"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."

All I can find from the City of Moreland (where Coburg is) that relates to this is:

"Fawkner Leisure Centre offers sessions to accommodate men and women who seek more private swimming and fitness.

Men’s only swimming
5.15 pm – 7 pm Saturdays
Men’s only swimming is available to male patrons of all ages. This includes use of the pools, spa, sauna and swimming lessons at an extra cost.

Women’s only swimming
3 pm – 5 pm Sundays
Women’s only swimming is available to all female patrons of the community (and boys 5 years and under). In this session there is no dress code, however it is expected that you wear appropriate swim attire. During these sessions, you’re able to come in and use the indoor pool, spa and sauna, without social pressures.

5 pm – 7 pm Sundays
This session is a private pool booking for our more modest women. It is run by the Fawkner Multi Cultural Group. During this session we enforce a strict dress code in our aquatic areas. This includes wearing the appropriate swimming attire and swimming headscarves."

Vickie, I have no idea if the last is open to any appropriately attired women... if it isn't, then it doesn't seem very 'multi cultural' of the group. So there is an opportunity for you to do your own research.

I find it more disturbing that even in the 'Men's only' session we are still expected to cope with social pressures.

So the real question might be re-directed to whether there should be private bookings... like schools do on Swimming Sports days.

Post-rationalization, of the weakest kind, Vickie.

>>The Cisse example was just an example not the substance of the article.<<

But it wasn't actually an example, was it. Well done. I'm sure your book is filled with equally compelling non-examples that are "not the substance" of the book.

And please, this is the worst kind of misrepresentation...

>>Here's an excerpt from the school curriculum 'Learning from One Another;Bringing Muslim Perspectives into Australian Schools'.<<

That report, as you well know (having issued your own response to it) is not "a school curriculum available in all Australian schools". It is purely a workshop document. It is not the curriculum of any school anywhere, nor the policy of any government or government agency.

>>You can chase up the Black/Sadiq research mentioned yourself if you like<<

You "quoted" from it. It is therefore up to you to find out whether it exists anywhere except in the Murdoch press.

I'll not bother to comment on your accusation that sharia finance is necessary to support terrorists. There are plenty of non-sharia means by which money can be laundered.

And rest assured, SPQR, I wouldn't dream of picking on your spelling. It is your logic that lets you down most.

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

But neither you nor Vickie can show how this manifests itself.

>>Here's a little article about the operation of Sharia courts in the UK<<

You missed this somewhat germane point that the article included:

"Sharia rulings are not legally binding"

Which undermines your fear-mongering just a tad, doesn't it.

>>It appears that Sharia financing is now moving into resort funding<<

But significantly, not in a non-Muslim country

And let's face it, hotels operating along those lines would not be particularly well patronized. Unless they took a wholly pragmatic view of sharia, as these folks have done:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/acehs-love-hotel-gives-sharia-the-cold-shoulder-20120408-1wj9k.html

>>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<<

Nice try to change the subject away from sharia finance. Fail.

HI Pericles

The Cisse example was an example actually; he did actually refuse to wear the shirt and consequently decided that his principles didn't extend to risking his place in the team and
losing his gi-normous salary. The fact that he agreed in the end does not negate his initial opposition on sharia grounds.

Yes, the Learning From One Another (LFOA) doc I quoted is a workshop document for the 'Muslim Perspectives Curriculum Project'...(note - curriculum project) which is available to all schools. If you want to read about the ones who have opted to include it you may read the follow up document 'Building Interfaith and Intercultural Understanding'..

http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/images/Building_interfaith_and_intercultural_understandings_in_Aust.pdf

Thanks for highlighting the Black/Sadiq quote which may indeed be a misrepresentation by the press. I was quoting the paper's 'quote' in good faith. On reviewing the particular document I see this is mentioned in footnote 87 as an example of politicians 'one law for all mantras but please note the 'shadow legal system' reference below was an academic report rather than a media article:
Footnote 87 actually says Recent examples: Harry Callaghan, ‘Australian Muslim Women Choose to Live by Own Code’, The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 23 July 2011; Chris Merritt, ‘British Experiment a Warning on Sharia’ Law’, The Australian, (Sydney), 26 August 2011; Gary Rumain, ‘How Sharia is Really Working in Australia as a Shadow Legal System — Academic Report’, Courier Mail, (Brisbane),...

So apologies if I have misrepresented this - but nevertheless with Today Tonight and/or A Current Affair in recent months visiting sharia 'courts' in Sydney and the prevalence of polygamy and other unlawful practices alive and well in Australia - I don't believe the premise is wrong at all...post to be continued

Continued....
Discrimination from sharia determinations manifests in many ways - too many to even argue really. Sharia law is responsible for the deaths of many religious minorities in Pakistan accused - often falsely - of blasphemy. Consider this statement from the Sunday Age May this year re Pakistan's elections:
The million followers of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam - declared non-Muslims by the Pakistan government - were forced to sign a special declaration renouncing their beliefs in order to vote.
To quote Dr Qanta Ahmed on the Blasphemy law, this is 'legal abuse' ... to 'first silence, then punish any speech deemed blasphemous'....noting 'Islamist lawfare which imposes intolerant elements of sharia law on the framework of a westernised legal system'.

Some Muslims are fighting sharia law Pericles and some of us would like to see them freer to do that rather than validate laws that sanction human rights abuses. Sharia law does indeed discriminate against non-Muslims - who are not able to set foot in the 'Most Holy' city of Mecca at all just because they are not Muslims. Discrimiantion is at the core of teh segregation. Any one studying sharia law can attest to the discrimination - there are members of the British parliament trying to dismantle sharia courts in the Uk because they sanction discrimination against women and children in particular.

Sharia law not being legally binding in Australia - how can you suggest this undermines the argument? The threat of sharia hangs over many Muslim Australian citizens because we inadvertently sanction it under the guise of being culturally tolerant. Girls are shipped off from schools to be married - some have the threat of FGM to contend with (we have federal and state funding to educate about FGM so it's obviously a real issue). And others have to deal with polygamy because it religiously sanctioned while Australian law is ignored. Ignoring this because 'it's not legally binding' is turning a blind eye to abuse

At least we now are completely clear, Vickie, that this discussion is not about sharia finance at all, despite the sub-heading:

"Islamic Banks…are the life-line of Wahhabi insurgency... without them terror-donations could not reach the end users scattered around the world".

Which is garbage. We know that money can be laundered into terrorist bank accounts a thousand ways, without ever touching an Islamic Bank.

Your lead-in example was pure showmanship.

>>The fact that he agreed in the end does not negate his initial opposition on sharia grounds.<<

Of course it does.

Meanwhile, this is not even vaguely relevant:

>>If you want to read about the ones who have opted to include it you may read the follow up document<<

Not one of the schools mentioned has adopted the curriculum itself. Nor has any of them included plans for "Muslim only swimming", which you earlier declared "is something that has been promoted & introduced"

You just keep on inventing stuff, don't you.

>>Thanks for highlighting the Black/Sadiq quote which may indeed be a misrepresentation by the press.<<

And thanks for confirming that your primary sources are the Murdoch press...

>>The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 23 July 2011... The Australian, (Sydney), 26 August 2011... Courier Mail, (Brisbane)<<

...and those paragons of probity and accuracy...

>>...with Today Tonight and/or A Current Affair in recent months visiting sharia 'courts' in Sydney<<

This is the nub, I reckon.

>>Sharia law not being legally binding in Australia - how can you suggest this undermines the argument?<<

All religions have rules that have force only within the ranks of their faithful. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to allow their children blood transfusions, even when their lives are at stake. Many Christian sects refuse to allow legal abortions, even when the pregnancy is the result of rape, or threatens the woman's life. So you need to be honest with yourself, and admit that your personal stand against Islam is based wholly and solely upon your own religious proclivities.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. It's only an issue when you try to pretend otherwise.

Thanks Pericles. I think anyone reading the article should have come to the conclusion that it was not about finance per se, but about ethics. As I have repeatedly said, the claim of those introducing this product (sharia finance) is that it is 'ethical finance'. I was testing those claims by pointing out that sharia compliance does not actually meet most Australians standards of ethics - yet is being promoted by both state and federal government ministers as ethical finance. (And yes, I was at the conference where ministers endorsed sharia finance). Sharia finance claims that there is no interest. Apart from raising the question of why interest is 'unethical' anyway, it is clear that the cost of banking appears to be renamed as interest or fees and is exactly the same, if not greater, than the going interest rates.
Then there's the ethics of promoting sharia compliance at all - ie compliance to another legal system that is inherently discriminately. You seem happy to overlook all these things.The fact that 'money can be laundered other ways' does not make this way anymore 'ethical'.
Re your suggestion that no schools have adopted the curriculum: Quote from the link I gave you: 'This resource has emerged from the Learning from One Another project, which has, to date, delivered teacher professional learning workshops and an accompanying resource to over 500 teachers nationally...With a large number of teachers now having participated in the Learning from One Another workshops, this publication has been developed to supplement and broaden the program. The case studies enable us to assess how the program objectives have been implemented in various schools and also provide a rich sharing opportunity for educators'...(usually 'implemented' means 'adopted'). And usually when a training manual says 'preferably' Muslim only swimming - this could be considered as promoting Muslim only swimming; that's what a preference is. To be continued...