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.