₦airaland Forum

nlMediator:
Let's not let wikipedia distract us. A quick search of US decisions shows wikipedia in over 600 cases dealing with a variety of issues and almost 4,000 law journal articles. Used approvingly or disapprovingly. That nobody who does serious research would rely on wikipedia is a trite fact. The point is that - and that accounts for its popularity worldwide - is that it is a quick source of information, which one can readily use or confirm with more authoritative sources. That your expertise exceeds that of wikipedia in some aspects of the law is not in question - I'm sure lots of people on this forum - including yours truly - can say the same about their fields. The fact remains that everybody's expertise is limited and one cannot use the fact that one is an expert in Topic B to discredit wikipedia entry on Topic D. Put succintly, you may be an expert on certain aspects of the law, but not necessarily the law of torts. Let's leave wikipedia and discuss the relevant issues.

I must repeat that while I can understand you saying that for you Wikipedia beats my opinion ---- I cannot let it slide and allow it to be assumed that I accept that Wikipedia even matches my expertise let alone surpass it on quite a number of issues of law. Also, if I need to address or research an issue of law, Wikipedia willl not be anywhere near my expertise at the end of my look into the issue. It is as simple as that ---- to accept anything else is a very serious professional slur.

nlMediator:
First of all, wikipedia is not perfect. Everybody knows that. But it is sometimes useful, as numerous citations to materials from wikipedia in reputable journals attest. We shouldn't throw it out, simply because of wikipedia. What we need to do is challenge what is wrong about it, which even wikipedia itself encourages. In any case, it certainly beats opinions that you and I are exchanging here, as wikipedia at least seeks to provide authorities for its conclusions. If we reject wikipedia outright, we should also reject every opinion here. And rely only on treatises, casebooks and the like. So, the reference to lawyer worth his salt not relying on wikipedia is unhelpful.

On the substance, nobody argues that volenti will automatically avail the bishop. What I have maintained is that it is a defense he can raise and if the facts favor him, he'll be fine. You dispute that, yet you have given no reason why it cannot avail him. Saying that his christianity is fake does not meet the test, as volenti is available to everybody, including fake christians. That, I think, is the problem here: we decide if somebody has rights based on whether we like him or not. That's not my approach.

I maintain that slapping is common in certain deliverance circles in Nigeria. People that submit to deliverance do so, presumably on that understanding. The presumption can be rebutted of course. But until that is the case, it stands. You're not making any effort to acknowledge that what matters is the normal way of doing things there, choosing to substitute with it, your idea of what should be acceptable standard in the society. Many 'civilized' people hate boxing and would want it banned. But so long as people are voluntarily submitting to it, with a proper understannding of what it entails, our "civilized" standards cannot replace the legal standard. And how do you know that the bishop slapped her in anger or that boxers that successfully use the defense do not hit their opponents in anger? In fact, one successful boxer attributed his success on the ring to anger - he sees every opponent as his father that deserted the family while he was young. Do you also withdraw the defense from him here?

I spoke to somebody today who's adamtantly opposed to the slap, but who also acknowledged that it is a practice often seen in deliverance sessions in Nigeria. She also said she'd have had no problem with it if the victim was not a young girl or if she was delivered eventually. So, there you have it: the kind of things that a judge would look at, not whether or not we like Oyedepo and his ministry.

If you're so inclined, I'd also appreciate an answer to the gunshot example I gave a few posts earlier.

First, I notice now that your initial near certainty ("the girl is likely to lose" that volenti will avail the bishop has reduced considerably: I am not surprised because as I had indicated, a careful examination of the parameters within which the defence of volenti applies would not lend itself to that initial presupposition.

Second, I would point out that for the properly trained lawyer relying on statements of general principle in Wikipedia just does not cut it. I work with the primary materials: the very treatises, cases, law reports (NOT even casebooks as you think) that you refer to.

I will also point out that you are claiming I have not given explanations but it seems you are not reading my posts carefully enough. In my posts I have summarised why volenti would not avail. In fact, even if all you read carefully is the quote from the same Wikipedia in my post #98, especially the bits I bolded for you, you will see why volenti will not avail. If you read the material carefully, you will see what is required to show that the victim consented in the first place ----- and you will be hard pressed to fit the girl's supposed/alleged consent into that. No competent court will be hoodwinked into accepting that a girl who simply accepts an invitation to come on stage even for "deliverance" has consented to being slapped even as part of an alleged "deliverance" let alone when evidence of the video is clear that the slap was out of sheer annoyance and lack of self-control. See the reference in the Wikipedia quote to "nature" and "extent" and tell us the last time that a person who went on stage for "deliverance" was slapped in the manner done by the shamelessly intemperate pastor.

In addition, I pointed you to the boxing example but your response on that point is a very good indication that you have not got the whole point. It is not about the civilisation or otherwise of boxing or banning it or not: rather, the point is that even in a boxing contest, one of the boxers will not be able to rely on the defence of volenti, despite mutual consent to the contest, if he inflicts harm on the opponent outside the confines of the rules of the game.

Also, while volenti is a general defence in tort it is generally more apt in the context of negligence (hence its application by the courts is affected by the operation of contributory negligence) and it is less apt and less likely to be successful in contexts of wilful conduct. This is where knowledge and understanding of primary authorities help over and above merely reading general principles in a place like Wikipedia, In one of the primary authorities, one person struck another on the face during a football match --- it was not enough to say such things happen during a football match and the other chap had consented when it was proven that the striking was wilful conduct.

I could go on but I am going to stop very deliberately. I have already gone far far far longer than I ever planned or wanted to.

I will suggest we end on the same note as I had suggested previously. You are welcome to maintain the view that volenti will avail the pastor in this case. I will stick to the view that volenti will not avail the pastor on the known facts.  

Before I read further ---- I want to point one thing out: to you, Wikipedia may "beat" my opinion on the law.

To me, when I am working with the law, I will not even look at Wikipedia and I will go as far as boasting that my expertise on many issues of law far exceeds what you will see in Wikipedia. I am just not interested in displaying it on this Board.

I will now read the rest of your post

@Nlmediator

This is from the same Wikipedia you relied upon (whose entry I maintain is basic and inadequate); anyway, no lawyer worth his salt will rely on Wikipedia for this purpose; it is really only useful as introductory material primarily for 'lay' people.

The defence {of volenti non fit injuria} has two main elements:

    The claimant was fully aware of all the risks involved, including both the nature and the extent of the risk; and
    The claimant expressly (by his statement) or impliedly (by his actions) consented to waive all claims for damages. His knowledge of the risk is not sufficient: sciens non est volens ("knowing is not volunteering". His consent must be free and voluntary, i.e. not brought about by duress. If the relationship between the claimant and defendant is such that there is doubt as to whether the consent was truly voluntary, such as the relationship between workers and employers, the courts are unlikely to find volenti.

It is not easy for a defendant to show both elements . . . .

And if you say I had not provided an explanation, I would say you should read my first response to you (post #81) again and carefully.

An angry slap by a person lacking self-control and unable to manage his anger and conceited impertinence is not something for which the courts will accept a defence of volenti. The slap was not in any reasonable sense a part of a "deliverance" session let alone a "prayer" session. In any event such an action is not known to true Christianity; it is only part of the ersatz and insane impostor parading itself as such. Even in a boxing contest where the opponents voluntarily agree to beat each other up, if one of them goes outside the rules and thereby causes injury to the other a defence of volenti will not avail (even wikipedia says this) ---- let alone a religious context.

Wrong!!!!

OK Take the case of Big Men with police and soldiers accompanying their cars with sirens.

It is COMMONPLACE for them to damage cars and properties of other road users and to beat people up.

What happened to Arogundade?



EDITED

@image123

What do you think about whether the following passage applies to this situation?

2 Timothy 3:1-5  

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.  People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,  without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,  treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—  having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

OK I have marked some more pertinent ones in red but it really is everything more or less really!

@image123

lol

I just knew you would come back with that 'did/do you live in Naija' line!

Do you think I will write Nigerian languages as well as I do if I do not know Naija well or have lived (and still live, actually) a considerable amount of time there?

Anyway to the point: you do not get the point at all!!!!

Slapping is common in Naija ---- does not make it acceptable in Naija. That is what you are missing.

Let me digress: soooo power failure, bad roads, armed robbery, kidnapping, and dead bodies on the street are acceptable in Nigeria because they are commonplace?

Sooooo what about my other examples from earlier post --- child s.ex abuse, political/societal corruption etc? All acceptable because they are commonplace?

Image123:
Think now dare, this is nigeria, where slap is NOT violence, at least not yet. You don't go to police station and say they slapped me, it's still laughable in nigeria. Students slap, children sLap, parents slap, policemen slap. Slap is still normal in the nigerian context. It's nigeria remember, nigeria. It's a different world here. Dstv, startimes and co is affecting many people here. Oyedepo's not making a doctrine of slapping people. The winch had guts to come all the way to his church, and to his front to say what she said. He didn't go to her house to slap her, or tell his congregation to go and be slapping witches. And he obviously wasn't slapping her to 'deliver' her. He seemed more to slap her to DARE/provoke her. He's not afraid of winch, that's the 'moral lesson' from the video. Not all these castles people are building in the air about their disgust and anger. Crying more than the bereaved. Sect of frustrated and impotent people all over.

@image123

Nna bros, you nor think this one through or carefully at all!

For one, slapping never was acceptable in Nigeria ------ the only thing is that the victims usually have no means of redress and that is why the perpetrators generally get away with it.

Look at it this way following your logic:

1. Corruption: this is Nigeria now and corruption is normal --- unlike Western etc countries; so we really should not be criticising corrupt politicians; it is normal!
2. Child s.ex abuse: no be today uncle/cousin/etc dey take style catch that pre-teen girl for behind cupboard or when papa and mama no dey; this is how it is in Naija now, unlike Western countries; so people who do it should not be criticised because it is normal in Nigeria,
3. Chancing ("obtaining" in modern Naija lingo and a form of bullying elsewhere): no be today tough guyman dem dey seize canvas shoes from feet of the weaker guys; this is Naija now and it is normal; people who do it should not be criticised,

etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

I'd like to emphasise an aspect of that 1 John 2:27 passage.

As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.

The bit that I have highlighted in bold is extremely important both didactically and practically.

First: you do not need anyone. Incredible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- You do not need an MOG!
-- You do not need a bishop!
-- You do not need an "apostle"!
-- You do not need a pope!
-- You do not need a reverend!
-- You do not need an archbishop!
-- You do not need a cardinal!
-- You do not need a pastor!
-- You do not need etc etc etc!

Of course people older or simply wiser in the faith can be helpful for advice, counsel, better understanding, accountability, comfort, performing some 'rites' etc etc. However, strictly speaking you do not need them . . . . .

But you do not need them for what?

You do not need them for knowing and understanding the mind and the law of God generally.

You do not need them to know e.g.: that stealing is bad; that cheating is bad; that receiving stolen money/property (which some claiming to be Christians were defending) is bad; that refusing to return stolen money/property (again which some claiming to be Christians were defending) is bad; that corruption as a public officer is bad; that treating the poor and weaker (e.g. your boy boy or maid) cruelly is bad; etc etc etc

Even where you do not know for sure whether something is bad, the witness within will often be giving you some ("amber or red" warnings.

This is what it means that you don't need anyone.

And why don't you need anyone? Because

the anointing you received from {the Holy One} remains in you

Can any cardinal, pope, archbishop, pastor etc etc etc give you an anointing at all let alone to equal or exceed that you have received from the Holy One?  In fact many modern day MOGs teach things contrary to the word of God that it can even be better to just sit at home, read the Bible and meditate on Jesus' and biblical teaching; let the anointing from the Holy One work and stir up the gift within oneself rather than be contaminated by so-called MOGs whose consciences have been seared.

O how I really wish Christians will pay sufficient attention to this passage and its context:

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.

As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

nlMediator:
Ha ha ha! I already did all that. Read the wikipedia article I linked to. That's why I knew your claim was baseless. I have stated my position and since you branded it an inaccurate presentation of the law, the simple thing to do is to present an accurate one. So, I'm still waiting. And with your out-of-this-world knowledge of the subject - that you hinted at - this is your golden opportunity to enlighten lesser mortals. For the record, I stand by the legal presentation and insist the only thing that needs to be cleared is the factual component, i.e., Is this far removed from what people expect when they go for deliverance sessions at Oyedepo's church?

I had read the Wikipedia article; even a student studying Tort law for the first time can tell you that it is grossly inadequate on the topic --- if only for incompleteness.

I have also noticed that despite my deliberate attempt to be polite you have maintained this insolent attitude --- which I find both surprising and disappointing.

In that case: I will say now that on the facts that are in public knowledge and on the elements of the doctrine of 'volenti non fit injuria', the doctrine analytically does not avail the pastor in this case and a court will almost certainly throw it out.

I am not going to explain the doctrine for you I'm afraid. For that reason, you are free to continue presenting the viewpoint that the pastor has such a defence. I will continue to argue that the defence does not avail the pastor on the known facts.

Now you are asking me! Start by explaining the doctrine of "volenti non fit injuria" in Nigerian law or in common law generally.

Outline the circumstances or types of circumstances in which it applies.

Explain whether the courts tend to adopt a wide or narrow view/scope for application of 'volenti non fit injuria'

Explain the relationship of "contributory negligence" and "volenti" that informs the attitude of the courts to "volenti non fit injuria".

Let's start with those.

^^^ Watch Dawkins say "I don't know"! Even more interesting, watch him suggest that life on earth could have been started by aliens - though he later tried disingenuously to say he was trying to make a wider point.

EDIT and further edit 07/02/2013 Seems embedding is disabled so here is the another link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc


[flash=400,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_ObJ-g1kR8[/flash]


His disingenuous attempt at 'self-rebuttal' here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XpP5jsg5kM

I'm afraid I am in a position to say what is a true presentation of the law because I have quite a decent knowledge of Nigerian law as well as the law of other common law jurisdictions. I had deliberately tried to be soft in that post. The fact really is that what you said is inaccurate in law --- to be honest.

You have as much information on the facts as I do (unless you have some inside knowledge) and on those publicly known facts, you made a claim on the law but the fact is that your application of the law to the known facts is wrong. The parameters of application of 'volenti non fit injuria' were not presented accurately.

^^^ I don't think the above is a correct presentation of the law. I do not think either that 'volenti non fit injuria' will avail the pastor ordinarily - even in these circumstances. The fact that a person "submits" him/herself for "prayer" or even "deliverance" does not mean s/he consents to gratuitous and wholly unwarranted and unnecessary violence which was just an outlet of the pastor's own violent nature and his absence of self-control.

In my view, a civil action stands a very good chance of succeeding and in some jurisdictions could (and rightly should) result in substantial damages against the pastor.

Joagbaje:
Kunleoshob  and enigma started out linking me with CEC and publishing articles about me on this site. Which is against Nairaland rules. Yet Enigma is supposed to be a lawyer and a defender of human rights. I was happy that at least these individuals would be banned . I protested but not even a warning was given . . . .

Joagbaje

You have told this lie about me before and I pointed out to you that you were wrong and it was a lie. Now because you do it again --- I am going to say straight up: You are a Liar! If you like go and ask moderators to ban me.

You previously made similar allegations on this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-618707.0.html

This was my response and challenge to you then: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-618707.32.html#msg7876268

@Joagbaje

You have said twice on this thread that I was involved in privacy attacks on you. I do not think this is true and I believe you are incorrect.

Please point to the post/s in which I made privacy attacks on you; if they exist, they should be easy to find.

Thanks.

On that thread then, you were not able to substantiate the allegations against me which you have now repeated (in slightly modified version); the challenge remains for you to point to the post/s or thread/s where I published articles about you on this site. As for linking you with CEC, again point to where I did that until after it had become patently clear that you were a member and even a pastor in CEC despite your lying manipulation.  Interestingly, read the thread that I linked to (esp p.3 )and see how even non-Christians recognise you to be a liar: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-618707.64.html

Your manipulation even goes to the extent of maintaining an appearance of not abusing people; yet, you are the one who calls people bastards, vagabonds, sons of Belial etc (repeatedly). Don't worry, many of us (even if minority) can see through your lying and manipulative nature.

^^^ And usually they are just cutting and pasting (or otherwise regurgitating) the thoughts of very poor thinkers if not indeed out and out morons.

^^^ Your comprehension has always been poor; remember, that is why you were named Mr Dunce which so far I have been trying not to use simply out of kindness.

thehomer:
An accurate diagnosis of yourself I see. Hmm you seem to have some insight into your problems but you're just rationalizing it away. That is among the most difficult psychological problems people in your shoes often face.
Carefully note what I'm not interested in for your reading comprehension.

Me a militant fundamentalist atheist?

Shirley, this one has gone gaga!  

The one way the post can make sense is that I am a religionist just like the militant/fundamentalist/evangelical atheists are religionists.  

thehomer:
As usual, when you're unable to actually address any points, you simply start making off point posts. Maybe you need a little something to help you stay focused.

As if you have any worthwhile points to address.   See who is talking of "focus" --- one who is not sure whether he is interested or "not interested" in the post I made which his insecurity simply could not bear.

A militant fundamentalist atheist and his beliefs (including some of the daftest beliefs ever known to mankind) saying Christian beliefs are irrational.  

Anyway, as I always say, anywhere you see an evangelical atheist even on his own you see the worst case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.  

thehomer:
Weren't you referring to me? Or are you afraid that your usual terrible arguments will be exposed?

Remember, you always end up running away ---- just like you were about to do with your penultimate post here.  

"Not interested" my foot; your apparent insecurity is what led you to reply to my post quoting me. My post was simply a comment following the flow of discussion, mate.

Fact is evangelical atheists are fundamentalist religionists ----- long proven; move on to discussing something else and stop wasting everyone's time.

^ "Not interested", yet the Militant atheist couldn't help jumping on a post that did not address him particularly!

thehomer:
Once more, you wish to flog a pile of ancient horse bones. Keep going. Or you could simply check out this thread. For some reason, you and your accomplices failed woefully.

Says Nairaland's Fundamentalist/Evangelical/etc Atheist-in Chief*!


*aka Evangelical Atheist Religionist in Chief.

I don't think there is any further debate whether evangelical* atheism is a religion. That evangelical atheism is a religion has been established conclusively a loooong time ago ---- from both intellectual as well as legal perspectives.

Indeed what we now see is that evangelical atheism is even a fundamentalist religion!



* aka Militant/aggressive/fanatical/angry/fundamentalist/etc atheism.

Naa! Standard ogaga copy n paste. The text is lifted from the Internet.

Edited

Meanwhile on this very thread we have one apparent atheist (almost certainly of Nigerian extraction) saying he takes his children to church. We also have a self-avowed atheist (certainly of Nigerian extraction) saying he has been to church a few times. But I bet they will not hastily go or take their children to Babalawos (they are in London and US too) or to the shrines/temples of Ogun/Amadioha/Urhobo deities/Ṣango or maybe even to the mosque. 

plappville:
. . .

But why only to "church" now? Why not also mosque, Babalawo/Ọṣun/Ogun/Ṣango/etc shrine or temple, Buddhist temple, Hindu temple, Jewish synagogues, atheists' chaplaincies?

Becos Church is the only true place.

I feel you, jare! Even in America, they have the choice of the mosque, Scientology place of worship, Jewish synagogue, Kabbalah place, Buddhist temple, Hindu (including Hare Krishna) temple, Jehovah's Witnesses kingdom hall etc etc etc ------ nah, but na church them choose! 

The opening post says:

"They want to teach their children to be free thinkers, to give them religious choices, and so they take their children to religious organizations just to give them exposure to religion."

If the case is to avoid "indoctrination", make the children "freethinkers" (I laugh!) and to give the children "freedom of choice", the intellectual and honest thing to do is to "rotate" e.g. some weeks/months to church, some to mosque, some to Scientology, some to Kabbalah, some to Hare Krishna etc.

Unless maybe it is something else ----- the wiser , nah, the less foolish among the atheists know inwardly what is good for them and their children --- though duplicity, among other things, prevents them from open admission of the fact.

Kodẹ, my man.

^^^ When me I watch MOTD finish, I dey go sleep.

Consider one thing though: you see my leg for that "Atheist Quotes" thread? Of course not!

This one, I dey take enjoy myself and e first be like say tonight's contributions go add to the enjoyment --- it did for a while but e don become boring as my friend no gree raise hin game.

manmustwac:
This back and forth arguement. You guys should call a truce.

Cool, manmustwac. Na my peaceful I dey go and na my peaceful I dey do my own thing oh!

^^^ So again, you use style to admit your lack of originality ---- something that has long been known. 

Nah, I have been generous enough to you for one night; I will wait and see if you will come up with anything new. In the meantime, I will point out to you one more thing from that latest ---- especially as I don't see myself in any "war of attrition" with you.  Just try and keep me amused until I go to bed --- that is all I ask, except it is now too much for you because of this lack of originality problem of yours. 

14- If an atheist was alone in the woods, and there was nobody around to hear him/her talking, would they STILL sound like an id[i]i[/i]ot?

Well since you now have nothing original other than to copy me, I am losing interest as there is not much amusement value any more! Raise your game man, my 'oofter friend --- try something original for once, it should do you some good. 

Come to think of it, it is probably too much to ask! I am talking to an evangelical/militant/fanatical/etc atheist afterall!  Again as the drafter of that latest has already noted:

1- Why don't atheists have any ORIGINAL arguments?