Liberal Brit judge says Muslim Law should be used in Britain
@shithole.com Drill Nothing democrap
on the benches.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html
W Spilman
"Drill Nothing democrap" <Democrap @ shithole.com> wrote in message
news:X6idnc2OfPdX_PDV...@comcast.com...
> Coming soon to the US, more liberal lunacy from Liberal scumbag ACLU
> vermine on the benches.
Yes, a logical conclusion.
WS
Pelosi @rats.sewerpipe Pelosi's $ 5.00 Gallon gas
"W Spilman" <f...@you.com> wrote in message
news:486d6bed$0$17161$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Yeah especially since the same vermine already demand that Islamoterrorists
get US Citizens constitutional rights they were never entitled to.
astr...@yahoo.com
Yea, hopefully you will travel to some third world place and the third
world government abducts your sorry ass tortures you and leaves you in
prison for information they don't give a fuck about in the first
place, with no representation, no trial, nobody knows your there, that
would be the third world justice you right-wing fagots crave for
'others.'
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't
care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
bval...@aol.com
> Yea, hopefully you will travel to some third world place and the third
> world government abducts your sorry ass tortures you and leaves you in
> prison for information they don't give a fuck about in the first
> place, with no representation, no trial, nobody knows your there, that
> would be the third world justice you right-wing fagots crave for
> 'others.'
You do understand that the point of the article isn't to expand
protection for Muslims, but to less legal rights for everyone, don't
you?
W Spilman
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:28c82e09-745c-4546...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
You do understand that the article was about a kook judge
in England, and has NOTHING to do with the US, don't you?
WS
Kevin Cunningham
Poor widdle BV, he just can't read. But his keepers are trying very
hard to teach him.
This is the exact same thing as is practiced in Jewish and Catholic
courts. The parties have to agree to do this, if so then they will
not take any dispute to civil court, they will take it to the
Rabbinical Courts. There is no reference in the article to this type
of court being used generally, but only for the parties who agree to
abide by the decisions of the religious courts.
Now was that so hard? Well for you it was.
Bill Bonde { ''Direct And On Point'')
I'm pretty sure he's an important UK judge. The issue appears to be
the freedom to contract and the freedom to choose which laws apply.
That's true to a certain extent in the US. For example, parties can
choose which state's laws should apply.
But the courts themselves can invalidate that if there's no logical
reason to use the laws of the state they chose. For example, the
suit is in Florida, the parties are in Texas and signed the
contract and acted out the contract in Texas but they insist that
Hawaii law apply. What does Hawaii have to do with it? So that
might be reason to exclude Hawaiian law.
Another issue might be that the law of Hawaii allows things that
are fundamentally not allowed in the forum state. That argument is
probably going to come up with regards to Shiria law because it may
be against public policy to, for example, mistreat women in divorce
and custody cases and Shiria law might be seen in some situations
to do just that. Certainly extreme versions of "Shiria" shouldn't
be allowed in common law countries. For example, what if she signs
a contract saying that she'll wear a burqa all the time or the
husband gets to chop off one of her arms? That's probably going to
run afoul of UK law as "against public policy".
--
"It happens sometimes, people just explode, natural causes."
-+Alex Cox, "Repo Man"
dead kennedy haters
> >> Yea, hopefully you will travel to some third world place and the third
> >> world government abducts your sorry ass tortures you and leaves you in
> >> prison for information they don't give a fuck about in the first
> >> place, with no representation, no trial, nobody knows your there, that
> >> would be the third world justice you right-wing fagots crave for
> >> 'others.'
.
> > You do understand that the point of the article isn't to expand
> > protection for Muslims, but to less legal rights for everyone, don't
> > you?
.
> You do understand that the article was about a kook judge
> in England, and has NOTHING to do with the US, don't you?
> WS
This "kook" is, in fact, the most senior judge in England. And the
fact that England is inching towards Shiria law is terrifying, indeed.
dead kennedy haters
The problem is that that's not exactly what they're talking about -
they're not talking about arbitration, but state approved contracts
which contradict British law. For the moment, they're not permitting
stoning, removal of limbs and the like - but it's only a matter of
time until that's the law of the land in Londonstan.
Bill Bonde { ''Direct And On Point'')
The UK is simply recognizing, in this, the right to contract, which
is fundamental in common law countries.
bval...@aol.com
> > This "kook" is, in fact, the most senior judge in England. And the
> > fact that England is inching towards Shiria law is terrifying, indeed.
.
> The UK is simply recognizing, in this, the right to contract, which
> is fundamental in common law countries.
There is no right to contract. There are many, many agreements that
are not legally allowed. Try writing a contract which guarantees
residuals paid will be tax free. Or one selling body parts.
Contracts must conform to law, and right now, British Muslims now have
more legal options than English citizens.
Please explain to me why this is good?
.
Bill Bonde { ''Direct And On Point'')
Show me where they'd permit contracts that violate British law.
bval...@aol.com
"The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the
use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.
...
He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree
that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'
Bill Bonde { ''Direct And On Point'')
"bval...@aol.com" wrote:
>
> ..
> > > This "kook" is, in fact, the most senior judge in England. And the
> > > fact that England is inching towards Shiria law is terrifying, indeed.
> .
> > The UK is simply recognizing, in this, the right to contract, which
> > is fundamental in common law countries.
> .
> There is no right to contract.
>
Freedom to contract is a fundamental part of the common law.
> There are many, many agreements that
> are not legally allowed.
>
That is correct. You can't make a contract to commit a crime, it is
void ab initio.
> Try writing a contract which guarantees
> residuals paid will be tax free. Or one selling body parts.
> Contracts must conform to law, and right now, British Muslims now have
> more legal options than English citizens.
>
I don't see that. Muslims can decide to form contracts based on
their religious laws. Those contracts cannot violate fundamental
aspects of British law. Generally the forum for the litigation will
follow its procedural law rules while the substantive law can come
from other jurisdictions. If the substantive law from the other
jurisdiction goes against fundamental policy of the forum
jurisdiction, it doesn't have to follow it. Of course in the US it
could be appealed perhaps to the Supreme Court which then might say
that it did have to do this or that. Generally speaking Muslims and
non-Muslims in the UK are free to form contracts as they see fit.
> Please explain to me why this is good?
>
You do realize that it is possible to write a contract and state in
the contract that the laws of Bulgaria will be used to determine
the meaning of the contract, right? So do you disagree with that?
How about if you are in Texas but the contract says that the laws
of Maine are to be used? Is that wrong? I'm not sure what limits
you place on what you are saying.
Mitchell Holman
c9ba6e...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
What muslim contracts are currently enforceable
in British courts?
Bill Bonde { ''Direct And On Point'')
I would assume that any contracts between Muslims that are legal
are enforceable.
Bill Bonde { ''Direct And On Point'')
I would suggest reading this wiki page, which I'm reproducing here
almost completely. "Choice of law" issues are common in American
courts because of the 50 states each having their own law. In any
case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_of_law_clause
#begin quote
A choice of law clause or proper law clause in a contract is one in
which the parties specify which law (i.e. the law of which state or
nation if it only has a single legal system) will be applied to
resolve any disputes arising under the contract.
...
If all the parties and the relevant factual elements affecting
formation, validity, and performance are geographically located in
the same state, it will be obvious that, if the contract is silent
on the point, the local municipal law (usually called the lex loci
contractus, i.e. the law of the place where the contract was made)
will be applied as the law governing substantive issues. The lex
fori, i.e. the law of the local forum court, will be applied to
procedural matters (such as evidentiary rules, etc). But, as people
and transactions now more frequently cross state lines both
physically and electronically, it becomes necessary to consider
which law will be applied in the event of a dispute. Should the
laws be the same, the question will be academic. But, if the laws
are sufficiently different that the judgment will change depending
on which law the court applies, the issue of choice of law becomes
highly significant.
As an application of the public policy of freedom of contract, the
parties have autonomy to make whatever bargain they want. Thus, in
principle, the parties are free to nominate any law as the proper
law of their contract even though there may be no other connection
between the substance of the obligations and the law selected.
However, such clauses could be used as a device to evade the
application of a mandatory provision of law within a relevant legal
system. Consequently, most states will not honour choice of law
clauses unless they are seen to have been included on a bona fide
basis. If the clause is recognised as a good faith term, the 'forum
state' must apply the nominated proper law to resolve the dispute.
Problems
This may lead to problems as the courts of the forum state will not
usually be familiar with the detail of the proper law and, even
after hearing expert evidence, may apply the relevant statutes
and/or case law incorrectly. Furthermore, characterisation problems
can arise when the substance of the lawsuit overlaps with a tort
such as fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, instead of a simple
breach of the contract itself. The choice of law provisions for
tort or trust issues may lead to the application of different laws
as the lex causae (the law of the issue).
Legal scholars have criticised many forum state judges for their
parochialism in finding ways to apply the lex fori instead of the
foreign law nominated in the contract. While judges are always more
proficient when applying their own law, such an advantage does not
outweigh the policy breach in failing to give effect to the
reasonable expectation of the parties. A number of legal devices
purportedly allow judges to rely on their own sense of a fair
outcome based on the facts of the case at hand, rather than
strictly interpreting the terms of the contract. While the exercise
of some judicial discretion might lead to some fairer outcomes, the
actions of individual judges can undermine the general certainty
and predictability of the local legal system: a result that also
breaches a major public policy.
The avoidance strategies adopted by judges
The arguments adopted by judges to apply the lex fori include:
[edit] Public policy
States will not apply a 'foreign' law that violates the deeply-held
convictions of the forum state's legal system, but classifying
commercial policies in contractual disputes as sufficiently
mandatory will often be seen to be unrealistic. Further, elevating
policy concerns at a local level may actually breach a more
significant policy which is that judges should not damage the
friendly relations between states. Self-evidently, if a judge is
seen to be manipulating the policies to make the law of another
state seem unjust in some material way, this might be damaging to
international relations. In a federal system such as the United
States, however, judges have been less constrained and feel more
free to circumvent another US state's laws (see Conflict of laws in
the U.S.).
[edit] Renvoi
In most legal systems, renvoi does not apply in commercial disputes
but, in the U.S., some courts have looked for a provision in the
proper law that permits the court to use the lex fori; most states
frown upon this practice, insisting that the only law to be looked
at is the substantive law of contract, and not the provisions
governing choice of law. This problem can be avoided by fine-tuning
the choice of law provision in the lex fori to expressly exclude
the power to apply the proper law's choice of law provisions.
[edit] Procedure as law
Characterising laws as procedural rules of the court rather than
substantive laws of the state allows a court to use the lex fori.
In some cases, this makes sense: after all, if the forum state
requires legal documents to be printed in a twelve-point font, and
the choice of law state requires the same documents to be printed
in a fourteen-point font, it makes little sense to require the
court to determine which font size should be used in a choice of
law dispute. However, many contentious cases have centred on
findings that issues such as burdens of proof, admissibility of
evidence, and statutes of limitations are procedural rather than
substantive because these provisions can change the outcome of a
case.
#end quote
Mitchell Holman
wrote in news:486EEB29...@yahoo.co.uk:
That is to say, secular contracts.
Bill Bonde { ''Direct And On Point'')
Generally people have a freedom to contract. So they can include
whatever they want in the contract. This includes a choice of law.
Mitchell Holman
If the courts will not enforce their "choice of law" then
whatever they signed is not a contract.
Bill Bonde { ''Direct And On Point'')
You seem stuck on that. Generally courts will agree to choice of
law for substantive issues. Did you read any of the cites I
provided?