nzmorange
Heisman
Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location: |
RE: Sharia Court established in the US.
(02-17-2015 01:18 AM)Claw Wrote: (02-17-2015 01:04 AM)nzmorange Wrote: Judging by your response, I don't think that you know what mediation is. 1. It's 100% non-binding and 2. it's 100% voluntary (in terms of following the suggestion of the mediator). It's basically facilitated negotiation and nothing more.
The people that go to this mediation center A) agreed to go and B) choose whether or not they want to follow the advice of the mediator or continue litigation. In no way, shape, or form will *anyone* be dragged to this mediation center and forced to follow *any* judgement. At the absolute worst, someone might agree to go, sign a contract saying as much, and then change their mind at a later date but be forced to appear because of contract law. However, even then, and I cannot stress this enough, they don't have to listen to the mediator. They can still fail to reach an agreement and pursue the matter in another forum (i.e. a court, negotiation, arbitration, another mediator, etc.). They will be out their share of the reasonable mediation expenses and that's it.
Don't get me wrong. I think that Sharia Law is stupid, and it amazes me that anyone would want to use this type of mediation. However, people do crazy things every day and this isn't going to hurt anyone any more than they would hurt themselves without it. Like I said earlier, mediation is just glorified negotiation. However, shutting these centers down would be a HUGE blow to both contract law and freedom of religion. So, if you value legally enforceable contracts and/or the ability to sit in your chosen place of worship on your holy day, which I do, then I don't see how you could want to shut these guys down.
I want them shut down because you cannot have an organized system like this without people being coerced and/or extorted into it.
Does a 12 year old Muslim girl have the right to non-Sharia court protection? Of course she does. Will it be available to her? No. Her rights will be denied her. If this happens more than once, then these people are organized criminals conspiring to deny citizens due process.
If you can tell me this doesn't happen then we'll just roll out the damn red carpet. But it DOES and WILL happen.
Prosecute them every time it happens and use RICO to shut them all down.
Start now.
And never quit.
As I understand you, the situation that you're envisioning is as follows:
Some American Muslim girl somewhere will get in a legal dispute with another Muslim. After agreeing with the other Muslim party, her parents will then act on her behalf and force her to go to this particular mediation center (or one like it) and then force her to agree to something suggested by the Muslim mediator that, but for her parents, she wouldn't have otherwise agreed to, despite the fact that the suggestion is completely within the confines of existing American laws. However, her parents' involvement in her affairs won't be outrageous enough to warrant a guardian ad litem.
You're probably right. That probably will happen. But the end result would honestly be about just as likely to happen without the new mediation center (or others like it). Like I've said in previous posts, mediation is basically glorified negotiation. There's nothing stopping a party from filing a lawsuit and then negotiating a compromise outside of court. It's actually actively encouraged. Furthermore, there's nothing stopping a party (or both parties) taking their own religious convictions into account when negotiating. In fact, in some areas of the country, it's probably extremely common at certain levels. All of that already exists.
Both parties would have the same motivations, the same religious convictions, the same general pressures (i.e. parental pressure being exerted on the little girl), and the same legal options (i.e. no cutting off body parts). None of those variables would change, so the outcome is likely to be the same. The only difference is that with mediation, the transaction costs of reaching the outcome are reduced. Economically, that reduction in transaction costs represents less waste, and reducing waste is a net social benefit.
Once again, I am not advocating Sharia Law. Mediation just isn't a big deal. Arbitration might very well be a big deal (pending the circumstances to which it was agreed), an actual court would be a huge deal, and statutes would be a massive deal. But mediation is just not. It's simply the Muslim equivalent of two people getting into an argument and asking a priest/minister/rabbi/monk/guru to help them sort out their differences, nothing more.
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2015 02:07 AM by nzmorange.)
|
|
