Today, is Battle of Britain Day.

The RAF was stretched to the absolute limit, the ground crew alone worked 'round the clock, filling craters, repairing communication lines as well as aircraft. All the while doing their best to fight off bombing and strafing attacks. Women watched their own sons rise to the skies to do battle against as dark a force as ever appeared in history. And many of those men didn't return. For many plunged in flames to the fields they once roamed.

In FLAMES! Screaming and struggling to fight their way out of disabled aircraft, the smell of their own roasting flesh filling their nostrils, not just oil but their own blood bespattering their windscreens. That's what it was like, and perhaps the last thing they heard was a fellow pilot crying out to them to "get out! get out!," when they couldn't.

Britian recalls them this day. But what were they fighting for?

That shariaa be implemented in the land they loved?

No. In their own words they fought for liberty, decency, fair-play, or in Churchill's phrase, the long "continuance" of their "institutions" and their Empire.

Well of all those "institutions," perhaps the foremost is the one which doesn't come immediately to mind, and that's the simple Common Law that was passed down from generation to generation to generation. THE jewel in the crown.

The Empire is no more. Shall the "institutions" go as well?

Well the headline is much more shocking than the article:

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

The article also notes that similar arbitration courts have existed for over 100 years in Britain to allow people to choose to have Jewish law settle their disputes. Arbitration--basically two individuals agreeing (usually by contract) to have their dispute adjudicated by a panel that uses principles different from "law"--is common in America as well. Typically businesses agree to binding arbitration to settle disputes in civil matters. Consent to such arbitration before the judgment is required just as in Britain. Often part of the bargain is the selection of an arbitration panel that will favor one side or the other (ie not truly impartial) and that is agreed too by both parties to seal the deal.

Arbitration is traditionally criticized as favoring the powerful. The party in the best bargaining position could "coerce" the other party into "consenting" to arbitration before an unfavorable tribunal. Generally this isn't a problem, but it requires some oversight. Provided that women are not coerced into accepting this arbitration, there is no real problem with freely consenting to settle a dispute based on certain principles.

According to Clint there is no difference between Sharia courts and arbitration tribunals. Is this true? Is Clint a lawyer?

Does somebody know the answer to Raldo's question? Clint seem to assert that these courts are like those "courts" on TV. Presumably not all disputes can be settled there, even if the parties agree to it.

From previous posts Clint has revealed that he is a lawyer. Of course he has also revealed that he likes Rousseau. Since I have no real plans of living in Britain the boreing lawyer answer should suffice. Dan has to get credit for his continuous historical rabble rousing. His posts are like glimpses into the Notre Dame football locker room pep talks with Lou Holtz...but it worked against Michigan. Down with the infidels, we are Notre Dame!

Law student. Yes, the principle of arbitration is that you contract in an agreement to settle disputes on certain principles. For instance, I have signed contracts that have stated that upon failure to perform, I consent to the issue being settled by Christian Arbitration based on Christian principles. I agree not to sue in a court of law. [I never checked to see if this was binding, but it likely is]. It is much like a liquidated damages clause, where parties agree in contract what the damages for a breech will be.

Generally arbitration has the force of law--these courts in England do. Efficiency and certainty of "law" and outcome are the primary benefits. As I noted, (and Steve did) these ideas have their limits and can become abusive.

What I wanted to point out is that the use of Sharia abitration panels isn't necessarily the end of Anglo-Saxon law. It is not as if two parties are going to be brought against their consent to a Sharia court. The default law of Britain is still British Law. However, if Brits decide that they want their divorce settled on Muslim principles, they can agree and then are forced to abide by the decision. Many analogies can be drawn here in America.

JOHN, more like: "We are PENN STATE!"

So you don't think I know much about the law..., well, I take that under advisement. But your comment indicates a man who doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to Common Law. To KNOW Common Law is to be apppalled at the insertion of its opposite in Great Britain.

Of course you're not the only one with little evident regard for the Common Law. Higher education today is pervaded with a self-loathing, an anti-Western animus, which has spilled over onto the Common Law.

To know how the Common Law originated, how it grew, how it influenced the growth of law in this country AND throughout the Anglosphere, to know that, to appreciate that, --------- THEN there is no other thought and emotion possible but disgust and dismay that the birthplace of Common Law has now made a place for something that is many things, ----------- but English isn't one of them. And here I use "English" in the broader sense. I'm not English myself. I'm only half a WASP, but I AM damn appreciative of what England has been and meant. And perhaps the foremost thing she has had to offer the world, and that's saying something, is the Common Law. Look abroad, look to Hong Kong, India, South Africa, there you see the Common Law at work.

For those of us steeped in the glories of the Anglosphere, the shariaa is nothing short of an abomination.

And JOHN, calling to mind events of yesteryear on Battle of Britain day is nothing to be ashamed of. Rather it's fitting to attempt to "rouse" on this day that absolutely essential Conservative virtue, id est, GRATITUDE. And I for one AM grateful, DEEPLY grateful for what those men did.

Nor do I deem readers a "rabble," certainly not a "rabble" to be "roused." I see them as citizens who can be moved, deeply moved, by a proper recollection of the deeds of yesterday.