Thanks WM Trevor - the fact that groups seek Muslim only swimming was the issue - not female only. Lots of women have issues with showing their body publicly to the general male population. I was just giving an example of requests for Muslim only public space as an example of sharia compliance in another form. When I asked my Malay friend about this she confirmed she's never heard of it in Malaysia so the need for this religious segregation among women was rather odd and most Muslims wouldn't support it. So while I believe there still is Muslim only swimming in Coburg (am I'm happy to be corrected on that if this is not the case now) it is only those who are pushing for a more sharia compliant society that would push for this at all.
But as was highlighted by legal academics Anne Black and Kerri Sadiq - a system of legal pluralism abounds in Australia; their findings, not mine.
While we haven't moved to alcohol free parliament we do have pork free councils and public schools in Australia - in the name of diversity and inclusivity it's sharia compliant halal food for everyone.That's another issue - no bacon bits for kids with halal tuckshops. You're right - it's not against the law - it's just that freedom of choice for others is removed and this is to conform to sharia standards. No bacon bits is not quite as worrisome as the child marriage the poor Muslim women's groups in Malaysia are battling but nevertheless - it's all from the same body of law. That's why we're discussing the ethics; is sharia compliance really ethical according to Australian norms? Food for thought.

Interesting new twist, Vickie.

>>...at the time of writing the article, Cisse had not yet decided to wear the shirt - this article has being re-published since the time of writing<<

Did it not occur to you to update it before republication? I presume you were aware that it was to be republished, so the only conclusion is that you deliberately allowed it to go ahead, knowing that the first paragraphs - the entire lead-in - were fallacious?

And you need to expand on this, since you are repeating it here:

>>Sharia finance is the financial arm of sharia law which without doubt does discriminate against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries<<

What form does this discrimination take? What are non-Muslims being deprived of? Wonga?

>>Why can't non-Muslim women join their fellow citizens in the water?<<

Apart from the fact that they can, you mean?

Elsewhere, we in Australia tolerate genuine discrimination:

"Fernwood Women's Health Clubs is a dominant player in the women’s-only fitness in Australia"

http://www.fernwoodfitness.com.au/franchising/

Can't get much more discriminatory than that.

Incidentally, I'd be interested in the source you sort-of refer to here:

>>...according to research published by Australian legal academics Ann Black & Kerri Sadiq (2011 from memory) “ a system of legal pluralism based on sharia law abounds in Australia<<

The only Black/Sadiq paper I could find for that year was this one:

http://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr_34/slr34_1/SLRv34no1SadiqandBlack.pdf

...which, interestingly, talks about Sharia finance.

"Islamic finance often uffers from the same misconceptions, particularly the mistaken belief that ‘Islamic finance is used to spread terrorism, that it is a vehicle to promote world domination of Islam over other faiths, or that it is designed to replace conventional financing.’"

Perhaps you would have written a more informed article, had you read this beforehand.

Hi Pericles
It's not as sinister as you imagine. I sent my sample article in - explained it was previously published - and it was republished. While details may be updated - the premiss has not changed. The Cisse example was just an example not the substance of the article.

Re swimming - no issue with female only swimming as I said - however we have a school curriculum available in all Australian schools that recommends we allow for 'Muslim only swimming' and this is something that has been promoted & introduced. Here's an excerpt from the school curriculum 'Learning from One Another;Bringing Muslim Perspectives into Australian Schools'. Page 51...
Swimming
Most Muslims recognise that swimming is an important life skill for all Australians, but some Muslim women in this country will not swim unless they can find an all female (and preferably all Muslim) pool. For schools, this poses a problem as swimming is often part of the PE curriculum.

As you can see - 'preferably all Muslim' is promoting exclusion and does indeed discriminate against non-Muslim girls/women. One would think that Muslim and non-Muslim women swimming together would be more preferable for social cohesion.

You can chase up the Black/Sadiq research mentioned yourself if you like - but it is mentioned in this article here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sharia-law-at-work-in-australia/story-fn59niix-1226097889992

There is plenty of information out there for anyone who has researched the topic on Islamic charity and its connection to terrorism. But just to quote from the 2011 Australian Government AIC report "Money laundering and terrorism financing risks to Australian non-profit organisations' - which states: 'It has been suggested that the obligatory charitable donations of zakat represent the largest single source of (charitable) revenue diverted to terrorist groups (Rudner 2006)'
Some 27 Islamic charities have been designated as terror sponsors by the US Treasury Department - so it's not a random suggestion Pericles.

A good response Vickei but I'll wager it'll be like water off "a large duck like birds back".

And at the risk of being accused of being ob...ob...obobfussscatory ...once more into the breech.

As Vickie has stated:<< sharia law ... openly discriminates against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries>>

And whether she intended it or not it might well be expanded to: [sharia law ... openly discriminates against anyone outside the Muslim ruling caste]

And since Trevor has kindly opened the thread up to Sharia generally I have dug up a couple of contras to Pericles contention that if it is agin our law it just ain't going to happen.

Here's a little article about the operation of Sharia courts in the UK :http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3682/uk-sharia-courts
It's finding is that there is "systematic discrimination...{against] women"

last I heard sex discrimination was illegal in the UK!

And here's one from the USA:http://shariahinamericancourts.com/
It finds that "Muslim American families [under Sharia courts are not getting] ... equal protection [and] the principles on which America was founded [are being betrayed].

Note in each of these it's at odds with domestic law.

And just to get back to Islamic finance -- 'cause I am sure that Pericles is going to wiggle that he was only talking about finance. Here's a little insight as to how Islamic finance might --in a underhanded sought of way --be discriminatory(according to our laws!)

It appears that Sharia financing is now moving into resort funding
http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/2009/05/04/whats-next-shariah-compliant-hotels-complete-with-zakat-payments-to-islamic-charities-and-eeoc-violations/
But there are a few conditions:
1)“Majority of staff [must be] of Muslim faith.”
2) Hotel staff must be segregated
3) and in house entertainment must be halal
And I wont even mention the piece about fund for holly wars--that would be un-prime-ministerial of me.

continued ->

Oh yes, just as a footnote--for all those who are still of the opinion that in the eyes of Sharia we are all one big happy family:

"In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia . If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follow.

100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
50,000 riyals if a Christian man
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman

According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man's life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and Sharia (Islamic law).
http://www.islam-watch.org/Taleb/Value-of-Human-Life-in-Islam.htm

Cheers

Correction:
"And I wont even mention the piece about fund for holly wars--that would be un-prime-ministerial of me."

Should read:
And I wont even mention the piece about fundING for holy wars--that would be un-prime-ministerial of me.

(and apologies for the other half dozen I missed)

If I didn't nit-pick & correct that it would be very un-Periclean of me!