Sharia courts are operating in Britain. Their decisions will be enforced by British courts.

However, BOTH parties to a dispute must agree to allow their case to be decided by a sharia court.

See:

REVEALED: UK’S FIRST OFFICIAL SHARIA COURTS

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

My personal view is this. Provided both parties FREELY give their consent to having their cases tried before a sharia court there is no harm in this. It may even do some good.

It is in any case no different to the parties agreeing to appoint an arbitrator to settle their dispute.

My concern is that, especially in marital cases, the woman may come under severe pressure. She may not be in a position to refuse. This is especially so where domestic violence is concerned.

Quote:

"In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

"In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations."

Questions:

Could this happen in Australia?

Will we soon have Catholic courts?

Dear Steven,

Interesting thread.

I had no idea that it was happening in the
UK. I had assumed that Sharia Law was not allowed.
You live and learn.

As for it happening in Australia?

My concern would also be women's rights under Sharia
Law.

I think it would be something that would have to
be looked at very, very carefully.

Difficult one Steven.

Shouldn't the law be the same to everyone, regardless
of religion, in this country? Or am I being naive?

Bear in mind Foxy that this only applies if BOTH parties consent. If either party objects the case must go through the usual civil process.

The difficulty I foresee is that in some cases, especially those involving domestic violence, it may not be possible to ascertain whether both parties are TRULY giving their consent voluntarily.

The other problem is that if you allow Muslims to have their own courts, why not Catholics, Hindus, etc?

In Britain a Jewish court already operates. However my understanding is that it is used mainly as a quick and inexpensive way of settling commercial disputes. Again, both parties to the dispute have to consent.

Will we soon have Catholic courts?
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 16 September
We have them already, and thats all we have.
Are we all blind and not spent any time in the Australian courts (tribunals) ?

One only has to realise how many Catholics there are in the legal profession and who are the Catholics sitting at the bench to realise that the British based common law system we received from England over one hundred years ago has long gone and been taken over by the Cannon Law admisistrative process without any body knowing what has happened.

What I dont consent to is the fact that when you make a comlaint and take it to what you beleive is an independant court or tribunal, you end up in front of another Catholic looking after his brother from the same church and then ordered to pay the Catholic offender for the exercise.

Then you attempt to appeal the decision in the next level up and go before another Catholic and you get exactly the same result.

Then to the so called High Court in which you have to accept the Catholic poof adjuciating on the matter with the same predicted results.

Have a good look at who are the principals in most of our state schools and the senior public servats, are you all blind.

Steven,
From the link you provided. The below also has some interesting implications:
“ in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia”

I wonder who decides what law applies in cases of inheritance, the giver or the receivers. There is in inheritance & other areas of sharia grades based on sex.
If we allow the bequeather to decide it seems we would be entrenching traditional inequalities.And how does this sync with our (core) antidiscrimination laws/values?

*quickly disguises his nick*....ok.. we may now begin.

Steven said:

"My concern is that, especially in marital cases, the woman may come under severe pressure. She may not be in a position to refuse. This is especially so where domestic violence is concerned."

*bingo*

Then... Foxy says:

"I had no idea that it was happening in the
UK. I had assumed that Sharia Law was not allowed.
You live and learn."

well well well :) *the laaaayyyt has shined*

One problem with the issue of "Sharia Courts+Domestic violence"
is that Sharia law is based on the Quran and that document specifically permits a husband to 'beat' his wife as a last resort in cases of him suspecting her of bad behavior. Surah 4:34 for those interested.

For a detailed explaination of the 'process' and limits you may view it here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJkmRBEOC3o "Men have authority over women"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wseFgBocQrw&feature=related (beatings are indispensible)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58&feature=related "The rules"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouztv-tRPKM&feature=related (womans perspective)

Western law forbids domestic violence. Islamic law does not, in fact it goes further than 'permitting' it actually recommends it (as a last resort)

To my mind....the people who most want 'Sharia' law in western countries would be Muslim males. His share of the property division is much BIGger than hers.

Now.. that last paragraph is the only part of this post which is my 'opinion'.. I wonder if anyone noticed that?

Dear Foxy.. I wonder if you had any 'idea' about this also...

http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1737&Itemid=1

(Last paragraph)

[Nearly five months into this campaign, RMIT still refuses to explain its racist attack on Muslims' rights. But mass Islamic Prayers blocking the city's main artery every Friday lunchtime for the indefinite future? Smile while you imagine RMIT's Vice-Chancellor trying to explain that.]

Sharia law in Britain..... Islamic activism in Melbourne.. it's all one and the same package.

In the case of RMIT Muslims....they want a discriminatory exclusive mosque built on State land....and according to the socialists (see my other thread on "Are Socialists Seditious") they are prepared to blockade Melbourne over the issue.

Interestingly.. the president of RMITIS said to me face to face "We are only here (Bowen Street) because of lack of space at the spiritual centre"

One wonders who is trying to pull the strings eh.

Dear Polycarp,

I'm no longer sure of anything anymore.

I'm going to take a break from OLO for a while.

I'm totally demoralised.

It's dangerous for Britain to allow a dual judicial system. Sets a really dangerous precedent.

What's to stop them from demanding a separate Islamic state within Britains borders?

Oh, forgot to add. There's NO WAY this will be voluntary for the people under the influence of these proponents of Sharia 'law'. Not only will women feel the pressure but everyone under it's sphere of influence will too. The people that run these sort of 'courts' are VERY influential within the community. You'll see pressure being put on the fathers on the Muslim community through business dealings and religious pressure. Shame, etc.

Stevenlmeyer sharia courts,

We may not have them yet but the fashion / model has been set with aboriginal courts attached to regular magistrate court (Broad Meadows, near Melbourne, has one, I believe)

I am personally against them.

I believe in the common treatment of all and that means one set of laws for one nation of people, not something which varies according to ethnicity or religion.

It comes back to what the American leader Dr King wanted more adequately / eloquently expressed than I.

It’s very simple,
courts or any other institutions, separated based on ethnicity, religion or any other point of discrimination, works to foster segregation.

And we cannot have it both ways,

we are a nation of either

integration and inclusion

or a nation of

segregation and separation.

As for “mutual agreement” to use an alternative legal code, that is a cop out and as divisive as a segregated society, such as the discredited apartheid system of South Africa.

I have to agree with Col. As citizens of one nation I can see danger in setting a precedent for this type of legal differentiation.

As has been stated the best protection is equality under a common set of laws within a democratic framework. Not different laws for different groups even under the spurious assertions of mutual consent. Following on from something mentioned earlier, how might a woman who is a victim of domestic violence gather the courage to deny or withdraw her consent. Or a young man from doing the same under immense pressure from his family.

While we can embrace cultural differences with open arms I would be strongly opposed to a system of Sharia law being formalised even under this arrangement.

Young Dan,

The Judge who you identified by his sexual preference is actually an Anglican.

All,

I am surprised that Boazy missed starting a thread on this one. Perhaps he is still calming himself down enough to contribute after the excitement of reading this:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2360820.htm

Sorry Boazy but I do think you are a little overzealous sometimes with Islam.

Albeit in the context of not giving the issue sufficient thought to justify an opinion I agree with the general concern raised. I disagree with Col in that I think that religious courts dealing with secular matters in a mixed society is worse than aboriginal laws being available to aborigines in their own country. However I am open to the possibility there might be something in it.

I have read that a few years ago the British government stated that they would never allow Sharia law in Britain but Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. The 100 cases to date range from divorce and inheritance to neighbourhood disputes.

Likewise Australia's attorney-general Robert McClelland reportedly stated that "The Rudd government is not considering and will not consider the introduction of any part of Sharia law into the Australian legal system,". So perhaps we won't follow British footsteps.

All that said there seems to be a political and legal as well as religious components involved in Islam so it must be difficult for them when compelled to work with other legal systems so irrespective of whether or not it is the best thing we should empathise with them. Further radars should always be out when media do their thing. They love to incite conflict between different groups.

Dear Foxy

I understand why you want to take a break, but please return soon we need your calm, balance and reason.

Love

Hope you're back soon Foxy.

I agree with the concerns every one has expressed here. However, consider this:

The Australia court system is slow and EXPENSIVE. Frankly, the calibre of some of the judiciary leaves much to be desired.

There already exist in Australia various bits of legislation allowing for disputes to be settled by arbitration. The consent of both parties is required. There is some evidence to suggest that arbitration is becoming increasingly popular.

For all I know a group of sharia scholars could offer their services as arbitrators in Australia right now.

In the case of commercial disputes between EQUAL parties I see no problem here. If that is what the parties want why should we stop them?

The difficulty, as many have pointed out, is this.

Are the parties EQUAL?

Especially in cases involving DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and CHILD ABUSE I suggest they are not.

Aboriginal courts attached to Magistrates' courts are an abomination. Alternative dispute resolution for a should be at arms length from the regular judicial system which may have to review the decisions of alternative tribunals

For some years now, I have considered that Briton has capitulated to the ideoligies of multiculturalism, much to the detriment of their social structure. Now the British legal system is being undermined with the first introduction of sharia law. Still if that is the way the Poms want to go, that is their business, but do not be surprized to see further introductions of aspects of Sharia in future.

Could it happen in Aus, you bet it could. It is introduced by stealth just a bit at a time which is seen as innocurous. Our weak politicians allow it to happen.

Even now some of our laws are not upheld because of "cultutal considerations" while other alien cultural activities are subject to the full extent of the law. So some have an unstated immunity from the law and others are discriminated against.

It has been said that the cost of democracy, as little as we have, is eternal vigilance. Our law must remain absolute.

Huggggg for foxy :) hope my posts didn't depress u mate.. u mentioned my name in your depature one.. makes me feel a bit sad...

If you want something to be sure of.. let me offer this: (heb 12)

2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

When He is our focus.. He is also our joy.. and our peace. May He be yours.

MJBP.. I didn't even know about that program..but it shows some interesting links..right?

When one understands the meaning of SHIRK.. and how this is regarded by the Muslim community (probably pretty much every Muslim would have firm views on that issue) you then realize why there will never be harmony or compatability between [Christian, Jew,(together)] and the Muslim community.
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shirk/crime.htm

Shirk as Muslims understand it would be eliminated from the Islamic state.... that would have profound consequences for Christians and Jews.

Even though you (understandably) regard me as a bit overzealous...as would (and do) a lot of Christians.. I hope you can try to understand where I'm coming from in the bigger picture.

blessings to you. (and all)

I would love to see Catholics live according to their beliefs here in Australia, rather than imposing their views on others through our political system (of which they have been very successful so far). Unfortunately they like most religious people are intent on making Australia a Christian theocracy (in law), that answers to the Pope. We already have an ambassador to the Vatican, unprecedented before Rudd decided to install one in Australia. So who do you think will be passing information between the two states and holding policy discussions with the Vatican from now on? Our 'ambassador' of course. Religious people are a menace to free society and peace.

MJBP...I just listened to that religion report... the part about

"Undercover Mosque...the return."

You can clearly hear the woman Islamic teacher spelling out the Islamic law for 'apostasy'.. in the most moderate mosque in the UK...

KILL HIM! and she refers to the Sharia law.

Now.. there is no context issue.. no 'selection and emphasis' issue.. it is the words, clearly uttered, unmistakably intended to convey a specific meaning:

"if you become apostate from Islam.. you must be KILLED"

The POLICE (just like Pericles CJ morgan..Bugsy and others) claimed it as a selected beat up etc.. and it COST them $100,000 in damages for their trouble.

I reallllly get upset when I hear such things being said in 'back rooms' of MAJOR (the most major there is) mosques (Regents Park) which are claimed to be moderate.

But all I've done here.. is state the facts.. and added my own feeling. "I get upset"....

The best thing for people to do is listen to the program themselves and make up their own minds.
Let's hope their 'minds' are not like those of the politically correct (but practically moronic) police who look at a duck and see a cat.

Horus makes the other point.. Sharia is NOT fair.. NOT even handed.. NOT just... it gives MORE to men than to women.. Fractelle.. where are you and others when we need some female opinion and..(God help us) some support!

You don't even need to have a faith position to be vehemently critical of Sharia..all you need is a sense of justice.

Any legal system which permits women to be beaten by their husbands by LAW.... and old men to marry little kids.. is abominable.

Dear Fractelle,

Thank You for your kind words and support.

I'm over my dummy spit. And I apologise
for it. I guess the right buttons were
pushed and I reacted. (Not well.)
I have no one to blame but myself. But
at least I've learned a lesson out of all of it.
Stay calm and don't react. Everyone is entitled
to their opinion.

Anyway, I won't be taking a break until next week.
Then I'll be gone for about ten days. I've decided
to go interstate (up North). It's what I need
right now. I've had a lot on my plate recently
on the home front. Anyway, Thanks again.
And Lots of love to you too, dear heart.

Polycarp,

Thanks to you as well for your lovely words.
They meant a great deal.

Steven,

Apologies for all this on your thread...

I agree with you concerning Sharia Law.
Privately, its not a concept I'm happy
with. Especially when you know that men
rule under their system. How equitable
would the law really be, as far as women
are concerned? And, what woman would be
brace enough to challenge her husband?

No, I think let's stick with the system of
one law for everyone. I'd vote for that.

Foxy,
I hope you'll have a wonderful break and be back all refreshed and relaxed.

Here I am, Polycarp,
seriously, from what I know about the Sharia law, it discriminates against women at best and at worst it's misogynistic.
For a start, in Sharia law a woman counts as half a man in giving evidence in a court of law.

Why would a civilised country let religion trump women's rights and basic human rights?

I doubt that both parties would voluntarily opt to answer to sharia law.
Did you steal something? What would you prefer, some community work perhaps, or your hand chopped off?
And would an adulterer really choose to be stoned?

Oh and of course the UK will have to re-introduce the death penalty for those who opt-in.

When will Western countries learn that immigration and multiculturalism are a threat to the existing culture, traditions and way of life of the host society?

American pundit Lawrence Auster put it well:

"... let us imagine a scenario in which a Western cultural group say a large population of Italian Catholics moved en masse into a non-Western country say in the Moslem Mideast and demanded that the host society drop all public observance of its majority religion and redefine itself as a multicultural state. When the Moslems react in fear and outrage, the Catholics answer "What are you so uptight about, brothers? In challenging Islam's past exclusionary practices, we're not threatening your religion and way of life, we're enriching them." Of course, as even the multiculturalists would admit in this hypothetical instance (since in this scenario it is a non-Western, rather than a Western, culture that is being threatened), such "enrichment" would change Islam into something totally unacceptable to the Moslem majority. By the same logic, if the U.S. Congress were required to conduct all its proceedings in Chinese or Spanish alongside English, that would obviously not "enrich" America's political tradition, but radically disrupt and change it. To say that a majority culture must "include" alien traditions in order to prove its own moral legitimacy is to say that the majority culture, as a majority culture, has no right to exist."

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1403/article_1227.shtml

Oh I do love multiculturalism, which provides a lot of variety and interest to an otherwise somewhat bland society.
Many different ethnicities and cultures enrich the country, I think.

That's just my opinion.

It's just that we need the same laws for everyone or we'll live in a jungle, and we need to protect everyone's basic human rights.
Religion should not interfere in secular laws, if laws need to change they need to be changed the proper way- not just let them be overruled by religious laws or rules.

The Western societies have already been there, done that- the chopping off hands, the stoning, hanging, flogging etc.
We decided that these rules and laws were not very civilised, that we could do better, and our laws evolved (although some need to be updated and progress).
Why would we want to regress and reintroduce these draconian laws again?

Celivia wrote: "Oh I do love multiculturalism, which provides a lot of variety and interest to an otherwise somewhat bland society."

True, the social dysfunction and intractable ethnic divisions generated by the squeezing together of totally unrelated peoples into an urban environment does provide a sort of "variety" and "interest"—but it is a sort "variety" and "interest" that most people flee if they can, which explains the middle-class exodus from areas with high concentrations of immigrants, a trend which can seen in any major Western city with a large immigrant population, from Los Angeles to London to Sydney.

"Many different ethnicities and cultures enrich the country, I think."

In that case, countries like South Africa and Brazil must be inordinately better places to live than, say, Sweden or Japan.

"It's just that we need the same laws for everyone or we'll live in a jungle, and we need to protect everyone's basic human rights."

But the laws of a society are determined by that particular society's cultural and moral values. Yet, in a "multicultural society", you have several different cultural groups inhabiting the space area, with each group having different, often conflicting values and morals. So, that begs the question: how would a truly "multicultural" society ever be able to reconcile competing values and morals into a single set of non-culturally specific laws?

Celivia>"It's just that we need the same laws for everyone or we'll live in a jungle, and we need to protect everyone's basic human rights."

I know this is a figure of speech, but even then it makes no sense. There is no justifiable reason for thinking that religious people living by the laws that they choose to administer when only their kind are involved in them, would create a "jungle" whatever that is supposed to mean (i think you have no idea what you are saying, nor can justify such a bald and baseless conclusion).

Oh I do love multiculturalism, which provides a lot of variety and interest to an otherwise somewhat bland society.

Celiva
What do you mean some what bland society?


*Real Australian people are the "most interesting unique people on the face of this earth."

I dont think anybody could say it was er, some what bland.

Re Sharia Law
The fact is the British Parliment werte forced to change the law regarding marraige 20 years ago! If you follow the link below you can read the letter written by Muslim leader regarding praise for Kevin Rudd ( Pre Election)
http://www.afic.com.au/Amn.htm

The development of Islamic finance is signifying changes in the financial market. The UK regulators have no objections in principle to Shariah compliant financial products, therefore major high street banking players such as HSBC and building societies are already in the market with a wide range of Islamic banking products.

Everything starts with food and must be accredited to be slaughtered and produced according the Sharia Law.

If nothing else this was way back then a very clever biz move.
Our concern has always been the treatment of the animals but perhaps others will be more concerned about what they see as "more important matters."
Australian Muslims expressed their thanks to Kevin Rudd pre elections. So Kevin 07 was elected and you can bet your bottom dollar many promises made will be kept.

( Oh thats while betting is still legal )

All terribly *interesting I am sure.

Separation of Church and State.

It is not perfect but it certainly helps people of different cultures and beliefs live together. And it does work - most of the time. For any who disagree with me, consider that there is no magical perfect answer, but this rule certainly works the best.

I find Australia a much more vibrant and interesting country, than it was back in the 70's. I have friends from around the world - thanks to our immigration laws here in Australia and the separation of religion and politics. Long may it continue.

There should be no adoption of Sharia law in any of the democratic nations than there should be literal interpretations and acting out of ANY religious text.

Otherwise, we'd have Polly stoning gays to death, muslims stoning women for not wearing hijabs and the death of scientific inquiry. Back to the dark ages.

Enjoy your holiday Foxy - remember even if I disagree with you on occasion I do hold you in great esteem. Your presence on these pages are valued far more than those whose only raison d'etre is to belittle others.

Nothing illegal or underhand has been perpetrated here.

Yet the fact that Islam is involved has everyone hopping around like the proverbial cats on that famous hot tin roof.

The key takeaway is this:

"Under the [Arbitration Act 1996] the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case."

This provides the necessary legitimacy to the proceedings, so any and all observations on whether they are "democratic" fly out of the window.

>>Shouldn't the law be the same to everyone, regardless of religion<<

But access to arbitration is not the same as "the law".

Unless you prefer to take every issue to be determined by court system - which of course, the lawyers among us would simply love - arbitration, as a process, is a good thing.

It is entrenched in many parts of our own society, for workplace disputes, family issues and so on.

http://www.iama.org.au/benefits.htm

It is incorrect to suggest that the decisions made within arbitration set legal precedents - or even influence the outcome of other arbitrations.

It is also incorrect to suggest that were a decision in arbitration be actually illegal - i.e., resulting in a crime either against property or a person - that it would somehow hold up in court.

In contrast, in Australia, we have actually moved on from this level of community-led conflict resolution, and included their activities within the legal system.

http://www.justice.wa.gov.au/A/aboriginal_court.aspx?uid=6986-7860-4445-5582

Unlike the UK arbitration system, this is actually an extension of the Magistrates Court.

http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/courts/magistrates/aboriginal_court_days.html

So you can take your finger off the panic button, StG

>>It's dangerous for Britain to allow a dual judicial system. Sets a really dangerous precedent. What's to stop them from demanding a separate Islamic state within Britains borders?<<

As you can see, there is no "dual judicial system" involved.

But I guess, when it comes to spreading misinformation on matters Islamic, followed quickly by the requisite fear and loathing, you are in good company here.

Pericles,

As you may see from my original post, and subsequent ones, this is one of the RARE instances where we are on the same side.

However I think you will agree that arbitration demands that ALL parties to a dispute FREELY consent to the arbitration process.

If ANY party objects to the arbitration process then the dispute MUST be settled by the civil courts.

In cases of domestic violence and child abuse is it always realistic to assume that consent for arbitration is FREELY given?

Should there not be some mechanism for demonstrating that all parties understand their rights and really do want to use the arbitration process; that no pressures or threats have been brought to bear on any of the parties?

Note, I am NOT talking here about arbitration before sharia courts. It seems to me that this should apply generally in ALL arbitration matters.

Note further that family matters such as dealing with domestic violence have not, until now, generally been decided by arbitration. So this is taking the concept of arbitration to a new level.

In principle domestic violence is a CRIMINAL matter which is not generally decided by arbitration.

Finally, should there be a right of appeal to the civil courts?

There would be no need to introduce the death penalty if an appeal was available to the High Court. Perhaps that could be incorporated as a compromise. I can't imagine Kirby ruling that same sex attracted folk are to be stoned in that sense.

On a more serious note I note that whilst we always think of stoning because that image is propagated due to its rhetorical value, technically I believe the punishment is throwing them off a tall building or collapsing a wall on top of them if they are male. I believe females have a three strikes rule literally whereby they get whipped 100 lashes for initial offences (together with prison for 5 or 6 years ironically) but ultimately face death if they reoffend. For trivia sake I believe it is permissible to use a cliff if no buildings tall enough are available.

I believe there are 7 sharia law countries that have this punishment on their books. Iran has had it since 1979 and estimates of executions for this offence range from several hundred to 4000. To be honest I found that information surprising. The media don't seem to portray modern Islamic countries like that.

Mjpb,

Calm down.

The scope of what may be arbitrated is limited.

Arbitrators do not have the right to deprive people of life or liberty. Nor do they have the right to impose any form of punitive damages.

In criminal matters arbitrators usually do not have jurisdiction – which is what makes me so uneasy about allowing them to deal with cases involving DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

It is somewhat ironic that many of the socialist who champion the cause of 'multi culturalism' scream the loudest when those cultures start to impose their world view. Islam like secularism hold little value for life and has warped morality (hence many secularist hate Christianity but endorse Islam). Well no doubt, as we continue to murder 80000 plus unborn each year and Muslims breed with many wives you don't need to be a rocket science to see the outcome. Many of the Securalist say we are doomed anyway due to global warming so what's the problem?

The good news is that from day one of Creation and before the Lord God of Israel has not left His throne. His Son is the one each and every man, woman and child will bow their knee to (voluntary or reluctantly). Islam will be destroyed but not before much more destruction. Our nation only has itself to blame for its stupidity in embracing the lie of Darwinism, socialism, atheism all for a little immoral pleasure. Thankfully day after day Jesus is still saving sinners like me and all who come to Him. The godless remain arrogant and proud but will soon face.

"Calm down."

I'm okay but the Islamic thing is a little hard to get to grips with and yes Polycarp I can empathise. I suspect many people struggle but just end up in different places often unfortunately too extreme. It is a little bewildering viewing Islamic societies from a society where debate is pitched at the level of "gay marriage" or whether it is a sin with legality being seen as an antiquated issue and observing the sharia approach used in 7 countries. That then has to be reconciled with moderate Muslims but in a mainstream moderate UK Mosque these apparently express extremist views and it is reported that the Islamic religion condones lieing to outsiders to appear moderate. I'm confident that there is such a thing as moderate Muslims but am bewildered as to what to think of the religion as a whole. Lets not forget the multicultural arbitration, apparently mainstream, where women's testimony is worth half of mens'. We need to ensure that we don't go off on some dangerous xenophobic tangent based on a bit of media sensationalism nor to remove protection for women for domestic violence if they live in the wrong community. Tolerance is called for. But I believe that it is hard for casual observers to get a grip on the issues.

"The scope of what may be arbitrated is limited.

Arbitrators do not have the right to deprive people of life or liberty. Nor do they have the right to impose any form of punitive damages."

Celivia said something about whether the UK will need to introduce death sentences and others have since made similar comments. From a sharia law perspective that does seem to be a live issue but the limitations of arbitration do address that in this context. Thank you for pointing that out.

"In criminal matters arbitrators usually do not have jurisdiction – which is what makes me so uneasy about allowing them to deal with cases involving DOMESTIC VIOLENCE."

Particularly given marital and community pressures to "volunteer" for this form of arbitration as has been pointed out.

runner

"It is somewhat ironic that many of the socialist who champion the cause of 'multi culturalism' scream the loudest when those cultures start to impose their world view."

First of all Liberals and Conservatives have also embraced multiculturalism and were responsible for increasing the immigration thresholds despite being one of the driest continents.

And we are not screaming the loudest just equally alongside others who uphold the same desire for Common Law.

Just because one minority group wishes to impose Sharia Law does not mean we should jump to the conclusion that all immigrant groups wish to advocate for same.

My father along with many other immigrants arrived in Australia and embraced the culture happily integrating into the communities he lived in.

This one aberrant issue should not be used as an excuse to discriminate against different cultural groups.

pelican

I happen to agree with you. I am thankful for the richness of many cultures in this land however the blindness and stupidity of people who fail to see that some belief systems are not compatible with freedom is astounding. It sounds like your father is the type we should be encouraging to come rather than those with other agendas.

If Sharia Law is introduced here or anywhwere else the people do not get a say. You do not disobey Allah. There is no seperation what so ever from law to religion.
I am afriad your comment is very misguided. This is not a anti Muslim post either. Its simply a fact.

People must only obide by these laws which controls everything. It controls what you eat how you dress- what you dress in . The materials and also how you cook and whzat does into the cooking.

It also controls such things as make up hair . The list is endless.
Unless its been blessed by Allah you dont touch because its Haram.

Your Dad might not have followed his faith and their ways and that of course his good luck he came to a country where he was free to choose.

However not everybody is is repaired to turn their backs on what has been the only laws they have ever known and do what is considered a sin in their Gods eyes I can assure you.

Most of them are not capable to think for themselves because they have been allowed to.

With the notable and predictable exception of Pericles.. most of us seem to be in agreement.. quite a feat considering the breadth of political posture we hold.

I recommend all listen to the ABC Religion Report on the undercover mosque program.. "the return" its available as a podcast/mp3.

oH..Fraccy.. My Bible says "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" ... err.. u'd prefer a beer swilling pot bellied slob yelling out every 5 minutes from his nut stewn recliner in front of the TV- "dARRRRRlin... grab me with another VB will ya!"

Now ur gonna lecture me about "It doesn't follow that a non Christian will be like that" :)

I know that..but you have to admit the verse is nice eh ?

Efranke,
Haven’t we seen problems with monocultural societies, too?
For any difficulties of multiculturalism practical solutions need to be found. No society is perfect.
I prefer multicultural societies because there is more diversity, which I find more interesting.
Living in a monoculture society means that there’s more pressure to conform (you mentioned Japan). Having to conform means less freedom.
It also means acculturation by assimilation into the dominant culture.
Anyway, I’m not going to argue about mono vs multicultural- it’s how I feel and you don’t have to agree.

Steel,
Well, I might be wrong but so what? I don’t claim to have all the answers nor do I fully understand Sharia and Islam and I’m still trying to understand the whole issue.
I just want to express my concerns, and I will.
Like Steven and PALE, I’m concerned that living by Sharia law might not be a free choice for every Muslim especially the women.
Muslims may be pressured, even if this pressure is just a result of needing to feel loyal to one’s religion.

While domestic violence happens in every culture, in Sharia law domestic violence is no ground for divorce as far as I understand.
Do you remember the ruling by Judge Christa Datz-Winter who denied a woman divorce because “The Koran instructs that men are in charge of women.”?
http://townhall.com/columnists/KathrynJeanLopez/2007/04/03/human_rights_versus_sharia_law

I’m also finding it hard to accept that our courts should have to be divisive and treat people differently merely based on their faith; I’d rather support equality before the law.
I also wonder how it’s possible for Muslims to decide on one uniform law. Sharia law aint Sharia law.
I suppose the UK Muslims have to structure or have structured their own Sharia law- one which is adapted to the UK circumstances?

Pericles,
Thanks for your explanatory post, I will give it some more thought and go over your links over the weekend when I have more time.
So do I understand correctly that within this Alternative Dispute resolution (ADR), other groups –including Hell’s Angels- would also be able to introduce their laws?

Continued

PALE
There’s nothing wrong with “real”Australians, whatever your definition of “real” might be.
It’s just that I find diversity more interesting. No insult was intended.
It’s like saying that there’s nothing wrong with “real” Australian food, but it’s interesting to have a wider choice and variety from cuisines that other cultures have to offer.
We can still enjoy diversity while living under one law.

Fractelle,
I think that Polycarp sounds a little over-joyous because more people than usual agree with some of the things he says.
There, there, Polycarp, I’m sure someone will laugh at your beer-drinking atheist joke.
*Rolls eyes*

Celiva
I think you will find many people claiming Australian food can be bland are not from Australia in the first place.
Are you born in Australia? See my point is people want what they were raised with.

Its to them Australia would be a tad bland if they couldn’t feel at home by popping into an Asian store to go home and cook what they have eaten before they arrived.

To them it would be sad if they couldn’t pop down to China town for example and mix with their own.
I agree some of the tucker is nice but at what price Celiva?

Have you noticed all the Kebab shops? Have you noticed the certificates on the walls?

Have you seen the customers walking up to the stores and checking out the certificate that hangs on the wall?

It’s a Halal certificate of accreditation Celiva and let me tell you something- If there is no Halal accredited certificate they DONT buy it.
That is simply putting other business right out of the market.

We are talking about 'Here' Celiva right now in Australia.

These places are everywhere and most people don’t seem to even notice.

I think you would be probably one of the very few people on this forum that would actually care enough to make some enquires as to how an animal is slaughtered but few do.

So the moral of the story is - If only Boaz really understood he may have given animal welfare a higher priority.

But then we reep what we sew Boaz! The answer has always been there for the churches to win their debate about religious power in Australia.
All they had to do was look at Animal Welfare.

Islam is controlled by what we eat.

Pity you didn’t care about how the animals were treated- It might have helped the church Boaz!

Dont go and kick the dog now will you

Celivia asks:

"So do I understand correctly that within this Alternative Dispute resolution (ADR), other groups –including Hell’s Angels- would also be able to introduce their laws?"

Within the very LIMITED scope of disputes that may be settled through arbitration, and provided the parties to the dispute FREELY give their consent, the answer is "yes."

The issue really is not about sharia law or bikey law or any other kind of law.

The issue is whether the parties to the dispute are in a POSITION TO REFUSE if they so choose. As I've said repeatedly, especially in cases involving domestic violence I doubt that is the case.

My fear is that women may be railroaded into consenting to arbitration before a sharia court.

Even the usual apologists for Islam on these boards have not come up with a satisfactory response to this issue.

Pericles, what do you have to say?

I've stayed out of this discussion largely because it's so obviously a stevelmeyer troll to bring out the Islamophobes - at which level it's been moderately successful. However, while I'm obviously not one of them, I don't think incorporating Sharia or any other religious laws within existing arbitration systems is a good idea in the UK or Australia.

Of course, any number of interest groups like churches, sporting bodies, RSL clubs and bikie gangs are entitled to have their own rules and laws and to apply them within their organisations as they see fit - as long as they are subordinate to the rule of secular law which is established by government legislation or by common law precedent in properly constituted courts of law or tribunals. I see little value in allowing any of these interest groups to be able to have their internal determinations backed up by the State.

PALE&IF: << I think you will find many people claiming Australian food can be bland are not from Australia in the first place.
Are you born in Australia? See my point is people want what they were raised with. >>

I was born and raised in Australia, and I agree completely with Celivia. Australian society in the 1950s was boring, repressed and introspective. Multiculturalism changed our society and culture for the better permanently, but that doesn't mean that we need to enshrine rules and values of various subcultures in our legal system.

If people are silly or indoctrinated enought to want to obey the edicts of informal Sharia "courts" they should be free to do so, but they should also have recourse to the secular legal system provided by the State, which should prevail if in conflict with Sharia "law".

Completely with CJ's last post.

Australia till the 1970's was as whitebread and boring as, well, as whitebread - thank god for immigration! Where would I be without my big bowl of Pho and chilies.

Also agree that I didn't want to get into mozzie bashing either; hence my last post discussed the necessity of separation of church and state, be the church Islamic, Christian, Hindu or Callathumpian.

Agree also that this topic is simply a troll-piece in disguise as serious discussion - just a bit more clever of Steven than a Polly-rant.

Celiva
I asked that question to point out another mind set to the third generation Aussies.

Of 'course' if your not from Australia you would miss the types of foods and yes it would be boreing.


The food is hardely the point I was making.

*This thread is about Sharia Law in the UK.*

Let me tell you ladies and gentleman its here in Australia as well.

Our State Government have allowed Sharia Law it to be applied to abattoirs in Australia for quite some time.

Despite the fact its been deemed unlawful under animal welfare codes. Much of it is for domestic use and some for export.

The federal Government have also turned a blind eye and allowed animals to be slaughtered without pre stunning as is the requirment for Sharia law.

As a matter of fact I think it was about eight years or so ago the Howard Government were asked to turn Australia into a Halal Country. Meaning all animals were to be slaughtered in that manner.

Howard said no but I am not so sure what Rudd promised.

*I shudder to think.*

For those of you who think I am only talking about animal welfare- think again. ( not that Animal welfare shouldnt be the first concern)

It doesnt stop there . Its unlawful to eat 'anything' that isnt Halal if your a Muslim.

Secondly the Islamic councils are paid to bless each animal.

Just imagine if our catholic Church had set up in the manner that they were paid for everything people ate - And it was unlawful to eat food from any other source.

You have to say old Mohamed must have been a clever biz man if nothing else.

Of course our main concern is for the animals so we work as hard as possible to assist the Muslims to supply their meat in as kind manner as possible.

The THUTH is Australian Islamic Leaders have so far shown far more concern for Animals in Australia than the Australian Church Leaders or members of our Parliment.

So there`s some more food for thought.

To allow Sharia law to be implemented in Australia would be a seriously retrograde step. For a start, the sorts of "punishment" provided in Sharia courts break any number of Australian laws as we know them. Do we want to start flogging female rape victims in the streets and stoning them to death (believe it or not, these "honour killings" are known to have occurred in both Canada and Scotland)? Chopping the hands off thieves? The deprivation of all civil liberties for women?

PALE, I think you probably should revise your comments a little more in line with the facts. The Federal Government review of animal slaughter has not yet concluded. The slaughtering of sheep in Victorian slaughterhouses without stunning was in fact for kosher purposes (you guessed in, for a Middle East contract), not halal. AQIS advises that no further licences for this will be issued until the review is concluded.

Having said that, the slaughtering of any animal without pre-stunning should remain illegal, and any change of Australian laws and standards of animal welfare to address the preferences of minorities should be treated as just that. A preference of a minority. If these people want to live in Australia (and eat Australian animals) they must have to live by the laws of this country and not seek to lower Australian standards (which are not that great to begin with)

Nicky

PALE,
I agree that it’s unacceptable that animals are being slaughtered in a cruel way during Halal or Kosher slaughter. Freedom of religion should not be an excuse for animal abuse.
There is not even a logical reason why animals can’t be stunned before Halal slaughter. When I researched this in the past, I found that science indicated that there is no more blood loss from an unstunned animal than from a stunned animal. So Muslims can have their Halal animal, and eat it, too.

While ritual slaughter is unacceptable, I also find it unacceptable that profit influences how the “real” Australians you talk about treat animals. Locking farm animals in small cages for most of their lives is animal abuse but ‘real’ Australians end the torture of their animals in a less cruel way than Muslims do and then feel free to criticise Muslims for their cruel slaughtering methods.

Is torturing animals in the name of religion more wrong than torturing them in the name of greed and profit?
Both are wrong, but too much emphasis is being placed on the bad practices of Muslims while ‘real’ Australians have blood on their hands, too.

If Halal slaughter is a reason to oppose multi-culturalism, then intensive farming should be a reason to oppose ‘real’ Australianism by the same logic.

The government simply needs to update animal laws, give no exemptions, and help farmers with incentives to set up free-range farms, that’s all.

Steven,
“The issue is whether the parties to the dispute are in a POSITION TO REFUSE if they so choose.”
I expressed my thoughts about that already. I have no doubt that there will be Muslims, especially women, who would not have free choice.
Who would be on those boards anyway- probably a far larger proportion of men then women?
I also still don’t understand how there can be one set of Sharia laws since there is much diversity amongst Muslims and so many interpretations.

Okay, let's summarise the arguments for multiculturalism:

1) The British-derived "whitebread" monoculture of pre-1970s Australia was too "boring" and needed to be "enriched".

2) If there were no exotic immigrant minorities, how could we get all those delicious foreign foods?

3) You can make new friends among people of different races and cultures.

Never mind the great burden to the host society by importing all of these fractious, ethnocentric types into this country so that they can expand their power and numbers at the expense of the existing "whitebread" population. Never mind that ever-increasing ethnic and cultural "diversity" threatens to make the nation itself incoherent.

I guess the prospect of Australia's founding people and culture being marginalised and minoritised just doesn't bother the diversity worshippers, nor does the prospect of Australia becoming an incoherent hodgepodge of disparate and rival ethnic groups. Just as long as Australia isn't "whitebread" and "boring"!

*PALE, I think you probably should revise your comments a little more in line with the facts*

Nicky,
If only I could do that. The Government can play around with telling people what they like but I bet they didn’t tell you it’s been happening here for donkey’s ages.
The review consists of some stuff from Germany.

I am afraid what the Government tells you and what are really going on are two different things.

Domestic Halal slaughter without pre stunning is allowed by State Governments and has been for a long time.

Also I think you will find John Howard sighed an agreement two years ago allowing some to go through AQIS.

Regarding Kosher according to the authorities they don’t allow it – unless it’s a special pre order (What a load of bull)

Celiva
I couldn’t agree more with you that intensive farming should be stopped.
I think our churches should do something to stop this cruelty in our Gods name.
There is no doubt it’s both wrong but we as Christians tend to be more easy going – in so much as we don’t dictate what people can eat wear etc.

Regardless this thread is about Sharia law in Britain. I am just letting people know it’s already here. It has been for ages.

Like I said God knows what Rudd promised.

Efranke,
I think that accepting multiculturalism doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to blindly accept a tradition a culture brings into Australia that harms others or interferes with other people’s freedom just because it’s traditional somewhere else in the world.
I have no problem rejecting some part of a culture’s traditions when I see that this oppresses others, e.g. women or homosexuals.
But all traditions or faiths must be equally subject to criticism or rejection; we have to be careful to not just target the traditions of immigrant or Aboriginal minority groups.

I can’t see why traditions and faiths shouldn’t be accepted when they don’t do harm or don’t interfere with other people’s (or animal’s) rights or freedom. Can you?
If we leave lots of space for all the positive things cultures have to offer and limit the negative (ones that oppress or interfere with other’s freedom) then why would there be a problem with multiculturalism?

I have never met a person who has traveled a lot and remained closed-minded. Is that because getting in touch with other cultures opens the mind?
No wonder that Australia is such a lucky country- by living here we don’t even have to travel the world to discover different cultures. All we need is to open our mind and welcome the opportunity.

PALE
Let's hope that Rudd uses commonsense!

Celiva

You’re kidding.

He was elected by his policy which he promised more migrants.


The point is just for starters we have no water.

Look I have lots of Muslim friends.

Most of them do understand when I speak of real Aussies. Basically I mean the families born here and them Dads and Grandfathers too.

I think it’s only fair when discussing a topic like this that a person has an idea of the background of the other poster.

There was nothing racist about my question to you.

Speaking of the different foods you mentioned.



When I go shopping a spend ages trying to find Australian made products- Especially food.

For example those nice tin tomatoes that are so cheap are fertile with- You know what.


I knew for sure once when I asked the fish and chip shop I have not been given Australian fish- Despite his assurances.

I think it’s was from Vietnam. The whole family was ill.

Who can forget the Chinese arcade in Cairns. Food stacked up so high it doesn’t even meat the Australia health Standards.

Then they jump out and grab our arm and say. You want, you buy, you like.
I just love seeing all of that on holidays. Its sort of fun but it would be a different matter if it was all over Australia to every town I went I can assure you.
Not one Aussie in sight and zero Australia food.

No I don’t want to see my country go like the UK.

Your right about traveling. It does make us appreciate this wonderful country.

I don’t want to wake up before daylight to dreadful noises of someone screeching out at me to get out of bed and pray.


This is Australia and we need to keep the main population as Aussies with Aussie ways and traditions

We have a unique sense of humor and we give more than any other country in donations.
I would hate to see that part of this country bred out.

Long live Australians bushy and its real characters.

Hi PALE
I like the Australian culture, too, but think it’s unrealistic to believe that cultures can remain unchangeable. Cultures are dynamic.
It’s also helpful to keep in mind that ‘real Australians’, from the time they set foot on the Australian land, already had to deal with two cultures- their own and Aboriginal culture.
The new immigrants were intolerant and repressed the Aboriginal’s culture, rather than respecting and embracing it.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Even without immigration, most nations’ cultures go through changes.
Compare a country’s culture hundreds of years ago with today’s and we can see some significant changes and overall people have adapted fine.

Perhaps the problem with immigration is that it makes changes happen rapidly rather than gradually like in naturally changing culture.
That makes me think that cultural changes and immigration are not to blame for some of the problems we face, but that the problems are created by intolerant groups from both sides- not only on the side of the immigrants.
Both can be reluctant to tolerate each other’s cultures and of course this causes tensions between cultures.

So what is the primary problem related to immigration: the speed at which a culture changes, the inability of people to accept rapid changes, the changing culture itself, or intolerance?
I don't really know the answer, just expressing some thoughts.

As I said, tolerating other’s culture doesn’t mean allowing them infringe upon other's privacy, freedom or rights.
So the prayer noises should be one of the things that should not be tolerated.
Muslims who want to pray before daylight have to set their alarm clocks rather than waking up people who do not want to take part.
Who suffers more, a Muslim who has to set his alarm clock or the people who wake up from the prayer calls?
Tolerance and acceptance from both sides and a bit of commonsense go a long way.

Celivia is absolutely right when she includes in "real Auusies" those who torture animals in intensive pig farms, battery cages, and meat chicken operations, and sending them on live exports halfway around the world.

Are these people of whom we should be proud? It should be remembered that intensive farming began in the West.

Sharia law is more complex than simple interpretation of the Qu'ran too. There are customs under Sharia Law that no civilised country should even consider adopting in any circumstances. Interpretations of the Qu'ran also include the activities of the group of unsavoury characters recently convicted of forming/being a part of a terrorist cell in Victoria. Their citizenship should be revoked and they should be returned to the countries from which they came, as should be the case of anyone involved in any such activities.

Nicky

Hi Celiva

I am grinning from ear to ear at the thought of telling them to set their clocks :) very funny but I am afraid it doesn’t work like that.

(Indeed we had best hope we don’t have too many changes too soon ah.)

Let me assure you I wouldn’t be posting and complaining about their unholy din before daylight if they were running the country.
Nor would anybody else.

One of our people has just retuned from ME and entertained us by describing his sleepless trip. Having to attend many meetings he would often get it at 2am etc... Then of course the prayer calls before dark:
All very funny but my point is I would like to see Australia go that way any time soon.

Nicky

Real Aussies don’t. You’re quite right. Real farmers don’t. You always mistake this cruel industry. I don’t know one ‘real farmer' that approves of live exports or intensive farming.

Its our Parliament and the politicians that make this possible by turning a blind eye to suffering animals in return for political donations and other favors from the off shore shipping agents.
'
Real Aussies farmers have been sold our brought out of bullied out by large corp operations that have off shore interests and ownerships.

Real farmers didnt give consent to use Sharia Law in domestic Abattoirs in Australia either.
Our very own low life state Governments did.

Fact is we do have Sharia Law in Australia not just Britian. Its just that the public are kept in the dark and the horrors that goes on is not reported because dometic plants come under DPI.

Maybe we should Ban politicians . I would have thought Hugh might have raised this in all these years?

If there is any evidence that Sharia law is being practiced in Australia then I suggest it be posted here.

The people who keep pigs and chickens and breed and sell animals for live exports are - guess what - Australian FARMERS. There is no compromise available. They are FARMERS. They may be other farmers who don't, but please, spare us the "great Australian bush/farmer" analogy. They haven't been "ripped off" by anyone, they have made certain choices, which have been facilitated by governments and to an extent by the RSPCA; they cannot now claim injury because their practices are being exposed. What in particular is Wirthless supposed to have raised, and how do you know he hasn't?

Nicky

I was going to leap to your defence, stevenlmeyer, against the accusations that this thread is nothing more than a troll for the whack-a-mozzie brigade. After all, the underlying question whether we in Australia should extend the concept of arbitration is worth debating.

But you gave yourself away.

>>Even the usual apologists for Islam on these boards have not come up with a satisfactory response to this issue. Pericles, what do you have to say?<<

You should know by now that if I am an “apologist” for anything, it is accuracy. I am not, nor ever have been, an apologist for any single religion, or collection of religions.

The thread has deteriorated into the usual fear and loathing. Here's PALE&IF, in full song:

>>Fact is we do have Sharia Law in Australia not just Britian. Its just that the public are kept in the dark<<

That's two facts, both wrong, and a serving of paranoia. There is no Sharia Law (is she a relative of Laura Norder, I wonder?) in Britain, nor is there any here. As has been repeatedly pointed out, administrative tribunals do not create law, nor does the use of such constitute a separation from the law of the land.

PALE&IF again:

>>We have a unique sense of humor and we give more than any other country in donations.
I would hate to see that part of this country bred out.<<

I'll pass on the “sense of humor[sic]”, and just point out that the bit about “donations” is rubbish too.

www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20%20Giving%20highlights.pdf

The only thing that is likely to be “bred out” over time is our xenophobia. Gradually we will come to understand that the biggest threat to our sense of wellbeing is not the Muslim next door, but our own attitude, and the corrosive nature of fear and hatred.

Fortunately, we understand this more as we mature.

For the same reason that you rarely hear the elderly say “I wish I had spent more time at the office and less with my family”, you also rarely hear them say “I wish I had hated those Muslims more.”

Pericles: << That's two facts, both wrong, and a serving of paranoia. >>

Which is, of course, quite typical of the discourse from that august organisation. What I find quite extraordinary is that they claim expertise in working with "the Muslim leaders of Australia" through their business activities aimed at exporting halal meat.

If PALE&IF is as conciliatory and diplomatic in their dealings with these "Muslim leaders" as they are in their xenophobic rants in this forum, I bet their joint ventures are going gangbusters.

Pericles:

You have not addressed the issues.

How can we be sure that the parties to a dispute are in a POSITION TO REFUSE arbitration by sharia courts?

Or, if you do not like my singling out sharia courts, any other arbitration forum?

Remember, an important principle of ANY arbitration regime is that the disputants consent FREELY to the procedure. In cases involving domestic violence or abuse I doubt the weaker party is truly free to refuse.

Further, since there is a criminal element to domestic violence I am not sure this is a suitable subject for arbitration of any sort.

Pericles,

"That's two facts, both wrong, and a serving of paranoia. There is no Sharia Law (is she a relative of Laura Norder, I wonder?) in Britain, nor is there any here. As has been repeatedly pointed out, administrative tribunals do not create law, nor does the use of such constitute a separation from the law of the land."

That is an interesting take on it. The British government said they would not introduce Sharia law and then proceeded to provide the subject for this discussion. As Sharia law in the sense of rules of Sharia law being applied in a forum of dispute available to the public is in Britain the British government have been criticised for renegging on their promise.

However they would probably argue as you did. An administrative tribunal is seen as an alternative to the court system and only courts and parliament create law. Sharia law is used in the tribunals but it is no more law of the land then if a football club were to base the rules of its constitution on Sharia law. Administrative tribunals are more enshrined in the public system than a football club certainly but it is still not law of the land. Sharia law may be substantively present in that disputes that would otherwise go to court can be decided according to those rules (and even domestic violence with potential criminal law implications can be redirected there) but it is literally the rules of a process not law of the land and it is literally voluntary even to people in Islamic communities. Interesting.

stevenlmeyer, the point is moot.

>>How can we be sure that the parties to a dispute are in a POSITION TO REFUSE arbitration by sharia courts?<<

We can't.

The availability of arbitration does not in itself demand that it is used. But you have to accept that in many cases it can be of assistance in reaching an agreed position, surely? Why should this be a problem to you?

mjbp provides an interesting angle.

>>Administrative tribunals are more enshrined in the public system than a football club certainly but it is still not law of the land.<<

I would suggest that football provides an excellent example.

Every week we read of players who "front the tribunal", often for actions that - off the field - would constitute assault.

It is not a court of law, otherwise there would be fines and (conceivably) prison sentences involved. Nevertheless, except in the most egregious circumstances, the law accepts the findings, and punishment, of the self-appointed, self-regulated panel.

While the players theoretically have the right to refuse to take part in the proceedings, they rarely do. And that is because they have accepted that this is the way their code handles matters.

We may think that Barry Hall was provoked beyond reasonable limits, and was unlucky that his attempt to move away from his tormentor was construed as a deliberate punch. He however chose to accept the verdict of the tribunal instead of protesting his innocence in front of a Sydney jury. The police, in the meantime, were spared the task of taking 20,000 witness statements, for which I am certain they were very grateful.

>>The British government said they would not introduce Sharia law and then proceeded to provide the subject for this discussion<<

Allowing a football club, or a religious group, to arbitrate their own affairs is not, repeat not, introducing laws.

As I mentioned earlier, if we were talking about workplace issues or planning permits going in front of a tribunal, we'd all be asleep by now.

It is only the fact that Islam is involved that keeps the keyboards rattling.

Pericles

In response to my question "How can we be sure that the parties to a dispute are in a POSITION TO REFUSE arbitration by sharia courts?"

You reply:

We can't.

Fair enough.

This raises the question as to whether arbitration should be an available option when dealing with cases involving domestic violence. It is hard to imagine a battered wife refusing her husband's insistence that any disputed be decided by a sharia court.

This is apart from the fact that arbitration probably should not be used to decide criminal matters.

I'm not convinced that an absence of arbitration is preferable, stevenlmeyer.

>>This raises the question as to whether arbitration should be an available option when dealing with cases involving domestic violence. It is hard to imagine a battered wife refusing her husband's insistence that any disputed be decided by a sharia court.<<

If she is unable to resist being forced to a sharia arbitration, what likelihood is there that she will approach the conventional court system? Her problem remains the same.

Nothing can condone domestic violence. But I totally fail to see how the victim being Muslim alters the odds - battered wives of all nationalities and religions have access to the court system. Only a percentage actually use it, for the reasons you have outlined.

Your argument rests totally on the concept that she will be forced to accept the sharia arbitration decision, and that - should this decision involve criminal activity - this would be upheld by the Australian courts.

I don't think so.

Does anyone have any examples from real life, rather than speculation?

OK Pericles,

You're not going to address the issues.

I get it.

Which issues, stevenlemeyer?

>>OK Pericles, You're not going to address the issues. I get it.<<

As far as I can tell, you are trawling for support for your position that sharia courts are a bad thing for Muslim women, whom you seem to assume are permanently oppressed and powerless.

Since I am not going to provide that confirmation, but instead continue to question your assumptions, you have decided that this approach is "not addressing the issues".

Fair enough, it's your thread.

But it would help us all a great deal in future if you simply said at the beginning that "only people who agree with me should add their comments here".

Would save time all round, don't you think?

Stevenlmeyer,

I don’t think you will get many sensible posts from most here .
It’s a good topic but ....

I was surprised nobody was unaware of the State Governments giving consent to use Sharia law in domestic abattoirs + probably not David either.

Because you opened this thread to discuss Sharia Law I thought I should point out in some areas in Australia it has been allowed + for some time.

Instead of these posters being thankful for the information (which clearly they were unaware of) - I see attacks at us.

Our comment was 'not' anti Muslim or any other race.

No country wishes to be completely taken over of their traditions.
For the record we have a 'very good’ working relationship with many of the Muslim Leaders.


Col hit the nail on the head when he said=
*I believe in the common treatment of all and that means one set of laws for one nation of people, not something which varies according to ethnicity or religion.* ( I second that)

Pericles,+ CJ, As stevenlmeyer said your not going to address this matter but don’t come at me with your silly rubbish.

The truth is there is a lot of unrest between certain Muslim people and Councils.
There are plenty of Muslims that are concerned about the more extreme Muslim wanting to take over let me assure you.

As for Sharia Law the truth is there are also many pushing to have it introduced here in Australia.

Weddings in Mosques is another example in Australia for a long time now do not comletlty follow our laws either.

Perhaps its largely ignored by our Government considering they changed British law almost twenty years ago.

In UK you do not have to follw British Law when it comes to marraige or divorse- and this is largely accepted here also.

There are some other examples as well- but abattoirs weddings and divorces are a few I that have already been pretty much accepted in Australia.


So Yes stevenlmeyer,it could happen in Australia and in fact to some degree it already has.

stevenlmeyer, on the whole I agree with you. It is unlikely that Sharia law would ever be introduced in this country, or indeed any enlightened Western country, but in the event that the Muslim community were to set up administrative tribunals of their own their decisions would have to be within the constraints of Australian law. Sharia law expressly provides for domestic violence. Having said that, Pericles, I don't know of any documented examples in Australia, but I do know of cases of "honour killings" in both Canada and Scotland (the perpetrators were prosecuted under the laws of those countries).

The quaint Islamic practices involved in polygamy FGM and divorce would never take off here either.

Arbitration conducted under Sharia law would, I'd suggest, disadvantage women by definition if nothing else, even if they were not too afraid to come forward.

I don't know where PALE gets its notion that the State governments gave permission for Sharia law to have force in abattoirs (halal is a religious custom, not Sharia law), and it would be interesting to see some evidence of that claim. I pointed out earlier that the contract/s provided by AQIS were to do with kosher meat, not halal (as reprehensible as they were/are). The review into slaughter practices and pre-stunning is yet to be concluded (although we should perhaps be asking why; this has gone on long enough).

As for getting married in Mosques, should we also ban Greek Orthodox weddings?

Nicky

Pericles asks "Which issues"

For the umpteenth time:

Should arbitration be an available option in cases of domestic violence?

Not merely arbitration before a sharia court. As I made clear, ANY form of arbitration.

I am especially uneasy about arbitration in domestic violence cases because there is a CRIMINAL element to it. When the state allows domestic violence cases to be dealt with through private arbitration it does, DE FACTO, cede some of its power to deal with violent criminals. That may not be the intention but that is what happens. I do not think the state should EVER cede power to deal with criminals to ANY private arbitration system.

You ask whether I can cite actual cases.

Because of my niece's profession I am aware of many cases of domestic violence. The appearance of a sympathetic representative from greater civil society with real power has been a lifeline for many women. This applies especially for women in minority groups.

Note "minorities" is NOT confined to Muslims.

That is the issue you are not addressing.

While I consider attacks on Islam, or any other belief system, to be entirely legitimate, I have not attacked Islam on this thread. Others have; but I have not.

In the end this is NOT about Islam or sharia. It is about the powers that should be granted to arbitrators.

Nicky
AQIS dont control dometic plants for starters.
The DPI State Governments do. Also some going through AQIS are approved. John Howard signed off on a big deal about three years ago for one country and a new Halal Brand.

The fact you are not aware highlights why we at times chalange this so called leadership of Animal Welfare in Australia. If you have people calling themselves the peak body of anything they should be aware of these facts. The AWB enquiry was evidence of that surley.

Now getting back to the bone of this thread I agree with the host = In the end this is NOT about Islam or sharia. It is about the powers that should be granted to arbitrators.

Which is why we need one law only. Regarding the weddings in Mosques again you miss my point.

These are people who are already married Nicky. If you and I did it we could be charged.
Look I dont really care what others do. Perhaps I should.

My only point is that we already have many of these laws that are accepted in Australia.

From Weddings to Sharia laws when it comes to slaughtering animals.

I can only give you the facts. What you do with it is up to you.

Fair enough, I'm happy to take that at face value.

>>In the end this is NOT about Islam or sharia. It is about the powers that should be granted to arbitrators.<<

I suspect the confusion arose from the headline of the thread, that reads "Sharia Law in Britain". I took that to be an indication that you were examining the impact of the use of sharia-based arbitration. In Britain.

Silly me.

But now that you have made it absolutely clear that this has nothing to do with sharia law - or Britain, I guess - we can settle down to the issue that you raise about the pros and cons of arbitration in the handling of marital disputes.

Just a question though - why did you not choose to entitle the thread "Arbitration in marital disputes"?

No matter. Just my being picky, as usual.

Where were we?

Ah yes,

>>Should arbitration be an available option in cases of domestic violence? Not merely arbitration before a sharia court. As I made clear, ANY form of arbitration. I am especially uneasy about arbitration in domestic violence cases because there is a CRIMINAL element to it.<<

I think you have answered your own question.

Where there is a criminal element, it should not be handled through arbitration, but through the normal legal system.

However, where there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is perfectly in order for an administrative tribunal to guide the solution.

I think some leeway should be given to football tribunals, where the actions under scrutiny can, in some lights, be viewed as potentially criminal, since the participants are aware ahead of time that their activities border on assault. Even when the ref is looking.

But for domestic violence, it should be the court over the tribunal, every time.

Ok?

Thank you for that Pericles.

And now we come to the article linked in my original post:

Quote:

"It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

"Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” CRIMINAL cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them….."

(Capitalisation added)

That is where I start having problems. The sharia court arbitration system does, in fact, deal with domestic violence cases. They claim this is done "in tandem" with the police investigations; but what on Earth does that mean?

As for handling "smaller criminal cases," that should be a "no-no."

The Muslim spokesman mentions the "Jewish courts." To the best of my knowledge these courts never touch anything with a criminal element.

It is these facets of what is happening in Britain, not the fact that some parties may choose to settle civil disputes in accordance with sharia law, that I find objectionable.

Indeed, when it comes to criminal cases, I am in agreement that these types of courts should not supercede the criminal law of the state. I am also not a great fan of the dual justice systems that can arise by accepting indigenous tribal law in particular cases. Tribal punishments can sometimes be unacceptable to modern society. This has already happened in specific cases in Australia.

While it can be argued that particular systems of justice and law are integral to the maintenance of certain cultures, and that blanket removal of a 'tribes' (or any cultural groups) rights to determine their own affairs can be argued as genocidal or totalitarian, I am prepared to accept this on the basis of the prinicple of rule of law for all citizens within a country. Recognising the right of people to maintain their cultures is a fine thing, and I am all for it, but in particular cases it must be overridden by the rule of law of the state.

Once again you provide your own answer, stevenlmeyer.

>>"It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations. Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” CRIMINAL cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them"<<

You chose to capitalize "domestic violence", and "criminal", in order to emphasize your point.

So allow me the same liberty to emphasize mine:

"It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, WORKING IN TANDEM WITH THE POLICE INVESTIGATIONS. Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of SMALLER criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them"

You ask

>>what on Earth does [in tandem with police] mean? As for handling "smaller criminal cases," that should be a "no-no."<<

I guess it's all a matter of emphasis and interpretation, isn't it? As it stands, it would appear that the police regarded the cases to be more appropriately handled through arbitration. This decision could after all have been made on the weight of evidence and likelihood of a positive result.

The expectation that only minor cases will be handled in future should also be seen as a plus.

If there is in fact more to it than that - and the cases involved beatings or similar cruelties - then yes, I would totally agree that such matters should by definition be handled by the police and the normal courts.

But as I said before, judgements like this are made every week in the case of football matches, and - it would appear - we in this country even support a parallel full legal system for our aboriginal communities.

Why exactly you chose to focus everyone's attention on the sharia aspects of arbitration in a different country, rather than address local examples, continues to be a mystery.

Or as Boaz would say, a 'mystery'.

LOL, will the real Pericles please stand up:

Version A:

Where there is a criminal element, it should not be handled through arbitration, but through the normal legal system.

Version B:

"The expectation that only minor [criminal? That's what the context of your reply suggests] cases will be handled in future should also be seen as a plus."

(So "minor" criminal cases need not be handled "through the normal legal system")

Version A:

But for domestic violence, it should be the court over the tribunal, every time.

Version B:

I guess it's all a matter of emphasis and interpretation, isn't it? As it stands, it would appear that the police regarded the cases to be more appropriately handled through arbitration. This decision could after all have been made on the weight of evidence and likelihood of a positive result.

(So it's not the court "every time." Note that in the case of domestic violence there is an INHERENT criminal element.)

Well Pericles I guess you're busted.

Perhaps you'll find some way of rationalising these contradictions away. If you are able to do so with eloquence you should consider a career in politics.

But to any dispassionate reader, the contradictions in your posts expose you for what you are.

I guess you find it easier to demonise critics as "Mozzie bashers" than address real issues

Nice try, stevenlmeyer.

Taking sentences out of context is the refuge of a scoundrel.

Manipulating them as well. Just weak.

Your first example of what you claim is a contradiction, relies upon your adding your own assumption.

>>"The expectation that only minor [criminal? That's what the context of your reply suggests] cases will be handled in future should also be seen as a plus."<<

Did you notice that? The interpolation "criminal" was a) necessary to make your point and b) inserted by you.

Pretty low, eh?

Your second example is, if anything, even more scurrilous.

My opinion "But for domestic violence, it should be the court over the tribunal, every time.", stands.

You chose to contrast it with my comment on the examples you provided in the link. These do not constitute my opinion on where domestic violence accusations of a criminal nature should be determined, they are observations on the decisions made by the UK police, as evidenced by the words "I guess..." and "it would appear".

Thus your triumphant squeak of >>So it's not the court "every time"<< is just plain muddle-headed.

And your corollary is also highly questionable, too.

>>Note that in the case of domestic violence there is an INHERENT criminal element<<

Not necessarily. Let me refer you to...

www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/Conference%20papers/Exp-horiz/Moore.pdf

...that includes the sentence "ADVOs granted under the court’s civil jurisdiction are regarded as important mechanisms for individuals to gain protection from criminal and non-criminal forms of family violence."

In short, your glee is somewhat suspect, stevenlmeyer.

You accuse me of avoiding the topic, yet happily spend an entire post trying to somehow discredit my contributions.

Singularly unsuccessfully, wouldn't you say?

As for your final attempt to divert attention from your personal problems...

>>I guess you find it easier to demonise critics as "Mozzie bashers" than address real issues<<

...you still haven't explained why you gave this thread the title "Sharia Law in Britain", when...

>>this is NOT about Islam or sharia<<

Your words. In context.

Have a great day.

LOL Pericles

You are tying yourself into knots.

I quoted the following:

"Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” CRIMINAL cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them..."

As you pointed out, I capitalised the word "criminal."

You respond:

"The expectation that only minor cases will be handled in future should also be seen as a plus."

Criminal cases aside, there is nothing in the quoted text, or in the linked article, which leads to such a conclusion. In fact given the nature of the cases being handled – which includes the disposition of wills and divorce matters – the cases are ANYTHING BUT MINOR.

The only way I could make sense of your sentence was to assume you meant minor criminal cases. Those were the only "minor" matters mentioned in the article if we allow "smaller" as a rough synonym for "minor."

But, maybe I should have accepted that this sentence of yours, along with many others, is simply devoid of sense.

However, whichever way you cut it, the expectation appears to be that the tribunals will handle "smaller" or "minor" CRIMINAL cases.

Do you wish to go back on this statement?

"Where there is a criminal element, it should not be handled through arbitration, but through the normal legal system"

Furthermore, since the tribunals will apparently be handling domestic violence cases do you wish to go back on this statement?

"But for domestic violence, it should be the court over the tribunal, every time"

If you do not wish to go back on these two statements then what actually are we arguing about? On the substance we seem to agree.

If you stand by your statements it follows that you believe that neither sharia courts, nor any other sort of arbitration tribunal, should be empowered to handle cases involving domestic violence or criminal cases.

It further follows, assuming you stand by your statements, that you believe the British model of allowing sharia courts do deal with domestic violence cases and, perhaps, with "minor" criminal cases is flawed

I think the religious should be able to live according to their beliefs whether they are Christian or some other religion. I still don't get why stevenimeyer has to mention Islam, Muslim or Sharia in all of hist titles though. Perhaps he would care to elaborate on his obsessions?

Who's getting tied up in knots, stevenlmeyer?

>>[Pericles] "The expectation that only minor cases will be handled in future should also be seen as a plus."

[stevenlmeyer] Criminal cases aside, there is nothing in the quoted text, or in the linked article, which leads to such a conclusion.<<

According to who?

There will be, I am sure, a mix of civil and minor criminal issues involved. And when I talk about minor criminal issues, I believe that I am on the same page as the UK police in determining that minor means minor, not major. Did the footy example slip though to the 'keeper? - a classic case of potentially criminal activity being handled with arbitration totally appropriate to the environment in which the actions took place.

This is an assessment of the information available, by the way, not a personal view as to whether husbands should be allowed to beat their wives to a pulp.

And would you please stop taking one line of my posts out of context, and trumpeting it around as if I have changed my position. It is tedious in the extreme.

>>Furthermore, since the tribunals will apparently be handling domestic violence cases do you wish to go back on this statement?

"But for domestic violence, it should be the court over the tribunal, every time"<<

The context, as you well know, but choose to exclude, was as follows:

"Where there is a criminal element, it should not be handled through arbitration, but through the normal legal system. However, where there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is perfectly in order for an administrative tribunal to guide the solution. I think some leeway should be given to football tribunals... But for domestic violence, it should be the court over the tribunal, every time"

Which part of "where there is criminal activity" escaped your notice?

Your suggestion that there is a black-and-white dividing line between clearly-legal and clearly-criminal, and that judgements as to which side of these lines actions sit are not made by the police on an hourly basis, is nonsensical.

Steel wrote:

"I still don't get why stevenimeyer has to mention Islam, Muslim or Sharia in all of hist titles though."

I don't. My last thread was about "capital" punishment. Previously I've started threads about, inter alia, genetic engineering and cosmology.

Steel wrote:

"I think the religious should be able to live according to their beliefs whether they are Christian or some other religion."

Actually we don’t allow that. There are numerous cases of, for example, courts overruling parents who object to their children receiving blood transfusions on religious grounds. Female genital mutilation is outlawed in most Western countries and quite a few Muslim ones as well. In Holland certain types of kosher slaughter are banned.In some cases in Australia minor children have received contraceptives and birth control advice without the knowledge of Catholic parents.

In one sense this thread is about arbitration. What limits should there be on the powers of arbitrators? I have made my own point of view clear. Arbitration should only be permitted where ALL parties FREELY consent to the procedure. By "freely" I mean that the parties are truly in a position to refuse to submit to arbitration.

I further argue that arbitration should never be permitted where there is a criminal element to the dispute or where domestic violence is involved.

However, this thread is also about the extent to which religious communities should be permitted to set up a parallel legal system albeit one with a limited jurisdiction. And here we have some very deep and difficult questions. I do not pretend to have the answers. But I can foresee some tricky legal conundrums arising around property dispositions where the religious court may differ from the civil law.

LOL Pericles,

Have you considered a career as a theologian?

Theologians are expert at parsing and re-interpreting texts, at gleaning hidden meanings from seemingly mundane verbiage. Their aim is to re-interpret texts in such a way as to make them appear to say something that contradicts the plain meaning of the words. In the hands of a skilled theologian even the Noddy stories can appear deep and meaningful.

Your latest effort qualifies you as a theologian in training of the rabbinical variety.

Of course to those of us in the reality based community the efforts of theologians appear as merely pathetic.

Cutting through your verbal smokescreens, and assuming the Times article is factually correct, the situation is as follows.

--Sharia tribunals in Britain are deciding matters of major importance to the participants. These are far from "minor" cases.

--The tribunals deal with cases involving domestic violence

--According to one spokesman they expect to deal with "smaller" criminal cases in the future.

Perhaps you are, as my daughter is wont to say, "cool" with this. Perhaps you feel only a wicked "Mozzie basher" like me could be nasty enough to question the propriety of this state of affairs.

Well so be it. However these facts do go against two dicta you established.

"But for domestic violence, it should be the court over the tribunal, every time."

And

"Where there is a criminal element, it should not be handled through arbitration, but through the normal legal system."

And this really is my last word on the matter. Your clumsy semantic gymnastics are becoming a bore.

One clarification on my previous post.

It is not the fact that sharia tribunals are deciding on important matters that I find inappropriate. As I have made abundantly clear, I see no problem in a sharia tribunal acting as arbitrator in a civil matter provided ALL parties to a dispute FREELY CONSENT to the arbitration process.

My objections refer solely to the following:

--Giving sharia tribunals criminal jurisdiction of any sort; and

--Allowing the tribunals to arbitrate in cases involving domestic violence – especially since in these cases there is reason to believe that the battered spouse may not, realistically, be in a position to refuse consent to the arbitration procedure.

Just trying to find some clarity in your position, stevenlmeyer.

Sorry if it embarrasses you.

For those who are interested here is a BBC report on the inside of a sharia "court."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7238890.stm

There is, of course, no way of knowing how representative this is of British sharia "courts" in general.

Since this sort of sharia arbitration will inevitably come to Australia, and since they will affect the lives of a growing proportion of Australians, it is important to gain as much understanding as possible of the way the sharia "courts" operate.

In a way I suppose we may consider the British experience as a pilot project for the introduction of sharia arbitration tribunals into Australia.

The next phase will undoubtedly be arbitration courts for other religious groups.

Always the negative interpretation. Always the points-scoring.

From the article:

"No-one knows how many Sharia courts there are in the country, and not all will follow such liberal interpretations of Sharia."

No evidence for this, of course. Just a desire to mitigate the positive impression that the rest of the article presents.

From stevenlmeyer, channeling the BBC:

>>There is, of course, no way of knowing how representative this is of British sharia "courts" in general.<<

Just in case anyone might think "well, that seems to be a pretty good thing, all things considered"

It's important to keep the fear threshold up, so that we are always prepared for the disaster that will inevitably strike, eh stevenlmeyer?

>>In a way I suppose we may consider the British experience as a pilot project for the introduction of sharia arbitration tribunals into Australia<<

From the tone of the article, and the environment it describes. I would be amazed if there weren't dozens in operation here in Australia at this very moment.

Why would such activity require a "pilot project" anyway? Surely, what amounts to religion-based marriage guidance is part of the fabric of any like-minded community?

It's when it grows into a political movement - like Family First - that questions need to be asked.

Pericles wrote:

"I would be amazed if there weren't dozens in operation here in Australia at this very moment."

I know for a fact that there are sharia "courts" in Australia. However their decisions MAY not be binding.

In the UK, provided all parties to a dispute consent to the sharia arbitration process, the civil courts will enforce the decision of the sharia "court." No one I have asked seems able to say whether an Australian court would enforce the decision of a sharia arbitrator.

My GUESS is they would. But I don’t know.

The BBC says:

"No-one knows how many Sharia courts there are in the country, and not all will follow such liberal interpretations of Sharia."

This is a statement of fact. The Brits don't know how many such "courts" there are and what brand of sharia law they apply.

If the decisions of some such tribunals is to be "enforceable with the full power of the [British] judicial system, through the county courts or High Court" then it is important that the Brits should know what brand of sharia is being dispensed.

Usually civil courts are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Thus it is usually possible to know what sort of justice is being handed out. This MAY not be the case with sharia courts.

I think we should always be wary of "closed" courts. The best way of ensuring a reasonable standard of justice is open courts.

If the Times article is accurate, some of the cases being decided by British sharia "courts" go well beyond "religion-based marriage guidance."

Pericles,

You accuse me of "keep[ing] the fear threshold up."

If stating the obvious – namely that the Muslim proportion of the Australian population will rise and that sharia will play an increasing role in dispute resolution in Australia – is fear mongering then so be it?

As usual you are unable to address Islamic issues objectively Pericles. Instead you take refuge in verbal gymnastics, deliberate misconstruction of texts and implied accusations of "Mozzie bashing."

That's a lot of ifs and mays steven.

Stephen... in case you had not noticed to this point.

Pericles
1/ Does not like to 'lose' an argument :)
2/ When it looks like he is.. he picks on your,

-Grammar
-Spelling
-Articulation of argument (lack thereof)
-Once he feels he has a point (any of the above) he will persist to highlight it and like a dog with a bone, chew it until he wears down the enamel on his canines...
-Continue trumpeting victory...
-Continue harping at a minor issue as if it were the primary...
-Generally annoy you :)

But... life goes on.

He has trouble recognizing the difference between 'whack-a-mozzie' and 'reality'.

His treatment program is far from finished though and I believe with more effort he can still be fixed.

But I must say his symptoms here are entertaining at least.

Thanks for the character reference, Boaz.

Being insulted by you in such an all-encompassing fashion, I take as a great compliment, safe in the knowledge that if my arguments have caused you to delve so deeply into personal barbs and incivility, they must be reaching their mark.

Have a wonderful day.

It seems that this discussion has finally its inevitable conclusion, with Steven's admission that it was, after all, an Islamophobic troll, and Porky's attack on the ever-reasonable Pericles - upon whom he's never been able to lay a glove in rational debate.

It's quite amusing that Porky's taken to suggesting that those who disagree with his paranoid and hateful rants are in in need of "treatment" or "counselling". I believe that's known in Freudian terms as "projection".

I have asked a solicitor friend on the situation in Australia. I am paraphrasing the replies.

--Parties to a dispute in Australia may choose an arbitrator to settle their differences.

--The courts will generally enforce the arbitrator's decision.

--However the arbitrator is expected to apply AUSTRALIAN law. Parties may appeal if they believe the arbitrator was wrong in law – ie the arbitrator did not apply AUSTRALIAN law correctly.

--The solicitor believes this is also the case in Britain.

--In the case cited in the Times article concerning the disposition of a will, the situation is murky. On the one hand giving men double the portion that women receive is contrary to both British and Australian law. The question is whether women may surrender their right to equal treatment under Australian law in these matters.

--The solicitor's feeling was that in Australia the courts would not countenance women surrendering their rights in such an important matter. If women wanted to abide by sharia law they should receive an equal portion of the inheritance and subsequently participate in the re-allocation of the proceeds among all beneficiaries.

--The solicitor agrees that these sorts of conundrums will come before Australian courts.

PERICLES, CJ MORGAN,

I note that, unable to rebut the substantive points I have been making, you retreat into insults.

POLYCARP,

We are not on the same side. You consider Islam a false religion while Christianity is a true religion. I consider both false religions.

I would have as many caveats about a system of "Christian courts" as I do about sharia courts.

One of the fears I have about allowing sharia courts is that it opens the way to other religious courts. If sharia courts, why not Christian, Catholic, Hindu, etc courts?

How much power should religious courts in general have to override Australian law?

To what extent should parties to a dispute have the right to surrender some of their rights under Australian law?

These are substantive issues you three fail to address.

CJ Morgan, we have seen the "projection" technique used heavily and expansively by a certain other contributor, have we not? One who seems to have an "on again, off again" relationship with the Muslim community.

Cheers
Nicky

*To what extent should parties to a dispute have the right to surrender some of their rights under Australian law?

These are substantive issues you three fail to address.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Saturday, 27 September 2008 2:17:37 PM*

Stevenlmeyer

Nor can they address it because they do not have the knowledge of whats happening.

Some seem to thnk you have to agree with every proposal put up by the other side or your a racist.


Those people dont have any idea whats really happening and do not appreciate the fact others are doing it for them.
If it was SO easy to come up with workable arrangments I am sure others world wide would have achieved that by now.

In the mean time we continue to work towards a better outcome for Australia in general.

The lesson here is we always end up going back to discuss mattters.

Not everybody has the best of intentions but some do.
We speak out against those who do not have the best interests of Australia while supporting the ones who do.

It takes guts at times but lets face it nobody ever got results from walking away.