Muslims do NOT care if we burn the Koran! They care about THIS!

Click here for more information.

reply to post by ollncasino

The civil judgements by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal may not contravene English criminal law but its civil rulings are clearly not compatible and within UK civil law.

The MAT does not have any say within criminal law.

Its civil rulings can refer to islamic laws but to be enforceable, may not contravene the civil laws of the UK.

I merely asked you for examples of the above assertions that you made and you have declined to give me any.

I'v not declined olln, I just want to understand the relevance of the Employment Tribunals act to the conversation we are having..

The scope for the HIgh court to intervene, when enforcing the Muslim Arbitration Tribunals' judgements, is limited to refusing to enforce remedies that are illegal or contrary to public policy/interest .

But that actualy gives quite a lot of scope and contradicts an earlier statement that 'Judges merely enforce the decisions of the tribunal'.

In the UK, Sharia law is applied by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunals on Commercial and Debt matters and the High Court enforces it.

Despite what the Dail Fail says, it isnt that simple.
Arbitration is entirely consensual. The only power the Beth Din or MAT have is what you give to them. As you state above, the Court (as opposed to tribunal) can decide to not allow an award to go forward. Whether they will or not is a different matter of course.

Like Namaste's one law for all campaign, I do NOT support any further inroads into the Family or Chancery Courts. I like my justice system to be seperated from ALL religious and political er, influence, and by the biggest gap possible.

The whole Alternative Dispute Resolution thing is a strange beast imho; You and me could use it to settle our dispute under klingon law if we so wished...I'm up for it are you

reply to post by ollncasino




And you know, because you're somehow connected, that every single attack you just listed was perpetrated by Islamic terrorists?

That's good to know.

Originally posted by ollncasino


You talk about reputable sources (which I have provided) and then you cite a very amateur looking blog (a blog?) called

www.chasingevil.org...

Yep. I was never one to judge facts on thier glitz and polish. I rather research and look for veracity.

The Religion of Peace site is a scam...it's author goes by many names and has a criminal record. Now he is simply making money off of contributions from Islamaphobic hate mongers like yourself. Quite profitable these days.

Look at the site I provided above....at the same IP address was the "Yukon Group" ...a two person It consultancy that aparently doesn't exist any longer...owned by Peter Oliver...also the phone number listed for The Religion Of Peace when it first registered?...same number as the Yukon group...Peter Oliver of the Yukon group? Made up name, doesn't exist beyond the profile there on that site...plus "Glen Reinsford's" book? He self published...and the name of the publisher name he chose? Yukon Group...it's right there on Amazon.com

this guy has been running one scheme for money after another...and apparently this last one is quite profiotable...taking money from gullible islamaphobes. I would direct the IRS to take a look at his site, but honestly it's one crook stealling money from hate mongers...what do I care..

Now take a deep breath...re-visit the site I provided...scribble down the phone number and "Yukon group" and do some googling...Search Reinsford plus Yukon group...look at his author page on his book...fyi, notice he says he was originally from Alaska?...Yukon..

I research to figure out facts...whatever his name is..the owner of your ":favorite site" is simply running a scam for money.

You should not judge veracity or truth by how glitzy a site is. I won't comment on how inane that makes you look. Wise up.

Originally posted by joewalker
Its civil rulings can refer to islamic laws but to be enforceable, may not contravene the civil laws of the UK.

Incorrect. Incidentally, you mean English law. The UK has 3 legal systems - English, Scottish and Northern Irish.

You pointed out yourself that a Scottish Arbitration Tribunal could be set up in London.

If you are suggesting that its rulings could only apply Scottish civil law within the confines of English civil law legislation and common law decisions, then you are mistaken. If you think about it, you must realise that yourself.

A Scottish Law Arbitration Tribunal in London would apply Scottish civil law and its judgements would be enforceable unless those judgements contravened English criminal law or public policy.

A Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in London applies Muslim Sharia law and its judgements are enforceable unless those judgements contravene English criminal law or public policy.

reply to post by ollncasino

Incorrect. Incidentally, you mean English law. The UK has 3 legal systems - English, Scottish and Northern Irish.

If we are being precise then your statement should read:'England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland'.

You pointed out yourself that a Scottish Arbitration Tribunal could be set up in London.

Did I? Or did I state that an Arbitrator who was familiar with Scottish law could, if requested, be used in an Arbitration panel in England and Wales.
Scotland has its ain legislation, the Scottish Code of Arbitration 1999, which incorparates parts, but not all, of the '96 Act.

If you are suggesting that its rulings could only apply Scottish civil law within the confines of English civil law legislation and common law decisions, then you are mistaken. If you think about it, you must realise that yourself.

May I respectfully request that you go away and look up Alternative Dispute Resolution with specific reference to Arbitration Tribunals.

A Scottish Law Arbitration Tribunal in London would apply Scottish civil law and its judgements would be enforceable unless those judgements contravened English criminal law or public policy.

Bai Jove, I think you are finally getting it, except for the reference to criminal law and forgetting to include Wales again.
But remember its actually the principles of Scottish civil law, as a civil court in England and WALES does not have to uphold sanctions or punishments.
For example: The sanction within Scottish civil law for breaking a contract may be to, dance down Princes Street (thats in Edinburgh btw) naked at midnight whilst whistling flower of Scotland; A sanction that a court in E&W would be unlikely to uphold, let alone enforce.

A Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in London applies Muslim Sharia law and its judgements are enforceable unless those judgements contravene English criminal law or public policy.

See above.

Originally posted by blupblup
And you know, because you're somehow connected, that every single attack you just listed was perpetrated by Islamic terrorists?

That's a novel way to deflect murders carried out by Islamic miltants.

Just claim they were carried out by someone else!

reply to post by maybereal11

Originally posted by maybereal11
The Religion of Peace site is a scam...

Really?

Then that would mean that all of those terrorist attacks that he lists didn't happen!

Except they did.

I researched the 1st day of Ramadan and found links to news sources on the web for every attack he listed, except for one, in which there were so many attacks in Pakistan Karachi on that day, that I couldn't narrow it down with the few details he gave.

Have a look yourself.

2010.08.17 Iraq Diyala 3 0 An auditor and two judges are assassinated by Islamic terrorists in separate attacks.

www.middle-east-online.com...

2010.08.17 Russia North Ossetia 2 23 Two people are dead and twenty-three others injured in a suicide attack and separate cafe bombing.

www.reuters.com...

2010.08.17 Iraq Baghdad 61 129 Over sixty young Iraqis lining up for work are senselessly cut to shreds by a Shahid suicide nail-bomber.

www.middle-east-online.com...

2010.08.17 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 A leader of a minority religious sect is gunned down by mainstream rivals.

www.pakistanconflictmonitor.org...

Too many killings to narrow the murder down!

2010.08.17 Pakistan Peshawar 2 0 Two civilians are murdered at a mosque by Taliban gunmen.

pakistancriminalrecords.com...

2010.08.17 Iraq Baghdad 10 46 Sunni militants detonate a fuel tanker in a Shia neighborhood, incinerating ten innocents.

www.salon.com...

2010.08.17 Somalia Mogadishu 1 2 A civilian is killed when Mujahideen toss a grenade at a police station.

www.criticalthreats.org...

2010.08.17 Afghanistan Zabul 2 0 A man and his wife are shot to death in their home by religious extremists.

www.reuters.com...

2010.08.17 Afghanistan Spin Boldak 8 0 Eight civilians are murdered by a Taliban bomb attack on a home.

www.reliefweb.int...

Now, how silly does that make you look?

Originally posted by maybereal11
Now he is simply making money off of contributions from Islamaphobic hate mongers like yourself. Quite profitable these days.

Back to the insults.

When you aren’t defending the rights of Islamic terrorists, you are busy insulting those who publicize their deeds.

Do you get paid to defend Islamic terrorism or do you do it out of religious devotion?

Originally posted by maybereal11
You should not judge veracity or truth by how glitzy a site is. I won't comment on how inane that makes you look. Wise up.

I judge it by the truth of its factual claims.

Perhaps it is you who needs to wise up!

You really are making a clown of yourself with your defending of Islamic terrorism.

Originally posted by joewalker
May I respectfully request that you go away and look up Alternative Dispute Resolution with specific reference to Arbitration Tribunals.

I had a search, but I couldn't prove your case for you. Any chance of you doing so?

Originally posted by joewalker
Bai Jove, I think you are finally getting it, except for the reference to criminal law and forgetting to include Wales again.

Does this mean that any London based Tribunal making a decision using Scots law in a contract case, will have to tie its knickers in a knot worrying about whether both sides have supplied consideration?

reply to post by ollncasino

I had a search, but I couldn't prove your case for you. Any chance of you doing so?

Did you look on any of HM Courts sites? Ministry of Justice? A quick google and glance at wiki probably wont do it.

Does this mean that any London based Tribunal making a decision using Scots law in a contract case, will have to tie its knickers in a knot worrying about whether both sides have supplied consideration?

Is 'knickers in a twist' a legal term now lol.
This is prefaced by me saying that the following is not intended nor should be taken as legal advice. Please consult a Solicitor.

Where would the conflict occur? By agreeing to submit to a tribunal which uses Scots law as a basis, both parties are stating they understand all ramifications of their decision.

The question you could have asked of course is, would a Court in E&W enforce a tribunal decision due to the difference in law between the two legal systems?

Is that the question you thought you were asking?

Originally posted by joewalker
Did you look on any of HM Courts sites? Ministry of Justice? A quick google and glance at wiki probably wont do it.

Isn't the onus on you, old chap, to prove your own assertions?

Does this mean that any London based Tribunal making a decision using Scots law in a contract case, will have to tie its knickers in a knot worrying about whether both sides have supplied consideration?

Originally posted by joewalker
Is 'knickers in a twist' a legal term now lol.

Where would the conflict occur? By agreeing to submit to a tribunal which uses Scots law as a basis, both parties are stating they understand all ramifications of their decision.

The question you could have asked of course is, would a Court in E&W enforce a tribunal decision due to the difference in law between the two legal systems?

Is that the question you thought you were asking?

Does that mean you can't answer the question?

reply to post by ollncasino

Heh, heh, read and comprehend olln, read and comprehend my friend.

Lets review.
You have asserted a number of times that the UK Justice system (that would be England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) only has one option when dealing with decisions from Arbitration Tribunals:
One such example can be found here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The High court merely provides the legal force to enforce a remedy. When enforcing the Tribunal's ruling, it doesn't look into the merits or legal findings of the Muslim Arbitration Council. It merely enforces them

That is a false statement which would only made by someone with a complete lack of knowlege of how the system actually works.

Do you even know how a Tribunal award becomes a Court Judgement which can then be legally enforced? Didnt think ya did.

Having been beaten back by your, or the people you are asking, complete lack of knowledge you now want to have a conversation about the principle of consideration and gratuitous contracts.

You see olln, most people would find that rather boring...me included.

What you believe to be an important show stopper really isnt; It's an established principle of Scottish Law to which both parties should really be aware off, BEFORE entering into an agreement of Arbitration.

Remember that part of the AT system is that people who choose that route have to make a reasonable attempt to educate themselves about the possible outcomes. Under law you cant take one route and then complain that another would have seen a better outcome.

Whats the latin for 'you cant have your cake and eat it' again, I forget.

Now thats cleared up, do you still assert that Judges merely enforce an award from a tribunal?

reply to post by joewalker




www.dailymail.co.uk...

What about this??
Sharia courts should not have any power at all. Do they have any currently?

reply to post by Maslo

We did that about five pages back, before olln went off on one.

Edit: Sorry maslo I assumed it was the other Daily Fail hit piece. Check out my post from the top of this page (i think) which has a Daily Telegraph piece from Joshua Rozenberg.

Olln doesnt like it as he says it out of date, but it does answer most of the claims.

Originally posted by joewalker
reply to post by ollncasino

 

Heh, heh, read and comprehend olln, read and comprehend my friend.

Lets review.
You have asserted a number of times that the UK Justice system (that would be England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) only has one option when dealing with decisions from Arbitration Tribunals:
One such example can be found here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The High court merely provides the legal force to enforce a remedy. When enforcing the Tribunal's ruling, it doesn't look into the merits or legal findings of the Muslim Arbitration Council. It merely enforces them

That is a false statement which would only made by someone with a complete lack of knowlege of how the system actually works.

Do you even know how a Tribunal award becomes a Court Judgement which can then be legally enforced? Didnt think ya did.

Having been beaten back by your, or the people you are asking, complete lack of knowledge you now want to have a conversation about the principle of consideration and gratuitous contracts.

You see olln, most people would find that rather boring...me included.

What you believe to be an important show stopper really isnt; It's an established principle of Scottish Law to which both parties should really be aware off, BEFORE entering into an agreement of Arbitration.

Remember that part of the AT system is that people who choose that route have to make a reasonable attempt to educate themselves about the possible outcomes. Under law you cant take one route and then complain that another would have seen a better outcome.

Whats the latin for 'you cant have your cake and eat it' again, I forget.

Now thats cleared up, do you still assert that Judges merely enforce an award from a tribunal?

Yet, you still offer no proof as to your assertions.

You merely claim superior knowledge while demonstrating none.

I like your last question. If I have time tomorrow, I will answer it properly. You know, with legal references and the like. You should try it sometimes.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by joewalker

 

www.dailymail.co.uk...

What about this??

Sharia courts should not have any power at all. Do they have any currently?

They do have the power to grant a legally binding ruling under Sharia law in respect of Commercial law and Debt matters. The High court enforces the decision.

reply to post by ollncasino

Excellent olln.

Does that mean you will finally show definitive proof that a court has no power to overturn an award from a tribunal?

Or will it just be yet another off topic wander into employment tribunals and Scottish law?

You see olln, first of all you need to back up your assertion,made some time and pages ago, that decisions made by the MAT are contrary to E&W law and further, that the courts of E&W are enforcing unlawful Judgements.
If you can do that, then I suspect you will make yourself a lot of money and thanks.

I look forward to sharing in your new found wealth.

Edit: Posted by olln. Can you spot the contradiction futher down the post?

The civil judgements by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal may not contravene English criminal law but its civil rulings are clearly not compatible and within UK civil law.www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by joewalker
Does that mean you will finally show definitive proof that a court has no power to overturn an award from a tribunal?

Pray be, my good man. Can you provide a quote, in context, where I made such a statement?

I fear you are trying to put words into my mouth.

If you do a search of previous posts I have made on this matter, you will see that I am well aware that:-

Appeal to a normal court is only available in one of 2 circumstances

(1) Both parties agree
or
(2) On a point of law if a secular Judicial review finds the tribunal has exercised its power unlawfully.

www.matribunal.com...

I'll let the Tribunals board speak for itself.

"The award is generally considered as final, but appeal may be made to the High Court on a question of law, with the approval of all the parties, or with the permission of the Court by way of judicial review."

www.matribunal.com...

Again I will let the tribunal speak for itself

"Although MAT must operate within the legal framework of England and Wales, this does not prevent or impede MAT from ensuring that all determinations reached by it are in accordance with one of the recognised Schools of Islamic Sacred Law."

www.matribunal.com...

I will let the Tribunal speak for itself again

In respect of Commercial and Debt matters

"The arbitrator’s judgment, known as the Award, can be delivered instantaneously, and is binding on the parties as a High Court judgment would be and if required can be imposed as one."

www.matribunal.com...

Originally posted by joewalker
Or will it just be yet another off topic wander into employment tribunals and Scottish law?

While most people don't have a clue what my comment about consideration and scots law meant, both you and I do.

We both know that you are being very evasive, old chap.

If Scots civil law being applied in a London based Tribunal doesn't need to worry about the English civil law concept of consideration (and of course it doesn't) then by analogy, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal applying Sharia law also doesn’t need to worry about English civil law concepts such as consideration.

Ergo - the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal applies Sharia law!

Originally posted by joewalker
You see olln, first of all you need to back up your assertion,made some time and pages ago, that decisions made by the MAT are contrary to E&W law and further, that the courts of E&W are enforcing unlawful Judgements.

I made no such statement.

If I did, then it should be a simple matter to provide a quote from myself (in context please) proving your assertion.

Thanks very much.