In a Newsweek article titled "Learning to Live With Radical Islam" pundit "Fareed Zakaria" writes:

"We [The US] don't have to accept the stoning of criminals. But it's time to stop treating all Islamists as potential terrorists."

See:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/187093

Stripped to its essentials Zakaria's argument is this. If Islamists are no threat to the US then what they do in other countries is no business of the US.

Zakaria writes:

"Pakistan's Swat valley is quiet once again. Often compared to Switzerland for its stunning landscape of mountains and meadows, Swat became a war zone over the past two years as Taliban fighters waged fierce battles against Army troops. No longer, but only because the Pakistani government has agreed to some of the militants' key demands, chiefly that Islamic courts be established in the region. Fears abound that this means women's schools will be destroyed, movies will be banned and public beheadings will become a regular occurrence."

Note that the Taliban insurgents in Pakistan have already forced the closure of many girls' schools in the Swat valley. For an indication of just how bad Taliban / sharia rule could be watch this SBS Dateline program title "The Battle for Pakistan."

http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/the_battle_for_pakistan_563568

The imposition of sharia law in the Swat valley may be bad news for the inhabitants, most of whom voted for secular parties. It is especially bad news for those of the female persuasion. But what if anything should countries like Australia do to try and prevent the imposition of sharia on what is, if election results are any guide, an unwilling populace?

Along with Zakaria my answer is this. Provided it poses no threat to Australia we should do nothing. It's none of our business.

What do posters think?

Those who disagree with my stance should be honest enough to explain what form outside intervention should take.

No man is an island

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

John Donne

At the very least Australia can make its displeasure known. The United Nations is a forum for such observations. Economic and military sanctions directed at the government of Pakistan and providing refuge for those fleeing the oppression are other possibilities.

There are two quite different issues here. On the one hand is the question what are duties are to people outside our borders and on the other how do we give practical force to those duties.
Whenever we stand idly by in the face of injustice, no matter where it occurs, we are passive participants to that injustice. As members of a global civic society we have a responsibility to address injustice no matter where it occurs. Every nation that is a signatory to the United nations Convention on Human Rights has effectively stated that it recognizes that being part of global civic society means that it is required to adhere to that charter.
Precisely how we enforce that position is another question. We use diplomatic pressure in countries like Burma. Economic sanctions for Zimbabwe, military intervention in Dafur and Iraq. Arguably sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, sometimes it takes a long time. Apartheid in South Africa was broken down over many long years.
With respect to the Taliban it is even more complex - the tribes in Afghanistan and Pakistan have always been a law unto themselves - clearly our challenge is to work with the Pakistan government to ensure that Sharia law does not violate human rights (It needs to be noted that the problem with much of Sharia law is the local interpretation of what constitutes Sharia law - it is by no means neccesarily inconsistent with human rights to impose Sharia law)
To sum just because a practical solution may be hard does not mean that it is none of our business - it is our business becase we, like Pakistan have signed up to Human Rights Convention.

Neighbouring countries have to cope with fleeing refugees and in the past we in Australia also had to house and care for refugees fleeing Taliban shari'ah. Australia has and is not immune from what violations of international standards of human rights happens in other countries. What were the boat people?

We have a responsibility in international laws condemning abuse of our fellow humans.

How about those circumstances where our lifestyle is subsidised by the existence of child labour, sweatshops and other forms of exploitation, plus our ongoing financial support of repressive regimes?

On the other hand, I'm sure that some will argue that the victims in those countries should be grateful for any sort of financial support.

I guess it always comes back to "what's best for us", before "what's best for them". Human rights abuses always look so much more palatable when viewed on a huge Plasma TV screen.

Well said Baygon.

To stand by and say nothing as people are harmed is as good as giving consent to the perpetrator.

I note that Steven has used Islamic Sharia Law as an example. Islam is not alone abusing human rights, he could've used the plight of Tibetans or the lack of support for women and children in Mexico.

http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/15873/

We are all human beings, therefore, the right to be treated with dignity, respect and equality is our business.