Pericles wrote:

>>The term "between consenting adults" would seem appropriate here.>>

One quibble

I prefer "between FREELY consenting adults"

Either party must be in a position to refuse consent.

If the outcome of the sort of arbitration I've described comes before a court I think the court is entitled to enquire whether the complaining party was subject to coercion either direct or implicit. If coercion was involved then the court may void the agreement.

BTW this is nothing new. If you can prove that I held a gun to your head when you signed a contract the courts can void it.

The difficulty is the onus of proof. Is the onus on the complaining party to prove there was coercion? Or does the defending party have to prove there was no coercion? I suggest it depends on circumstances

Dear Stephenlmeyer,

I agree with your basic position.

Here is a good example of an Australian court taking a firm stance against religious coercion.

http://www.jwire.com.au/news/court-rules-jewish-children-barred-from-barmitzvahbatmitzvah-ceremonies/10277

Are you happy with the judgement?

csteele

I have no opinion on this.

It sounds like some kind of a messy husband - wife fight probably during unfriendly divorce proceedings. By the sounds of it the magistrate followed Solomon and cut the baby in half.

In these sorts fights my sympathies are usually with the judicial officer who is going to suffer brickbats no matter what he or she decides.

I think we need a new type of ruling. A judge can sentence both parties to a dispute to be imprisoned until they grow up and dispaly some maturity.

Steven:

>> A judge can sentence both parties to a dispute to be imprisoned until they grow up and dispaly some maturity. <<

I'd like to see that.

:)

an eye for an eye
sounds like a bushism

anyhow..noted two things

Sharia Law Is Here.

Certain hallowed members of the religion/politricks
also engage in the killing of completely innocent people..from time to time.

The innocent people may include children,
disabled people or others who were in the wrong place..at the wrong time.

Instead of condemning the killing of innocents,
the adherents of this religion instead claim such killings are “justifiable,”...sometimes because..“under the circumstances”
..it was excusable or understandable.

Other times,..zealots claim such killings
are an unfortunate but necessary part of law and society.

This religion is not Islam.

The religion is the Church
of the Police States...of America.
http://saladin-avoiceinthewilderness.blogspot.com/2011/05/sharia-law-is-here.html

PROPAGANDA ALERT*

This is another fraud perpetrated on the world by MEMRI, which is a known Israel propaganda front. MEMRI provides, for free,..translations of Arab media to the west,

but usually, the translations are skewed
..to serve Israel's interests.!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/12/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker

here is an EGSAMPLE of their work..

Hamas Cleric has been MISSTRANSLATED ...!

into saying
:..The Jews Will be Annihilated
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/hamas-cleric-the-jews-will-be-annihilated-palestine-will-be-capital-of-new-caliphate/
& Palestine Will Be Capital of New Caliphate


This is Hamas member and cleric Yunis Al-Astal reportedly declaring,..“The [Jews]..are brought in droves to Palestine
so that the Palestinians –and the Islamic nation behind them –

will have the honor of annihilating the evil of this gang.”

He also predicts that Palestine
will become the capital of the new Islamic caliphate:

The western media, eager to save a few dollars, usually accepts and presents the translations without verifying their accuracy.

Point may be worth mentioning to those defending at any cost the subject of this thread.
Thread came about BECAUSE HEAD BODY OF AUSTRALIAN MUSLIM COUNCIL asked for the laws to be changed.
Contemplate this with me, we do not let our first Australians speer those they wish to,why bring in laws for this minority?