Toni,

[continued]

In the meantime, a 'true' Muslim would contend, Shari'a law must be imposed on countries, one by one, by stealth, by deceit (Tuqqiya) or by force, whichever.

So if we are to begin a dialogue, basically a Civilizational Dialogue, which may have to continue for generations, we must stand firm from the outset and clarify that there will NEVER, NEVER be Shari'a law in Australia, not a skerrick of it.

Australia is, no matter how imperfectly, a society based on Enlightenment values, the rule of law, equality of men and women, and opportunity structures as open as possible. It is a society and polity in which we can question, criticise, assess, analyse EVERYTHING that affects us. That's called democracy, the imperfect rule of the people and their elected servants. We can slag our politicians, we can criticise out 'intellectual leaders' such as there are any. We can 'offend' each other to our heart's content and not be beheaded for it, or burnt alive. Although there are some people on OLO ........ No, not even them.

It's funny, when you take the values of a society for granted, you don't articulate, let alone formulate, arguments for their support, or improvement. So you leave yourself open to counter-arguments, arguments for the fascist values of ISIS, for example (speaking to the pseudo-left here). When you take something for granted, you shrug your shoulders and say, 'well, it just is'.

But the times for those easy luxuries are now over. It is time now for Australians to consciously re-assess and specify what their values are and to clarify what they believe in. Perhaps this struggle has been coming for a very long time, but it's now here, whether we like it or not.

Let the Dialogue begin.

Round Two.

On s'engage, et puis on voit.

Joe

Here Here Loudmouth !

Dear Joe,

The fight at hand is a fight of all those who wish to be saved from having to live under Shariah law against those who want to impose Shariah law on us.

Your opportunistic use of this struggle in order to push for the values of this Western mock-enlightenment, does not help the struggle against Shariah, violence and terror.

It is true that in comparison, democracy is not nearly as bad as Shariah, yet the view as if it's OK for some people to rule over others and dictate to them their way of life, is fundamentally the same.

"Allah" is simply another name for God. I still prefer to be directly ruled by God than to be ruled by men, whether or not these men [wrongly] claim to know what God wants.

Thank you Yuyutsu,

In a democracy, we vote for our local members, and State representatives. They are, strictly speaking, our servants - they do not rule over us. Whichever party can form government, i.e. gain a majority in parliament, has the right to choose a prime minister. So our servants choose their 'first among equals'. That's democracy here, in its current form.

If you have a better system, one which benefits the majority of the population, you are welcome to present it, so that we all can assess it, criticise it, modify it, etc. I look forward to the day when Muslims - and Hindus, for that matter - can thoroughly assess, criticise and modify their own models of how a society should be governed, and not be told what to think as if they are small chilxdfren.

As for your particular god, you are welcome to worship whatever you like, but insofar as governance and representation affect all of us down here in the real world, that really is irrelevant to the rest of us: if you put that to one side, the question remains: how can we improve on democracy ? And any of the other 'Western' values that we try to live by ?

And if you are not interested in living in this thing called 'society', I hear that Andamooka is quite balmy at this time of year. 42 or so. Maybe Booligal and Wiluna as well. There's a lot of empty country out there.

Thanks again, Yuyutsu

Dear Joe,

Thank you for suggesting Andamooka, Booligal and Wiluna.

However, my personal life is not the issue. As for my personal convenience, my private grievances are minor and I could be quite happy to live in society, but my problem is of a moral nature:

WHAT RIGHT HAVE I TO BENEFIT FROM BEING A MEMBER OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO FORCE THEMSELVES OVER OTHERS?

(suffice if there is only one such other and it's not me)

So to answer your challenge on how to improve on democracy, what is essentially called for is to allow people to opt out of society (without being forced to leave their homes as a result).

As I'm aware of your probable next question, let me note in advance that this does not prevent society from defending itself against those who leave it, should the leavers threaten them physically - but not if they don't.

Next if I may, I can contribute another improvement:

Let voting not be that easy. Let's introduce some moderate hurdle that people must pass in order to vote, such a hurdle that anyone could pass (without an enduring pain or loss) if they really cared about election results, but which one who is more or less apathetic would not bother to get through.

This will prevent donkey and random votes; or uninformed votes; or blind votes based on others' exhortations; or votes based on petty personal profits.

It is wrong that votes by a majority which doesn't care much either way, outweigh the plight of minorities for whom certain laws or policies could be the equivalent of a death-sentence.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I think I can see where you're coming from. The problem would be how to extricate yourself from socially-provided roads, water and sewerage systems, electricity provision, health and education services, retail businesses, banking and insurance, and so on. Libraries too, and the internet: honestly, could you and I live without OLO ?

Most of us, I'm sure, wonder sometimes what it would be like to live totally on one's own (or maybe it's just me), not bothered by anybody, a few chooks, a vegetable garden, a couple of cows ...... Then I get a craving for a Flat White and poof ! the bubbler bursts.

Yes, voting procedures should be re-assessed: the voting age should be put up, rather than down, maybe to twenty five when people gain some measure of maturity. Maybe enrolment should be voluntary, at least for those younger than twenty five. But once enrolled to vote, it should be compulsory.

Society is a complicated beast: we need to call on its services not just when we are in trouble but just for company; but those expectations impose obligations on us to come to others' aid in return, and provide social support when it is needed.

Democracy is modern society's unruly child, and yet its creator as well. Imperfect, as it always will be (for a perfect society, see: Utopia; unchangeable blueprint; fascism), democracy is still immeasurably better than any other form of government, if only because it gives us all chance to choose our representatives.

Yes, the process of choosing those reps is deeply flawed, a party-elite system; politics is like horse-trading, with someone to clean up afterwards. But constant surveillance by the people, vigilance in holding the system to its principles - in which the protection of minorities should be central: that's our job, and always will be.

Best wishes,

Joe