There are aspects of this associated with Nikah mut‘ah and Nikah Misyar.
While one can always challenge an arbitration award to a court, SUCCESSFULLY challenging an arbitration award is quite another thing. Short of finding the arbiters were corrupt, generally speaking most arbitration decisions are upheld in court.
Yes, I am aware from painful experience as a Lawyer. However you are thinking about most commercial arbitration where public policy issues do not enter the field to the extent that they do in family law. An award which is against public policy or malafide or contaray to the principles of natural justice or not maintainable in law are all liable to be and usually are overturned.
Privacy could take care Mu’tah and Misyar. Mutah and Misyar are in anycase better known as a “one night stand” and “friends with benefits/mistress” anyway.
Which are not against public policy.
What are these?
I seem to remember that in California, Sharia arbitration for divorce was ruled illegal based on a prohibition of “divorce profiteering”. Also, child custody cannot be arbitrated, religiously or otherwise.
Fixed term marriage – give her some cash and bone her for the weekend. Marriage without cohabitation – give her some cash, bone her for the weekend, and divorce before heading home. Either way, you pay some cash (dowry) to get boned, without participating in sex outside of marriage or in prostitution.
Check out this news clip of Governor Christie of New Jersey, defending his appointment of a Muslim to the Supreme Court of New Jersey and dismissing out of hand any concerns about Sharia law:
[QUOTE=Governor Christie]
This Sharia law business is just crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies!
[/QUOTE]
Good for him!
I assume then that if an ex-husband subsequently claimed “coercion”, then his previous submission to the court is void - does that mean the court can revisit all awards made from that submission? Seems logical. If it is a sworn statement, then it becomes perjury.
Plus, what is coercion. Everyone in life is presented with “either-or” choices. Unless someone is holding a gun to your head and gives you no choice, this is a simple one… Either sign, or settle for what the judge decides after hearing from just the wife’s lawyer. In Ontario unless you are very well off, the child-support rates are found in a table, and a judge does not normally stop the non-custodial parent from*** ever*** seeing the children. The circumstances have to be pretty extreme usually for her to get ongoing alimony. So it’s not a huge loss, unless she decides to leave the province and you can’t file to stop it - but then, she’d move somewhere that does not have this provision. All she can do is move a few hours away inside Ontario.
So the threat is probably not so severe that it could be seen as coercion. Does the Rabbi have to decide whether assertion A (“get”) or B (“forced get”) is the right one, or is it up to the man? DOes this mean a “get” can be rescinded at any time if the man feels that at the time he was under duress?
Cash is not necessary. It can be “deferred”.
Huh?
Well if nothing else, you can’t ever accuse Christie of being a waffler. I guess thats a virtue.
I live in Dearborn, Mich. If there were sharia law in America ,it would be here. It does not exist. When the muslims first started moving here, they tried to keep some traditional methods of handling disputes. They also had brothers kill sisters who dated outside their faith. The courts showed them how unacceptable that was. They are subject to the same laws that we are.
I don’t want to hijack my original thread, so this will be my only post on this matter, but I feel obliged to note that Scuba Ben’s description of slavery applies only to the “eved ivri,” the Hebrew slave. And incidentally, the Hebrew slave’s family may be split up; if the slave married a wife given to him by the master, the wife and kid remain under the master’s thumb when the slave is allowed to go free (see Exodus 21.2-21.4). If he chooses, he can remain with his wife and children by getting his ear pierced (specifically, with an awl), and then after getting that ear pierced he is considered a slave to his master for the rest of his life (Exodus 21.5-21.6).
It is false. There is no such phenomenon, growing or not. End of discussion.
There have been a handful of cases in which a judge refused to punish someone who was - by his own admission - guilty*, accepting the guilty party’s claim that his actions were culturally acceptable. We always have had, and always will have, judges who are idiots. That’s why we have the appeals process.
- I remember one from my childhood, in which a Chinese immigrant murdered his wife, whom he suspected of infidelity. The judge declined to punish him because she accepted his assertion that killing an adulterous wife would have been A-OK in China.