As Hugo Rifkind wrote a week or two ago, we can have all the fascinating different foods, manners of dress, dances, language etc. we like, but we can have only one set of values, i.e. the equality of men and women, observance of the rule of law, democratic institutions, freedom of belief, speech and expression - all the facets of an open society.

Of all religions, Islam seems to be the most closed-minded: absolute authority of a book, of men, and in fact a lauding of being closed-minded. Like all cultures, Muslim culture is - perhaps more obviously than most - structured around, and justifying, male domination. As such, it deserves to be criticised like all cultures should be. But it most certainly is not a friend of an open society, nor of any of its facets listed above.

But I have no doubt that some dumb-dumb pseudo-leftists will, soon enough, start going on about the recognition of Shari'a - just for Muslims of course at first - as a logical consequence of multiculturalism. So perhaps we need to have a vigorous debate about what multiculturalism means, and whether or not women's rights can be taken away in the name of culture.

Joe

What about the Tasmanian bishop who is being persecuted (under Australian stifle-free-speech laws) for handing out brochures on normal marriage as his church sees it? How about media refusing to run advertisements for traditional marriage groups? This bloke is just promoting poofterism.

"In November last year, Muslim prisoner Milad Bin Ahmad-Shah Al-Ahmadzai refused to stand in court or recognise the Judge, citing his ‘religious belief.’"

Yes, and he got away with it. He wasn't charged with contempt of court as he should have been. Thanks to weak judges and gutless pooiticians, this country is now run by minorities - religious and gender-bending.

Hi ttbn,

Yes, as an ex-Marxist and atheist, I was puzzled about that Tasmanian case - after all, the bishops were being taken to court for advocating something which was perfectly legal, for supporting what is actually the legal situation.

Surely anybody is entitled to simply state their support for what may be the prevailing law ? We may not like it, but since they have actually not done anything illegal, how on earth can they be hauled up before some tribunal and have to explain themselves ? Wouldn't it be up to those who seek to change the law to state their case and run the risk of being taken before such a tribunal for advocating something which wasn't legal ?

Since when did freedom of expression, even more so freedom to express an opinion that is legal, get trumped by outrage and feelings of hurt ?

If I wasn't so sensitive to the delicate needs of the LBGTYJDNI and homosexual union lobbies, I'd say 'Grow a pair'.

Joe

Re the Tasmanian Bishop and his Catholic buddies being portrayed as innocent saints being portrayed as innocent saints above, I looked it up and it seems the little marriage booklet has a go at same-sex parents by suggesting it isn't 'healthy' for the way they bring up their children.
What rubbish, when it has been proven otherwise by numerous studies. Look it up yourselves if you don't believe me.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/catholic-church-has-discrimination-case-to-answer/6939942

Fair enough, have a view for or against legalising same sex marriage, but why bring people's children into the argument? To me that is taking it too far, and obviously the anti-discrimination officers agree.
Naughty Catholic Church is in trouble...

usual Christophobic rant from the left (usual spoilt brats) who want everyone to condone and promote what is unhealthy for a society. What next? Polygamy, bestiality. I would hate to think. Once again the moral base of Judea/Christianity being attacked and being replaced by some perverted idealogy which can only come from one aother source.

btw the killing of unborn babies and sexualisation of kids is far closer to Sharia than Christian influence. Brian should remove his glasses of hatred and wake up to the moral less base he makes his conclusions from.

Hi Suse,

Anybody, or any body like the Catholic Church, is as entitled to its opinion as anyone else.

'Innocent' is an interesting word. Usually it means, not having committed any offense or crime. So what criminal offense or crime have the bishops committed ? In that sense, aren't they 'innocent' ? Or should they be bullied into silence ?

Debate. Discussion, Passionate contention and confrontation. A free interchange of conflicting views. A teasing out of issues. Fantastic. Or don't you think so ?

Joe