Canada lets Islamic arbiters settle non-criminal disbutes

Scrubking

Scrubking

CAGiversary!
A group called the Canadian Society of Muslims is establishing the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (ICJ) to apply the legal code called Shariah, based on the Koran, to settle disputes over property, inheritance, marriage and divorce, reported the New York Times on Wednesday.

Just saw the same thing on Fox and the best part is that the decisions made by these Muslim clerics CANNOT BE APPEALED!

I wonder how the liberals and the UCLA would feel about letting Christians set up their own system to do the same thing?
 
Well, in a lot of ways, this pretty much just sounds like 2 people deciding to let their preacher/pastor/minister/whatever decide an argument for them. Both parties have to agree to have an arbiter from this group handle the disagreement before anything else takes place. The arbiter can only make decisions allowed within Canadian law, so no 'way out there' decisions can happen (at least no more so than happen in normal arbitration...)

Overall, I'd say it sounds like a far more rational system than the American version - going on Judge Judy.
 
The funniest part of this story is that the people against this are Muslim women.

They are concerned they will be "coerced" into accepting a binding decision from an Imam and then have it go against them.

That's some great religion they got going there.
 
I forgot to mention:

Using the Shariah Muslim clerics have been known to have women stoned to death or worse.
 
My point is that you people are searching for stories that say bad things about Muslims and implying that it involves all of them.

It would be interesting (possibly disturbing) to see a record of your google search keywords.
 
Quackzilla is just a troll. I just skip over his posts as I know they will not contain anything of value.

I am sure he jumped for joy when this forum was made.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']I forgot to mention:

Using the Shariah Muslim clerics have been known to have women stoned to death or worse.[/quote]

Did you miss the part about decisions having to fall within Canadian law? Nobody will be stoned to death.

They have a good case since Canada already allows Jewish civil courts similar to these.

I assume from the BBC report that both sides would have to agree to submit to the arbitration. If so, let them. It's not hurting anyone else. As long as no one could be forced to submit to the arbitration, where is the harm?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I assume from the BBC report that both sides would have to agree to submit to the arbitration. If so, let them. It's not hurting anyone else. As long as no one could be forced to submit to the arbitration, where is the harm?[/quote]

I want to address the issue of it not hurting people. This has nothing to do with it being an Islamic court. It could be a Jewish Court or Christian.

As a civil society I view a religious court as divicise. I think it will promote divisions between people and within the greater Canadian culture. There is far more value to having legal decisions made by the government.

MrBadExample, I have no doubt that if Christian had replaced Islaminc court you would have been concerned about people being coerced into submitting to the arbitrarion.

At the end of the day I see no upside to this and I see a great deal of downside. The rule of law is the hallmark of western civilization, it should not allowed to be marginalized by minority or majority religious courts.

If these decisions have to comport with Canadian legal precedent then there is no good reason to allow the window dressing of religious law.

And the ultimate irony to this are the number of threads in which people claim US laws have no religious underpinnings - but hey lets bring on Islam and use their laws...

CTL
 
Because things need to be clear:

This is not a court. This is a group who plans to provide arbiters to help settle disputes to people who request arbitration, and agree to allow arbiters from this group perform the arbitration. The only power that this institution will have is the power granted to it by the people who choose to use its services. The only way in which its rules can become binding is if both parties agree beforehand to give that power to the arbiter (and even then, only if the decision reached by the arbiter falls within the realm of Canadian law.)

This really isn't that much different from the way that arbitration works in the US. As I sorta said above, this is actually quite similar to how things are done on shows like Judge Judy. Judy has no actual court powers - ultimately, she only acts as an arbiter between two parties who have agreed to let her decide the dispute. Her decisions are binding only so far as the two sides on the show have agreed beforehand to let them be (via contracts with the show.)

This sort of thing really isn't all that unusual, and isn't really even worth a mention, except for the fact that we're talking about Islamic law here, and anti-Islamic feels are rather high...
 
And the ultimate irony to this are the number of threads in which people claim US laws have no religious underpinnings - but hey lets bring on Islam and use their laws...

Like I said, if it were a Christian group this place would be exploding with liberal hatred, but since it is Islam no one seems to care.

This is why many colleges are now making Islamic classes and books mandatory while erradicating anything Christian citing the separation of church and state.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']MrBadExample, I have no doubt that if Christian had replaced Islaminc court you would have been concerned about people being coerced into submitting to the arbitrarion.[/quote]

You quoted the part of my comment where I said as long as no one is being coerced, I'm okay with it. How did you miss that?

I doubt if someone who isn't Islamic would submit to Islamic arbitration, the same for Christian and Jewish arbitration. If people are willing to let a third party settle disputes without burdening the courts, I don't see the harm.

But I guess we won't need so many lawyers, so I see your concern.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Because things need to be clear:

This is not a court. This is a group who plans to provide arbiters to help settle disputes to people who request arbitration, and agree to allow arbiters from this group perform the arbitration. The only power that this institution will have is the power granted to it by the people who choose to use its services. The only way in which its rules can become binding is if both parties agree beforehand to give that power to the arbiter (and even then, only if the decision reached by the arbiter falls within the realm of Canadian law.)

This really isn't that much different from the way that arbitration works in the US. As I sorta said above, this is actually quite similar to how things are done on shows like Judge Judy. Judy has no actual court powers - ultimately, she only acts as an arbiter between two parties who have agreed to let her decide the dispute. Her decisions are binding only so far as the two sides on the show have agreed beforehand to let them be (via contracts with the show.)

This sort of thing really isn't all that unusual, and isn't really even worth a mention, except for the fact that we're talking about Islamic law here, and anti-Islamic feels are rather high...[/quote]

Yes lets be clear: in place of the rule of law Islamic law would used.

And the state sanctioning the using religious laws (which is materially different from acknowledging the religious basis of laws) in place of legislative approved laws is very different than US arbitration.

I do not believe that there would be no-coercion in using these arbitrators.

How many contracts, say for a brokerage account, or your doctor, have you signed recently where you can opt out of arbitration instead of going to court?

None.

And thanks for saying those of us who oppose these arbitrations do so because we are anti-islamic. There are more than enough good reasons to oppose them than because of the specific religion involved.

CTL
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']MrBadExample, I have no doubt that if Christian had replaced Islaminc court you would have been concerned about people being coerced into submitting to the arbitrarion.[/quote]

You quoted the part of my comment where I said as long as no one is being coerced, I'm okay with it. How did you miss that?

I doubt if someone who isn't Islamic would submit to Islamic arbitration, the same for Christian and Jewish arbitration. If people are willing to let a third party settle disputes without burdening the courts, I don't see the harm.

But I guess we won't need so many lawyers, so I see your concern.[/quote]

I do transactional work which is far more lucrative than court BS.

I oppose all forms of religiously oriented arbitration.

And clearly you missed my point which it is a pipe-dream to believe their won't be coercion in using them.

If you, as the average consumer are presented a contract for services, such as a bank or a doctor, and they opt to use arbitration and not allow you to sue - you have NO recourse but to accept the arbitration.

There is no level playing field and there is no meeting of the minds.

There is no upside, and it blind of you to fall back on the "no one is getting hurt so what do I care" position.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']If you, as the average consumer are presented a contract for services, such as a bank or a doctor, and they opt to use arbitration and not allow you to sue - you have NO recourse but to accept the arbitration.[/quote]

I would like to see some example of someone being forced into religious arbitration. I said I support it as long as there is no coercion.
 
But the thing is, none of this is new. Religious arbitration groups have existed since the arbitration system was created. There are THOUSANDS of legal groups that offer this service based on the values of any moral system you could desire (and, of course, thousands more who are, more-or-less, 'religious neutral', at least as much as a human being can be.)

This discussion is a non-event. If a company wanted to try force you to go through a religious-based mediation service, they can easily already try that. I'm not really sure why they would, though - you CAN appeal any arbitration decision if you feel that there was a bias against you by the arbitration group. If the arbitrator decided against you because you weren't a member of faith X, it would be quite easy to have the ruling overturned (this is why lawsuits against corporations happen all the time, despite the fact that pretty much all corporations 'require' things to be settled in arbitration. That 'requirement' carries little to no legal weight.)

Again, nothing here is even remotely new. The entire thing is only worth a mention because it has to do with Islam.
 
you CAN appeal any arbitration decision if you feel that there was a bias against you by the arbitration group.

You apparently aren't listening - maybe because you are too busy hearing yourself talk.

This Canadian Islamic arbitration system CANNOT, I REPEAT, CANNOT BE APPEALED ONCE A CLERIC HAS RULED ACCORDING TO ISLAMIC LAW.

This is one of the reasons why the Muslim women in Canada don't want this.
 
I admit that I'm not familiar with the way the system works in Canada, but I would imagine that it works similar to the US system. In US law, appeals for arbitrated matters are also limited to a 'narrow focus' - there are only a few things that you can claim to get out of an arbitrated ruling. One of those things, though, is a rather big one - all parties taking place in the arbitration must act in 'good faith'.

Part of the 'good faith' clause for the arbiter is that they cannot have a bias for or against either party. If you can prove by a preponderance of the evidence (meaning more likely than not, a far lower standard than 'reasonable doubt') that there was bias on the part of the arbiter, the arbitration ruling is immediately overturned and the case goes to court.

Quoting from the article: "The ICJ is acting under an Ontario provincial law passed in 1991 that gave religious authorities the power to arbitrate civil matters as long as the people seeking arbitration do so voluntarily and are free to appeal those decisions in Canadian courts" and "narrow issue of whether a ruling conflicts with Ontario law."

So unless its legal in Canada to discriminate against women (and if it is, I think that's probably the more important issue that needs to be taken care of...), even IF a woman somehow gets forced into Islamic-based arbitration (and that by itself would violate the 'good faith' requirement, automatically overturning the decision), she would be able to appeal if the decision goes against her simply because of her gender.

Understanding how the law works is a good thing...
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']If you, as the average consumer are presented a contract for services, such as a bank or a doctor, and they opt to use arbitration and not allow you to sue - you have NO recourse but to accept the arbitration.[/quote]

I would like to see some example of someone being forced into religious arbitration. I said I support it as long as there is no coercion.[/quote]

Go open a bank account.

See how they let you dispute disagreements.

Thats coercion.

Its very simple, a consumer does not have the leveraget to get out such a contract clause so its take it or leave it.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']If you, as the average consumer are presented a contract for services, such as a bank or a doctor, and they opt to use arbitration and not allow you to sue - you have NO recourse but to accept the arbitration.[/quote]

I would like to see some example of someone being forced into religious arbitration. I said I support it as long as there is no coercion.[/quote]

Go open a bank account.

See how they let you dispute disagreements.

Thats coercion.

Its very simple, a consumer does not have the leveraget to get out such a contract clause so its take it or leave it.

CTL[/quote]

Ummm…did you go to a law school? What about “fraud in inducement”? What about the disputes on the enforceability and scope of the arbitration clauses? You suggest duress in entering the agreement to arbitrate which goes directly into the inducement issue.

I say this because I represent those banks and companies that you speak of, and most, if not all, party who disputes arbitration clauses in the agreements try everything in court to prevent arbitration and often they are successful. The attack on the arbitrability is similarly valid on the appeals of the arbitration awards. What usually happens is that either the party who intends to enforce arbitration brings an action (in court) to enforce arbitration clause under FAA or the party who opposes arbitration brings an action notwithstanding the arbitration clauses. So there will be ample opportunity to scrutinize the arbitration agreement for coercion.
 
A company CAN force you to make arbitration the first step of action that you can take against them (mostly because arbitration is so much cheaper compared to court battle that most judges do everything they can to make that the first step.) If you disagree with the outcome of the arbitration, though, you can quite easily claim that the arbiter was biased against you (Especially if the company was the one that chose the arbiter.) 99 times out of 100, that claim alone is enough to overturn the arbitration contract, in which case the dispute moves to a courtroom. It doesn't matter how much blather a company puts in their contract about arbiration being your sole recourse: that's nothing more than unenforcable BS, and the lawyers writting it into the contracts know its BS too. They simply hope that you DON'T know.
 
[quote name='Lawmachine'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']If you, as the average consumer are presented a contract for services, such as a bank or a doctor, and they opt to use arbitration and not allow you to sue - you have NO recourse but to accept the arbitration.[/quote]

I would like to see some example of someone being forced into religious arbitration. I said I support it as long as there is no coercion.[/quote]

Go open a bank account.

See how they let you dispute disagreements.

Thats coercion.

Its very simple, a consumer does not have the leveraget to get out such a contract clause so its take it or leave it.

CTL[/quote]

Ummm…did you go to a law school? What about “fraud in inducement”? What about the disputes on the enforceability and scope of the arbitration clauses? You suggest duress in entering the agreement to arbitrate which goes directly into the inducement issue.

I say this because I represent those banks and companies that you speak of, and most, if not all, party who disputes arbitration clauses in the agreements try everything in court to prevent arbitration and often they are successful. The attack on the arbitrability is similarly valid on the appeals of the arbitration awards. What usually happens is that either the party who intends to enforce arbitration brings an action (in court) to enforce arbitration clause under FAA or the party who opposes arbitration brings an action notwithstanding the arbitration clauses. So there will be ample opportunity to scrutinize the arbitration agreement for coercion.[/quote]

I suggest two things:

1. See Drocket's excellent response.

2. MrBadExample claims that people cannot be coerced into an arbitration agreement. You would conceed that inorder to open a bank account (for purposes of example) virtually ever consumer would have to agree to an arbitration clause?

Wether you can void the arbtration agreement or the award is besides the point. The point is that a consumer HAS to agree to the arbitration agreement. Forcing a consumer to accept arbitration (which might be based on Islam) as a first step in settling a dispute, is in and of itself coercion based on MrBadExample's threshold of accepting wether arbitration under Islamic law is or is not harmful.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Lawmachine'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']If you, as the average consumer are presented a contract for services, such as a bank or a doctor, and they opt to use arbitration and not allow you to sue - you have NO recourse but to accept the arbitration.[/quote]

I would like to see some example of someone being forced into religious arbitration. I said I support it as long as there is no coercion.[/quote]

Go open a bank account.

See how they let you dispute disagreements.

Thats coercion.

Its very simple, a consumer does not have the leveraget to get out such a contract clause so its take it or leave it.

CTL[/quote]

Ummm…did you go to a law school? What about “fraud in inducement”? What about the disputes on the enforceability and scope of the arbitration clauses? You suggest duress in entering the agreement to arbitrate which goes directly into the inducement issue.

I say this because I represent those banks and companies that you speak of, and most, if not all, party who disputes arbitration clauses in the agreements try everything in court to prevent arbitration and often they are successful. The attack on the arbitrability is similarly valid on the appeals of the arbitration awards. What usually happens is that either the party who intends to enforce arbitration brings an action (in court) to enforce arbitration clause under FAA or the party who opposes arbitration brings an action notwithstanding the arbitration clauses. So there will be ample opportunity to scrutinize the arbitration agreement for coercion.[/quote]

I suggest two things:

1. See Drocket's excellent response.

2. MrBadExample claims that people cannot be coerced into an arbitration agreement. You would conceed that inorder to open a bank account (for purposes of example) virtually ever consumer would have to agree to an arbitration clause?

Wether you can void the arbtration agreement or the award is besides the point. The point is that a consumer HAS to agree to the arbitration agreement. Forcing a consumer to accept arbitration (which might be based on Islam) as a first step in settling a dispute, is in and of itself coercion based on MrBadExample's threshold of accepting wether arbitration under Islamic law is or is not harmful.

CTL[/quote]

Quick reply as I'm hitting the door to go home:

1. I don't see my point is in contradiction to Drocket's post.
2. Remember, arbitration goes both ways. The company also has to agree to arbitrate to get customers. I understand the dichotomy of comsumer-corporation relationship, but how else do you propose to conserve the judicial resources in more consensual way?
 
[quote name='Lawmachine']Quick reply as I'm hitting the door to go home:

1. I don't see my point is in contradiction to Drocket's post.
2. Remember, arbitration goes both ways. The company also has to agree to arbitrate to get customers. I understand the dichotomy of comsumer-corporation relationship, but how else do you propose to conserve the judicial resources in more consensual way?[/quote]

Fair enough, I have Madden to play tonight.

1. Re: Drocket, I felt that his point indicated that a consumer can be required to arbitrate a dispute was more forceful than your position which as I read it suggested that a choice for a consumer. Now to be fair there are instances where a consumer doens't have to arbitrate.

However and this is my point to MBE - when a consumer is provided a contract which includes arbitration its a take it or leave it position - do business and accept arbitration or don't accept arbitration and don't do business. That there are remedies to address the forcing the arbitration or the result of the arbitration is besides the point - the consumer is stuck.

I selected banking because I somewhat familiar with it and read a decent amount of the literature I get from my banks/brokerage houses. I MUST accept arbitration when dealing with them.

MBE claims so long as no one is coerced/"forced" into accepting an arbitration agreement he has no problem with arbitrations based on religion. If however the only choice that consumers have when opening a banking account is, that they MUST accept arbitration then I think I have proved my point.

As for your second point - for purposes of this discussion conserving judicial resources is irrlevant. I don't have a problem with arbitration. I have a problem with arbitration that is decided on religious tenents. I view it as divisive. I view it as a further coddling of minorities in the name of diversity.

If the decisions of the Islamic/Jewish/Christian arbitration must comport with Canadian law why bother with the pretense?

And to the extent I am forced to accept arbitration and it is based on a religion which I may or may not follow - then I am being harmed.

I look forward to your response.

CTL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top