Let's take the Children Act.
Its essential pivot is that in all matters where children are involved, it is the interest of the child that is paramount. So, mum doesn't get residence because mummies are nicer, or because dad is a bigot, but because that's the best thing for the child.
In particular, Dad doesn't get residence because he prefers a legal system in which the evidence of one man is worth that of two women, or one in which women are still defined as being there to provide support for their husband or father, and so forth.
So what happens when a woman and a man choose sharia law to provide the rules for their marriage, and then there's a divorce (apart from the fact that the husband only has to peel an orange, spit on the peel, throw it over his shoulder and say 'You're divorced, you old bag!') - is sharia law supposed to determine what happens to the children, just becuase the parents subscribed to it?
In my submission, NO. English family law decides the issue.
Is the wife restricted to whatever sharia law says she can have, by way of ancillary relief (money and assets)? No.
There's a principle in english law that you cannot contract out of a statutory right (otherwise, eg, employers would simply get new recruits to sign an employment contract excluding the unwanted provisions of the relevant employment legislation). What happens if two contracting parties purport to do exactly that, pursuant to a contract under sharia law? English law must prevail.
It just - won't - work. And no attempt should even be made to make it work.
Last edited by Barry Shnikov; 7th-February-2008 at 06:14 PM.
I never know if your being serious ?Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov
Do you really think in 95% of the cases its the 'childs interest' or the 'womens interest' that comes first ? If Britney had one less arrest she would have kept the kids regardless of her mental state
Why dont more women climb on bridges or try to scale parliament walls or throw powder at Blair
CNN.com - Commons powder attack on Blair* - May 19, 2004
The orange peel makes more sense to me
Er - yes.
Number 1 - I'm not talking about California law. With a declared income of $800,000 dollars per month Britney was buying a favourable decision. That's more difficult here.
Number 2 - you clearly have little or no experience of english family courts if you think that the mother gets residence of the kids simply because she is the mother.
OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL:
Often, dad is the breadwinner - if he gets residence, how's he gonna work? this is often one of the most significant factors of all, mum and the kids still need dad's income; mothers are, whether you like it or not, the primary carer of the child - they have the better equipment, the better attitude, the better psychological makeup; mothers often have a better support network, and so on.
The complaint made by Fathers for justice and so forth is not that they want residence, but they want contact, and this is where matters get nasty. Often, Dad has lied through his teeth about his income, his assets, or he was unfaithful, or he's made horrible and unfair accusations against mum to get residence (in one case in my experience, sexual abuse allegations against mum's dad - completely ficititious).
When the dust settles, mum uses contact with the kids as a way of hitting back. The more dad displays his misery at the separation, the more mum feels she's getting even. In other situations, mum isn't doing anything deliberately, it's just that she can no longer stomach her husband and consciously or subconsciously finds it less of a strain to edge dad out altogether rather than have to keep dealing with handovers.
Finally, dads are often useless at contact. They turn up late, suddenly call at the last minute to cancel - leaving mum with no way to do the things she was planning to do 'cos she can't get hold of a babysitter - keep the kids out till well past their bedtime, upsetting longstanding routines, and so forth.
Is all this in the interest in the child? Almost certainly not. Does the court get the decision right in all circumstances? Also no. Are judges perfect? Not at all.
In fact, the complaint usually levelled is that the 'interest of the child' test is applied too strictly, so that in some cases the father is prevented from having any contact at all partly because he has been driven mad with distraction by the fact that his wife has managed to prevent him having any decent contact for such a long time. What is being agitated for is a loosening of the 'interest of the child' test to give dad (and mum, in some cases) rights to see the child, in some circumstances, whether it's in the child's best interest or not.
But does the court apply that 'interest of the child' test when determining residence applications? Absolutely. It has no choice. The judge must state, in his decision, what statutory provisions apply to his decision; what test he must therefore apply; what evidence he has taken into account in making his decision, and why he has placed more or less weight on this or that evidence, announce any findings of fact he has to make, and then how he has applied the test to the facts and finally what his decision is.
You think they just walk in, sit down and say 'It's the mother. Coffee please.'?
Last edited by Barry Shnikov; 7th-February-2008 at 06:51 PM.
Yes , or tea
If we froze them there is always the possibility...
Seriously though... why not??? But only of course in obvious cases, as say a 3 strike rule? Example: If one had irrefutable evidence that someone had stolen something, like CCTV camera evidence, backed by eye witness evidence, backed by evidence of previous convictions then they DESERVE it.
One incident fine, two is an issue, but 3, no hitch hiking for you sonny..
Think about it: crime rates are escalating and our prisons are full of people who are no 'real' threat to society. This costs us a fortune, so we need a method of scaring the sh1t out of would be criminals and for freeing up the criminal system.
Do I really believe this? Yup. Recently someone stole a car, got drunk and smashed it into a friends car parked outside our house. Thankfully, no-one but the driver was hurt, but he could have easily killed a couple of people on his drunken joy ride that night. A taxi driver witnessed it and saw the guy up close along with the cuts on his face. If the police caught him and he was identified by the taxi driver and identified by the scars on his face and he had previous convictions for theft - Would I chop his hand off. Yes, absolutely.
But as you can't see the whole post, as you have me on ignore because I disagree with your militant views, it is rather ridiculous to take quotes in isolation and reply to them don't you think?
Actually, based on the above, you can see that it's Barry who's trolling, not me...can't you see he's just trolling ?
Yes , or tea
Kind of militant, that...quote=Rocky;450739]Would I chop his hand off. Yes, absolutely.
erm...quote=Rocky;450739]I disagree with your militant views
Still haven't quuuiite got it have you TP...Kind of militant, that...
erm...
A post on a debate about such things can hardly be seen as 'promotion' of a cause (note, no websites, or books etc..) and likewise you will note there was no aggressive language being used insulting other people's creed or religions. Have you never heard of someone playing devils advocate to try to help polarize the main points of a debate to get people thinking about the main, or related issues, in a different way?
Thought not...
It looks like this one's a serious stay-er...
And he's still doing it:
The Archbishop of Canterbury - Archbishop's Lecture - Civil and Religious Law in England: a religious perspective
I also like the headline on this article:Ruth Gledhill - Times Online - WBLG: Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?
[quote]Still haven't quuuiite got it have you TP...
Oh, I get it, but I find it hypocritical.
[quote]
Perhaps he's had too much wine and magic biscuits lately.
I still don't get it. He must have known he'd kick up a complete storm, he's not a stupid man - what on Earth is his motivation?
Is he actually trying to stir up anti-Islamic feeling?
Because I can see no rational reason why the head of the Church of England should be - effectively - promoting Islamic law as "inevitable". Is it just a general push to promote wider religious recognition by the State, or what?
Help me out here, someone, because it's got me baffled.
R4 religious correspondent in the evening was suggesting that if one religion gets special treatment, they all do. By arguing in favour of sharia law for those who want it, the Barkbishop is arguing that all special interest groups get their own law.
I mean - anyone's guess, right?
Then again, you know my feelings - anyone who is that sold on the idea of god so as to be an archbishop can't be firing on all six cylinders anyway. The wonder is that more of them don't end up drunk in the back seat of other people's Jags.
Maybe he's planning to "one-up" Tony Blair's conversion to Catholicism?
Incidentally, did you see McCain's speech? Quite a few religious 'code-words' in there I thought, but then I'm a bit sensitized by reading some of the more liberal US blogs.
Well, he's appealing to the base now, understandable given the circumstances - I don't think he's a nutty Christian like Bush, but he's got to energise those values voters...
Dunno why I'm bothering to reply to your rant to be honest , but here goes anyway...
Get over your infatuation with Barry. Seriously. Just stop.
Is every interesting thread going to have you shouting at it like a mad sad old unkempt wee-smelling tramp on a street corner ?
I think thats a stupid idea, just because some people in society are not civilised, is no reason to introduce a barbaric regime.Hand amputation for thieves - absolutely.
Flogging for rape offenders and child abusers - absolutely.
Might solve the escalating crime rates in this Country.. what do you think?I remember the story from a few years ago about Iranian thieves getting a hand amputated when they had to steal food so their children could eat. Justified? There is no way anyone can "deserve" amputation, its not a solution to societies ills.
Putting the issue of Sharia Law aside, I'd like to know what happens in the case of a mutual "civilised" divorce, where both parties want the best for their children and are happy to come up with their own agreement, irrespective of what English family law says. Can/will the Court disagree, and impose a different agreement?
I think it's like any standard civil agreement - i.e. it's a contract between two consenting parties, entered into as part of an arbitration process. From what the Jewish Law representative interviewee was saying on Today just now, this is a complementary arrangement rather than a replacement - for example, couples divorcing still need to go through a civil divorce.
But - and this is the key thing - you can't sign away your obligation to abide by the law, just because you believe differently. Civil law takes primacy.
Well, I'm not a family law specialist, but...
Certainly, if a divorcing couple agree on a division of the assets, the court need not be involved. An ancillary relief order is only required if the parties disagree on what should happen.
I suspect the same is true of agreements respecting the children, but I'm not sure about that. Generally english law expects people to have to resort to the court only where one party is seeking some sort of compulsion against another; however the exception is for the protection of vulnerable persons, so that if someone is declared imcompetent under the mental health acts it may be necessary to get them made a ward of court (Court of Protection, that would be) or some sort of power of attorney granted so that someone can organise the sick person's affairs until they get better. An example is compromises affecting children; suppose a child is injured in an accident and an insurance company offers a compensation package; the approval of the court is required since the child is not considered 'competent' to agree to the deal on his or her own behalf.
It may be that the Children Act compels parents of children to seek a similar court approval for a residence and contact arrangement; I don't really know. But if so, it would have to be a screamingly outrageous arrangement for the court to disapprove, because that would mean that both parents' wishes were being overborne.
Cheers for that. Sorry to sidetrack, but your example just got me wondering.
In my defence, it was the middle of the night.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks