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.