How do they plan to adjudicate conflicts between roman law and sharia? For example, in calling witnesses according to sex (illegal to discriminate currently) or holding contracts as binding (sharia allows contracts to non-muslims to be dissolved at will...) ?
The whole concept is that this is a legal arbitration. Meaning that they are not actually going through the court process. If both parties agree to this form of arbitration, then that's how the contract dispute is settled.
The fact that this Shirai option exists at all is a death knell to justice in Australia. Dammit! Austria!
Missed it by that much! (holds fingers an inch apart)
I saw a comment of someone else who mis-read it too :/
They tried this in Canada (Ontario anyhow) decades ago: Sharia Law courts for "property disputes". It got shot down when people rightly pointed out that things like divorce, child custody & more would be classified as "property disputes".
Read mein Kampf. Hitler was excoriating the Austrian system 100 years ago for the same issue. He determine the Austrian state was not worth saving because of it's betrayal of the interests of the people that composed its population.
This is why the constitution of the USA explicitly identifies rights as being granted by God and not by the state. The state does not define your rights or your morals. The state is limited in it's control of your fundamental god given rights.
Some court jesters, I mean judges, saying something, doesn't actually change my God given rights. My rights don't begin and end based on the judiciary.
In practice, might makes right. But in theory, it's important to understand these courts don't make laws nor make morality.
As andrew Jackson said "the courts have made their decision, now let them enforce it"
The polar shift apocalypse will wipe out most of the human population and provide humanity with a fresh start, but it's still probably 20 - 25 years away.
There's lots of evidence that every previous polar flip has lead to extinction events. It doesn't just flip once & stay there, it'll bounce around for years letting in large amounts of radiation at random spots on the planet. Probably.
Everything in this case could have happened identically in the US... because nothing here was actually out of the ordinary.
This was a legal arbitration that both parties agreed to. The arbitrator made a decision. One of the parties then completely reversed their previous consent (because he lost a shitload of money) and declared that the arbitration method of a sharia court is an inherent violation of Austrian Law. The court found that his rights under Austrian law weren't actually violated, so the decision stood.
I agree that Sharia Courts should be banned even from arbitration because the Sharia courts inherently violate the liberal principles of the US, but excluding that, this process went exactly as it should within the letter of the law. You can not agree to an arbitration, then declare the entire mechanism of arbitration to be incompatible with justice, just because you lost.
The councils, typically consisting of panels of Islamic scholars who are almost always male, serve as informal bodies issuing religious rulings particularly focused on marriages and divorces
Maybe some day the right will actually be distinguishable from the left in their hatred for men.
How do they plan to adjudicate conflicts between roman law and sharia? For example, in calling witnesses according to sex (illegal to discriminate currently) or holding contracts as binding (sharia allows contracts to non-muslims to be dissolved at will...) ?
Both parties need to agree to attending one court
What if they don't agree?
If?
Then they would have to go to normal court.
The whole concept is that this is a legal arbitration. Meaning that they are not actually going through the court process. If both parties agree to this form of arbitration, then that's how the contract dispute is settled.
💥💩💥
Then it goes to a normal court.
The fact that this Shirai option exists at all is a death knell to justice in
Australia.Dammit! Austria!Missed it by that much! (holds fingers an inch apart)
Austria not Australia, we'll be officialising our sharia courts next year.
I saw a comment of someone else who mis-read it too :/
They tried this in Canada (Ontario anyhow) decades ago: Sharia Law courts for "property disputes". It got shot down when people rightly pointed out that things like divorce, child custody & more would be classified as "property disputes".
Austria has officially fallen.
Read mein Kampf. Hitler was excoriating the Austrian system 100 years ago for the same issue. He determine the Austrian state was not worth saving because of it's betrayal of the interests of the people that composed its population.
This is why the constitution of the USA explicitly identifies rights as being granted by God and not by the state. The state does not define your rights or your morals. The state is limited in it's control of your fundamental god given rights.
Some court jesters, I mean judges, saying something, doesn't actually change my God given rights. My rights don't begin and end based on the judiciary.
In practice, might makes right. But in theory, it's important to understand these courts don't make laws nor make morality.
As andrew Jackson said "the courts have made their decision, now let them enforce it"
Uh oh! The women will need to be careful:
They hate fags and women and Jews. Let em burn out all above then take them out
Honestly sharia police caning whores in the streets would be an upgrade for social morality.
Two birds with one stone? Also, one bird with 1000 stones?
Good, good, accelerate. Let's accelerate the collapse. Short of a meteor to destroy and restart everything, this is the best way.
The polar shift apocalypse will wipe out most of the human population and provide humanity with a fresh start, but it's still probably 20 - 25 years away.
There's lots of evidence that every previous polar flip has lead to extinction events. It doesn't just flip once & stay there, it'll bounce around for years letting in large amounts of radiation at random spots on the planet. Probably.
Everything in this case could have happened identically in the US... because nothing here was actually out of the ordinary.
This was a legal arbitration that both parties agreed to. The arbitrator made a decision. One of the parties then completely reversed their previous consent (because he lost a shitload of money) and declared that the arbitration method of a sharia court is an inherent violation of Austrian Law. The court found that his rights under Austrian law weren't actually violated, so the decision stood.
I agree that Sharia Courts should be banned even from arbitration because the Sharia courts inherently violate the liberal principles of the US, but excluding that, this process went exactly as it should within the letter of the law. You can not agree to an arbitration, then declare the entire mechanism of arbitration to be incompatible with justice, just because you lost.
Death wish
Maybe some day the right will actually be distinguishable from the left in their hatred for men.
Not gonna lie, read the the headlines entirely as Australia and didn't read it as Austria until scrolling to the comments.
Of course it's Vienna, lol.
And when Québec refuses, we get branded as istophobes.
We need alot more istophobia.
Outrageous.