again?
quote:
...despite the disingenuous claims that abuses that exist under other legal systems are somehow magically going to become legal here unless we selectively persecute legal exercise of religious arbitration here as well by rallying islamophobic votes against it.
There is nothing disingenuous about pointing out that the Islamic legal code is fundamentally incompatible with US Constitutional principals, the most obvious but not only difference being its treatment of women. Nor is it disingenuous to point out that women are often forced by their families or spouses to engage in such arbitrations (which unfortunately occurs in many contexts), and that they may not even be aware that they have other options. Nor is it disingenuous to point out that such arbitrations do occur and are decided on such incompatible principals. Nor did anyone ask for selective enforcement, have you pointed out any comparable religious court that attempts to cover such matters and is allowed to operate?

Not really seeing the "disingenuous" part now that I look at it. You really just seem to be overreaching your view that any rule in this area is some form of illegitimate targeting, and you ignore anything that doesn't fit that meme. I find myself looking for some word that might fight your assertions, wonder what it could be....
quote:
If you found Islamic groups making such decisions they would equally already be illegal agreements.
Please provide your basis for this claim.

You've called people liars multiple times, which is a hallmark of a weak claim on your part. Please put up actual evidence for your claims or retract them.
quote:
Originally posted by KMBoots:
But Muslims *are* the only religious groups being targeted under these laws. That is the point. No one even asks about about arbitration proceedings under other religious auspices.

Two things, first its not true that Muslims are the only religious group targeted. You can easily find similar cases involving similar Jewish tribunals (they were in the paper every view months the entire time I lived in Brooklyn). Second, very few religious groups actively try and arbitrate secular matters to any great extent. Islam doesn't accept a secular-religious divide so all matters are covered by religious law/tribunals, while a few other religions come close to this level the vast majority are far off this standard.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, are you describing legally binding proceedings that, after discussed, both parties must comply with, or are you discussing family counselling with the rabbi where they'll probably do what he says but they don't strictly have to?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can easily find similar cases involving similar Jewish tribunals (they were in the paper every view months the entire time I lived in Brooklyn).
Can you point to the laws that were enacted to prevent or in response to such events?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Al, are you describing legally binding proceedings that, after discussed, both parties must comply with, or are you discussing family counselling with the rabbi where they'll probably do what he says but they don't strictly have to?

I mentioned that I haven't seen arbitration artifacts. For example, my then wife and I met with a rabbi and were given instructions, but didn't sign anything. I don't ask others who have gone through this whether the rabbi imposed legal restrictions in the form of committed agreements (arbitration contracts) on them, but it's within the scope of Jewish law and custom that it can happen.

[ October 28, 2015, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As previously pointed out you are factually wrong on this point. It is unclear absent such laws that "voluntary" arbitration that applies religious laws, even ones that would be unconstitutional in a court, are in fact unenforceable. I specifically pointed out that secular arbitration allows for curtailment of constitutional rights (by limited disclosure, or the number of depositions that can be admitted) and is enforceable.
No, you pointed out that arbitration tends to have different legal procedures, and are now miscasting procedures as constitutional rights. You cannot contract away constitutional rights, even on a purely voluntary basis. The most you can do is refuse to demand enforcement of them and try to prevent any third party from doing so on your behalf. (EG: you cannot legally consent to sell yourself into slavery. You may make an agreement that amounts to it informally, but it would only last so long as you informally chose to uphold it and would not be legally valid or enforceable).

Discovery is a legal procedure, not a constitutional right.

quote:
There is nothing disingenuous about pointing out that the Islamic legal code is fundamentally incompatible with US Constitutional principals, the most obvious but not only difference being its treatment of women.
There certainly is because you're falsely conflating Islamic legal codes of other cultures with the codes that any given tribunal might consider to be within its scope. It's exceptionally disingenuous to pretend that the fact that the existence of abusive laws elsewhere, in different cultural context is evidence that such abuses are sanctioned here.

quote:
Nor is it disingenuous to point out that women are often forced by their families or spouses to engage in such arbitrations (which unfortunately occurs in many contexts), and that they may not even be aware that they have other options.
But it is disingenuous to imply, without evidence, that such is standard practice here, where it's already illegal, and to pretend that these laws actualyl do anything to change that where such abuses to occur, since they do nothing to actually create outreach to people that might be so affected or provide them educational and support resources to give them a path out of such situations.

So while there's a nugget of truth (that many women, across many different faiths, find themselves trapped in abusive situations), the law actually does nothing to change that, it only open up the possibility of invalidating what are currently perfectly legal agreements, such as alternative loan structures that center around a flat service fee to prevent them from falling afoul of explicitly religious prohibitions against collecting interest.

quote:
Nor is it disingenuous to point out that such arbitrations do occur and are decided on such incompatible principals.
Yes it is, when you have no evidence aside from the fact that they happen elsewhere, in cultures that support such treatment. To the degree that abuse does happen here, it's already illegal and there's nothing in the new laws that actually addresses it, just the false implication that it's inherently part of what such tribunals do.
quote:
Nor did anyone ask for selective enforcement, have you pointed out any comparable religious court that attempts to cover such matters and is allowed to operate?
I already pointed out Catholic excommunication of just such religious arbitration. Similar would go for seeking religious sanction for annulment or divorce, as Al pointed out in both Jewish and Christian branches that require religious permission to do so.

None of these prevent secular legal recourse where appropriate and none are allowed to override constitutional protections. Just like the Islamic tribunals that are targeted, they simply provide a path for voluntary additional agreements in the religious context and on religious terms.

A US court can determine whether or not a lending agreement met with the terms and protections of US laws, but it cannot evaluate whether the loan violated additional Islamic Usury protections, so even if the parties involved had contracted to follow them (and they did not violate existing legal bounds for such agreements) it would require the input of religious experts to evaluate the situation. The only change that these new laws would make is for courts to be able to arbitrarily call such arrangements "foreign law" thus rendering them completely unenforceable, not because they're illegal, but solely because they're build to satisfy Islamic religious considerations.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
As previously pointed out you are factually wrong on this point. It is unclear absent such laws that "voluntary" arbitration that applies religious laws, even ones that would be unconstitutional in a court, are in fact unenforceable. I specifically pointed out that secular arbitration allows for curtailment of constitutional rights (by limited disclosure, or the number of depositions that can be admitted) and is enforceable.
No, you pointed out that arbitration tends to have different legal procedures, and are now miscasting procedures as constitutional rights. You cannot contract away constitutional rights, even on a purely voluntary basis.
Due process is a constitutional right, and it includes an appropriate amount of discovery (look it up if you want to keep arguing this point). Arbitration, often "arbitrarily" sets out the amount of discovery that is permissible, and the courts generally DO NOT second guess the decision even if it would be unconstitutionally less than is required in court.

You also may have not have any right to appeal from an arbitration, notwithstanding how our legal process and due process work in all other cases.

It really is the case that binding arbitration can circumscribe constitutional rights, and it's not AT ALL clear that consideration of religious rules that are inconsistent with our laws would not be permissible under the existing laws. Hence, you are just wrong that a clarification law like this is unnecessary (nor can you really articulate a good reason why we should not clarify that such rules are not permissible).
quote:
The most you can do is refuse to demand enforcement of them and try to prevent any third party from doing so on your behalf. (EG: you cannot legally consent to sell yourself into slavery. You may make an agreement that amounts to it informally, but it would only last so long as you informally chose to uphold it and would not be legally valid or enforceable).
You're actually conflating different issues here. It's true for instance that you couldn't agree to binding arbitration where the arbiter could enforce the death penalty on you, or to one where you become a slave. But you've left the scope of what arbitration is permitted to cover, and particularly you're ignoring the distinction between procedure and substance. The issue here is about procedure (ie what can the arbiter consider) not substance (ie what can the arbiter order).
quote:
Discovery is a legal procedure, not a constitutional right.
Do some research on due process and come back to me with the correct answer (ie not the one you just asserted).
quote:
quote:
There is nothing disingenuous about pointing out that the Islamic legal code is fundamentally incompatible with US Constitutional principals, the most obvious but not only difference being its treatment of women.
There certainly is because you're falsely conflating Islamic legal codes of other cultures with the codes that any given tribunal might consider to be within its scope.
What exactly makes that "false"? Nothing, other than your assertion. It's certainly true that a given tribunal may ignore certain rules, but where a tribunal purports to be Sharia compliant you're off the reservation on this claim.
quote:
It's exceptionally disingenuous to pretend that the fact that the existence of abusive laws elsewhere, in different cultural context is evidence that such abuses are sanctioned here
I'm not "pretending," I'm pointing to a direct example of the rules that are applied elsewhere that are barred and should not be permitted to be applied here (at least to the extent the tribunal wants its edicts to be enforceable).
quote:
quote:
Nor is it disingenuous to point out that women are often forced by their families or spouses to engage in such arbitrations (which unfortunately occurs in many contexts), and that they may not even be aware that they have other options.
But it is disingenuous to imply, without evidence, that such is standard practice here, where it's already illegal, and to pretend that these laws actualyl do anything to change that where such abuses to occur, since they do nothing to actually create outreach to people that might be so affected or provide them educational and support resources to give them a path out of such situations.
You literally just assert things without any basis, do you know that?

1. It's not clearly illegal here in the context described without the law you oppose.
2. These laws are directly on point to prevent these abuses from occurring in this community.
3. These laws are very important resources in ensuring that outreach efforts are effective, and can be clearly cited to overturn otherwise purported binding voluntary arbitrations.

I really do think I need to reassert that if you believe in women's equality and equal rights you are on the absolute wrong side of this issue.
quote:
quote:
Nor did anyone ask for selective enforcement, have you pointed out any comparable religious court that attempts to cover such matters and is allowed to operate?
I already pointed out Catholic excommunication of just such religious arbitration.
Which is a purely religious matter. I'm not aware of any secular court that deals with excommunication.
quote:
Similar would go for seeking religious sanction for annulment or divorce, as Al pointed out in both Jewish and Christian branches that require religious permission to do so.
Again, purely a religious decision. Nothing about it is enforceable, it cannot prevent a women from seeking a divorce and receiving a settlement/judgment completely at odds with the religious one. The gray line comes in from binding mediation, which again regardless of whether we're talking about Christians or Jews is an area where we should require that things like equal protection are paramount and conflicting religious rules are not permitted. If the participants choose to live with a violative religious judgment there's nothing we can really do, but no one should be forced to accept a violative judgment as binding on them.
quote:
A US court can determine whether or not a lending agreement met with the terms and protections of US laws, but it cannot evaluate whether the loan violated additional Islamic Usury protections, so even if the parties involved had contracted to follow them (and they did not violate existing legal bounds for such agreements) it would require the input of religious experts to evaluate the situation.
And? The courts do this all the time, you're not correct that this law would change the situation there, as it would be enforceable as any other contracted term (ie enforceable unless it violates a conflicting US law).

I am not sure why I bother, could you at least do a little research into how this would actually work before you respond again.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
no one should be forced to accept a violative judgment as binding on them
I'm not sure how I feel about this, since surely one of the whole reasons to go with arbitration in the first place is to submit the parties to a binding law that cannot be provided by appeals to a non-private court. The issue isn't -- or shouldn't be -- that the ruling cannot be violative, but that participation in arbitration must be voluntary and non-coerced.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
no one should be forced to accept a violative judgment as binding on them
I'm not sure how I feel about this, since surely one of the whole reasons to go with arbitration in the first place is to submit the parties to a binding law that cannot be provided by appeals to a non-private court. The issue isn't -- or shouldn't be -- that the ruling cannot be violative, but that participation in arbitration must be voluntary and non-coerced.
It should be both. Honestly, why should an arbitration decision be completely non-appealable? What if the arbitrator acts capriciously, or ignores even the rules of the arbitration? If arbitration is going to have legal force (and it does) there's no reason it shouldn't have to comply with basic principals of justice - like equality between genders, non-discrimination based on race and religion, etc.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
no one should be forced to accept a violative judgment as binding on them
I'm not sure how I feel about this, since surely one of the whole reasons to go with arbitration in the first place is to submit the parties to a binding law that cannot be provided by appeals to a non-private court. The issue isn't -- or shouldn't be -- that the ruling cannot be violative, but that participation in arbitration must be voluntary and non-coerced.
Perhaps it's about both. As Seriati mentioned some rights can be waived while others cannot. But certainly not being bound to contracts made under duress is something that is desirable (to us). After all, someone could be made to believe that their best option in life is to be made a slave, and they might voluntarily enter into an agreement that would result in this. However Seriati's point is that such a contract should not be enforceable since the right to not be enslaved can't be waived.

The worry about women being coerced into arbitration would be more focused on ensuring that these matters are voluntary, yes. But that's only part of it, since it's quite easy to make a person say what they're doing is voluntary, when the result is abusive.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
The worry about women being coerced into arbitration would be more focused on ensuring that these matters are voluntary, yes. But that's only part of it, since it's quite easy to make a person say what they're doing is voluntary, when the result is abusive.

Which is very well understood dynamic, how many hookers defend their pimps again?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Would you say that something like a covenant marriage should be illegal as well?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"There certainly is because you're falsely conflating Islamic legal codes of other cultures with the codes that any given tribunal might consider to be within its scope'

Please try to be less obtuse. Sharia explicitly holds the value of a woman's life and the weight of her testimony as one hald that of a man's.

Now there are some laws within Sharia that are not flatly unconstitutional. For example. Antiusury laws have beeb ebforced in a NY federal district court to overturn provisions of a contract signed in Saudi Arabia. But if you have a problem with us saying that US courts should no0t delegate to anticonstitutional bodies (which include but are. Not limited to Sharia courts and some Jewish and Christian arb situations, then dont expect attorneys on this forum to dance politely around such death dealing foolishness

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Would you say that something like a covenant marriage should be illegal as well?

The unconstitutional parts are unenforceable at law, yes.

Also. The arbitration clauses imposed on most surrogacy contracts should be struck down, and in the most ebgregious cases the attorneys that wrote the contracts should be disciplined and prosecuted for slave trafficking.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you see a lot of politicians rallying to pass laws against covenant marriage?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Do you see a lot of politicians rallying to pass laws against covenant marriage?

Politicians respond to facts. Do you see pictures and stories of dead, raped and mutilated bodies resulting from Covenant marriage?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, given that we are in the US and murder, rape, and mutilation will still be illegal whatever the religious arbitration, what difference does that make?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please let's not indulge in idiotic oversimplification by pretending that saying that the issue wheter sharia or covenant marriage should be ollehal. Aspects od both are ESGORCEABLE AT LAW while other aspects are not enforceable at law. I am unaware pf any aspect of covenant marriage that are "illegal" but some parts of sharia are, e.g. polygamy. A plig marriage is not merely legally unrecognized ; it is specifically recognized as criminal.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Again, given that we are in the US and murder, rape, and mutilation will still be illegal whatever the religious arbitration, what difference does that make?

Because in other countries where those are illegal, such as the UK, sharia courts have been systematically used to cover those up. And that is what some US politicians are responding to.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1