Canada and Christianity

[Edric O]

It's hypocrisy for a non-violent American to attack the religion of Islam in general for being supposedly "violent". I wasn't talking about attacking a group of violent Muslims - I was talking about attacking Muslims in general (which is what a lot of people do these days).

[SurlyPIG]

ACelethal: As long as nothing the arbitrator decides violates an individuals civil rights or Canadian law (which an arbitrator cannot do), and both people entering into the arbitration agreed on the arbitrator and the guidelines he/she would be following, why not sign it? If the decision is fair, violates no laws, and agreed upon by the participants, what does it matter if the basis for the decision is the muslim, christian, or hindu faith? Throwing out a decision on that basis would be ridiculous.

It matters because these people aren't professionals and have no real knowledge of the guidelines of Canadian law. I don't think it's very likely that these mediators will be making fair and just decision. I predict a group made up almost entirely of men that will favour men in divorce disputes, and I predict that muslims who behave more muslim (whatever that means) and make more contributions to this kind of group or community will be favoured over the other side in other kinds of disputes.

Now you might say that's extremely judgemental and unfair to muslims, but take a look at the way these religious communities work. Those who do the most work to advance the community are rewarded. Just look at any one of a number of clergies, especially the Catholic church, Mormon Church, Jehova's Witness etc.

I would even go so far as to predict that the people who would be favoured by this kind of mediation would actively go after poor people who would be unfavoured, and force them into mediation to avoid an expensive lawsuit, thus creating a "conform or pay" atmosphere that would eventually lead to the formation of crime rings, maybe the arbitors themselves would merge with these rings and form a mafia-type organization.

Drastic? I hope so. But even I'm way off, why in the world should Canadian law enforce Sharia decisions? If these people want to live under the tyranny of Sharia law so badly, frankly I think they should move back to any one of the numerous countries that enforce Sharia law. Call me a redneck but our country will be better off without that kind of attitude.

[Mahdi]

"It matters because these people aren't professionals and have no real knowledge of the guidelines of Canadian law. I don't think it's very likely that these mediators will be making fair and just decision."

No arbitrator has an indepth knowledge fo the law, if the people involved wanted someone with an indepth knowledge of the law to decide their case, they would go to trial. Arbitrator's are 3rd-party individuals who have no involvement in the issue at hand and are agreed on by the participants to mediate and resolve the current problem without all the legalese of a trial.

"I predict a group made up almost entirely of men"

Where is this coming from? There is no "group". An arbitrator can be anyone from a waitress at a bar to the CEO of Sears. There arn't pre-selected individuals from whom you have to pick someone.

"that will favour men in divorce disputes,"

Again, where is this coming from? If the woman in a divorce dispute thinks someone who the man suggests is sexist, then she simply says "I don't want him to be the arbitrator" and that's that.

"I predict that muslims who behave more muslim (whatever that means) and make more contributions to this kind of group or community will be favoured over the other side in other kinds of disputes"

First, you even admit you don't understand what you are saying.

Second, you're suggesting that the arbitrator selected will automatically be biased because he is muslim. That's no different than saying a judge will be biased towards a catholic defendant because he is prodestant.

Third, once again, if one side belives the arbitrator will be biased in anyway, they simply have to say they don't want them to be the arbitrator, and that takes care of that.

The WHOLE POINT of arbitrators is an impartial third party to mediate the disagreement, and if one cannot be found, the case goes to trial.

"would even go so far as to predict that the people who would be favoured by this kind of mediation would actively go after poor people who would be unfavoured, and force them into mediation to avoid an expensive lawsuit, thus creating a "conform or pay" atmosphere that would eventually lead to the formation of crime rings, maybe the arbitors themselves would merge with these rings and form a mafia-type organization."

That makes absolutly no sense at all. If one side doesn't want arbitration, they simply say so and the case goes to court. There is no forcing into mediation. There is also no forcing of arbitrators. Both sides have equal say, if one side doesn't feel that a potential arbitrator would be fair, then they say no to him/her. And, again, there is no "group" of arbitrators they can be ANYONE from ANYWHERE that the invovled parties agree will be impartial and fair. You could grab a hobo off the street and select him as an arbitrator.

"But even I'm way off, why in the world should Canadian law enforce Sharia decisions? If these people want to live under the tyranny of Sharia law so badly"

As I have said in every post I made, if a decision violates civil rights or canadian law, then that decision is void and any attempt to enforce it will result in criminal charges, therefore "tyranny of Sharia law" is impossible. Canadia law is not enforcing Sharia law, it is saying that if you and someone else have a non-criminal issue that you wish resolved legall, such as a lawsuit, then you can agree to select a third-party individual, ANY third party individual as long as BOTH partes agree to him/her, and present your case to this individual instead of going through the trouble of a trial.

This has been an option in the Canadian courts for god knows how long, the new law about it simply makes the decision unappealable, saying basically "You both agreed to let this person make a decision for you, so now that he has and you don't like it, you can't come whining to us".

[SurlyPIG]

No arbitrator has an indepth knowledge fo the law, if the people involved wanted someone with an indepth knowledge of the law to decide their case, they would go to trial. Arbitrator's are 3rd-party individuals who have no involvement in the issue at hand and are agreed on by the participants to mediate and resolve the current problem without all the legalese of a trial.

What if they can't afford to go to trial? What if the person suing them won't agree to any mediators except ones from this group?

"I predict a group made up almost entirely of men"

Where is this coming from? There is no "group". An arbitrator can be anyone from a waitress at a bar to the CEO of Sears. There aren't pre-selected individuals from whom you have to pick someone.

Uhh, yes, there is a group. Rather, there will be one if this goes ahead (Islamic Institute of Civil Justice is what it will be named). Who knows whether it will be a single person or a group of people who mediate these cases, or whether they will be randomly chosen by the IICJ or chosen by someone at the top. As to why I think they'll all be men, because all muslim clergymen are just that - men. Have you ever heard of a female Imam?

"that will favour men in divorce disputes,"

Again, where is this coming from? If the woman in a divorce dispute thinks someone who the man suggests is sexist, then she simply says "I don't want him to be the arbitrator" and that's that.

She might not know who the individual mediating her case is depending on how the arbitrators are selected. And arbirtration might be her only choice if she can't afford a lawyer.

"I predict that muslims who behave more muslim (whatever that means) and make more contributions to this kind of group or community will be favoured over the other side in other kinds of disputes"

First, you even admit you don't understand what you are saying.

Second, you're suggesting that the arbitrator selected will automatically be biased because he is muslim. That's no different than saying a judge will be biased towards a catholic defendant because he is prodestant.

Third, once again, if one side belives the arbitrator will be biased in anyway, they simply have to say they don't want them to be the arbitrator, and that takes care of that.

First, I know exactly what I'm saying. Two men are in a car accident and agree to an IICJ mediator. One of them shows up with a modern-dressed, working wife. The other shows up with the perfect little Muslim housewife in traditional dress. Which guy do you think is going to win the case?

Second, you're absolutely right. Judges can be biased by immaterial or irrelevant details. The difference is, there are appeals and lots of checks to recognize problem judges and get them out of the system. I just don't see that happening in a group of Islamic elders.

Third, that's a ridiculous statement. How are you supposed to know the actual thought process a mediator is going to use in your case before they actually judge your case, save ESP. That's like people who say "you didn't have to watch/read it" when you criticize a movie or a book. How are you supposed to know if you're going to like it without seeing/reading it? Yeesh. What are you supposed to do when the mediator makes a ridiculous decision because of nothing more than their own religious bias towards details immaterial to the case, when you're already signed on to an agreement that is final and binding.

If one side doesn't want arbitration, they simply say so and the case goes to court. There is no forcing into mediation. There is also no forcing of arbitrators. Both sides have equal say, if one side doesn't feel that a potential arbitrator would be fair, then they say no to him/her. And, again, there is no "group" of arbitrators they can be ANYONE from ANYWHERE that the invovled parties agree will be impartial and fair. You could grab a hobo off the street and select him as an arbitrator.

Granted. But the alternative is court and court isn't free. Do you know why car insurance costs are so high? It's because of bullshit lawsuits people file against insurance companies. The companies are forced to settle because the cost of going to court and determining who owes how much is almost always a hell of a lot more than if they just settle. The same situation would arise for people who don't have the money to be spending much time in court. Obviously they would want to keep it out of court, but the person suing them might not want to settle, and might refuse to use any other mediaton except from this organization. Sometimes if the plaintiff is the one that would be unfavoured in a mediation by this company the defendant can be force to pay their legal fees in court, but not every case is clear-cut, especially the type that this organization would mediated.

As I have said in every post I made, if a decision violates civil rights or canadian law, then that decision is void and any attempt to enforce it will result in criminal charges, therefore "tyranny of Sharia law" is impossible. Canadia law is not enforcing Sharia law, it is saying that if you and someone else have a non-criminal issue that you wish resolved legall, such as a lawsuit, then you can agree to select a third-party individual, ANY third party individual as long as BOTH partes agree to him/her, and present your case to this individual instead of going through the trouble of a trial.

It's not easy to tell whether or not an arbitrator violates their civil rights though. He can pretend he made his decision for completely different reasons and still violate one party's civil rights. It depends completely on the judge's trust in this mediating organization. Therefore, one of two things will happen: the judge will trust the arbitrator and let the favoured party walk all over the unfavoured one, or he won't trust the arbitrators from IICJ at all, and will take the word of anybody who loses the arbitration and claims that their rights were violated, even if they weren't. So either the institute becomes corrupt or is completely impotent from the get-go, depending on what the judges decide. Call me a pessimist, but that's what I see happening.

This has been an option in the Canadian courts for god knows how long, the new law about it simply makes the decision unappealable, saying basically "You both agreed to let this person make a decision for you, so now that he has and you don't like it, you can't come whining to us".

So we're supposed to be psychic and judge and arbitrator's partiality without really knowing a thing about how he thinks? Give me a break. If I were a judge, the only arbitrations I would enforce were ones that were made by reputable professionals like ex-judges or ex-lawyers who I'm sure have no affiliation with either party. Forgive me for not putting that much faith in the Islamic clergy. ::)

[Mahdi]

"What if they can't afford to go to trial? What if the person suing them won't agree to any mediators except ones from this group?"

Arbitration is simply a trial without a judge or formalized legal procedures. You still have to pay for lawyers, a place to hold it, etc. You even have to pay the arbiter. Hell, if you get right down to it and crunched the numbers, you might even find arbitration costs MORE than a trial. The advantages are that if you have a copyright dispute over a book, you can get a novelist or literature professor who is knowledgable on the subject to come up with what is perhaps a more accurate decision. Plus, you avoid the formalities of a courtroom.

"Uhh, yes, there is a group. Rather, there will be one if this goes ahead (Islamic Institute of Civil Justice is what it will be named). Who knows whether it will be a single person or a group of people who mediate these cases, or whether they will be randomly chosen by the IICJ or chosen by someone at the top. As to why I think they'll all be men, because all muslim clergymen are just that - men. Have you ever heard of a female Imam?"

Lol, once again this group has nothing to do with the Canadian legal or political system, and is no different than if you banded together ten people to outlaw books. You are confused between this group and there purpose. It's simply a lobbyist group with no power, that are trying to make the Sharia Canadian law. It has absolutly nothing to do with the arbitration law. They merely say that they beelive the arbitration law will somehow help there cause, althoguh personally, I don't see how.

I don't know how many times I said this before, but here it goes again:

ANYONE CAN BE AN ARBITER.

The arbitration law applies to everyone in Canada, you seem to think it only applies to muslims. That is not true. It applies to every single Canadian citizen in this country. There is no group of people you have to chose from.

"She might not know who the individual mediating her case is depending on how the arbitrators are selected. And arbirtration might be her only choice if she can't afford a lawyer."

If she doesn't know anything about the person, then she won't be agreeing to let him/her abitrate the case. To do otherwise is reckless and stupid. And, once again, you are assuming that the people invovled are chosing arbitration instead of lawyers and trials due to financial concerns. Well, guess what? That's not the case. You still need lawyers no matter what. And you ahve to pay the arbiter on top of that. Like I said earlier, if you did the money crunching, I doubt you'd find much difference in cost.

"First, I know exactly what I'm saying"

When you say "whatever that means" you don't inspire confidence.

"Two men are in a car accident and agree to an IICJ mediator. One of them shows up with a modern-dressed, working wife. The other shows up with the perfect little Muslim housewife in traditional dress. Which guy do you think is going to win the case?"

If the arbiter selected decides due to the facts of the case, clothes won't matter. Once again, you're assuming bias wehre there mgiht not be any.

And, again, you're assuming that

1) both people involved are muslim

2) both people would pick an arbiter from the IICJ, which is not a neccesity. If the one thinks the arbitrator will be biased because his wife wears modern, western clothes, then simply say "hell no, I'm not agreeing to him."

"The difference is, there are appeals and lots of checks to recognize problem judges and get them out of the system. I just don't see that happening in a group of Islamic elders."

The people invovled are there own checks and balances. If the person is biased in some way DON'T SELECT HIM.

"Third, that's a ridiculous statement. How are you supposed to know the actual thought process a mediator is going to use in your case before they actually judge your case, save ESP."

Oh, I don't know, maybe from their past actions and the extensive research you are obviously goping to conduct on someone before ever agreeing to let them be your arbiter? If the case invovles a black man and a whtie man, and the white man offers a member of the KKK as the arbiter, the black man's gonna ahve a pretty decent idea that the guy is going to be biased....

People don't hid religious/ehtnic/racial bias and prejudice for 50 years, then suddenly after being selected as an arbiter in a case, turn into a racist, egocentric, asses.

"mediator makes a ridiculous decision because of nothing more than their own religious bias towards details immaterial to the case,"

Once again, if you are even slightly worried about religious bias, then don't agree to let them be your arbiter.

"Granted. But the alternative is court and court isn't free."

Already addressed this. Neither is arbitration.

"It's not easy to tell whether or not an arbitrator violates their civil rights though. He can pretend he made his decision for completely different reasons and still violate one party's civil rights."

Um, it's pretty obvious when a decision violates civil rights.

"Therefore, one of two things will happen: the judge will trust the arbitrator and let the favoured party walk all over the unfavoured one,"

Judge's arn't involved in arbitration. Arbiters are the Judges.

"or he won't trust the arbitrators from IICJ at all,"

Already addressed that, this group has nothing to do with arbitration.

"and will take the word of anybody who loses the arbitration and claims that their rights were violated, even if they weren't"

Once again, decisions that violate civil rights are pretty obvious. Not to mention all the lawyers involved in an arbitration, which you seem not to know about.

Btw, you can also walk out of arbitration before it is finished if you beleive the arbiter is being unfair. Your lawyers would insist on it.

"So we're supposed to be psychic and judge and arbitrator's partiality without really knowing a thing about how he thinks?"

Again, it's called research.

"Give me a break. If I were a judge, the only arbitrations I would enforce were ones that were made by reputable professionals like ex-judges or ex-lawyers who I'm sure have no affiliation with either party."

The point of arbitration is to use someone who isn't a judge to determine the case, someone with more knowledge about the issue being disputed. Again, using the copyright analogy, a novelist or literature proffessor.

"Forgive me for not putting that much faith in the Islamic clergy."

*Sigh*, the law has nothing to do with the islamic clergy. It has nothing to do with Islam. It has nothing to do with muslims. It is a law made to govern all Canadian citizens. It just happens that one Islamic lobbyist group thinks that they can somehow exploit this law (which they can't) in order to get there foot in the door, and make the sharia law.

[SurlyPIG]

First, there's no chance that court time is less expensive than arbirtration. It's practically a secondary point of this thing according to the people who are trying to start it:

It will establish committees across the country to arbitrate in marital breakups and other civil or business disputes, and then submit the agreements under sharia law to secular courts for ratification.

"Many judges prefer this," said Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress.

"If Canadian Muslims have an impartial body they trust, it will ease the backlog in the courts. If a husband and wife go back to the community, maybe some mediation will solve the problem."

Mr. Elmasry said such committees could also handle disputes between Islamic centres and imams.

"This is very common, and we suffer a great deal when this happens, and it is too expensive.

"Some court cases I am familiar with cost more than a quarter of a million dollars."

Yes there's lawyers involved, but that's only to make the arbitration official and get everything in legal order. That's a few hours of laywer time as opposed to trials that clan last weeks or even months, plus the time behind the scenes they spend preparing for court time. I can think of very, very, VERY few instances where the cost of this adds up to be lest than the cost of mediation, including paying laywers to dot the I's and cross the T's.

Lol, once again this group has nothing to do with the Canadian legal or political system, and is no different than if you banded together ten people to outlaw books.

Yeah no kidding. Of course I know that. It doesn't matter whether they're in a group or not, the fact is that they make their decisions based on Sharia law! That's their whole reason for doing this in the first place. THAT's what I have a problem with.

Once again, my problem is not that a group of Muslims is getting together to mediate disputes between other Muslims and not with the fact that anyone can be in arbiter. My problem with it is that the decisions they make will be LEGAL and BINDING (contract), meaning that both parties are legally obligated to fullfill whatever the mediator chooses or the other party can sue them for all they're worth to varying degrees of success depending on the extent of what's described in the contract they sign to make the arbiter's decision binding.

If the arbiter selected decides due to the facts of the case, clothes won't matter. Once again, you're assuming bias wehre there mgiht not be any.

Oh baloney. Again, the whole point of this is to have a decision based on Sharia law. I challenge you to read the Qur'an and not think there won't be any bias in the case. Sharia law is centuries old, completely backward, and has absolutely no practical application in todays society. The Qur'an doesn't say anything about the limits of soft tissue injury settlements. If you think that these people, whose ultimate goal is to uphold Sharia law, are there for no other reason that to be an impartial mediator and that they'll make a fair and competant decision based on the information that they should consider relevant, you're naive.

How can they solve something like a divorce suit with Sharia law? Do you know what Sharia law says about marraige and divorce? Essentially, divorce is not acknowledged. The man doesn't divorce, he just marries more women, and the woman can't divorce because she'll be STONED to death for being adulterous. How can you make a marginally sane decision as a mediator, let alone a fair one, when you follow ^that^ as your guideline?

The people invovled are there own checks and balances. If the person is biased in some way DON'T SELECT HIM.

News flash: people are stupid. Not everybody can be trusted to do their own checks and balances. If all mediated decisions are enforced regardless of reason, then it would be possible for me to mediate a decision in which I award everything to the person who has the biggest boobs, and the winner gets all of the loser's money.

Any good judge would terminate it in the blink of an eye, just as they should do the same to any arbitration that is done under Sharia law.

*Sigh*, the law has nothing to do with the islamic clergy. It has nothing to do with Islam. It has nothing to do with muslims.

This isn't even about mediation law, but it has everything to do with the Islamic clergy, because that's who will be mediating it, and it has everything to do with Islam, because that's what they'll be using to make their decisions. It's about whether or not judges should *ENFORCE* mediations made by people working under Sharia law, or anything other than Canadian law for that matter, and anything other than a resounding no, is, in my opinion, utterly insane, completely reckless, and a gross violation of your civil and human rights.

[Mahdi]

"Yes there's lawyers involved, but that's only to make the arbitration official and get everything in legal order."

No, there's also all the work they do before arbitration is even agreed as the best course of action for the case such as settlement attempts, then their's all the work they do decideding on the arbiter, then their's there working out a case to present to the arbiter, then there's there presenting there case to the arbiter, then there is the writing up of the legal documents solidifying the agreement. Same work as if they were going to a trial. Same cost as if they were going to a trial. Plus the cost of the arbiter on top of that.

", the fact is that they make their decisions based on Sharia law!"

They are in no place to fake any decisions. They are a lobbyist organization trying to get the "right" to make and enforce decisions based on Sharia law. They arn't even trying to get muslims to pick them as arbitors. In fact,t here only mention of this law is that they think it might be the toe in the door to allow different ethnic peoples in Canada to determine there own laws applicable only to themselves. As of now this isn't the case, and it never will be no matter what these people say because the very idea of it violates the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.

The only way they can make decisions is if:

a) Two devout muslims who believe in them somehow come at odds (which also gets rid of your "What if the wife embraces modern western clothign and culture" arguement, because then she the family wouldn't agree upon and arbitor from this group)

b) Both devout muslims agree to have them mediate

c) The lawyers for each party agree that that this will not harm there clients

d) The person selected agrees to act as arbiter

e) During the arbitration neither party leaves the table

f) There decisions do not violate Canadian laws or civil rights.

" My problem with it is that the decisions they make will be LEGAL and BINDING (contract), meaning that both parties are legally obligated to fullfill whatever the mediator chooses or the other party can sue them for all they're worth to varying degrees of success depending on the extent of what's described in the contract they sign to make the arbiter's decision binding."

That's the whole point of having an arbiter in the first place. If the arbiter's decision had no power, then one party could just say "Screw it, I don't care if he said I was plagerising this guys book, I ain't gonna pay any reperations." and everyone is back at square one, having spent a lot of money first tryign to settle, then going through an arbitration, and now facing a trial.

"Again, the whole point of this is to have a decision based on Sharia law.... The Qur'an doesn't say anything about the limits of soft tissue injury settlements."

Well then, they won't be making there decisions about soft-tissue injury settlements based on the Sharia, will they?

" The man doesn't divorce, he just marries more women, and the woman can't divorce because she'll be STONED to death for being adulterous."

Once again, violation of civil rights. The decision wold not be binding, and any attempt to enforce it would result in the enforcer's being criminally charged.

Plus, I sincerly doubt that if you find the nearest muslim to you and ask him if he'd stone a woman for divorcing her husband, he'd laugh at you. Divorce isn't allowed in teh Christian religion either, although now it's a 50/50 chance int he western world.

"News flash: people are stupid. Not everybody can be trusted to do their own checks and balances."

People arn't that stupid. And even if the occasional person is, the lawyer who they are paying to take care of there case isn't. He/she will be the one runnign the checks on all potential mediators, and youc an be damned sure no lawyer's gonna let his/her client inter into an arbitration when the arbiter would be biased against the client.

"If all mediated decisions are enforced regardless of reason, then it would be possible for me to mediate a decision in which I award everything to the person who has the biggest boobs, and the winner gets all of the loser's money."

No you couldn't, that would be discrimination, and therefore a violation of Canadian laws and the parties invovled civil rights. Your decision would be void, and then you would be sued, if the lawyer and parties concerned were feeling particularly vindictive. Not just by the person you deemed the "loser", but also possibly the person you deemed the "winner." Hell, they might take enough money from you that they could drop there other case.

"This isn't even about mediation law"

Make up your mind, you just said this was about arbitration being legal and binding.

"because that's who will be mediating it,"

Not unless they meet the criteria listed earlier, in which case what religion they are of does not matter.

"It's about whether or not judges should *ENFORCE* mediations"

And again with the flip flop regarding what this is abou.

"made by people working under Sharia law, or anything other than Canadian law for that matter,"

And again, if the decision is not legal under Canadian law, then the decision is void.

They can't make decisions saying that this woman shall be stoned.

They can't say "Because you're a woman all your property goes to the man".

They can't say "Becuase your wife wears a buisness suit, you lose".

They can't make decisions that are prejudiced or biased in anyway, as that would be illegal and a violation of civil rights.

[SurlyPIG]

No, there's also all the work they do before arbitration is even agreed as the best course of action for the case such as settlement attempts, then their's all the work they do decideding on the arbiter, then their's there working out a case to present to the arbiter, then there's there presenting there case to the arbiter, then there is the writing up of the legal documents solidifying the agreement. Same work as if they were going to a trial. Same cost as if they were going to a trial. Plus the cost of the arbiter on top of that.

You don't need a lawyer to do any of that stuff any more than you need a lawyer to make a will or an accountant to do your taxes or a maid to do your laundry. You need a lawyer to make it official, but you can choose the arbiter yourself, you can try to settle yourself (if the other side even bothers - remember, this is for civil suits, nothing larger), and you can present your own case to the arbiter. And obviously if you had bothered to read the links I posted you'd have known that this is exactly what the target users of this 'service' are going to be doing, as the reason they'd use it is to save money. I even quoted it in my last post. You said yourself you could pick up a hobo on the street to arbitrate, and you could hold the arbitration there if you wanted as well.

The only way they can make decisions is if:

...a-e...

f) There decisions do not violate Canadian laws or civil rights.

a-e: obviously. That last one is where the grey area is. Obviously in a lot of cases the arbitrator's decision is going to violate their rights in some way, ie forcing them to pay money or give up their property, and that's no less of a technical violation of their civil rights than sentencing them to 180 lashings for adulterous behaviour.

That's the whole point of having an arbiter in the first place. If the arbiter's decision had no power, then one party could just say "Screw it, I don't care if he said I was plagerising this guys book, I ain't gonna pay any reperations." and everyone is back at square one, having spent a lot of money first tryign to settle, then going through an arbitration, and now facing a trial.

Exactly. When you think about it, there's no real reason to have an arbitration over a trial other than saving money or because the arbiter is going to award you more than a judge will.

Well then, they won't be making there decisions about soft-tissue injury settlements based on the Sharia, will they?

Obviously not. Thus they must make their decisions based on things by Sharia law, which has nothing to do with modern reality.

Plus, I sincerly doubt that if you find the nearest muslim to you and ask him if he'd stone a woman for divorcing her husband, he'd laugh at you. Divorce isn't allowed in teh Christian religion either, although now it's a 50/50 chance int he western world.

Look at any country where Sharia law is/has been used. It happens all the time in places where most Muslims in Canada come from. Whippings, stoning, and dismemberment are 'big three' of Sharia law.

"News flash: people are stupid. Not everybody can be trusted to do their own checks and balances."

People arn't that stupid. And even if the occasional person is, the lawyer who they are paying to take care of there case isn't. He/she will be the one runnign the checks on all potential mediators, and youc an be damned sure no lawyer's gonna let his/her client inter into an arbitration when the arbiter would be biased against the client.

No you couldn't, that would be discrimination, and therefore a violation of Canadian laws and the parties invovled civil rights. Your decision would be void, and then you would be sued, if the lawyer and parties concerned were feeling particularly vindictive. Not just by the person you deemed the "loser", but also possibly the person you deemed the "winner." Hell, they might take enough money from you that they could drop there other case.

And what if I never told them how I came to my decision? How can they defend themselves if they don't even know? What is their recourse?

Make up your mind, you just said this was about arbitration being legal and binding.

And again with the flip flop regarding what this is abou.

It's the same thing Mahdi. The judges enforcement and the fact that they are legally binding is consequentially the same thing.

They can't make decisions saying that this woman shall be stoned.

They can't say "Because you're a woman all your property goes to the man".

They can't say "Becuase your wife wears a buisness suit, you lose".

They can't make decisions that are prejudiced or biased in anyway, as that would be illegal and a violation of civil rights.

Who's going to know? Psychic Miss Cleo with her crystial ball and charming Carribean accent? Please.

[Mahdi]

"You don't need a lawyer to do any of that stuff any more than you need a lawyer to make a will"

You're kidding, right? Have you any experience with the legal system at all? Unless it's a small claims suit, you need a lawyer.

I assume you're reffering to crap like "The legal will kit" which is advertised on TV all the time. Guess what? The vast majority of those and other wills not made with a lawyer end up in court.

"Obviously in a lot of cases the arbitrator's decision is going to violate their rights in some way, ie forcing them to pay money or give up their property, and that's no less of a technical violation of their civil rights than sentencing them to 180 lashings for adulterous behaviour."

Someone winning a legal case is not a violation of your civil rights. Lashing someone is. If you honestly beleive someone can decide in arbitration that the "loser" is goign to be stoned, then you are completly out of your mind.

"Exactly. When you think about it, there's no real reason to have an arbitration over a trial other than saving money or because the arbiter is going to award you more than a judge will."

What are you talkign about? The reason to go to arbitration is to avoid the formalities of a trial and to have someone with more direct knowledge of your case decide it.

"Obviously not. Thus they must make their decisions based on things by Sharia law, which has nothing to do with modern reality."

That doesn't even make sense. How can they possibly base soft tissue injury decisions based ont eh Sharia, if the Sharia does not even mention them? It's impossible.

"Look at any country where Sharia law is/has been used. It happens all the time in places where most Muslims in Canada come from. Whippings, stoning, and dismemberment are 'big three' of Sharia law."

None of which could happen in Canada.

"And what if I never told them how I came to my decision? How can they defend themselves if they don't even know? What is their recourse?"

You have to explain your decision, you can't just show up one day and say "Bill gets $1000000." Not to mention it'd be pretty obvious when yous tare at someones breasts throughout the entire arbitration. I doubt it would even reach the point where you could make a decision, the involved parties would both leave the table. If somehow the lawyers did let it go to a decision, if they even suspected there was bias in it, they would would refuse the decision, sue you, and your decision would be suspended until after thsoe preceedings were finished, whether or not your decision would be valid will then be based on the outcome of that suit.

"It's the same thing Mahdi. The judges enforcement and the fact that they are legally binding is consequentially the same thing."

Then stop saying they arn't one paragraph, and they are the next.

"Who's going to know? Psychic Miss Cleo with her crystial ball and charming Carribean accent? Please."

No, from your actiosn during the arbitration and the reasons you give in your decision. Not to mention that the chances of a biased arbitrater being picked after the extensive background checks is very, very slim.

I don't know where you get the idea that it is hard to tell when a decision vioaltes someones civil rights or Canadian law. It's not.

You seem to have very little knowledge about the law and legal systems, and can't seem to understand anything I'm telling you, so I'm done with this thread.

[Andrew]

Really? the canadian legal will kit is not secure? I've heard of people using it.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/

should have all the info you need to argue with sources..

[Mahdi]

Really? the canadian legal will kit is not secure? I've heard of people using it.

They use it, but most often it ends up in court. They are not recommended.

[Anathema]

I study law, and though there isn't much I know about the Canadian legal system I can tell you that lawyer's work isn't as easy as it looks on TV.

A judge bases his judgement on 3 things: international treaties, written rules (national legislation) and unwritten rules (common practice). The last one is totally dependent on what sort of culture you are from. In a dispute between a muslim immigrant and a native Canadian, the judge would probably base his judgement on what Canadians consider to be fair and normal, even though it won't seem that way to the muslim. So you can see why he wouldn't want to take it to the judge, and why 2 muslims would rather present their case to an arbitrator that is closer to their customs and culture then a Canadian judge.

[Mahdi]

I study law, and though there isn't much I know about the Canadian legal system I can tell you that lawyer's work isn't as easy as it looks on TV.

A judge bases his judgement on 3 things: international treaties, written rules (national legislation) and unwritten rules (common practice). The last one is totally dependent on what sort of culture you are from. In a dispute between a muslim immigrant and a native Canadian, the judge would probably base his judgement on what Canadians consider to be fair and normal, even though it won't seem that way to the muslim. So you can see why he wouldn't want to take it to the judge, and why 2 muslims would rather present their case to an arbitrator that is closer to their customs and culture then a Canadian judge.

Thank you, Earthnuker, for giving a more educated perspective.

[emprworm]

well here is something that stunned me.

I was driving with my wife last week to the gym and I saw a police car with its lights flashing on the side of the road.

[TMA_1]

I see no problem with a police officer wearing a turban as long as it doesnt effect his performance on the street. Same witha christian wearing what he or she wants to wear for spiritual purposes.

[Vanguard3000]

Yes, Sikh men can now wear their turban as part of their uniform in Canada, thanks to Baltej Singh Dhillon, who challenged the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the late 80's over the issue.  A very interesting case, actually.  There's a neat picture of a man "modeling" the RCMP uniform with a turban, with a woman wearing pants (PANTS!) with her uniform.  You see, this was also when they began allowing female officers to wear pants as part of the uniform, as opposed to a skirt.

Baltej Singh Dhillon is one of my personal heroes because of this.  More power to him.

And Emprworm, I don't think a priest or monk would have the option of being an RCMP officer as well.  And even then, it's very different.  Priests don't wear their tunic/collar/"uniform" all day every day, you know, but if a christian wants to join the RCMP, he is free to wear a Crucifix chain around his neck if he wishes. The turban is a powerful symbol to a Sikh, and it shouldn't prevent him from doing what he dreams of doing.  And if it doesn't hinder his performance as a police officer, I don't see the problem.

[emprworm]

Yes, Sikh men can now wear their turban as part of their uniform in Canada, thanks to Baltej Singh Dhillon, who challenged the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the late 80's over the issue.

[SurlyPIG]

It's not about embracing religious iconography, it's about whether or not what he wears will hinder his ability to do his job as a police officer.

[emprworm]

lol Ace don't even pretend you are on the side of the Sikhs.

You would be the first christophobe in here splashing these boards with anti-christian intolerance if you went to a public high school and your history teacher was wearing this:

you and dan both.

[Vanguard3000]

I really don't see why an RCMP officer couldn't wear a Nirvana t-shirt under his uniform...

[emprworm]

I really don't see why an RCMP officer couldn't wear a Nirvana t-shirt under his uniform...

and what about the lutheran history teacher wearing his religious robes?  You have a problem with that?  Since teachers dont have uniforms, there would not be any problem with necessary attire being concealed.

[danielsh]

and what about the lutheran history teacher wearing his religious robes?  You have a problem with that?  Since teachers dont have uniforms, there would not be any problem with necessary attire being concealed.

Why would that be a problem? As long as he's not trying to convert children, he should be able to wear whatever he needs to wear. If a history teacher were wearing that outfit (from your photo), I would question why. If it turned out that he was simply making a class on Christian history more interesting (for example), I would smile to myself, happy to see some creative teaching. If it turned out that he was legally allowed to wear that outfit as a part of his religion, I would smile to myself, happy to see the First Amendment in action. If it turned out that he was trying to convert children to his religion, I would be infuriated and make sure the ACLU was on the case.

[Wolf]

Ummm... I'm Lutheran, and we've got a Lutheran math teacher who is also a pastor, and he doesn't wear religious robes while at work in the school, and at church, he usually wears the white collar and black clothing...

[emprworm]

Why would that be a problem? As long as he's not trying to convert children, he should be able to wear whatever he needs to wear.

[Wolf]

Emprworm, your obvious refusal to even read my last post is evident. Please do so, before you talk about teachers "wearing full lutheran robes". I am Lutheran. I know a Lutheran pastor who is also a teacher. He does not wear robes to school, nor can I think of any robes that he would wear. The Lutheran faith prides itself on the substance of faith, rather than the trappings.