Pericles quoted CJ –

>>If the author wanted to make the point that aspects of Sharia Law (and indeed fundamentalist religious belief of any description) are incompatible with the advances in gender equity that Western societies have experienced over the past 30 years or so, she could have done so far more successfully if she'd avoided the Islamophobic dog-whistles.<<

If that was the only point of the article then why bother? To say that Sharia law disagrees with western attitudes to women is to state the complete obvious. Surely the author had more in mind than this. She is trying to draw attention to how our values and freedoms can be undermined by small increments and before we know it we have lost everything that generations have fought for. She seems to be urging vigilance in rejecting these first incursions so that it does not get out of hand. Her concern seems to be primarily about the freedoms of women but it is not difficult to see that many other rights are also at stake.

The fact that some posters react hysterically rather than rationally does not invalidate the argument of the author. Any attempt, no matter how small, to change the law based on religion rather than reason should be swiftly dealt with. Many societies in the past have been destroyed by their apathy and appeasement. People should be suspicious and should react vigorously whenever religious groups seek to restrict the freedoms of anyone who is not a voluntary member of their group. Islam or any other religion has nothing to offer an enlightened society and as soon as it’s adherents make the first attempt to impose itself on us we should react.

Pericles writes

'I sometimes feel as though I am some kind of Canute on this thread, pointing out in vain that when the islamophobic tide comes, there just ain't no stopping it.The ignorance almost seems to be willful. '

More to the point the denial from the likes of yourself and CJ is just as obvious as the Greens denial in the part of bad policy contributing greatly to bush fires. You have obviously not visited Holland or England or Spain France and if you have, your eyes must have been blinded by your ideology leading to denial.

SJF,

I get all sorts of fun out of reading your posts.

'... logic and objectivity – both of which are in their own way illusory and unreliable. '

I had about 10 responses to that, but gave up because I couldn't choose. Although I see what you mean, and I have read the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell and thought it was quite good. I do tire of this 'women can be just as loigical as men', but then, 'woman are more intuitive'. I mean which is it. Women are just better alround aren't they.

'Women have little choice but to become well versed on men’s erotic fantasies via Hollywood, literature, art, pornography, and the thousands of ‘adult’ magazines that proliferate throughout suburban newsagents.'

I'm actually not sure these things are very representative of men at all. They should be, but I really would question it even if only based on my own taste in things. Maybe you're making the mistake of thinking because it's out there it's representive. Maybe it's a case analogous to men thinking they know about women by reading Cosmo. Incidently, I'm sure you've read Nancy Friday? I found that affirmation of my long held beliefs of women's sexuality. But again, 'women aren't like men, we don't fantasize about rape and beastiality and paedophilia, we're pure little virtuous ones', but then 'stop repressing our sexuality, we're just imaginitive and dirty (in a nice liberated way) as men.

'...well-worn repertoire of put downs and trivializations.'
Examples?

'... behind the sad statistic that more than 80% of marital separations are initiated by the wife.'
Na. I reckon it's men are too lazy to fill out the forms. Really.

Pericles

If what I say is due to ignorance, then there is nothing to worry about. I'm just another ignorant "islamophobe". But if what I say is true about Muhammed's criminal life, then obviously people are going to be concerned about Sharia Law, which is based on Muhammed's message (agenda).

You regularly accuse people of "whacking a mozzie", "scaremongering" or "Islamophobia" which is fairly typical of someone trying to stiffle discussion. But that's ok, whilst we do not have Sharia Law in Australia, you are entitled to your opinion.

We should respect all people, but that does not mean we cannot question and criticize their beliefs, especially when those people wish to impose deranged beliefs on others.

There's no question that any versions of Sharia Law that I've seen render women as subordinate to men - which is one of the reasons that I oppose its formal recognition within our legal system. On the other hand, Christian Canon Law does much the same (albeit somewhat more moderately), as undoubtedly do the internal 'laws' observed by devout followers of most, if not all, religions.

And it's not as if Christian churches don't attempt to influence secular laws on the basis of their own ecclesiastical laws, is it?

I think that Sharia Law should be afforded exactly the same status in our system as Canon Law and other religious rules and regulations. That is, as long as people want to remain members of these religious organisations then they are free to follow the dictates prescribed by them. However, such jurisdiction must be voluntarily accepted by parties to it, and extends only so far is it is consistent with the law of the land.

Religious jurisdiction should never impinge upon the rights and obligations lawfully afforded to individuals who are not followers of that religion, or who have ceased to follow religions - or who simply wish to disregard the rules of their religion for whatever reason.

See, there's no need to get all hysterical and Islamophobic about it, is there?

'The author has summarised 14 centres of legal tradition by reference to the statements of a Sydney imam, a Melbourne preacher and an Egyptian journalist from the mid-twentieth century.

Can I summarise the Common Law tradition using the words of an Andreew Bolt columnist, a rant from Danny Nalliah and a South African judge from the mid-twentieth century supporting the legal basis for apartheid?

I think the author should stick to psychotherapy. Analysing and understanding comparative law and legal traditions just isn't her game.'

I should point out that Common law is far superior to Sharia law because it doesn't second guess what Mohammed was doing 1400 years ago. Indeed, the constant revisionism of the Prophet's biographical material is just absurd due to the fact that it is nothing short of legend and fiction.

Put simply, the idea that Sharia Law can enter the public sphere via real and actual legislation is an insult to the intelligence and integrity of non-Muslims who prefer to keep religion at arms length. Not because it is necessarily bad as such, but because it's ridiculous.

Why not institute 'The Law of the Super Flying Spaghetti Monster' or 'The Law of the Great Doo Doo in the Sky'? After all, it makes about as much sense.