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.