http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/791263.stm

The headline of that article is:

POLYGAMY LAW SET FOR CHALLENGE. (UK)

And it can't come quickly enough for me also. One Aussie value important to me is monogamous marriage. No man can love 2 or more women with an equal heart. He will always favor one over the other.
The story in the article clearly demonstrates this. A man after 30 yrs of marraige goes to Pakistan and marries a girl young enough to be his daughter. (without his wifes consent or knowledge) She hears about it and faints on the spot !

To me, the greater problem is the Islamic faith itself and its lack of compatability with Australian values. Clearly Muslims in the UK are flouting the law on marriage, and trying to follow Sharia by Stealth. Now they are challenging the UK law and claiming "victimization" because the polygamists are 'forced to live outside the law' ! What utter rot, they are breaking the Law and should be brought to book ! full stop.

If anyone thinks that would be the end.. they are deluded. Pressure has been applied to the Canadian government from the Muslim community to re-think the laws on Apostacy ! and it has been argued that the death penalty for it is an issue of cultural misunderstanding rather than the more apt term "inhuman brutality".

Contrary to the article, Muslims ARE allowed to marry wives of their choice and NOT 'only the disadvantaged'.

So, I advocate not just 'testing' new arrivals, but making their citizenship/residence CONDITIONAL on NEVER challenging the law by private practice or political pressure on areas which are specifically religious and incompatable with Australia. Citizenship should be revoked if they ever do so.

A much easier solution is to determine those who are basically compatable with our culture and limit immigration to those from such a background.

OOps..this sounds like discrimination.. YOU BET IT IS !

We reap what we sow..and if we sow lax immigration policy we will reap social disruption and strife.

New Arrivals... will they seek to set up their own Parliament ?

Shock horror..how could such a thing ever happen ?

DECEPTION ON A GRAND SCALE. according to the 'Muslim Parliament' of UK

[Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.]

Compare and Contrast this with the much earlier words of the companions of Mohammed as they interpreted the Quran in their Jihad.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:

Al Mughira speaking:

[Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya....]

Hadith Muslim book 1 number 33

"The Prophet said: ‘I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prostration prayer, and pay Zakat. If they do it, their blood and property are protected.'"

So.. who is correct ? the UK Muslim Parliament...or the documents on which their statements are supposed to rest ?
My 'scam-o-meter' is bouncing off full scale deflection here.

To me, the very NAME Muslim "PARLIAMENT" is dangerous if not seditious. Is it not suggesting there is a parallel society, organizing itself solely on Islamic legislative lines ?
Is it not preparing itself to represent the Islamic community when the time arrives where they have somehow taken control of Britain?

We need to know Aussie values yes..but more importantly, the degree that foreigners can be reasonably expected to assimilate/integrate based on track record.

The question arises again as to why people want to come here if they are not prepared to live civilised lives. This country owes most of its freedoms due to our largely Christian heritage. I know that their are many that like to deny this and rewrite history but the fact remains that our laws were based on a Christian Judea ethic. As for the indigneous people it becomes clear that most of the ones that are doing well have embraced the Christian ethic. I have seen this first hand.

Rather than testing people for knowledge we should be questioning their motives for coming here. Is it just the easy handouts or is it they want to contribute to our society.

Boaz, I know that it doesn't take much to get you frothing at the mouth, but at least take a few moments to read the entire article, and weigh up all the issues, not just the ones that get you steamed.

The first thing to note is where the law is being challenged - in the European Court of Human Rights. There is no equivalent body that influences Australian legislation, so the article has absolutely no relevance to Australia at all. The only connection is your utter paranoia about anything Muslim.

I would be far more upset, were I living in the UK, that this kind of activity shows up the absolute farce that is the European Union. They have developed one of the world's most advanced form of bureaucratic self-perpetuation, in which individual countries find themselves powerless to prevent the committees, quangos and sheer volume of "unrepresentative swill" taking stuff like this seriously.

The only tangible outcome of this action, by the way, will be the further enrichment of human rights lawyers like Cherie Blair.

You also make an unsupported statement:

>>Contrary to the article, Muslims ARE allowed to marry wives of their choice and NOT 'only the disadvantaged'<<

Given that you directly contradict a statement made in the article you refer us to, it would be polite to provide a little more information. Otherwise it is just "no they're not, yes they are".

>>So, I advocate not just 'testing' new arrivals, but making their citizenship/residence CONDITIONAL on NEVER challenging the law<<

This is not offering citizenship in the normal sense of the word, is it? You have created a different, less entitled, class of citizen.

Last time that was tried in the 1930s it ended in disaster.

Graham, you have demonstrated that the best test of Aussiness is a fine sense of irony. I heartily concur. A written test might be marked on the lowness of the score - like, er, golf.

Speaking of irony, Hi Davo! How did you manage to morph irony into polygamy?

Polygamy just might have it's advantages. I have known some Aussie sheilas who could have managed two concurrent husbands with the greatest of ease and grace. It's not fair to only consider polygamy from the point of view of yer average insecure bloke who bites off more than he can chew (greed and testosterone got us where we are now).

And consider the advantages - a better than even chance of economic household stability, two blokes to guard the nest, and always someone to walk the kids.

Hmmmmm - I'm thinking about it...

A silly article written with a tone of smug contempt.

Most migrants sitting the test are not going to live in remote aboriginal communities, they are going to live and work in english speaking communities where the aussie values test will only make their own lives easier (and everyone elses).

It is not a fear of difference it is a thing called social cohesion as opposed to social fragmentation, but don't let that get in the way of good ol thinly disguised anglo bashing!