tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7101405.post112683319403982562..comments2023-11-02T07:17:33.658-04:00Comments on The Last Amazon: All Sharia, all the time; its all good to someNaftalihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13554950952366823858noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7101405.post-1126963274125742172005-09-17T09:21:00.000-04:002005-09-17T09:21:00.000-04:00"In the interests of keeping the train wreck going..."In the interests of keeping the train wreck going a little bit longer, I'd just like to point out that faith-based arbitrations have not ever been "overseen or funded by the state" - nor was anyone proposing that future faith-based arbitrations be overseen or funded by the state"<BR/><BR/>Really? Who pays when a family court Justice reviews a faith based tribunal decision in a family law matter? Furthermore, faith based tribunals can and have their orders for spousal and/or child support registered with the Family Responsibilities Office (who receives its funding from the provinicial purse) for collection. <BR/><BR/>I have known a few people who have used a religious tribunals to resolved custody, access and support matters and there was no alleviation of pain, misery or time that I could see. <BR/><BR/>As to your second point, that is precisely the position the current Arbitrators Act puts the court system in. Furthemore, if the Boyd recommendations were implemented there would be more governmental oversight and increased funding, not less - I am referring to #25-46 in particular. <BR/><BR/>Quite frank, what gives me the willies is the state enforcing any decision rendered by a religious tribunal.K. Shoshanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533598840074182415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7101405.post-1126901526313612802005-09-16T16:12:00.000-04:002005-09-16T16:12:00.000-04:00I agree with the above response.No more, no less.T...I agree with the above response.<BR/>No more, no less.<BR/><BR/>The observations are valid.EKENYERENGOZI Michael Chimahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05034754267261591802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7101405.post-1126896439907958082005-09-16T14:47:00.000-04:002005-09-16T14:47:00.000-04:00What will be missing is that after this horrendous...<I>What will be missing is that after this horrendously bad law is repealed is any ruling from the faith based tribunal will not have the "imprimatur" of the state’s coercive authority nor will the faith-based arbitration be overseen or funded by the state.</I><BR/><BR/>In the interests of keeping the train wreck going a little bit longer, I'd just like to point out that faith-based arbitrations have not ever been "overseen or funded by the state" - nor was anyone proposing that future faith-based arbitrations be overseen or funded by the state. Which was precisely the point: instead of spending government resources on forcing people to drag their lives through the absolutely miserable process of a court case, why not allow contracting parties to resolve disputes between themselves in a manner which they mutually deem acceptable? One attraction of arbitration is that it requires <I>less</I> government spending than routing people through the court system.<BR/><BR/>As for the "imprimatur" of the state being lent to faith-based arbitrations, if we're going to object to this notion, then we'd better be prepared to have courts start refusing to enforce contracts on the basis that they think that the deal which has been struck between the contracting parties is "unfair" or "unjust" or some other nebulous term which will "offend" the sensibility of the "state" and militate in favour of the state refusing to lend it's "imprimatur" to what it views as a "bad" contract. In other words, massive, consistent and perpetual government interference in contractual relations between consenting adults. I trust you'll forgive me if I find that somewhat less than attractive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com