Originally Posted by WharfedaleTiger

The worst rub is that they get allocated social housing immediately, leapfrogging English families that have waited years for the privilege, benefits that are larger than some English families that are in full time work earn, all washed down with a government that bends over backwards to employ them in high positions of authority, whether they are capable or not.-the first point has repeatedly been proved false. Befits for an asylum seeker are around £70a week, mainly in food tokens.

Originally Posted by John Drake

Look, arbitration is arbitration. If both sides agree to arbitrate using Sharia as a guide it's still just arbitration.

Arbitration is based upon freedom, both sides start out in agreement on who the arbitrator is and how he will arbitrate, but beyond that you are just giving people help in working things out on their own.

Steve, why do you object to people being free to follow their own customs among themselves in areas where the state has no compelling interest? Is it because they're muslims? cause I can't see any other reason.

Originally Posted by John Drake

So now we have a conservative against the government allowing people to use their religious precepts as a basis for binding arbitration even if both parties agree to do so beforehand.

And while the Jews have done so all along, you only find it "dangerous" when the muslims start wanting to as well.

But it's just the principle, has nothing to do with Islamophobia.

RRRiiiggghhtt

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Now we're talking about criminal issues - and that's a whole different ball of wax.

Matt

Originally Posted by Steve

The fact of the matter is that I was unaware of the British practice of allowing Jews to do it. I would be surprised if most Americans were aware of that. My post was made after learning of the practice of allowing both Jews and Muslims to do it. My reaction would be equally strong if it concerned Hindus or Buddhists.

Originally Posted by Luap

It's essentially two parties entering a contract in which they both agree to allow an arbitration tribunal settle their case. The tribunal just happens to operate on religious guidelines. The only thing that's changed it seems is that British courts can now enforce that contract.

I'm curious if this sort of thing exists in the US. I looked into it a bit but couldn't find much. I did find an article about religious arbitration in Canada; curiously from the perspective of a socialist. New Socialist: SHARIA LAW: Religious arbitration and the privatization of law

Originally Posted by Steve

On issues of a civil relevance, I can’t see it being a major deal. Like others have mentioned, though, when those social issues begin to skirt along the lines of something that would be better handled in a criminal court, I can see issues.

When my brother got divorced from his insane “I’ve been abducted by aliens and they’re coming back to get me” wife (yeah, that’s a long story), neither wanted to go through a long, drawn out court fight to get what they wanted. They agreed to binding arbitration, but there was nothing there based in religion that was then held up as valid by the civilian court.

I dunno’, sounds like a dangerous precedent to me…

Originally Posted by WharfedaleTiger

Really?

They can build what they want, where they like.-False, I presume this is partly a reference to the 'super-mosque' in London, which of course didn't get planning permission.

The ports are wide open for them to leave unchecked and to enter unchecked.-erm, no there not. Security is tighter than ever.

Hundreds of thousands come in illegally, usually via France, but they fly in unheeded and unchecked too. -you cannot fly into this country unchecked or unheeded-theres this thing called customs. Once again security at airports is tighter than ever.

Some of those that sporadically do the checking have been proven to be illegals, that came to light quite recently, but nothing has been done about it.-well they've been fired and deported and regualtions have been tightened for recruitment.

The government simply does not seem to care about our safety. They are too wound up in their politically correct ideals, the same of which are thrust down the throats of the gullible via the BBC. Problem is, most Brits have bought it and would not say boo to the proverbial goose. -and yet we have the most draconian security legislation we've ever had, crime fallen massivly and police numbers have increased....

The worst rub is that they get allocated social housing immediately, leapfrogging English families that have waited years for the privilege, benefits that are larger than some English families that are in full time work earn, all washed down with a government that bends over backwards to employ them in high positions of authority, whether they are capable or not.-the first point has repeatedly been proved false. Befits for an asylum seeker are around £70 a week, mainly in food tokens.

Furthermore, the government allow them to wear their religous garb where ever they wish, yet jump from a great height upon a Christian wishing to wear a discreet little cross in a governmental post.-I'd like to know who 'them' are, but anyways the second bit is false (I presume this i a reference to that woman who was fired for performance, but claimed it was because of her crusifix.) A lot of people, including Blair, wear the cross in govermental positions.

Then the government pass laws that make it illegal for Anglo-Saxons to complain about it.-Anglo-saxons? Hell, they havn't existed for a thousand years mate. Your not one of those who actually think that the English are 'pure anglo-saxon' are you? What laws BTW? I'm guessing that your talking about the parlimentry protest laws, not ones I'm a fan of, but your talking BS, they're not aimed at 'anglo-saxons'

Originally Posted by Luap

It's essentially two parties entering a contract in which they both agree to allow an arbitration tribunal settle their case. The tribunal just happens to operate on religious guidelines. The only thing that's changed it seems is that British courts can now enforce that contract.

I'm curious if this sort of thing exists in the US. I looked into it a bit but couldn't find much. I did find an article about religious arbitration in Canada; curiously from the perspective of a socialist. New Socialist: SHARIA LAW: Religious arbitration and the privatization of law

Originally Posted by Chocobot

I think you scare easily.

Originally Posted by Hafke

Aylum seekers are not allowed to work. If you object to them having £70 per week - a fortune! - then try to have the law changed. No, wait, then everyone would be kvetching about how they're "stealing" jobs. The problem with social housing is that it's available at all, and that includes the English. Where exactly are these unqualified asylum seekers being put in positions of high authority because they're asylum seekers?

Originally Posted by Kaleidoscope

Oh well, you have nothing to worry about then, everything is hunky dory.



Can't decide whether you are Dead Sheep or Brainwashed.

Total, unsubstantiated, BBC-esque type massage and denial of the facts. BS.

Brainwashed it is.

Originally Posted by WharfedaleTiger

Funny, it was because of people like Kaleidoscope that they're not allowed to work.

Originally Posted by Hafke

Uh, what's your point? What's the relevence?

Originally Posted by WharfedaleTiger

Just a general point, we've had the case for a while where people complain about Asylum Seekers coming in and not working-living on benfits, yet when they did work the same people just complain that they're taking British jobs. Its no win.