Pelican -
The act of wearing a turban does not infringe upon anyone else but it was an important part of the wearer's religious beliefs.

Well a turban is headgear and the owners had rules about headgear not being allowed. They must think headgear impinges on the rights of others in some way or else they would not have a law against it. If I wore a beanie I'd be still denied entry.

Who says it is an important part of the religious beliefs?- the person wearing the headgear and because he says religion he is exempt. Why? If I said my beanie was an important part of my religious beliefs who has the right to deny my wearing it? Which religions are really religious and which are not?

Once you make exceptions that are not based on reason you open yourself up to the ludicrous. It causes far more problems than it solves.

Dear All

In countries where there are sizable Muslim populations you can no longer discuss parts of sharia law openly.Any public airing is now considered actionable as an offence under "secular" law because it is said to be heretical and inflammatory according to Muslim clerics.Religious freedom is gone. Over sensitivity to their religious rights and demands have won. You cannot discuss human rights for women because it offends them but they can criticise our women's civil rights and freedoms all they like because their religion demands the women behave in a modest way and dress accordingly.Discuss the pillboxes their women have to live in and they are ready to riot...and they have the numbers to make it extremely volatile.

There goes democratic rights in our secular societies.
The Trojan Horse has been let in and the city is ready to fall if it hasnt all but already.
Have a good day Dear All, because they certainly are having one, today, and tomorrow and tomorrow. Game over.Set and match.

Am I being unduly pessimistic?
At least at present I wont be dragged into our court of law and accused of heresy and blaspheming the religion.I dont think so.Not sure.
Who know?

socratease

" ... And if one of these religious groups ever gains power by being democratically elected, they will in all probability quickly dispense with any human rights laws that don't agree with their religous beliefs. ... "

*SharkY*
Yes, I made a similar comment somewhere here recently but, under the present constitutional system, and apart from the bastardry in the australian act eliminating of appeals to lizzie in council

(which remains enshrined in the constitution incidentally)

it is not so easy to manifest constitutional change.

One of the good things about multiculturalism I would add. When you have a rich "garden" thriving with a variety of different views and philosophies etc it is less likely that you will get the rise of one over the other to any extreme extent. Except of course when primal behaviour is invoked say for example by the "perceived threat" of others making war upon Self, family, mates etc ..

CONSTITUTION:

Chapter III – The Judicature

74 Appeal to "Lizzie Winza" in Council

No appeal shall be permitted to "Lizzie Winza" in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, UNLESS the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by "Lizzie Winza" in Council.

..

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/current%5Cbytitle/A53EB3E5F305B1D1CA256F7100504CBF?OpenDocument&mostrecent=1

Australia Act 1986
Act No. 142 of 1985
This compilation was prepared on 31 March 2003
Prepared by the Office of Legislative Drafting,
Attorney General’s Department, Canberra

11 Termination of appeals to Her Majesty in Council
(1) Subject to subsection (4) below, no appeal to Her Majesty in Council lies or shall be brought, whether by leave or special leave of any court or of Her Majesty in Council or otherwise, and whether by virtue of any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Royal Prerogative or otherwise, from or in respect of any decision of an Australian court.

..

This change was not made with the Will of the Ozzie people and pursuant to the relevant sections of the Constitution itself.

..

I wander if she would overturn the racial discrimination currently being perpetrated against the BlakFellas?

"racial discrimination perpetrated against BlackFella"....

What a lot of crap. Have you any idea what power they now have and what they get from the taxpayers?

Not long ago to save their sacred rocks they drove the Japanese off to NT to build the new LPG plant which will create a thousand jobs in NT.
Jobs are the last things they want.

We had to cough up over a billion dollars to get oil drilling rights off Exmouth. Racial discrimination?

Their kids are brought to the courts in droves and leave grinning and giving high fives to their buddies who came to support them.
Racial discrimination? Yes,strangely enough.We the tazxpayers are no longer adequately protected against them.They have the run of the place.

Please dont talk about racial discrimination. You make me sick.

Father Frank Brennan, the Roman Catholic Lawyer appointed at great expense by Robert McClelland probably himself a Roman Catholic Lawyer, to investigate whether we need a Bill of Rights, ought to know he is a scammer.

In 1986, an investigation of Hansard would reveal that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was enacted into Australian Domestic Law, for a five year trial period in 1981 by the Fraser Government. The five year trial period ended in 1986, and the Hawke government proposed and the Parliament passed an Australian Bill of Rights. They also passed a Bill to remove the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 where it is Schedule 2, so it would be Schedule 1 to the Bill of Rights Act.

After it was passed, pressure from WA Inc ( Brian Burke and the Masonic Freemasonry dominated WA legal profession) caused Bob Hawke and cabinet to not send it for Royal Assent.

So the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stayed as Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 and remains there to this day. S 13 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) makes a Schedule part of an Act, so it is law. Its application would decimate the legal profession, so they are in denial. The Covenant has been made the basis of a criminal offence, which you will find at S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) and carries a penalty of seventeen years jail. Article 14 of the Covenant, says: All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Losing a court case is a severe deprivation of physical liberty, civil or criminal.

If a criminal can get a jury trial, equal treatment for a civil trial should mean a jury as well.