Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Destruction of Sweden
#21
(05-26-2017, 01:32 PM)WarBicycle Wrote: The province of Ontario used to permit religious tribunals to settle family disputes, then Muslims demanded they be allowed to establish Shariah-based tribunals similar to Jewish and Catholic arbitration bodies. Now no religious body has it as religious tribunals have been banned to prevent Sharia Law from being recognized in Ontario.

The Jewish and Catholic arbitration bodies deal with counseling. The Sharia Courts are presumptive. Caught stealing, lose a hand. Show your face, get stoned for being a whore. They don't stone goats, but they seem to be just as tempting.

Bad things always seem to ruin good things, don't they?
Reply
#22
IMO even jewish or christian counceling tribunal or court or whatever religious legal body is anachronical and shouldn't exist in a modern society.
I don't want to be judged by poeple who think they know the law of God.
Reply
#23
An effort to prevent recognition failed recently here in Colorado.  As far as I know, there wasn't actually any language directed at religious law ... only a statement that non-U.S. laws would not be allowed to supersede U.S. laws.  It was widely condemned as flawed and racist .. without actually pointing out any of the flaws ... or racism.  It's difficult for me to imagine that extra-judicial rulings that prompt efforts like this wouldn't be slam dunks for being overturned on appeal ... except maybe for the 9th and DCCA.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#24
(05-30-2017, 09:22 PM)mr_yak Wrote: An effort to prevent recognition failed recently here in Colorado.  As far as I know, there wasn't actually any language directed at religious law ... only a statement that non-U.S. laws would not be allowed to supersede U.S. laws.  It was widely condemned as flawed and racist .. without actually pointing out any of the flaws ... or racism.  It's difficult for me to imagine that extra-judicial rulings that prompt efforts like this wouldn't be slam dunks for being overturned on appeal ... except maybe for the 9th and DCCA.

Perhaps they will be fortunate enough to get a dose of reality, perhaps a bombing or two, and they will suddenly realize that they have been mugged by reality.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#25
(05-30-2017, 09:40 PM)John L Wrote: Perhaps they will be fortunate enough to get a dose of reality, perhaps a bombing or two, and they will suddenly realize that they have been mugged by reality.

I think in this particular context, I the shocker would probably come in the form of some sort of gruesome "honor killing" precipitated by a progressive judge that chose to not to issue a restraining order and forced some poor woman back to her abusive husband/father based on a community Imam's 'legal' edict demanding her return.  

Here's how it works in Britain ...
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#26
Most of these "anachronical" courts are similar to The Peoples' Court where litigants sign a contract to follow the advice of some televised Judge and get paid for appearing, hoping their payment will be greater than any penalty they must come up with. This is contract law - not criminal law, in that the participants are entertaining an audience, not obeying the law and its consequences. Sharia goes far beyond that.

An interview with a preacher is just looking for advice, trying to find an acceptable way to forgo going to court. With such an agreement, there are no entanglements. With Sharia, if one accepts the authority to rule on a minor disagreement, one also accepts all the ramifications, including the mandatory death to infidels. No in-between ground - all or nothing.
Reply
#27
(05-31-2017, 12:51 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Most of these "anachronical" courts are similar to The Peoples' Court where litigants sign a contract to follow the advice of some televised Judge and get paid for appearing, hoping their payment will be greater than any penalty they must come up with. This is contract law - not criminal law, in that the participants are entertaining an audience, not obeying the law and its consequences. Sharia goes far beyond that.

An interview with a preacher is just looking for advice, trying to find an acceptable way to forgo going to court. With such an agreement, there are no entanglements. With Sharia, if one accepts the authority to rule on a minor disagreement, one also accepts all the ramifications, including the mandatory death to infidels. No in-between ground - all or nothing.

And that is why Sharia law is totally unconstitutional, having no business here in the US. If they want to play with Sharia, then go home and play with it there.

The more we put up with this, the harder it will become to totally eradicate it in the future.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)