Michael

You at least are being faoir[ fair] and looking to addressing these problems.

I agree with most of your comments.

Also we need our Government to make one law for all.

I remember contacting Phillip Ruddocks office years ago regarding a genioun concern.

I ended up speaking with both of his advisors over a two week period.

I was stunned to discover that neither one of them knew the UK had to rush an act of Parliment through about twenty years ago regarding marriage and divorce.

It was declayed that Muslims living in the UK did not have to follow the common law when it came to marriage and divorce.

When I suggested Muslims ought not to be allowed to marry in Mosques in Australia if they were already married the advisor said and I quote- "Whats the difference between them doing that and a Aussie bloke having a wife and a mistress?"

I told him there was plenty of difference and if he or I did likewise we would be charged with bigamy.

I told him it was not a good idea to teach anybody not to respect our laws.
He said he could not see my problem.
I said if he was the advisor for Australia then God Help our country.
breaking the law is breaking the law.
Its not fair that only some of the public must follow the law while others thumb their noses at it by simply saying.
But we dont belive in your laws. We dont belive in your God.
Mean time you and I are golaed[ goaled] for the same actions.
chip Chip Chipping away at our lasw[ laws and our soceity as we know it.
No I am not racist but we are being treated in a racist way if we complain.
Wake up People of Australia.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming I do believe you are doing an injustice to use this identity and then seemingly disregard the harm to people. As if you care more about animals then humans.

As to the advisers of Phillip Ruddock, it is no wonder where Ruddock himself disregards the rights of people. Vivian Alvarez Solon is a clear example!

As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST”, (without seeking to present my personal views) the Framers of the Constitution dealt with the issue of marriage between one man and one woman. Hence, I do not accept the Commonwealth of Australia could legalise so called gay couples as a matrimonial relationship and neither approve payment in that regard. As such neither benefits for the gay partner of Mr Michael Kirby J of the High Court of Australia. Neither to provide for De Facto relationship payments or indeed accept any kind of De Facto relationships.
On that basis, Section 116 of the constitution does not come into play as to religion, as to Muslims or whomever having a religion to permit a person to be married to more then one person of the opposite gender, as simply the moment a religious conduct is in conflict to constitutional provisions, including implied or embedded provisions and principles then the religious conduct must give way. Hence, any person who resides within the Commonwealth of Australia or who comes to reside in the Commonwealth of Australia is bound by the legal provisions as applicable. Therefore, I could not care less personally what kind of religion any person has or what their religious practices may be as long as they are within the confinements of Australian laws that are relevant. Anyone who practice any kind of religion or religious conduct or purported religious conduct or customs that are contrary to Australian laws (State and/or Federal) simply as like any other offender can be dealt with according to the RULE OF LAW. The problem is however that the Australian Federal Police, Social Security and others are ignoring this time and again!

Neither-the-Federal-Government-or-the-AFP-are-securing-our-safety,-to-the-contrary-are-part-of-the-cause-of-dangers-to-us-escalating! See my blog.

Mr G
I would like to answer that please
So in other words you agree that there should be one law for all in the same country.
Good. So Do I.
As far as putting animals before people goes Sir we need to learn it all goes together.
What we do to animals has a direct effect to us our kids and our health.
Lets take a look at bird flue for example.
Thats from chickens being kept in cages so small they can not sit lay down spread their wings turn etc.

This breeds diseases just the same as if it were people kept in those conditions.
It is the same with many other meat products we all eat such as pork and more and more intensive feedlot for cattle etc.

Of course Muslims do not eat pork but most others do.

All these animals are pumped with Anti B to TRY to curb the diseases.
The more they give them the more the virus becomes resistant.
The result being a super bug thats is caplable of wiping out millions.
So Mr G even if you dont have compassion for the most innocent- our animals- You need to know unless we put some common decency into our treatment of animals first.- There wont be any people.

The Federal Gov have just opended an enquiry into Halal Slaugher In Australias and the lack of stunning before slaughter.
They have my full support.
I hope they go one step further and STOP allowing them to be sent alive to have their throats cut without stunning overseas

“Also we need our Government to make one law for all” – that is what French and all pre- and following revolutions, PeopleALEIFarming, were for. And the rest of your post of 2 August is a hands-on further testimony to an Australian Dark Ages feudal style reality, where the particularly privileged inherit even a very right itself to be employed locally, no understanding of job to be done to frequently happen.

And TarynW., one must not be confused with playing English while speaking of marriages in Australia or wherever: as understood, PeopleALEIFarming suggestion is not anti-Muslim, but concerning the forbidding of second and further marriages under Shari or any other laws contradicting a common law of this country, as Mr G. opposes even civil unions between same sex partners, which is illogical from pure financial grounds sustaining a reproducing process called “marriage between man and woman” historically.

Of course, considering the cattle slaughtering is much visible demonstration of equal treatment and sharing concern of all subjects than rooting out discrimination between groups factually.

However, one should again be logical: if no second wife and same-sex unions allowed in this country, should religious rules prevail over scientifically-sustained treatment of animals?

A pity, no formatting of text and smiles allowed in this forum.

TyranW & MichaelK, as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I seek to avoid using my personal views in arguments. What I witnessed on the 60 Minutes program being done to cattle, etc is barbarous and utter deplorable at the very least and I would personally NOT condone this. My issue was however that TyranW was using the screen name as to refer to animals while coming across that she could care less in certain circumstances about the tragedy inflicted upon humans. That was the point I pursued to make. I do not approve of any animal cruelty and as such have made this clear but that did not relate to the constitutional issues I was pursuing. Don’t therefore assume something incorrectly. Also, my views about same sex relationships etc expressed was what is constitutionally applicable. While MichaelK may argue for economical reasons that it should be different, well if we are going to use that kind of argument then why have at all any court process in place and for economical reason just lock up people or perhaps execute them instanter as to save the government, so the taxpayers moneys? This kind of argument would be lunacy! Likewise so with any economical argument as to gay relationships. The reason so many referendums are failing is because the people decided so, that was the very set up of the Constitution. If the electors wanted to change the Constitution to facilitate for gay-marriage it would all along have been done. Likewise so with multiple-marriages by one person, if the electors really wanted it then they could have amended the Constitution.
The Federal Government cannot deal with religious issues but the States are free to do so. As a matter of fact it is unconstitutional for tax-deductions for donations to religious bodies an tax-exemptions for religious bodies, but nevertheless it is still being done and the taxpayers (including those non religious, are ending up having to make up for the shortfall.
I oppose discrimination but constitutionally we are permitted to discriminate! The-Commonwealth-is-built-on-racism!
And I understand the United-Nations in fact supported racism inregard of Aboriginals!