Dear Vanilla,

Superbly argued. I agree with Robert. You're a gem!

However, I don't think anything is going to get through to Boazy.
He is convinced he's on a 'divine mission.'
He's trying to find the answers for all of us. It's sad really ...

I don't think he could find a grand piano in a one room house.

TEAM..... believe it or not.. I do see ur points.

But what I also see is..... 'incremental change over time'= BIG change.

Now.. Frank.. quite eloquently argued that we have schools blah blah and the world has not split asunder. Well put.

But are any of you folks able to extrapolate based on the experience of other countries? hmmmm?

If I said "a broadening of Islamic infrstructure and political influence will mean some of us have to suffer under their call to prayer 5 times a day" aah. "Fearmongering" you say ? really ?

err..no. REALITY (oops..there I go Vanila..those caps again :)

Here is the 'down the track' scenario:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=504373&in_page_id=1770
"Muslim elders at an Oxford mosque have said they intend to push ahead with plans to broadcast a call to prayer from a loudspeaker despite fierce opposition."

Notice the order of events.
1/ Proposal to broadcast
2/ Community outrage
3/ Stubborn JACKboot of "we will go ahead anyway"

Here is a link where some posters here might find a bedfellow in the Bishop of Oxford :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/12/nislam112.xml

Sorrrry folks.... the call to prayer is ALSO an insult to every non Muslim..and esPECially to Christians who, as I've pointed out elsewhere are CURSED by the Quran and thus by every Muslim symbol, including the call to prayer.

WHICH "right" prevails.

Mine/ours, to a peaceful non threatening soundscape.
or
Theirs to loudly proclaim 'their' faith against the wishes of the community? (is this a 'right' ?)

Once you define a human right of a person you may also be removing a definition of what another might believe is their right. This then leaves it up to the court to determine if a right has been violated. This is especially sensitive in the case of children and parents and teachers etc.

Australia has existed for over 200 years without a Bill of Rights and you will find most Australians a very egalitarian society. Of course as we move away from the core human values that have fashioned Australia's selfless nature into a more selfish society then courts will reap the benifits of Human Rights definitions. Currently we operate on conscience and a fair go for everyone; without resorting to litigation.

BOAZ

After all your claptrap, what you mean is that you have no argument or evidence but you'll continue to reject anyone else's argument or evidence.

Did some big alien man lock you in a dark cupboard when you were a small child?

But Frank, IT MIGHT HAPPEN HERE!

Because IT MIGHT HAPPEN SOMEWHERE ELSE it is only rational to suggest that

IT WILL CERTAINLY HAPPEN HERE TOO !!

Philo - all accepted notions of human rights of which I'm aware take into account the rights of other people.

You're blowing out of your arse again, old son.

Isn't it interesting that those OLO citizens who are most vehemently opposed to human rights tend also to be our most fundamentalist Christians?

P.S. Vanilla - ditto with R0bert and Foxy. I couldn't have put it better myself :)