--Satan, quoted by John Milton
All human activity produces carbon, industrial activity doubly so, and so this precedent is basically a license to legally riot. Key cars, bomb an office building, unless you hurt too many trees in the process it's all legal.
quote:
Skaw had this to say about Optimus Prime:
One Coal burning Power Plant being ruined is hardly going to change the carbon output of the human populace.
One step at a time 
The only way humanity could ever be both industrial and carbon-neutral is if they invented some kind of magic CO2 scrubber that could remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere per day on house current. Oh, wait, we did that and Greenpeace opposes it.
They are not environmentalists, they are primitivists.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Steven Steve said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGhVxTxjS-Y
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
In
.
.
.
.
wait for it
.
.
.
.
sane.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
While we're laughing at the British legal system, I read an article today that said Britain now gives full legal credence to sharia courts--making the rulings of neighborhood sharia courts in Britain legally binding and backed by the legal system.In
.
.
.
.
wait for it
.
.
.
.
sane.
quote:Looks like the only thing preventing a split legal system is that both parties must agree to use the alternative court. If any party in the dispute expresses an intention to have the case seen in a state court, then that's what they're supposed to get. So long as any party in a dispute has the option to have the dispute addressed by a civil court (rather than a religious court), then the system, skewed as it may be, will at least remain stable. As soon as someone is denied such a request, or is not informed that they have the right to make such a request, the whole concept goes down the crapper.
Razor really knows where their towel is...
The Article
This country does roughly the same thing with televised court shows, where all parties agree to forego the normal process in favor of a resolution by an alternative court. Technically the televised courts still abide by all the same laws, but the judges take a lot of liberties in that regard, and there's no jury. `Doc fucked around with this message on 09-15-2008 at 01:54 PM.
quote:
How.... Greenlit.... uughhhhhh:
Judge Judy doesn't carbomb a Sbarro restaurant every time she's on the rag, either.
I don't know what Judge Judy you're watching, but she did that twice in the last week.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq `Doc booooze lime pole over bench lick:
This country does roughly the same thing with televised court shows, where all parties agree to forego the normal process in favor of a resolution by an alternative court. Technically the televised courts still abide by all the same laws, but the judges take a lot of liberties in that regard, and there's no jury.
Uh, televised court shows are always small claims civil suits, where there's no jury anyway. They're never major civil suits and certainly not criminal trials.
Even then, they don't just follow the same rules, they're conducted by legally appointed officials under the precise same legal system. They take no liberties that any other justice could not take.
Compare that to Sharia courts where rape cases are conducted by individuals that at best condone rape and at worst punish the female victim for it.
quote:
Maradon! likes to scream this out during sex:
Uh, televised court shows are always small claims civil suits, where there's no jury anyway. They're never major civil suits and certainly not criminal trials.Even then, they don't just follow the same rules, they're conducted by legally appointed officials under the precise same legal system. They take no liberties that any other justice could not take.
Compare that to Sharia courts where rape cases are conducted by individuals that at best condone rape and at worst punish the female victim for it.
So the raped female is going to want to go to civil court then. Unless she's patently retarded, in which case it wouldn't matter which court she went to.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Blindy. squealed:
So the raped female is going to want to go to civil court then. Unless she's patently retarded, in which case it wouldn't matter which court she went to.
Yes, and she's oh-so-likely to make that choice rather than be bullied or pressured into "choosing" the sharia court.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:This is my point in a nutshell, though it sidelines the critical hitch.
Blindy. has been nominated for the position of Voice In My Head.
So the raped female is going to want to go to civil court then. Unless she's patently retarded, in which case it wouldn't matter which court she went to.
As long as all involved parties agree to take the case to religious court, the religious court's verdict is upheld. If any involved party objects to the use of the religious court, and wants a civil trial, that is what's supposed to happen. The only catch is if someone only agrees to use the religious court because they are unaware that they have a say in the matter. ("You think I am bad husband? We go to Sharia then, see what they say. Sign this or they send you back to desert with no trial at all.")
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into `Doc who doth quote:
This is my point in a nutshell, though it sidelines the critical hitch.As long as all involved parties agree to take the case to religious court, the religious court's verdict is upheld. If any involved party objects to the use of the religious court, and wants a civil trial, that is what's supposed to happen. The only catch is if someone only agrees to use the religious court because they are unaware that they have a say in the matter. ("You think I am bad husband? We go to Sharia then, see what they say. Sign this or they send you back to desert with no trial at all.")
No. This is problematic for a variety of reasons.
In the specific case of Sharia, muslim women would face much more severe repercussions for choosing an outside court than they would for simply taking their case to a Sharia court and having it dismissed. Sharia doesn't even work that way, the local Sheik simply decides whether or not anyone is to be punished. Even if adherents were allowed a choice, women might not be, because many sects of Islam consider women chattel.
In the general case of shadow legal systems, allowing an independent system of law to form undermines the jurisprudence of the entire nation. It creates a legally arbitrary group of people for whom normal law does not apply. That they administer their own code is irrelevant to the fact that they have created a nation within a nation.
Constitutionally, law applies to all citizens identically, or it's meaningless.
But it is entirely true that you can't (and imho, shouldn't) protect the people who don't want to be protected.
This whole example is flawed anyway because if I'm reading the article right, Sharia court will only be an option for civil matters, and something like a rape case would certainly be criminal. Does it fundamentally undermine the legal system for divorces and law suits to be settled by an external arbitrator? Because we've got systems here in the US for that kind of thing as well. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 09-18-2008 at 09:05 AM.
quote:No, it's a problem for one reason.
Ninety-nine bottles of Maradon! on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of Maradon!...
No. This is problematic for a variety of reasons.
quote:Except that she has to agree to let the Sharia decide. This isn't a matter of saying to the Sharia court that you object. It is a matter of saying to the civil legal system that you do not want your case arbitrated by a Sharia court. Basically the woman would have to sign a waiver in advance, agreeing to abide by whatever decision the Sharia produces.
In the specific case of Sharia, muslim women would face much more severe repercussions for choosing an outside court than they would for simply taking their case to a Sharia court and having it dismissed. Sharia doesn't even work that way, the local Sheik simply decides whether or not anyone is to be punished. Even if adherents were allowed a choice, women might not be, because many sects of Islam consider women chattel.
How exactly would the woman face greater repricussions from the Sharia court if she refuses to allow arbitration by the Sharia court? The Sharia only gets to pass judgement if all parties involved agree to let do so. And if the case would involve criminal charges (like rape, for example), odds are pretty good that the state prosecution would refuse to have the case seen by a Sharia court.
quote:What you seem to believe is that the Sharia has been given blanket permission to make decisions on its own in any situation involving at least one Muslim, then to commission attack squads to carry out its judgements. That's not how the system works. The Sharia are only allowed to act in the capacity of a mediator. Whether they make a fair decision doesn't really matter, because they only get to make a decision at all if all involved parties agree to allow it.
In the general case of shadow legal systems, allowing an independent system of law to form undermines the jurisprudence of the entire nation. It creates a legally arbitrary group of people for whom normal law does not apply. That they administer their own code is irrelevant to the fact that they have created a nation within a nation.
quote:If that were true, then every legal system would be meaningless. So long as any legal system remains subject to interpretation by the individuals involved in the legal process, the law will not be applied "identically" to every person in every situation. In our own legal system, application of the law is subject to the interpretation of the jury foremost, is influenced by the judge, and is also skewed by the effectiveness of the lawyers for each involved party.
Constitutionally, law applies to all citizens identically, or it's meaningless.
quote:Any bullying or pressuring that would make her "choose" the Sharia court would be equally effective in making her not go to court at all. Bullying is like that. Either a person can be bullied, or they can't.
Structural Bloodsageity is failing, captain!
Yes, and she's oh-so-likely to make that choice rather than be bullied or pressured into "choosing" the sharia court.
quote:
Man, who wouldn't want to be `Doc:
Any bullying or pressuring that would make her "choose" the Sharia court would be equally effective in making her not go to court at all. Bullying is like that. Either a person can be bullied, or they can't.
Good point.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Blindy. squealed:
Good point.
Actually, it's a rather stupid point, because it sets up a false dichotomy. Just because they might be bullied into avoiding civil courts doesn't make religious courts a better option.
Even in the UK, a helluva lot more things are punishable under sharia than the normal court system.
The point should be to impose a single justice system for all citizens. Otherwise it's not justice.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's complete misunderstanding of life manifested itself when they said:
Actually, it's a rather stupid point, because it sets up a false dichotomy. Just because they might be bullied into avoiding civil courts doesn't make religious courts a better option.Even in the UK, a helluva lot more things are punishable under sharia than the normal court system.
The point should be to impose a single justice system for all citizens. Otherwise it's not justice.
I don't think that was the point he was trying to make. The point he was trying to make is that if a woman can be bullied into not going to a court where her case will be fairly heard, then it doesn't matter how many possible courts there are- She's not going to go to a court where her case can be fairly heard.
Unless it's somehow easier to bully a woman to go to a Sharia court than it is to bully her to not go to court at all, this doesn't make the situation any worse.
quote:
Blindy. startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
I don't think that was the point he was trying to make. The point he was trying to make is that if a woman can be bullied into not going to a court where her case will be fairly heard, then it doesn't matter how many possible courts there are- She's not going to go to a court where her case can be fairly heard.Unless it's somehow easier to bully a woman to go to a Sharia court than it is to bully her to not go to court at all, this doesn't make the situation any worse.
So it's best to institutionalize an injustice if a segment of the population can be bullied into avoiding institutional justice? 
Maybe it's just me, but I think it'd be better to apply resources toward making the real justice system available to oppressed minorities. In this way it does make the situation worse, because you've just made it clear to everyone that different clases of people deserve different levels of justice, undermining the entire system.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
I don't think that was the point he was trying to make. The point he was trying to make is that if a woman can be bullied into not going to a court where her case will be fairly heard, then it doesn't matter how many possible courts there are- She's not going to go to a court where her case can be fairly heard.Unless it's somehow easier to bully a woman to go to a Sharia court than it is to bully her to not go to court at all, this doesn't make the situation any worse.
That doesn't mean it should be made easier for her to get fucked over.
Shockingly and sometimes depressingly, society has an obligation to protect the stupid, too.
