Mate this is capitalism, and a democratic society, if you want a society with more regulation, go elsewhere.

When the next government comes in, all the current rules may be overturned, they may be increased, that's the nature of democracies.

We do not want a society where this or that group demands and gets laws according to what they like or do not like, we prefer a society whose measures are based on what is reasonable to society today, all of society, not just a small loud minority who take "offense".

The moment we state in exact terms a law or bill of rights, then the lawyers have a heyday, like they do in the US twisting and turning and charging by the hour to define each word in a ruling and how it applies.

Then we have a judicial system, of unelected people who can allow their personal politics to enter the fore.

No, we want less rules, less regulation (and taxes), not more .. if you are sensitive to things and have joined our society, and learned we are less sensitive, then you need to change, not us.

Or go away, we did not invite you here so we could change, we invited you because you indicated you wanted to join our society, we did not invite you so we could become like the society you left.

The media on the whole reflects our country, and we get it, you use the media as a proxy and it is not the media you dislike, it is us.

I think it is a matter for a different discussion whether or not Maryam Namazie is an apostate Muslim, a socialist, an atheist, a communist and/or a homosexual.
Her topic as far as I can tell was on the importance of having one law apply equally to all if we want to pull together in one nation.
I couldn't agree more.

It does seem to me that a female ex-Muslim with personal experience of the application of sharia 'law' to her friends and family in Iran is in an ideal position to inform other people about its likely consequences elsewhere. Is the author suggesting that there was any attempt to hide her other affiliations, or merely that the media regarded them as unimportant?

In the light of the cash-for-comment scandal involving environmentalist associations at the BBC, for instance, this seems like small beer.

Paragraph #2 asks #4 questions, #3 & #4 contradict each other, i will answer them with a question of my own.

Q, do media editorial staff &/or proprietors, chase ratings by providing "the audience" with what they want to hear?

Mo Hammered was a false prophet. Islam is devil worship. Sharia law is a totalitarian, feudal, dictatorial, theocracy wrapped up in an evil cult.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIHeBJNFS1g don't believe me, watch the "bad news" for yourself.

We can pretend that Islam is not "at war" with us as much as we like but it is. 2 wrongs don't make a right, just because Communazism is evil does not mean that Islam is not also evil.

There are 4 completely totally & utterly evil religions/ideologies in the world that have caused all wars over the last 2 centuries or so.

#1, Islamism.

#2, Communazism.

#3, international banksters/socialists worshipers of mamon.

#4, Radical Extreme Zionism which is not true Judaism.

There will be no peace anywhere in the world until everyone of them is dead or in jail for life with hard labour.

The author does not seem to appreciate that Australia has long adhered to the principle of one secular law applying to its population. Any proposition that each or indeed any religious, sectarian or cultural group should be catered for by application of the law in a way which meets their particular beliefs, is deeply repugnant.

Australians are of diverse origins, cultures and beliefs. Australia tolerates this and their views but only to the extent that they do not conflict with the laws and regulations which ensure good governance of the nation. Intolerance, whether political, religious or cultural in origin has no place in Australia.

It is therefore understandable that the media should accord publicity to an outspoken visitor espousing support for these principles and warning of the dangers of departing from them.

Mr Matthews is entitled to express the view that the media is not giving balance by not giving equal coverage to contrary views held by the more zealous members of a religious minority. However, he is wrong to expect the media to respond by giving such coverage. To do so could be seen as an undermining of the principles of pluralism and secularism which are the essence on which the Commonwealth of Australia is established.

In Australia, we have a nice balance between freedom of speech, religious belief or lack thereof and political expression. Maintaining that balance is not just important for the well-being of all Australians, it is essential for our democracy.

Agnostic,
That's the theory, in practice certain special categories of people have total protection from prejudicial treatment in the media (Jewish people, Homosexuals, Women), some have limited protection(Aboriginals, the disabled,Children) and most have none (Muslims, Christians, Men, Asians, White Australians).

As one 20th century observer noted,journalists are scoundrels who will sometimes tell the truth when necessary, they operate on the understanding that there are three categories of media consumer:
Those who believe everything they read.
Those who reject out of hand every idea put forth in commercial media.
Those who can take in the ideas put in front of them and come to their own conclusions based on their own learning and life experience.

The first two categories make up the majority, the last a tiny minority In theory the media would reflect your reading of the "Australian Way" and try to propagate that idea so it becomes the default position for the masses, in practice they don't, they always break society down in the above categories.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12905#222810

Jay Of Melbourne, great commenting mate, however the situation is not always as bad as it looks.

Our constitutional rights are a lot stronger than we have been led to believe, check these out if you have not seen them before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JihQw39hyG0 REAL law, withheld from us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7HJI5Jwzt0&feature=related an ex cop who knows his law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3LyLUEX83o&feature=related how to beat bureaucrooks, especially from local government

BTW, have you had a look at these Jay?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12865#222182
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12865#222451
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12865#222601
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12865#222792

enjoy.

Notice that Zachariah Matthews steers right away from actually trying to defend those aspects of sharia to which Maryam Namazie objects: in particular, the discrimination against women practised in sharia courts, where a woman’s word is considered to be worth only half that of a man.

Perhaps he can’t face the fact that gender discrimination is just as odious as discrimination based on race or religion. Perhaps if a Muslim's word in a court of law was worth only half that of a Christian or atheist, he might be able to understand what the problem is, but his mind evidently can't comprehend that the principle of arbitrary discrimination based on category of persons (rather than on the credibility of the individual) is just as vicious when it's applied on the basis of gender as it would be if it were applied on the basis of religion. Alternatively, he understands, but he won’t admit it.

This is why he has thrown up a smokescreen, disparaging Maryam instead of trying to refute her criticisms of sharia. In this he is playing the woman instead of the ball, trotting out some of her other affiliations (ex-Muslims, gays and lesbians etc) with the evident intention of attempting to discredit her. This really just reflects his own narrow-mindedness with regard to our right to freedom of religion (including the freedom to leave Islam), and people's right to privacy regarding their sexual preferences.

If sharia’s so good, why attack Maryam? Why not just explain how it would be wrong to discriminate against Muslims, but not wrong to discriminate against women. Only someone with a very warped perspective would fail to recognise that the principles of social justice here are identical.

To set things straight, Maryam is on record opposing religious tribunals of all kinds. One secular law for all, with equal rights for everyone, is the principle for which she stands