The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by aneeshm
So you do not believe in all citizens being covered by one law? You believe in different laws for different communities?
When the citizenry is united they should all be covered by one law. I certainly do not wish for non-Hindus to be governed by Hindus. I wouldn't wish taht on my worst enemy.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
It doesn't seem like they'd be mutually exclusive. The rulings are enforceable as long as they don't violate English law.
Note, I have no idea if this really is the case, just saying that it makes logical sense.
"The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
"you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
"I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - Dissident
Originally posted by Heraclitus Am I the only who has asked himself how many poor Muslim women will be put under pressure to go agree to go to trial under Muslim laws that are unfavorable to them?!?!
No. This is exactly the problem in India. There exists the Special Marriages Act, marriages contracted under which follow a secular personal legal code. However, using that law is not an option for most Muslim women.
When the citizenry is united they should all be covered by one law. I certainly do not wish for non-Hindus to be governed by Hindus. I wouldn't wish taht on my worst enemy.
Given that there is no state religion, it is not possible for members of $RELIGION to be governed by members of $OTHER_RELIGION. It is only possible for all citizens to be governed by a common civil code, which is not selectively applicable.
Given that there is no state religion, it is not possible for members of $RELIGION to be governed by members of $OTHER_RELIGION. It is only possible for all citizens to be governed by a common civil code, which is not selectively applicable.
How so, when the religions are obviously different?
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by Heraclitus Am I the only who has asked himself how many poor Muslim women will be put under pressure to go agree to go to trial under Muslim laws that are unfavorable to them?!?!
Originally posted by germanos
The question remains if not one of the parties is pressured to stay away from a British court.
Originally posted by aneeshm
I presume that included under your definition of sane would be:
Women being entitled to no maintenance in the case of divorce.
A man being able to legally marry up to four wives.
A man being able to unilaterally divorce his wives simply by uttering the word "Talaq" thrice. Over SMS.
Sons getting twice as much as daughters in matters of inheritance.
And the juiciest:
A woman raped by her father-in-law being told to divorce her current husband and marry the rapist.
All those laws seem to violate British law (with the exception of inheritance, if there is a will), so I don't see the reason for the hysteria.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
i don't really have a problem with this. already, for certain types of cases, two parties can agree on someone to arbitrate in a dispute, with the decision of the arbiter being final. as long as it's restricted to certain civil matters and there are sufficient protections in place to prevent people being forced to use these courts, then i think it can be a positive thing.
of course that won't stop the right wing press screaming blue murder.
"The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.
"The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton
for what, the higher courts confirming that these sort of things violate UK law.
With the exception of libel, UK civil law is going more liberal all the time, therefore it's is nigh on impossible that suddenly they will confirm a bloke can divorce his wife by text.
We don't recognise foregin divorces by that method
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams (Influential author)
Originally posted by aneeshm
No. This is exactly the problem in India. There exists the Special Marriages Act, marriages contracted under which follow a secular personal legal code. However, using that law is not an option for most Muslim women.
The difference between India and the United Kingdom is that the former is viciously sexist, and so women cannot expect justice if they are forced to do something against their will regardless of whether the ruling comes from a Sharia court of not. ****, you marry people off unwillingly, have dowry murders, and burn widows . . . just for a start. How could a Muslim woman who didn't want to be subjected to Sharia law expect any justice in India anyway?
In the UK, if a woman is forced to accept a "Sharia" court, she wouldn't be seeking justice in a civil court anyway.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Originally posted by TheStinger
for what, the higher courts confirming that these sort of things violate UK law.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Originally posted by Arrian
Yet the article says this:
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Which is right?
-Arrian
It means that the tribunals are subservient to County Courts and the High Court.
If someone does not follow the judgement of a tribunal (as they challenge the ruling) an injured party would have to use the County Courts or High Court to enforce it. At which point any judgements with no legal standing in English law will be dismissed.
Last edited by Dauphin; September 15, 2008, 15:37.
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
Tweet
Comment