WTF is going on in Irving

What I'm saying is that they usually don't know until it's too late. They're usually informed when their lawsuit gets abated, and they get ordered to arbitration. Why? Because most people can't even spell "arbitration," much less tell you what it is, so even if they read the clause, they have no idea what the hell they're agreeing to. To the tiny percentage who really do know what they're getting into, they have no leverage, so they don't put much priority on it anyway. They assume there's no way out of it, and usually, they're right.

For example, I know what an arbitration agreement is and what the risks are of having one, but do you think I could have negotiated a deal with MasterCard not to put one when I got my first credit card? No chance in hell, so to be honest, I basically glossed over it and gave it little thought.

To a point, they certainly can be. For starters, the law gives everyone the right to generally have a trial by jury and to appeal. The whole point of arbitration is to operate outside those laws.

You'd have to look at the agreements at issue.

I'm far from a Sharia law expert, but I would assume that it's not particularly favorable to women and children. However, there are to points that the anti-Sharia people seem to miss. First, nobody is forced to take his or her dispute to a Sharia tribunal. If a Muslim woman wants to file her case in a civil court and exercise her right to a trial by jury, she can do that. However, if she chooses to put her faith in a Sharia tribunal, what business of it is yours?

Hell, an agreement to submit to a Sharia tribunal is far more voluntary than most arbitration agreements. If you don't want to submit to a Sharia tribunal, you can walk away. Don't be a Muslim, or don't go to a mosque where they try to get you to use their tribunals. However, people who sign arbitration agreements are usually doing so as a condition of having a job, having insurance, or having a credit card. They have to forego a hell of a lot to avoid arbitration.

Second, a Sharia tribunal may apply a different law than what a US court would apply, but that can happen just as easily in a arbitration agreement as well. Within certain guidelines (which would apply just as much to a Sharia tribunal as would apply to arbitration), parties can agree to have any laws they want adjudicate their case.

 

Are you sure that is all that is being discussed Deez? An arbitration where both parties have to agree to be a part? When I hear Sharia Court I envision something much more complete. How do you know that is what is being discussed here?

 

Because I've read up on it, and most of all, I know the legal mechanics of how this sort of thing works. The only reason a traditional arbitration agreement has any relevance is that if asked, a real civil court will enforce the arbitrator's order according to very specific legal guidelines as set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act, the Texas Arbitration Act, and the legal precedents applying them. One if those guidelines is agreement. The parties can't be forced. That framework is the only mechanism in which extrajudicial orders will be enforced by the courts. If a Sharia tribunal wants its orders enforced, it has to work within that framework.

 

Can a woman bring a cause/grievance/issue directly to a sharia tribunal?
can a man?
Are women and men treated equally?

 

I would assume women and men aren't treated equally before a Sharia tribunal. However, the woman doesn't have to go. She can opt to take her cause to civil court.

 

MrD
I know you don't really believe 99.9999% of muslim women feel they can truly opt out.

What in any muslim nations treatment of women would give you any reason to think that?

 

They only feel that way, because they follow their religious beliefs. Why should the civil authorities come in and force them into a secular court when it's against their own faith?

Furthermore, are we going to be consistent? People who sign arbitration agreements with insurance carriers or their employers certainly don't feel like they have a choice, but if someone says the courts shouldn't enforce such agreements, the Seventh Amendment haters in the GOP would bellyache about freedom of contact and throw a ****-fit.

 

MrD
Maybe some research into the dynamic of the muslim family would help you understand that 99.99% of women forced into letting a sharia counsel decide for them aren't agreeing to it because they feel deeply about their religion but because the men, husband father brother uncle etc put such pressure on them to obey. The treatment women receive in the muslim world is horrendous.
You can't think a sharia counsel is a level playing field for women. BTW think there are any women on a sharia counsel?

Trying to say people who sign agreements for arbitration is the same as a woman in front of a sharia counsel is silly.

 

That's pure speculation. How do you know what Muslim women are actually thinking? Their culture is very man-oriented and probably isn't what we'd consider fair to women, but this is America. They don't have to submit to a Sharia tribunal. They might face hostility by other Muslims if they don't, but it's still their choice. If they choose the tribunal, we should allow them to and respect it. In the same respect, if NJ and his neighbor decide to ask their rabbi to settle a dispute, that's their business as well.

Under my cultural standards, it's not, but it doesn't matter, so long as the agreement to arbitrate with the Sharia tribunal is voluntary.

It depends on the circumstances. In the context of the agreement being a condition of employment, the arbitration scenario is actually more coercive. Having a job is going to impact where your next meal is coming from (of at all) and whether you're sleeping in a bed or on a park bench. As a practical matter, most people don't have a choice. If the Muslim woman doesn't go to the Sharia tribunal, she can exercise her legal rights in a civil court just like anyone else.

 

I meant to post more previously, but didn't have time.

What I'm concerned about is an "agreement" that gets slipped in unwittingly. For example, suppose you hire a Muslim contractor for some home improvements. In the fine print, there is a clause in which the parties agree to refer any dispute to a Sharia Court. I suspect a civil court would not enforce that, but it is far from certain.

 

NJ,

That could happen just as easily with a more conventional arbitration, and a Texas court would certainly enforce it.

 

Sharia courts are utterly opposed to equal rights and give the testimony of a woman only half the weight of that of a man.
You can say women can opt out of going to a sharia court but you ignore the tremendous pressure women feel. That is like saying any woman can opt out of an abusive relationship. Can and have the will to are 2 different things. If all your life you have been taught that the man is superior and is always to be obeyed , add in the pressure from the family and it isn't as easy as you suggest. Consider that if the marriage was only an Islamic marriage that is the only way a woman can get a divorce( Men can merely state it)

You keep trying to compare arbitration in US with sharia law. I GUARANTEE you no arbitration group grants only half weight to testimony of one of the people in a dispute.

How many honor killings of men have there been? Any in USA?

 

I never suggested that it is easy, but I think it's a bit presumptuous for you to assume that all Muslim women in the United States operate in an oppressive environment in which they're under constant coercion. For what it's worth, if the woman agrees to have the Sharia tribunal decide her case before the dispute arises, there are ways for her to get out of that and take the defendant to court, depending on the circumstances.

I'm also not sure what you'd like to see on this front. If people are willingly agreeing to go to the Sharia tribunals rather than to court, what do you expect to do about that? Should the tribunals be criminalized? If so, how would you enforce that?

At the risk of being presumptuous, I think I have a better grasp of how arbitration works than you do, and you should think twice before making such guarantees. An arbitrator is the judge, the jury, and the executioner. He runs the proceeding how he chooses. He can follow the rules of evidence, or he can decide not to. It's totally up to him. He can ignore 10 live witnesses and make his decision based on a mess of third-hand hearsay if he wants to. He can give a witness absolute weight, some weight, or no weight, and he doesn't have to explain his reasoning for doing so to anybody. Remember, there is no appeal.

 

MrD
I never said all muslim women are oppressed but I would say a large percentage. And are even more oppressed in a sharia court.
I am surprised you think muslim women are as free to make decisions an non muslim women. History is a great teacher as are the many cases here and even in Europe.
saying these women have the right to opt out ignores their ( not our but their) reality. If you are frightened of your husband and all other male relatives, frightened for your life you won't stand up.
And of course you are right you have more experience with arbitration. What you describe while less than desirable is not the same as sharia law's practices toward women Do you sincerely think an arbitrator who routinely gave women's testimony half weight would continue to get cases?
If the marriage was only a Muslim marriage can a woman seek divorce in a civil court?

There really isn't much point to continue this. I wish you had more understanding and empathy for muslim women.It is easy to say , well they can always opt out.

 

They might. You'd never know if they were doing that. However, arbitrators are businessmen and usually give weight to the side that's paying them and likely to pay them in the future. Is that better than giving only half weight to women? I don't think it is.

Yes.

I do have empathy for them. That's why I'm willing to respect their choices on how they decide to resolve their disputes. And again I'll ask - how do you affirmatively stop them from going to a Sharia tribunal? Are you going to criminalize that? Are you prepared for the First Amendment lawsuit (a very, very, very easy one to win) that would come if you tried to do that or anything remotely resembling that?

 

MrD
thank you for the reply on whether if a couple married is in only an Islamic ceremony the woman can get a divorce in civil court. I would have thought the marriage would have had to be registered in a state for any action to be brought to a civil court. I did not realize our courts recognize an Islamic only ceremony.

If you have empathy I would think you would recognize that a large % of Islamic women have no power and are not, in perhaps most case, making the choice to go before a sharia court willingly. If you read much on it you see women have little choice. A good example of that if I have read it correctly is that under sharia a man can divorce a woman just by saying it but a woman must get 2 male muslims to sign off on a divorce before it can go to a council.
We will just disagree on whether the majority of muslim women are freely agreeing to a system that disadvantages women.

 

The bigger issue really isn't Sharia courts, it is the farce that the situation in Irving was. Ahmed wasn't simply a smart kid who took an invention to school and was arrested for it because he is Muslim. It looks like from his family's history and current activity a manufactured event to give Ahmed's dad and CAIR lawyers the opportunity to cry "Islamophobia is alive and well in Texas!". The "clock" looked suspicious, Ahmed refused to answer questions from school administration and then police, then the family refused to work with the school to address perceived problems they had with the family, and furthermore held a press conference during a time that the family had agreed to meet with school/city administrators with CAIR lawyers standing in the background.

The fact that CAIR lawyers are involved is important since, they are the Muslim Brotherhood in the US. The same Muslim Brotherhood that performs terrorist acts in other parts of the world. It is a group that I personally wouldn't want in charge of any kind of arbitration court in the US. I learned a lot from Mr Deez about private arbitration laws and agree with the acceptability of them in general including ones that are Muslim. I have also read about the operation of other private law entities in the US and think they are a good idea in principle. However, I don't think any and every group should be able to set up their own laws in this country. I don't claim to know where the restrictions should be set, but "not the Muslim Brotherhood" seems like a good guideline to start with, especially if they are going to then agitate when they don't get their way.

And I agree with 6721, that I expect Sharia courts will be partial to males and against females because Sharia law is. I don't think that necessarily means no Sharia courts can operate privately at all, but I do think we need to understand what Sharia is and the potential it has to be damaging to our country.

 

Here is a little about CAIR and there aims. I am not assuming you are not aware, just sayin.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375620/roots-cairs-intimidation-campaign-andrew-c-mccarthy

 

Mona.
Between the parents refusing to cooperate with Irving ISD, BO rushing to judge and the media reporting inaccurate info and lies this incident has surely accomplished what was likely the intent of the father/CAIR
For instance two days in a row last week the Dallas paper published inaccurate and or lies. In a page and half interview with ahmed's 6th grade teacher the teacher lamented how sad it was for him to see this thin brilliant bespeckled boy far from his land of birth who spoke almost no English.
Really? The father came in in the 80's. I asked the writer if he had sources showing Ahmed was born in Sudan. The DMN writer answered that the father, family and the teacher were the ones who told him that> ( Heck of a job verifying)> I then asked how the teacher who had never met the boy until he came into his class would know. Plus saying Ahmed had little English is strange since Ahmed had been attending Irving schools since he was at least in the second grade of not the first.
The Dallas News writer never responded.

The next day in the Dallas paper was another article referring to Ahmed as having brought a "homemade clock" to school.It was not a homemade clock and that had been known for
2 weeks at the time of the article.
The agenda seems clear, the why not so much.

 

it appears the early weeping/knashing of teeth about Irving PD, the MacArthur HS ... over the top.

The boy didn't invent anything. Big sis was in trouble for a similar act (was actually coaching him during a telecon with Mark Cuban????) ... & pops is an islam activist trouble maker.

If you don't understand this was a trial run (even if the 14 year old boy was actually an unknowing participant) ... you just really need to return to being concerned with interior design.

Be alert.

 

Al V
Unfortunately you are correct.
With BO and the press cheerleading this "homemade clock" most people will not stop to consider anything else.

 

admin post ... reestablishing former login.

it appears the early weeping/knashing of teeth about Irving PD, the MacArthur HS ... over the top.

The boy didn't invent anything. Big sis was in trouble for a similar act (was actually coaching him during a telecon with Mark Cuban????) ... & pops is an islam activist trouble maker.

If you don't understand this was a trial run (even if the 14 year old boy was actually an unknowing participant) ... you just really need to return to being concerned with interior design.

Be alert.

 

And the silence from the OP is deafening. You know, the one who referred to the teachers and cops as idiots and dimwits. His narrative has been shattered and he has nothing to say.

 

This kid needed to just HOOK'EM and all would have ended well.

 

LOL!

 

Anybody know what happened to clockmed? He end up transferring to another school that likely won't let him bring his crap to school?

 

LarryT
He and his father are still on their " tour " which will end up at the WH. No one yet has explained how BO knew, either before it was released to the public or within an hour of it being released to the public, about the incident and why did BO take the time to text "clockmed" ( good one) right then ?
No one has explained either who is paying for the "tour".
Istarted out thinking this was an innocent act by a very bright naïve kid who seemed to be used by his father. However it is very possible this was all planned.
Questions like who paid for the clock never get answered.

 

Obama had to downplay his involvement with this kid so he met with him and 300 other kids at the same time. He recently posed in a pic with the leader of Sudan who is a war criminal. Now, he is going to finish the rest of his schooling in Qatar.

If you ask the average person that followed this story a month ago, they still think the school and cops were in the wrong. The real story started to come out and the mainstream media is nowhere to be seen to correct their egregiously false accusations about the cops and teacher. It's not often that I get pissed off at news stories but this one gets me for some reason. You have some average people trying to do the best they can in a tricky situation and they suddenly have the whole world thinking they are morons and racists. Then, even the president piles on with no evidence. It's absolute garbage and a lot of people are owed an apology they will never get.

 

Larry,

I'm not surprised that the media isn't correcting the BS that initially came out. It doesn't fit their political narrative to do so. It's the same reason people still think Michael Brown was shot with his hands in the air and that Trayvon Martin was a little boy.

However, my biggest worry is the message this fiasco sends to teachers. We're all told to report suspicious behavior as a safety precaution. However, as a teacher are you more likely to err on the side of caution now or to err on the side of political correctness and put yourself and your kids at risk? Unfortunately, our society and political culture sent a resounding message that teachers should err on the side of political correctness and against safety. Sad and dangerous.

 

I hope ahmed and his siblings understand they just gave up any reasonable rights to become USA citizens. All they have known is our freedoms.The 18 y o sister will likely get a harsh awakening.
I do wonder if BO regrets jumping up and down for clockboy. ( I still wonder how BO knew within a hour of this story being made public so he could jump on the ahmed band wagon).
Poor BO thought the father and family were his friends. He sure got a rude awakening.


Mr D states it very well. The media have made a teachers incredibly hard job even harder.

Larry T
I know you will still do what is right and I also know the parents of your students know how lucky they are to have you. The parents will support you, well most of them anyway.