Nicky
AQIS dont control dometic plants for starters.
The DPI State Governments do. Also some going through AQIS are approved. John Howard signed off on a big deal about three years ago for one country and a new Halal Brand.

The fact you are not aware highlights why we at times chalange this so called leadership of Animal Welfare in Australia. If you have people calling themselves the peak body of anything they should be aware of these facts. The AWB enquiry was evidence of that surley.

Now getting back to the bone of this thread I agree with the host = In the end this is NOT about Islam or sharia. It is about the powers that should be granted to arbitrators.

Which is why we need one law only. Regarding the weddings in Mosques again you miss my point.

These are people who are already married Nicky. If you and I did it we could be charged.
Look I dont really care what others do. Perhaps I should.

My only point is that we already have many of these laws that are accepted in Australia.

From Weddings to Sharia laws when it comes to slaughtering animals.

I can only give you the facts. What you do with it is up to you.

Fair enough, I'm happy to take that at face value.

>>In the end this is NOT about Islam or sharia. It is about the powers that should be granted to arbitrators.<<

I suspect the confusion arose from the headline of the thread, that reads "Sharia Law in Britain". I took that to be an indication that you were examining the impact of the use of sharia-based arbitration. In Britain.

Silly me.

But now that you have made it absolutely clear that this has nothing to do with sharia law - or Britain, I guess - we can settle down to the issue that you raise about the pros and cons of arbitration in the handling of marital disputes.

Just a question though - why did you not choose to entitle the thread "Arbitration in marital disputes"?

No matter. Just my being picky, as usual.

Where were we?

Ah yes,

>>Should arbitration be an available option in cases of domestic violence? Not merely arbitration before a sharia court. As I made clear, ANY form of arbitration. I am especially uneasy about arbitration in domestic violence cases because there is a CRIMINAL element to it.<<

I think you have answered your own question.

Where there is a criminal element, it should not be handled through arbitration, but through the normal legal system.

However, where there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is perfectly in order for an administrative tribunal to guide the solution.

I think some leeway should be given to football tribunals, where the actions under scrutiny can, in some lights, be viewed as potentially criminal, since the participants are aware ahead of time that their activities border on assault. Even when the ref is looking.

But for domestic violence, it should be the court over the tribunal, every time.

Ok?

Thank you for that Pericles.

And now we come to the article linked in my original post:

Quote:

"It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

"Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” CRIMINAL cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them….."

(Capitalisation added)

That is where I start having problems. The sharia court arbitration system does, in fact, deal with domestic violence cases. They claim this is done "in tandem" with the police investigations; but what on Earth does that mean?

As for handling "smaller criminal cases," that should be a "no-no."

The Muslim spokesman mentions the "Jewish courts." To the best of my knowledge these courts never touch anything with a criminal element.

It is these facets of what is happening in Britain, not the fact that some parties may choose to settle civil disputes in accordance with sharia law, that I find objectionable.

Indeed, when it comes to criminal cases, I am in agreement that these types of courts should not supercede the criminal law of the state. I am also not a great fan of the dual justice systems that can arise by accepting indigenous tribal law in particular cases. Tribal punishments can sometimes be unacceptable to modern society. This has already happened in specific cases in Australia.

While it can be argued that particular systems of justice and law are integral to the maintenance of certain cultures, and that blanket removal of a 'tribes' (or any cultural groups) rights to determine their own affairs can be argued as genocidal or totalitarian, I am prepared to accept this on the basis of the prinicple of rule of law for all citizens within a country. Recognising the right of people to maintain their cultures is a fine thing, and I am all for it, but in particular cases it must be overridden by the rule of law of the state.

Once again you provide your own answer, stevenlmeyer.

>>"It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations. Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” CRIMINAL cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them"<<

You chose to capitalize "domestic violence", and "criminal", in order to emphasize your point.

So allow me the same liberty to emphasize mine:

"It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, WORKING IN TANDEM WITH THE POLICE INVESTIGATIONS. Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of SMALLER criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them"

You ask

>>what on Earth does [in tandem with police] mean? As for handling "smaller criminal cases," that should be a "no-no."<<

I guess it's all a matter of emphasis and interpretation, isn't it? As it stands, it would appear that the police regarded the cases to be more appropriately handled through arbitration. This decision could after all have been made on the weight of evidence and likelihood of a positive result.

The expectation that only minor cases will be handled in future should also be seen as a plus.

If there is in fact more to it than that - and the cases involved beatings or similar cruelties - then yes, I would totally agree that such matters should by definition be handled by the police and the normal courts.

But as I said before, judgements like this are made every week in the case of football matches, and - it would appear - we in this country even support a parallel full legal system for our aboriginal communities.

Why exactly you chose to focus everyone's attention on the sharia aspects of arbitration in a different country, rather than address local examples, continues to be a mystery.

Or as Boaz would say, a 'mystery'.

LOL, will the real Pericles please stand up:

Version A:

Where there is a criminal element, it should not be handled through arbitration, but through the normal legal system.

Version B:

"The expectation that only minor [criminal? That's what the context of your reply suggests] cases will be handled in future should also be seen as a plus."

(So "minor" criminal cases need not be handled "through the normal legal system")

Version A:

But for domestic violence, it should be the court over the tribunal, every time.

Version B:

I guess it's all a matter of emphasis and interpretation, isn't it? As it stands, it would appear that the police regarded the cases to be more appropriately handled through arbitration. This decision could after all have been made on the weight of evidence and likelihood of a positive result.

(So it's not the court "every time." Note that in the case of domestic violence there is an INHERENT criminal element.)

Well Pericles I guess you're busted.

Perhaps you'll find some way of rationalising these contradictions away. If you are able to do so with eloquence you should consider a career in politics.

But to any dispassionate reader, the contradictions in your posts expose you for what you are.

I guess you find it easier to demonise critics as "Mozzie bashers" than address real issues