I wasn't being literal about Sharia in Oklahoma.  It's the state's Anglos
that are using Sharia, which has no chance of being used in Oklahoma, as a
stalking horse to go after the Native courts.   Perhaps the list members are
not aware that  Sharia law was banned in Oklahoma.   The particulars are
unimportant, it's the politics that counts.   That is why two idiot Oklahoma
Senators have so much power.  They are sophisticated politically even though
they are idiots. 

 

REH

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of D & N
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Wanted for immediate placement: Swordsmen

 

But Sharia courts would only pertain to two parties who are both Muslim, is
my understanding. Which would not bode well for Muslim women in most cases
since Muslim women have few laws that protect them. The introduction of
Sharia courts to Great Britain are a step backwards, not only for Muslim
women and their families, but for civilized justice and national law
enforcement overall. 

I see your point about the rest.

Natalia

On 14/03/2013 9:53 AM, Ray Harrell wrote:

It's called the "Law of Blood" amongst the Cherokee and was the law enforced
by the seven clans which ruled the nation.    But that was all changed when
the English insisted their way was better and shattered our culture in a
grand Diaspora.   As the social contract in the US breaks down around class,
these ancient legal systems are arising again because our people can't get
recompense from the English law.    When the English thought that it was
safe, they once again allowed our language and the religion to emerge, in
1978, feeling that they were not subject to either.   The Sharia law that
Oklahoma Anglos are afraid of is in reality the sovereignty of the Native
Peoples in the old Indian Territory and the emergence of traditional legal
systems.   Not the Hollywood variety.  The Cherokee Nation had a Supreme
Court, the building still stands in Tahlequah, and Cherokee lawyers were the
first  "State"  lawyers when the English changed "Indian Territory" to the
"State" of Oklahoma.    The Oklahoma Anglos are now afraid of that and
Sharia is a stand in for their fear of Native Courts.   That's why the
Violence Against Women Act was held up in Congress.   They didn't like
Anglos being subject to "Sharia" (Stand in for Indian National Courts) when
they raped an Indian woman as defined in the VAWA.    "Oh what dark and
entangled webs we weave."

 

REH

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of D & N
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:07 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Wanted for immediate placement: Swordsmen

 

On the surface, settlement between the two parties sounds like a workable
solution which could spare many lives.

If the victimized party is pressured by community or authorities to arrive
at leniency, justice may not necessarily prevail. Especially for women.

I never would have guessed that this method of settlement existed in today's
Saudi Arabia, and it seems worthy of study and consideration.

Natalia

On 12/03/2013 5:17 PM, de Bivort Lawrence wrote:

This was reported a couple of days ago in the Saudi press, eg ARAB NEWS. the
committee referred to only found that death by firing squad was permissible.
Neither this committee nor the Saudi government decide the matter: each
regional government decides policy on this. As of a few days ago, at least
one prisoner on "death row" had requested a firing squad.

 

The discussion on this in Saudi Arabia is quite similar to that in the US,
ranging from the death penalty itself, to  the method itself. Ironic, in my
view, that the issue of cruelty is raised in the context capital punishment.


 

In Saudi Arabia, unlike the US, the perpetrator and the victim (or the
victim's family) can negotiate a voluntary settlement or restitution that
then supersedes and voids governmental action and punishment. Many crimes,
including murder, get resolved this way. 

Cheers,

Lawry

 


Sent from my iPhone


On Mar 12, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Arthur Cordell <[email protected]> wrote:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - A Saudi newspaper says a ministerial committee is
looking into formally dropping public beheadings as a method of execution in
the oil-rich kingdom because it can't find enough swordsmen. 

 

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world where a death sentence results
in beheading in a public square.

 

A government committee argues that a change to execution by firing squad
would be fine under the laws of Islam, the Saudi daily newspaper al-Youm
reports.

 

"This solution seems practical, especially in light of shortages in official
swordsmen or their belated arrival to execution yards in some incidents,"
the committee said in a statement. 

 

 

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/12/lack-of-swordsmen-leads-saudi-arabia
-to-consider-dropping-public-beheadings-as-method-of-execution/

 

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework







_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

 






_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

 

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to