Tom, In time I belive it will cause a huge problem. There is a huge danger of mission creep with any organisation such as these. What starts as arbitration ends in law making, and that is plain wrong...
Multiculturalism
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Tom, In time I belive it will cause a huge problem. There is a huge danger of mission creep with any organisation such as these. What starts as arbitration ends in law making, and that is plain wrong...
Veek - some interesting facts for you to mull over :-
Pope visits Africa, reaffirms ban on condoms
<!-- Module ends: article-header--><!-- Module starts: article-section (ArticleSection) -->POPE BENEDICT XVI
<!-- Module ends: article-section-->
<!-- Module starts: article-byline (ArticleByline) -->March 17, 2009<!-- Module ends: article-byline-->
<!-- Area starts: article-side-image --><!-- Module starts: article-image (ArticlePageImage) --><!-- Module ends: article-image-->
<!-- Area ends: article-side-image--><!-- Area starts: article-block-1 --><!-- Module starts: article-text-1 (ArticleText) -->Pope Benedict XVI refused Wednesday to soften the Vatican's ban on condom use as he arrived in Africa for his first visit to the continent as pope.
He landed in Cameroon, the first stop on a trip that will also take him to Angola.
Sub-Saharan Africa has been hit harder by AIDS and HIV than any other region of the world, according to the United Nations and World Health Organization. There has been fierce debate between those who advocate the use of condoms to help stop the spread of the epidemic and those who oppose it.
More than 22 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are infected with HIV, according to a 2008 UNAIDS/WHO report. Nine out of 10 children with HIV in the world live in the region, which has 11.4 million orphans because of AIDS, the report said, and 1.5 million people there died of the disease in 2007.
<!-- Module ends: article-text-2--><!-- Module ends: article-text-1-->
Pope visits Africa, reaffirms ban on condoms
<!-- Module ends: article-header--><!-- Module starts: article-section (ArticleSection) -->POPE BENEDICT XVI
<!-- Module ends: article-section-->
<!-- Module starts: article-byline (ArticleByline) -->March 17, 2009<!-- Module ends: article-byline-->
<!-- Area starts: article-side-image --><!-- Module starts: article-image (ArticlePageImage) --><!-- Module ends: article-image-->
<!-- Area ends: article-side-image--><!-- Area starts: article-block-1 --><!-- Module starts: article-text-1 (ArticleText) -->Pope Benedict XVI refused Wednesday to soften the Vatican's ban on condom use as he arrived in Africa for his first visit to the continent as pope.
He landed in Cameroon, the first stop on a trip that will also take him to Angola.
Sub-Saharan Africa has been hit harder by AIDS and HIV than any other region of the world, according to the United Nations and World Health Organization. There has been fierce debate between those who advocate the use of condoms to help stop the spread of the epidemic and those who oppose it.
More than 22 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are infected with HIV, according to a 2008 UNAIDS/WHO report. Nine out of 10 children with HIV in the world live in the region, which has 11.4 million orphans because of AIDS, the report said, and 1.5 million people there died of the disease in 2007.
<!-- Module ends: article-text-2--><!-- Module ends: article-text-1-->
Veek, here's another interesting piece: -
South Africa enraged by Catholic ban on condoms
afrol News, 25 January - The Catholic Bishops' Conference of Southern Africa has enraged South African government officials and groups fighting the AIDS pandemic. The Catholic Church had criticised South Africa's government for promoting condoms in the fight against AIDS "when it is clearly not working."
Cardinal Wilfred Napier, the head of the Catholic Bishops' Conference in Southern Africa, made this statement on Monday, criticising the government of South Africa for its promotion of condoms. Cardinal said South Africa should follow Uganda's example and focus its anti-AIDS campaign on sexual abstinence.
With an estimated 10 percent of South Africans being Catholics, the message from the Bishops' Conference has certain weight in the country, which has the largest number of HIV infected persons in the world. For the government and AIDS activist, the Catholic Church's message is only creating unwanted confusion.
The South African Ministry of Health yesterday afternoon in a statement said "it is sad that the head of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Southern Africa has criticised government for implementing one of the few methods of preventing the transmission of HIV." South Africa nevertheless appreciated the important work of the church in "promoting prevention and providing care and support to those who are infected and affected by HIV and AIDS."
- The overwhelming scientific evidence that is currently available to us indicates that correct use of condoms is protecting people from many sexually transmitted infections including HIV as well as in preventing unwanted pregnancies, the South African Ministry of Health said in its statement.
The Ministry pointed to the fact that South Africa is a democratic and secular state, guaranteeing citizens the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, also when it comes to the AIDS crisis. It was nevertheless "necessary to understand that government's responsibility is much broader than that of the Catholic Church." The government had to "inform our people of ALL the options available to them to prevent HIV infection."
- Therefore our message remains as follows, the statement said: "Abstain for as long as you can; Be faithful to your partner; And use a condom." The government's condom distribution had increased dramatically lately, and would continue to do so, the Ministry added.
The Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), South Africa's major activist group fighting the AIDS pandemic, was less diplomatic in its rejection of the Catholic Church's view than the national government. TAC spokesman Denis Matwa told the press in South Africa that Cardinal Napier was "coming with a stupid message."
TAC, which is pressuring South Africa's government to make even more condoms available, holds that South Africa is "a very sexually active nation." The group has been campaigning for the use of condoms for years in a society that is saturated of sexual taboos while still very sexually active.
Especially men in the poorer layers of society do not easily accept the use of condoms, Mr Matwa said. Cardinal Napier, being an influential man, could have set back AIDS prevention work by years, the TAC representative held.
Veek, I particularly like this paragraph: -
- The overwhelming scientific evidence that is currently available to us indicates that correct use of condoms is protecting people from many sexually transmitted infections including HIV as well as in preventing unwanted pregnancies, the South African Ministry of Health said in its statement.
South Africa enraged by Catholic ban on condoms
afrol News, 25 January - The Catholic Bishops' Conference of Southern Africa has enraged South African government officials and groups fighting the AIDS pandemic. The Catholic Church had criticised South Africa's government for promoting condoms in the fight against AIDS "when it is clearly not working."
Cardinal Wilfred Napier, the head of the Catholic Bishops' Conference in Southern Africa, made this statement on Monday, criticising the government of South Africa for its promotion of condoms. Cardinal said South Africa should follow Uganda's example and focus its anti-AIDS campaign on sexual abstinence.
With an estimated 10 percent of South Africans being Catholics, the message from the Bishops' Conference has certain weight in the country, which has the largest number of HIV infected persons in the world. For the government and AIDS activist, the Catholic Church's message is only creating unwanted confusion.
The South African Ministry of Health yesterday afternoon in a statement said "it is sad that the head of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Southern Africa has criticised government for implementing one of the few methods of preventing the transmission of HIV." South Africa nevertheless appreciated the important work of the church in "promoting prevention and providing care and support to those who are infected and affected by HIV and AIDS."
- The overwhelming scientific evidence that is currently available to us indicates that correct use of condoms is protecting people from many sexually transmitted infections including HIV as well as in preventing unwanted pregnancies, the South African Ministry of Health said in its statement.
The Ministry pointed to the fact that South Africa is a democratic and secular state, guaranteeing citizens the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, also when it comes to the AIDS crisis. It was nevertheless "necessary to understand that government's responsibility is much broader than that of the Catholic Church." The government had to "inform our people of ALL the options available to them to prevent HIV infection."
- Therefore our message remains as follows, the statement said: "Abstain for as long as you can; Be faithful to your partner; And use a condom." The government's condom distribution had increased dramatically lately, and would continue to do so, the Ministry added.
The Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), South Africa's major activist group fighting the AIDS pandemic, was less diplomatic in its rejection of the Catholic Church's view than the national government. TAC spokesman Denis Matwa told the press in South Africa that Cardinal Napier was "coming with a stupid message."
TAC, which is pressuring South Africa's government to make even more condoms available, holds that South Africa is "a very sexually active nation." The group has been campaigning for the use of condoms for years in a society that is saturated of sexual taboos while still very sexually active.
Especially men in the poorer layers of society do not easily accept the use of condoms, Mr Matwa said. Cardinal Napier, being an influential man, could have set back AIDS prevention work by years, the TAC representative held.
Veek, I particularly like this paragraph: -
- The overwhelming scientific evidence that is currently available to us indicates that correct use of condoms is protecting people from many sexually transmitted infections including HIV as well as in preventing unwanted pregnancies, the South African Ministry of Health said in its statement.
I will say that as I see it the issue with sharia is when it is MANDATED and when its followers put it above the law of the land. At that point there is no multi anything going on or respect for the natural country. It's them saying thanks for the land and now we are going to fuck up your country (how are all those sharia countries nowadays :stunned: ).
The Jewish arbitration ( I do not like the word court system used for it either) system works within the existing legal system and is in step with the laws of the land and they still answer to the common courts. This is NOTHING like SHARIA. The Jewish mediation takes the LAWS OF THE LAND and mediates within THOSE RULES for people of the Jewish community. That's all I have to add that will not spur more controversy so SUPER JEW OUT!!!!!
The Jewish arbitration ( I do not like the word court system used for it either) system works within the existing legal system and is in step with the laws of the land and they still answer to the common courts. This is NOTHING like SHARIA. The Jewish mediation takes the LAWS OF THE LAND and mediates within THOSE RULES for people of the Jewish community. That's all I have to add that will not spur more controversy so SUPER JEW OUT!!!!!
Last edited:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
No worries.
Caveat: I'm no expert on either "Sharia law" or the UK system other than the UK is common law like us and the basic concepts are the same. I also did some reading of what I think are unbiased sources on the "Sharia law" issue in the UK.
As is the case with most things Muslim these days, there are a few things that are spooky and a lot of things that are being overblown.
First a quick primer on our (the US and UK) legal systems. We of course have the courts to decide civil disputes. But, for many years, both countries have arbitration rules -- the Federal Arbitration Act and the state analogues in the US and the Arbitration Act in the UK -- that recognize the ability of parties to a dispute to agree to have it resolved via "arbitration" and also allow them to devise basically any private means of resolving that dispute that they want.
Then, both systems allow the winner in that private dispute resolution to have the decision enforced by the standard civil common law courts.
In other words, if I agree with Bob to arbitrate in the US using say the law of Berzerkerstan, I can do that. If I win, I can then go to a US court and have that court enforce the award.
Now, in the US anway, the court is allowed to look into the arbitration proceeding in very limited ways to ensure that there is basic fairness involved, and that neither party was compelled against their wishes to arbitrate using the rules that were actually employed.
As I understand it, the same is true in the UK.
So what is happening in the UK is not a "new" concept and is, in my view, being blown out of porportion. The UK is not adopting a "separate" law system in parallel that uses Sharia law.
Instead, what I have read is that the UK courts have said they will agree to respect private arbitration decisions based on Sharia law involving family, domestic and some other civil matters, and they will enforce those awards. This is again no different for our existing system that allows you to decide, privately, with another party the "rules" that will be used to decide your dispute.
So, if two Muslims (or two Christians for that matter) decide that they want their dispute decided by Sharia law and arbitrated privately, the UK courts (and the US courts as well) have generally agreed to enforce any decision rendered in that arbitration.
Now, where there needs to be oversight is in ensuring, for example, that women in the UK are not compelled to arbitrate in a system that doesn't say respect their right own property. Or uses fundamentally unfair means of deciding disputes (does it weigh more than a duck? a witch!).
But it is not as if the UK is "adopting" Sharia law or forcing anyone to be subject to it. The UK is just doing what it and the US have done for many years: respecting the right of two individuals to create their own rules for resolving a dispute.
Caveat: I'm no expert on either "Sharia law" or the UK system other than the UK is common law like us and the basic concepts are the same. I also did some reading of what I think are unbiased sources on the "Sharia law" issue in the UK.
As is the case with most things Muslim these days, there are a few things that are spooky and a lot of things that are being overblown.
First a quick primer on our (the US and UK) legal systems. We of course have the courts to decide civil disputes. But, for many years, both countries have arbitration rules -- the Federal Arbitration Act and the state analogues in the US and the Arbitration Act in the UK -- that recognize the ability of parties to a dispute to agree to have it resolved via "arbitration" and also allow them to devise basically any private means of resolving that dispute that they want.
Then, both systems allow the winner in that private dispute resolution to have the decision enforced by the standard civil common law courts.
In other words, if I agree with Bob to arbitrate in the US using say the law of Berzerkerstan, I can do that. If I win, I can then go to a US court and have that court enforce the award.
Now, in the US anway, the court is allowed to look into the arbitration proceeding in very limited ways to ensure that there is basic fairness involved, and that neither party was compelled against their wishes to arbitrate using the rules that were actually employed.
As I understand it, the same is true in the UK.
So what is happening in the UK is not a "new" concept and is, in my view, being blown out of porportion. The UK is not adopting a "separate" law system in parallel that uses Sharia law.
Instead, what I have read is that the UK courts have said they will agree to respect private arbitration decisions based on Sharia law involving family, domestic and some other civil matters, and they will enforce those awards. This is again no different for our existing system that allows you to decide, privately, with another party the "rules" that will be used to decide your dispute.
So, if two Muslims (or two Christians for that matter) decide that they want their dispute decided by Sharia law and arbitrated privately, the UK courts (and the US courts as well) have generally agreed to enforce any decision rendered in that arbitration.
Now, where there needs to be oversight is in ensuring, for example, that women in the UK are not compelled to arbitrate in a system that doesn't say respect their right own property. Or uses fundamentally unfair means of deciding disputes (does it weigh more than a duck? a witch!).
But it is not as if the UK is "adopting" Sharia law or forcing anyone to be subject to it. The UK is just doing what it and the US have done for many years: respecting the right of two individuals to create their own rules for resolving a dispute.
Jeff as an atty I would love for you to explain this "Actually, you have no clue what you are talking about. More below". Please explain where ANYTHING I wrote in incorrect or even wrong or where I am clueless because you go onto a diatribe describing EXACTLY what I posted about the Jewish mediation practice but substitute sharia. Way to repost my thoughts and explanation but suit it to make yourself come out as the all knowing atty. But I have no clue SURE :laugh: . Mediation is mediation and I do not think that anyone has issues with that it's when the mediator works under a different set of laws and when those laws go against the very fiber of the laws of the land that there is issue (again I am repeating what I originally posted and you so eloquently regurgitated). So you are O.K. with A mediator that says " stone your wife" because she uncovered her face. Just where have I gone wrong? Please help me find a clue? Oh and if you think that Muslims in their closed off (I mean figuratively) community where they have a preached in distrust for the presiding govt that they have a choice to go by other means. You obviously have never spent anytime with devote Muslims or Jews for that matter and have no idea about the intricacies of their daily lives. BTW when was the last time you went to a synagogue or a mosque or had a conversation with someone entrenched in that lifestyle? Zealots have no issue ostracizing their own members if they do not step in line and that could and would be the kiss of death to someone who's whole life is this; but yea I'm clueless.
I love how someone who knows nothing but what he reads is pompous enough to tell me a living breathing practicing JEW about the intricacies of JEWISH and MUSLIM LAW. Any day you want to go back and forth Jeff I'll be your huckleberry although we might want to take this particular discussion off line.
I love how someone who knows nothing but what he reads is pompous enough to tell me a living breathing practicing JEW about the intricacies of JEWISH and MUSLIM LAW. Any day you want to go back and forth Jeff I'll be your huckleberry although we might want to take this particular discussion off line.
Last edited:
Jeff, I agree with your post in it's entirety. The part I have singled out is the part that I most worry about though. Muslim women have very little say in domestic / marriage / divorce issues, and there should be an oversight of some kind that would intervene in these cases.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Because there is nothing "mandated" about Sharia law in the UK. It's only used when two people agree to use it in certain forms of arbitration. There is nothing that elevates it above the law of the UK, or the US.
Your two posts -- rants really - are just more fear mongering and, frankly, filled with a bunch of "my pink unicorn is better than theirs" type stuff.
Your two posts -- rants really - are just more fear mongering and, frankly, filled with a bunch of "my pink unicorn is better than theirs" type stuff.
So your ONLY ISSUE was and is the mandatory issue (which I was incorrectly taking lead from another's posts but that doesn't change the substance of the post which YOU REGURGITATED). So we agree on EVERYTHING else. The rest of my posts were to back you into a corner since I know how atty. work (statement-fact-retort) and have noticed a particular pattern with your posts so I wasn't going to leave YOU any wiggle room. I am also going to assume (I know that has gotten me in trouble in the past) that like I suggested YOU HAVE NO REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE WITH EITHER COMMUNITY!!
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Well, let's see. I've been to Jordan and have worked with Muslims for 12 years. My sister in law and her family are Jewish as are a number of my friends.
You post was the typical rant about Sharia law taking over a country. As you can see from what I wrote, that is not the case in the UK and in fact Sharia arbitrations appear to work almost exactly like those used in the Jewish faith. Both parties have to agree to use it, and then the courts respect the decision if there was no undue influence in getting the parties to agree to arbitrate and the decision making process was fair.
So no, I don't agree with your rant or your conclusion that the Jewish system is any better (although it is fine and I have no problem with it as well).
You post was the typical rant about Sharia law taking over a country. As you can see from what I wrote, that is not the case in the UK and in fact Sharia arbitrations appear to work almost exactly like those used in the Jewish faith. Both parties have to agree to use it, and then the courts respect the decision if there was no undue influence in getting the parties to agree to arbitrate and the decision making process was fair.
So no, I don't agree with your rant or your conclusion that the Jewish system is any better (although it is fine and I have no problem with it as well).
I NEVER claimed that the Jewish system was better or worse than Sharia or visa versa and again you seem to agree with everything that I have posted. Now working with and socializing are two vastly different things and your exposure to Judaism is great to know but again not all that involved as it is your sister in law and she is obviously not even remotely orthodox as she wouldn't of married outside of her religion (unless like me HE converted)but thanks for proving my point about your inexperience with both parries in question. Please understand that I am not being combative just trying to make you realize that your life experience have been EXTREMELY WATERED DOWN and do not even begin to shine light on what is going on. $ will cross all borders but I have to ask when was the last time you had a conversation with either your sister-in-law or a Muslim about the origins of the religion or their governing laws. How about asking about how Kosher and HALAL come into existence (in all honest most JEWS and Muslims have no clue to the truth). See my point is that you may have associations with people of these religions but they have not given any real incite and if they have it has been WAY WAY WAY WATERED DOWN. I would suggest that you go pick up a TENACH (Torah), and a Koran and read them both. Than talk to a SEVERAL religious leaders of both religions and than come back and post.
In short we all seem to agree that as far as an arbitration practice is concerned Sharia and the Jewish equivalent are O.k. it's when those rulings grow beyond the scope of our western thinking that we have issue (stone your wife for showing skin)
In short we all seem to agree that as far as an arbitration practice is concerned Sharia and the Jewish equivalent are O.k. it's when those rulings grow beyond the scope of our western thinking that we have issue (stone your wife for showing skin)
Last edited:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Huh? Look at the below, you are ranting in the first paragraph about how Sharia law is "MANDATED" and there is no respect the "natural country." You claim it is "them" saying "now we are going to fuck up your country."
That's of course not the case.
Your description of the Jewish system seems accurate but you certainly were trying to claim your pink unicorn was better than theirs.
Geebus!
That's of course not the case.
Your description of the Jewish system seems accurate but you certainly were trying to claim your pink unicorn was better than theirs.
Geebus!
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
What a pissing contest this turned into ....
In general no one form of arbitration is better than the other. My UNICORN IS BETTER since we do not STONE people or BEHEAD THEM, or BEAT THEM or an other form of torture as an outcome from our mediations can the same be said of Sharia? If you concede that point than you MUST concede that the Jewish format is if nothing else more humane and def. operates within the confines of the the law of the land; again can the same be said of Sharia? So in the end yes my Unicorn is not only better but more humane and thanks for consistantly agreeing with me on points of fact. Super Jew out!!!!!
Multiculturalism can work.
Today I was on an internal training course and looking around the room brought this thread back into mind. There were 17 people on the course in total broken down as follows:-
1 Africa country of ancestry.
1 Jamaica country of ancestry.
4 Pakistan country of ancestry.
1 Dutch.
1 Southern Irish.
9 England country of ancestry.
Usual banter micky taking etc going on, no problems no tension everyone getting on fine and I suspect nothing unusual in a multinational successful company.
Today I was on an internal training course and looking around the room brought this thread back into mind. There were 17 people on the course in total broken down as follows:-
1 Africa country of ancestry.
1 Jamaica country of ancestry.
4 Pakistan country of ancestry.
1 Dutch.
1 Southern Irish.
9 England country of ancestry.
Usual banter micky taking etc going on, no problems no tension everyone getting on fine and I suspect nothing unusual in a multinational successful company.
Last edited:
Similar threads
