Here we go, Formal submission to introduce Sharia Law.

Why come here if you want to live under sharia.

I think they see themselves as pioneers for Islam.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/muslims-use-multiculturalism-to-push-for-sharia/story-fn59niix-1226057100331

I did not even know there was an Inquiry underway, wonder what the recomendations will be in relation to this?

I introduced this subject into the thread about channel 4 and Muslim schooling.
I agree Banjo, still totally do.
Lets be careful however, it asks for a form of Sharia , a moderate form, part of it.
In a country that tells its first people they can no longer live by laws they had century's before we came here.
Not on your life ever .
This country should never bend to any minority wants and wishes.

Dear Banjo,

This is definitely a big concern. A system of laws based on religion.
Where will it end? It would be a bad precedent to set. You live in this country - you obey its laws. It's that simple. The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils should be given a firm no.
Changing family law and specifically in regards to divorce - could disadvantage Muslim women. As I've stated - we don't want to go there.

Lexi,
It is indeed of concern. You specifally mentioned divorce, which reminded me of a report written by the Victorian Muslim Womens Association about the conduct of some Muslim males, where their wives had obtained a divorce.

It was leaked that these men were going to their former wives abode and demanding sex, claiming they were still married, under Islam. It was quickly hushed up. In our eyes, this is rape.

The Vic Muslims Womens website was shut down for a while and nothing more was heard about the report, which was delivered to the government. The report, instigated by government, has never been tabled or its contents revealed. It is pigeon holed.

You may recall this matter as it would have been about 3-4 years ago.

One has to wonder about the conduct if these males think they have even more power under Sharia.

We cannot stop the Islamic community putting a submission to the government and can only wait to see the recomendations that will come.

And people in this modern age still question the advantages of secularism and question why many argue against religion in schools. This is exactly the risks we take when there is no separation of Church and State.

Quoting from the article: ""Therefore, Muslims Australia-AFIC takes the position that Islamic law is changeable according to the requirements of different places and times, and therefore suits the values shared by Australian people," the submission says."

If Islamic Law is changeable according to the requirements of different places and times why is it so necessary to introduce Law based on a set of religious beliefs that conflicts with the current legislation. If there are shared values why the need for change?

Muslim women and men are due the same rights and protections as anyone else living in this country. While I am sure the proposal is not going to advocate stoning or other barbaric practices it does nothing to facilitate integration.

One nation one law. The judicial system is not a supermarket that one can go and shop randomly and choose the law that best suits them. What if the husband and wife disagree on an issue of Law, does the family follow Islamic law or Australian Law.

A uniform system of justice is the only way to ensure all people regardless of gender, race or religion have equal rights and protections.

Let's hope nobody seriously entertains this divisive proposal.

Dear Banjo,

I don't recall that particular case that you speak of - however the Islamic Council will not get to first base in this matter because our law is quite clear regarding religion and secular government.

All Australians are free to follow any religion they choose, so long as its practices do not break any Australian law.

Australians are also free not to follow a religion. We have secular government and no official or state religion. Therefore I don't see parliament passing laws based on any religious beliefs. Governments in this country treat all citizens as equals regardless of their religion. Religious laws have no legal status in Australia - therefore accepting any form of religious law would be counter to our basic tenant of equality under the law.

All Australians are equal under the law which means that nobody should be treated differently from anybody else because of their race, ethnicity or country of origin, because of their gender, marital status, disability, or because of their political or religious beliefs. Under our law Government agencies and independent courts must treat everyone fairly.

The process of divorce and related matters, such as custody of children and the settlement of property can only be done in this country in accordance with the laws passed by the Australian parliament. All Australians are entitled to the protection of these laws - therefore I can't see a religious law such as Sharia becoming legal in any shape or form as religious laws have no legal status in
Australia. For this to change would be setting a very bad precedent -which I'm sure no rational-thinking person would want.

It's been canned.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/muslims-use-multiculturalism-to-push-for-sharia/story-fn59niix-1226057476571

NEXT!

Sharia law will be implemented in this Country over my bleeding lifeless body. I will not be the first to fall either. Think it over or get your boats ready, period.

Thanks Bugsy. Commonsense has prevailed.

Yes thanks Bugsy.....See! this is where Pat Condell speaks for the Empire that we built and then nicely asked others......would like to come to our place and enjoy the freedoms we DONT take for granted.

How dare these stone-aged visitors desecrate us with their primitivism's and think we wont mind....lol......Iam telling ya.....They have No idea of what their deal with:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-KHHKuVVRc&feature=related

Look! you guesses or any others that row here......We are tolerant, not stupid:)

You are our guesses here........Law is one thing, and OZ is an other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbJ4CPWi_pg&feature=related

Like I've always said......if you dont like it here......you know where the Air-port is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjZ-lSn0A3M&feature=related

As you were:)

LEAP

Way to go Bugsy!

Thank You.

Banjo: "...wonder what the recomendations will be in relation to this?"

I can only assume that you did know since the link you gave to start this thread quoted the AFIC's president in the second last paragraph, "So although the Attorney-General ruled out introducing Islamic law, or sharia..."

As Bugsy said, "Next!" However,

When the peak Islamic body in Australia argues it is NOT the case Islamic law is immutable, regardless of history, time, culture and location; then I am (slightly) encouraged that assimilation is achievable. Though the muslim owner of the best pizza place near me is taking this to extremes: he barracks for Collingwood!

1- They're calling for Shariah family courts

2- No they shouldn't be permitted (or any other religious or alternate court)- we should have one court system.

Bugsey,
It may not be as canned as you think.

The submission has been put to the inquiry who will make recomendations to the government. The Minister is not the inquiry. then again the government may or may not adopt any of the recomendations.

Certainly the minister has put his vievpoint and we hope his views prevail, but we had better wait untill the inquiry is finalized and its recomendations made.

Lexi,
Irrespective of the legal position regarding equal rights. It appears that this has not stopped some muslim males from abusing their former wives under the guise of 'still married' under Islam. This is the problem when religous laws are held to be higher that our state laws. In Sharia a spouse cannot refuse the other sex.

I have sought further information regarding the report and will ask why it has not been tabled.

Hear here! Thank goodness for Australian commonsense. Now! since we all represent every working nation from all over the entire world, we can see what we don't wont here. The UK and US are fighting for what seems impractical to us, however on their lands..........we don't have there problems. Freedom of speech in Australia comes with a responsibility that we all know, cant be bargained with. If you want the best Country.....your in it! and that's worth saving at all costs.

This is a multicultural society, and how you love it like me, you will die to save it, if it means anything to you.

We have the Aboriginal people that have welcomed you all in some respects, but aren't they tolerant! We have good earthed people from all around the world here......and what Iam trying so hard to show...............The future is working right here, and I bet you didn't even know it:)

Its your Australia, I just live on it.

The rest is up to you.

The human animal...lol.....I didn't think so:)

All the best.

LEA

And Banjo has the currant story......

LEA

No the argument is whether I or anyone else should be forced to live under a legal system I disagree with. I've not submitted to it and refuse to do so (submission isn't the point and not an option). My family has shed blood and given plenty to make Australia what it is, and I see no reason to submit to anything of the sort. I'm always amused by this, next thing we'll be told it is un-Australian to remember ANZAC Day (as horrid Aussie soldiers killed poor innocent muslims, really?)...

Nope, I will not even bother to pretend that I will try and live under Sharia law, I've no interest in so doing. Be interested to see anyone make me, I'd have to be entitled to hide amongst civilians, to launch cowardly, sneaky raids... Then again, I'd have to look myself in the eye when shaving... I wonder... Is that why so many Muslims don't shave?

And just one more:) See! Law as I know it very well, No one body has absolute rights over an-other:) This will land you in court!..:) The earth belongs to all,( which is MY so-called religion ) which by religious laws....has absolutely No common ground, with all human life, and its abundance..........that in all...who can say......

I OWN with all.

Only god can say this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIq7tsVvEoY&feature=related

Ok.....Lets say, god is on trial. ( and he/she is ) by the way:) So! Just to cut it short, your arguing with your own brains and this can not be true because some-one said. Ok! someone might be the convoy of past thought, well....members of the jury, where and what is, when it comes to 1000,000,000,000000000000 of a place, where a cell, from not this understanding, and why....if all is miss-understood....how can man reach a conclusion, and why with full evidence.........your....in my eyes......Nothing but a bunch of morons"_)

Whats to days date?

LOL.....Look. Some people are evolved....and some people are not:)

Please.....pick a side.

or go round in circles.

Its your world.

LEAP

Online-opinions members. With just one stroke of the pen, thinking can change. The aboved voiceless incoherency is what any I am.....the essence.....that is mankind/women.

Right now, is just one more step to what we all want.

I think the Australian people are what we want:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He82NBjJqf8

Just watch the world, and tell me.....what do you see:)

All the best

LEAP

No, I am equally disinterested in living in any "FORCED" religious society, regardless of race or creed. Any "LAW" that forces people to believe any one interpretation of God, presumes to impose upon everyone that knowledge of god is only possible through that law. That way lies the middle ages, where learning or professing to understand that which was forbidden was heresy.

You would submit that ANY PERSON in this Country could possibly be OBLIGED to profess to believe (under pain of dispossession, etc.) that which they do not?

We evolved PAST this point only recently, allowing those who would see us return to it to IMPOSE it upon others? Against their will SOLELY because of their bloodline? Rationality & a willingness to stand for a cause (even using violence) are not mutually exclusive... Rationality, you claim, yet you would see the virtual enslavement of people against their will (or not, their personal choice, not the laws)?

No. I would sooner die resisting such a throwback to ignorance, indeed to celebrating ignorance... Letting others impose ignorance on those who would have it otherwise? Really?

Its your world:) Sharia LAW:)...I don't think so.

What does it mean......we are all the same:)...lol....we get it....and?

Mother earth. How can you live without it:)

All the best:)

And some:)

LEAP

It should be noted that many Muslims are strongly against the imposition of Sharia Law. I suspect this submission is not supported by many Muslims who embrace those comments made by the Attorney-General as revealed in Bugsy's link.

"People who migrate to Australia do so because of the fact that we have a free, open and tolerant society where men and woman are equal before the law irrespective of race, religious or cultural background.

"Indeed all applicants for citizenship swear a collective allegiance to the people of Australia and undertake to respect our customs and abide by our laws," the Attorney-General said.

"The values underpinning those principles will not be changing."

Belly:>> Not on your life ever .
This country should never bend to any minority wants and wishes.<<

Belly do you mean like the minority Labor primary vote and a government cobbled together from Greens and self serving independants, or the minority of Aussies being for a carbon tax,....or is it just the Arabs.

We already have Sharia in Sydney, every morning I find out what drive by Sharia happened in the Arab enclaves the previous night, they are sorting themselves out already, peace be with you.

Bugsy:>> It's been canned.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/muslims-use-multiculturalism-to-push-for-sharia/story-fn59niix-1226057476571

NEXT!<<

All I will say Bugsy is "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"

NEXT

SHARIA

I guess there's no pleasing some people.

Lets all think upon whats its worth, with what the Australian's we are.

Its not hard:)

A song of how most feel:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvsQ9hYKq7c

Look off shore:) and then look back home. Feel the love here....

You should:)

This is Australia!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML9h3I5Uktw&feature=related

LEAQLD...bit of a mixed soup...but we'll work it out:)

Its just an island.

LEAP

Quantum:>>This is Australia!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML9h3I5Uktw&feature=related<<

Quant, that was, not this is.

Dear pelican,

Interesting to see you picking up a Flaming torch with the rest of this lot.

"One nation one law". Besides being a great name for a political party rings of an absolutism that I thought was not in our makeup.

I for one am glad Australia makes an exception to its law on wearing crash helmets for those of the Sikh faith. This is a concession to a religious faith and I have no problem with it.

Perhaps a better grounded, more thoughtful argument could be made for the rejection of any form of Sharia law in Australia. I am quite sure of your skill to do just that.

CSteele, I have no problems with the example of allowing Sikh adults to wear their turbans instead of helmets, because they are only going to hurt themselves should they come off their bikes :)

Some of the Sharia Laws are way too restrictive to women's rights for my liking though.
In some countries, Sharia Law Courts do not have juries, and forensic evidence is not used. Instead they hold more importance to 'eyewitnesses'.
For example, if a woman is raped and reports this crime, there must have been no less than four Muslim male eyewitnesses prepared to say they saw it happen! Yeah right!

I would hope that most rational Muslim people in our country (especially the Muslim women) would also be vehemently opposed to any form of Sharia Law in Australia.
Many of them left their own country to get away from such restrictive laws.

Dear suzeonline,

That is hardly the type of Sharia law that has been allowed in England. Keeping in mind the Jewish Ben din courts have been operating there for nearly 100 years so why shouldn't the Muslim followers be able to avail themselves of the same?

My understanding is that these are not courts as such but run through the Arbitration System. Their rulings are binding to the same extent that any arbitration matter would be, but both parties have to agree to have their case heard in this manner.

We have a binding arbitration system here and if both parties enter it willingly without coercion then why should there be a problem?

It is interesting to measure the responses here with what is occurring in Egypt with the Coptic Christians. Their very strict divorce laws mean that often the only way a woman can leave an abusive relationship is by converting to Islam and utilising its more lenient divorce law.

If caught the converts have been spirited off to Christian monasteries and literally imprisoned. Riots have occurred as a result.

The Coptics are furious about a recent law extending the right of divorce to all Egyptians regardless of religion. They are claiming persecution.

Look, there is an argument to be made but much of what has been posted on this thread is scaremongering tripe. With a few exceptions OLO posters should be able to do better.

csteele......Lighten up. I was just trying to mellow out, what religion seems to think it has a right too, and It doesn't!

I will not hear of it.

You women will lose as its mans written words for his own sexual power-trip.

I will never figure out religious females for the life of me......

and maybe its just as well.

LEAP

I thinks it's time for a reality check.

Everybody is free to make such submissions but in this case it's simply not going to happen.

There is no sense of overwhelming public support or a perceived need for such changes.

I note and ignore 2 ignorant posts.
But highlight a very real danger and concern.
The extreme left has clutched this and every Muslim issue to its breast.
A movement born in equality and fairness, now is willing to ignore all that.
In fact some went off too early, it is not over.
Read the on line issue of the Sydney Telegraph, take care it like all owned under that flag is as much comic book as news reporter.
Trad, that Gentleman every ready to spring to the defense of Islam tells us it is in every day use.
MULTICULTURALISM is a failure the religion, SOME who practice it are introducing SEPARATISM.
In my country, please, look for answers away from the very left.
Once they had a reason to exist, now they support what we see reported here rape enslavement of women.
Be aware, the left as seen here is a destroyer.
Read and understand our country's laws are being ignored and we are told it is ok?

Just a thought.

Google "Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws".

We already recognize that different histories and customs need intelligent handling at an administrative level.

What's new?

Aboriginal Customary Law exists because they existed prior to Settlement. English law was superimposed upon that by immigrants, however, by virtue of time and acceptance, that is as far as it will go.

Suggesting the majority should change to suit a vocal minority? Not likely.

Oh Steele, you wish to argue? I do enjoy baffling you:P

This is a simple issue to resolve. Those who want to live under Sharia Law can move home. Oh, your country is so screwed up you don't want to live there. Well to bad. We don't want our country to end up like yours.

This issue is now a mainstream groupthink project, beautifully orchestrated and led by the Murdoch's love of dog-whistle journalism. Witness today's Op-ed leader in The Australian: "Goodbye to rights under Sharia".

Carefully ignoring the facts of the case, we have been offered a smorgasbord of "reactions", to what is, effectively, a classic straw man.

The target of these "reactions", from such thought-leaders as David Flint, is the assertion that "the application of sharia would mean winding back the rule of law" - which does not even form part of the proposal.

But it allows a whole raft of attack-dogs to parade their self-righteousness, oblivious to the fact that they are simply being used as circulation-fodder by the Murdoch machine.

Personally, it doesn't bother me in the slightest if a religious group chooses to make its own decisions on property settlements, custody of children etc., which form the backbone of the suggestions so far. No mention of public canings (which was the subject of the photograph accompanying the article!), no mention of public beheadings, the stoning of rape victims etc. So long as all parties involved consent to the decisions, and these decisions are not against the laws of Australia, they can do whatever their religion dictates.

But this is not the ground upon which The Australian wishes us to debate. They bring out every dog-whistle they can, revolving around one sterling paragraph that carefully constructs the ugliest of straw-men.

"With luck, this might rule out the introduction of public canings or beheadings under an Australian version of sharia. It might also prevent Australian rape victims being stoned to death..."

This ensures that their readership believes these to be, in fact, the proposals under discussion. And, I am sure, will be the playing-field upon which the various whack-a-mozzie groups have their fun and games.

Watch this space.

yeah, Pericles, 'watch this space' for the islamophiles to come up with some 'reasons' why we should welcome a mediaevil set of laws and why we should be glad to do so.

csteele
The post was potentially a flaming torch. There is always a risk when criticising a religion whether it be Christian or Islam that one is going to be described as villifying or racist. Much more honesty is required around certain practices that transcend issues of race, religion or culture, and which focus squarely on human rights.

There are very valid reaons for some of the concerns about Sharia Law. Some aspects have a little more impact than helmet wearing legislation.

The fact is if you have a law that is exclusively for Muslims (as in the example relating to divorce) there is a strong risk that one or both parties in the relationship may not enjoy those same protections as other Australians. Who gets to decide which law to follow given that some Muslims may wish to opt for the standard practice and not one that is confined to those of the Muslim faith. Is that partner going to be forced to submit to a law that actively discriminates against them?

I added my second comment because clearly not all Muslims are advocates of Sharia Law and it is wrong to lump all Muslims into the same basket. Many aspects of Sharia Law have nothing to do with the Koran nor with Islam, it is purely cultural practices from which many Muslims have fled.

How can one create a harmonious and integrated society without a uniform legislature?

Fact is Lexi it is already being used.
That story in todays paper quoted Trad and other Muslim leadership telling us it was in use.
Last night,watching a documentary about unrest in the middle east this was a reminder.
Standard greeting was used gives name to only God and his propert ,so entrenched in every day life is this religion it rules every thing. .
How does this settle with our belief every religion has equal rights.
And what other religions want to have separatist laws.
The whole concept of multiculturalism is bought to its knees if it also wants separation.
What is the end game,the reason we expose our selves to problems not usual in our country.

Sorry, pelican, but you cannot convince me that this is anything more than an opportunity for another gratuitous swipe at a Muslims, grasped by the populist media with both grubby hands.

>>The fact is if you have a law that is exclusively for Muslims (as in the example relating to divorce) there is a strong risk that one or both parties in the relationship may not enjoy those same protections as other Australians.<<

If that is seen as such a problem, please explain this:

http://bethdin.org.au/

"Since its inception in 1905, the Sydney Beth Din has been recognised as one of the pre-eminent rabbinic courts in the world. It serves Jewish communities in Australia, New Zealand and Asia as a forum for obtaining Jewish divorces, converting to Judaism, confirming personal status and adjudicating disputes stemming from divorce, business and community issues."

It's been operational for over a hundred years, for heaven's sake.

And what about this?

http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/report-31

"Aboriginal people must have the final say in the negotiation and consultation surrounding the recognition of customary law... "

As you look through the document, you will find much that is in common with both Beth Din and Sharia. Rules about property settlements, for example. Here's a clip from the intestacy provisions:

"...a narrow, fixed interpretation of next of kin may be wholly inappropriate in the Aboriginal context. The Aboriginal kinship system may include persons who are not blood relations at all (as distinct from classificatory relations), and yet there may be important obligations and rights existing between the deceased and such a person."

So although the "laws" of Australia provide a framework for people who die intestate, is it not reasonable to accept that the rigid definition of blood relations be re-examined in the light of specific tribal custom?

And this is the sort of thing we are talking about here.

Not public beheadings, as The Australian would have us believe.

Dear pelican,

I’m supporting Pericles on this.

I will add the powers of the Australian Building and Construction Commission to interrogate, fine and imprison uncooperative workers is an example of laws that target one specific group. Yet many Liberal and National party voters do not have a problem with them.

I find the compulsory genital mutilation practiced by the Jewish faith to be a bit more than just problematic. It doesn’t fit the criteria of doing no harm to others.

I am not challenging your concerns about Sharia but a blanket ‘One law’ for all does not reflect the current status quo. If you run that line then to be consistent you must be prepared to ask that the indigenous and Jewish courts be disbanded and that turbaned Sikhs be banned from motorcycles.

Perhaps it would be more fruitful to look at ways of accommodating other practices within a robust legal framework that clearly states its absolutes. If there are aspects of Sharia or Jewish law that are incompatible with these absolutes then so be it, they need to be modified to comply.

Don’t forget the Mormons were willing to give up polygamy for admission to the Union. However unfair dismissal laws are not so sacrosanct, even outside the States.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/51586759-180/court-church-european-case.html.csp

Pericles and csteele you both make some robust and valid points worth thinking about more deeply.

My difficulty with is envisioning a State where different rules apply to different people on substantially important issues. Religious observances are not new such as many Christians who cannot work on Saturdays or some faiths who do not eat pork, these are matter clearly of no concern to others and cause no harm.

I had no idea about Rabbinic Courts. It would be interesting to know if there is a 'way out' clause for either party who might wish to go through the Australian Court system or who might not be satisfied with the outcome of the 'Gett'. The dissolving of a marriage might need a religious sanction but there are other issues in relation to property and children.

It might work if there are limitations within those arrangements compatible with Australian Law; and that reduce the possiblity of treatments that would otherwise be unacceptable - similar to those comments made by csteele as follows:

"Perhaps it would be more fruitful to look at ways of accommodating other practices within a robust legal framework that clearly states its absolutes. If there are aspects of Sharia or Jewish law that are incompatible with these absolutes then so be it, they need to be modified to comply."

Pericles I am not worried about beheadings or stonings - I reckon proposals of that nature would not be made in the first place nor would they be seriously considered.

I do hope that our Law does not diminish in relation to some religious practices but rather favour of broader human rights such as in the case of FGM.

Some Mormon sects in America and other Christian sects do flaut the law in relation to polygamy and under-age marriages and while this debate is not about that, it speaks to wider concerns about what is considered acceptable within the wider legal framework.

"I will add the powers of the Australian Building and Construction Commission to interrogate, fine and imprison uncooperative workers is an example of laws that target one specific group. Yet many Liberal and National party voters do not have a problem with them."

Well we agree on that one. How an organisation was ever allowed to hold those powers is beyond rational thinking. But still the ALP has not dissolved those powers. I would argue though that this sort of legislation is easily overturned unlike other pieces of legislation that once embodied and accepted into practice would be difficult to reverse even if there were proof of any systemic wrongdoing.

The Intervention is another policy that required special exemptions under Racial Discrimination Legislation, so I do understand that these universal rights are not always universally observed, but that does not make it right.

I guess it comes down to rational debate on a case by case basis and how any flexibility might be accommodated within the understanding of certain fundamental rights and with 'way out' options for participants of those faiths.

Let me put a slightly different take on this.

Two people, call them X and Y, enter into a commercial contract. They write into the contract that all disputes are to be settled through arbitration by a sharia court in accordance with the principles of sharia law.

A dispute arises over an amount of, say, $1 million. X and Y duly appear before the sharia court which finds in favour of X. The court orders Y to pay X $1 mn.

Note that this is a purely financial matter. There is no question of beheading or stoning or anything of the sort.

Y refuses to accept the verdict of the sharia court and appeals to the secular courts. What should the secular courts do?

It seems to me that under these circumstances, unless the sharia court verdict in some way violates specific principle of Australian law, the secular court should enforce the verdict of the sharia court. All the secular court is doing in that case is enforcing a contract that is binding under Australian law. The secular court should not be acting as a substitute arbitrator.

Now this assumes that X and Y are equal parties who entered into a contract freely. There was no compulsion on either party.

When it comes to marriage or divorce I do not think an agreement to abide by the decision of a sharia court in a marriage contract should be binding. Realistically, while there may be no outright coercion involved there could have been string family and community pressure on the weaker party – usually the woman – to sign such a contract.

But if two EQUAL parties agree in advance to allow a sharia court to settle their differences then that is their choice.

I do not even see how this would require any special legislation. Muslims who were so minded could do this right now.

In fact even non-Muslims could enter into such a contract if they wanted.

Just loved Bugsy's analysis

“It's been canned …next!”

Such naïve certitude!

(A bit like saying China's agreed to curb its CO2 emissions--
“yep,right, that's fixed then!”)

I’m tipping we haven’t heard the end of the call for Sharia.

Sooner or later some reddish–greenish coalition will discover that denying Sharia runs contrary to multiculturalism dogma, or some obscure UN covenant that we signed 60 years ago. So they'll give it the nod.(who needs “overwhelming public support" when you have such moral high authority!)

Firstly, we'll likely see it in a small way with private contracts and bequests--the public beheadings and blasphemy courts will follow later--but, not too much later!

After all, that's how the Christians did it, right?

Steven,
From what I can read about Beth Din in relation to divorce both parties must still obtain a civil divorce. This would be similar to any couple requesting a divorce, from our courts, on agreed to terms.

Therefore it is an arbitration body without legal power under our laws.

If one reads what is said by these Islamic schoolars (see link), it seems that they do not recognise a divorce unless it is ratified religously. In other words they see sharia as above our law.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/sharia-law-applied-secretly-in-sydney/story-e6freuzi-1226057808947

There is no reason why muslims now cannot arbitrate on mariatal matters, but they should accept that our courts have the ultimate rule, which is binding in Aus.

The submission to the government now requests that Sharia Law be given, at least, the same status as our law, on certain matters.

Funny how the champions of multi culturalism now have another mess to clean up. They are so dumb that the problem is only going to get worse as we allow more and more people incompatible to our culture into this country. Oh well lets just blame the 'bigotted' Christians rather than face the truth that secular multi culturalism has failed dismally. The problem will grow as the denial continues. Lets swap one for five. No wonder Labour is on the nose so much.

If I seem complacent, I guess it must be because I feel so safe knowing that so many dogs will always bark when the whistle blows.

Now if we can just train them to stop crapping on the carpet and humping the new house-mates legs, life would be so much nicer.

Banjo

As I said in my post, I do not think mariage contracts in Australia could or should be governed by sharia law.

In the case of the Jewish Courts (Beth Din) they do not have the power to dispose of property or make rulings on child custody or anything of the sort in the case of divorce. Their sole power is the right to grant or refuse a Jewish divorce (a "get")

The only effect of not obtaining a get is that no orthodox Rabbi will marry you should you choose to remarry. You are still free to contract a civil marriage or, for that matter, get married in a liberal synagogue. Many Jewish divorcees avail themselves of one or both these options or simply cohabit.

My previous post related solely to EQUAL parties entering into a VOLUNTARY binding agreement that disputes between them should be decided by arbitrators acting in accordance with sharia law. I argued that unless the decision of the arbitrator violated some principle of Australian law the secular courts should enforce the agreement.

Dear pelican,

Although I'm not entirely convinced about the need for a Bill of Rights I think in this context it might be a good vehicle for the 'absolutes' I spoke of. In reflecting the values we hold dear in this country all new laws could be measured against it and be challenged if they fail to meet its standard.

In that context though csteele what would characterise a Sharia Law contract from any other in a divorce proceeding? How does it differ? How do the Jewish Getts differ from other arrangements? Do these contracts or agreements require the consent of both parties?

There are many aspects that need to be addressed within those absolutes. Who knows perhaps the Jewish and Muslim approach might work better and teach us something about divorce processes. However, as stevenmeyer points out people are already free to make private arrangements and agreements. Courts tend to come into it only when there are disagreements about distribution of property or child custody arrangements and it is those disputes that must ensure both parties are protected equally to other Australians.

It would be worthy in this discussion to know just what is involved in Sharia Law divorce proceedings.

If you look, here in this thread, you can see how religion came about.
Many want to convict those who see no reason to bring a form of separation to our country as bashing Muslims.;
A religion had the answers to that, control thoughts and opinions, make thinking a sin.
In reverse now, why come to a country like ours if its laws are in competition with your religion and its belief?
Let those hurling stones at us, tell me what would happen, come do so please, if we stood in Saudi Arabia and demanded our country's laws be introduced, for us?
Look again at the requested changes, see the laws that are currently being side stepped for Sharia.
Seemingly mild, innocuous some will say,but a first step from a group that has many from within tell us they will have it in 50 years in any case and in total.
Separatism is practiced, knowingly and some times to taunt and you better believe it is true.
How would I be walking in an Arab city wearing stubbys and thongs?
Bleeding hearts fail to impress me.
An increasing threat to Civilization from SOME within this religion, has to ASK this question.
Why do we constantly bend to ANY religion, surely our future would be better if fables did not have the power to divide us.

Pelican

>> It would be worthy in this discussion to know just what is involved in Sharia Law divorce proceedings. >>

I reckon that many aspects of Sharia divorce would catch on with the likes of Formersnag, James H et al.

As for the introduction of what I understand to be an archaic (in general - just like most of the Middle Eastern religions) system of law (there are good bits - like no interest on loans) however, overall it is at odds with Australian Law and, therefore, cannot be introduced.

Belly,
I have given a lot of thought to your question as to why someone would want to go and live in another country that has laws alien to that persons beliefs.

The only rational answer i can come up with is that the person sees himself as a pioneer for his beliefs and thus works toward changing his adopted countries culture.

A former Nigerian President once said, along these lines. "A million arabs one day will go to Europe and not as friends. They will conquer Europe through the wombs of their women"

That process may well be underway.

Banjo, make room for me on that Naughty boys bench.
I agree, and that will put us both there,in the minds of some.
Time will prove them not us wrong.
We are not talking about race.
Not skin color.
Not eating or living habits, we are, in my case, not talking about closing Australia's doors.
It is a religion, like every one that ever existed, it believes it alone is the right one.
Its book and its actions in Africa at least show death is our future.
Yet we mostly have given up our once close ties to our religions, many only go to Church to be wed or buried.
This religion is not going away.
It uses our freedoms against us, but we are denied those freedoms in their country's.
Western women, TV reporters or others MUST wear HEAD scarves in their streets, consider that.
Yet if I am offended by a black full body suit with a slit for eyes walking in My city I am xenophobic!
Nice Lady's, trying to be nice to every one, but blind to concerns justly held are not changing my mind.
Sharia law must not exist side by side with ours .
And stop now, the knee bending to so small a minority, we never did it for any other group.
It is My right, just as practicing any religion, to say I am threatened by any group wanting to live by other than my country's laws,and want no God telling me how to live.

Lots of heat. Not much light.

It is my understanding - and it certainly is the case in the UK - that sharia "courts" are used voluntarily by those concerned.

This would address pelican's concern.

>>My difficulty with is envisioning a State where different rules apply to different people on substantially important issues.<<

These are voluntary rules. If you prefer to have your divorce settlement issues adjudicated by Beth Din rather than the Family Court, then you would first need to embrace Judaism, then agree to be bound by Beth Din's findings.

Which should also confirm stevenlmeyer's view:

>>It seems to me that under these circumstances, unless the sharia court verdict in some way violates specific principle of Australian law, the secular court should enforce the verdict of the sharia court.<<

The key here being that the ruling must not itself be illegal, according to Australian law. If it is, then Australian law prevails.

Banjo also has it right:

>>Therefore it is an arbitration body without legal power under our laws.<<

The article headlined "Sharia law applied secretly in Sydney" is interesting too. For one thing, it patently ain't much of a secret, if they are quite happy to discuss it. And second, it clearly serves an acceptable social purpose:

"Religious divorces are basically for women whose husbands can't be found or they refuse to divorce them"

Just to underline their purpose:

"...sharia law was also being used to settle workplace and neighbourhood disputes. 'Really, anything that does not have a criminal element'"

The term "between consenting adults" would seem appropriate here.

Pericles wrote:

>>The term "between consenting adults" would seem appropriate here.>>

One quibble

I prefer "between FREELY consenting adults"

Either party must be in a position to refuse consent.

If the outcome of the sort of arbitration I've described comes before a court I think the court is entitled to enquire whether the complaining party was subject to coercion either direct or implicit. If coercion was involved then the court may void the agreement.

BTW this is nothing new. If you can prove that I held a gun to your head when you signed a contract the courts can void it.

The difficulty is the onus of proof. Is the onus on the complaining party to prove there was coercion? Or does the defending party have to prove there was no coercion? I suggest it depends on circumstances

Dear Stephenlmeyer,

I agree with your basic position.

Here is a good example of an Australian court taking a firm stance against religious coercion.

http://www.jwire.com.au/news/court-rules-jewish-children-barred-from-barmitzvahbatmitzvah-ceremonies/10277

Are you happy with the judgement?

csteele

I have no opinion on this.

It sounds like some kind of a messy husband - wife fight probably during unfriendly divorce proceedings. By the sounds of it the magistrate followed Solomon and cut the baby in half.

In these sorts fights my sympathies are usually with the judicial officer who is going to suffer brickbats no matter what he or she decides.

I think we need a new type of ruling. A judge can sentence both parties to a dispute to be imprisoned until they grow up and dispaly some maturity.

Steven:

>> A judge can sentence both parties to a dispute to be imprisoned until they grow up and dispaly some maturity. <<

I'd like to see that.

:)

an eye for an eye
sounds like a bushism

anyhow..noted two things

Sharia Law Is Here.

Certain hallowed members of the religion/politricks
also engage in the killing of completely innocent people..from time to time.

The innocent people may include children,
disabled people or others who were in the wrong place..at the wrong time.

Instead of condemning the killing of innocents,
the adherents of this religion instead claim such killings are “justifiable,”...sometimes because..“under the circumstances”
..it was excusable or understandable.

Other times,..zealots claim such killings
are an unfortunate but necessary part of law and society.

This religion is not Islam.

The religion is the Church
of the Police States...of America.
http://saladin-avoiceinthewilderness.blogspot.com/2011/05/sharia-law-is-here.html

PROPAGANDA ALERT*

This is another fraud perpetrated on the world by MEMRI, which is a known Israel propaganda front. MEMRI provides, for free,..translations of Arab media to the west,

but usually, the translations are skewed
..to serve Israel's interests.!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/12/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker

here is an EGSAMPLE of their work..

Hamas Cleric has been MISSTRANSLATED ...!

into saying
:..The Jews Will be Annihilated
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/hamas-cleric-the-jews-will-be-annihilated-palestine-will-be-capital-of-new-caliphate/
& Palestine Will Be Capital of New Caliphate


This is Hamas member and cleric Yunis Al-Astal reportedly declaring,..“The [Jews]..are brought in droves to Palestine
so that the Palestinians –and the Islamic nation behind them –

will have the honor of annihilating the evil of this gang.”

He also predicts that Palestine
will become the capital of the new Islamic caliphate:

The western media, eager to save a few dollars, usually accepts and presents the translations without verifying their accuracy.

Point may be worth mentioning to those defending at any cost the subject of this thread.
Thread came about BECAUSE HEAD BODY OF AUSTRALIAN MUSLIM COUNCIL asked for the laws to be changed.
Contemplate this with me, we do not let our first Australians speer those they wish to,why bring in laws for this minority?

Dear Banjo, Belly, and others,

I can't see Sharia Law being introduced here. That would go against the fundamental concept that underpins democracy - that everyone is equal under the law. The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils claim the Sharia is flexible flies in the face of evidence. We've all seen and read the protests that erupted over cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. We take freedom of speech for granted - Sharia does not allow criticism of Mohammed. It is punishable by death. Also women are treated as second-class citizens under Sharia. They would be eligible for a smaller share of inheritance, and unequal treatment - when it came to matters involving marriage, divorce, custody of children and so on. As I stated earlier - it simply cannot happen in this country. Setting a precedent here would be a very unwise thing to do. The only question that needs to be asked is - "Is Sharia Law compatible with Democracy?" The answer is a definite - No!

OUG wrote:

>>Hamas Cleric has been MISSTRANSLATED ...!>>

Was he mistranslated?

Well, if you say so. I mean whoever heard of people wanting to annihilate Jews. It's a bizarre idea.

For those who want to watch and who maybe speak Arabic here is a link to the clip.

http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2934.htm

Oh, one other thing OUG

You linked to an article by Brian Whitaker titled "Selective Memri" in which he hints, but does not quite say, that MEMRI's translations are inaccurate.

Whitaker has been challenged on a number of occasions to produce better translations of various inflammatory pieces. Thus far he has declined the challenge. It might be said that Whitaker has done everything except actually produce better translations.

As for the article that Whitaker described as a "significant propaganda success" posters may want to read it in all it's awfulness on snopes.com, hardly a "Zionist" website:

Excerpt:

>>The Actions of the Jewish Vampires Cause Them Pleasure</B>

Let us now examine how the victims' blood is spilled. For this, a needle-studded barrel is used; this is a kind of barrel, about the size of the human body, with extremely sharp needles set in it on all sides. [These needles] pierce the victim's body, from the moment he is placed in the barrel.

These needles do the job, and the victim's blood drips from him very slowly. Thus, the victim suffers dreadful torment - torment that affords the Jewish vampires great delight as they carefully monitor every detail of the blood-shedding with pleasure and love that are difficult to comprehend.

After this barbaric display, the Jews take the spilled blood, in the bottle set in the bottom [of the needle-studded barrel], and the Jewish cleric makes his coreligionists completely happy on their holiday when he serves them the pastries in which human blood is mixed.>>

http://www.snopes.com/religion/blood.asp

Dear Steven,

I'm not sure what you define as an opinion but what you gave certainly qualified in my book. I would hope our courts continue to weigh their decisions toward the wellbeing of the children and that 'freely consenting' applies to them.

I am however a little more concerned about the following judgement.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/dumped-sydney-rabbi-moshe-gutnick-wins-1m-payout/story-e6frg97x-1225766190469

How on earth can a case be taken away from the Australian court system, then a judgement made in a religious court in an overseas country that awards costs incurred in the NSW Supreme court, the mortgaging of an Australian property, and a determination that a struggling Australian congregation is ordered to pay $200,000 lump sum plus $4,000 per month for the next 15 years?

How is that condoned? I and many other Australians would be rightfully cranky if this occurred under a Sharia Court. Why is this abrogation of jurisdiction allowed in this case. I mean we gave up trotting off to the Privy Council years ago.  

How does this align with pelican's salient point that "Courts tend to come into it only when there are disagreements about distribution of property or child custody arrangements and it is those disputes that must ensure both parties are protected equally to other Australians."

How many other Australians can trot their cases off to overseas courts unless they are under the auspices of the UN?

We need to think the parameters through of how much power we allow any religious courts. This case  should be a warning to us all about being complacent.

A restricted but even playing field is called for.

Lexi well said but unfortunately it is already the case it is in use.
While an attempt make it legal is under way it is being used.
And only a first step.
I want to drift off subject, but come very much back to it by doing so.
We think we know each other, we do not, some we do, me few would have trouble finding me.
But like every on line activity some are quite the revers of what they claim.
I bleed,truly, for the life women lead in SOME Muslim country's.
It hurts that a God is reason for one human to be lessor than another, that womans natural wish to love her husband is used to isolate them, yes in any community mine too.
But be aware .
If you wanted to spread miss information, you could do worse than being a seemingly nice person defending the indefensible in the name of? fairness.
50 minutes that is how long Obama spoke for this early morning.
Take time if you can to hear or read every word , he set out hope and caring, a future with less killing, if hate and separatism can be over come.
By both sides, if the future not the past is the target.

csteele

I really don't know enough about this case to comment.

The synagogue in question was apparently affiliated to Mizrachi. I don't know what the terms, if any, of affiliating to Mizrachi are. For all I know the board of the synagogue agreed that employment disputes between their rabbi and themselves woud be adjudicated by the Beth Din. or perhaps that's what being affiliated to Mizrachi means.

In this and the previous case you are asking me to give my opinion on a complex legal matter on the basis of a brief report in a newspaper. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know all the facts. How do you expect me to answer?

Dear Steven,

I am not asking for a legal appraisal of either case rather an opinion from you on what absolutes should underpin Australia's approach to religious courts.

Surely a primary one ought to be that we retain jurisdiction or matters that directly impact legally on Australian citizens, their property and their futures.

However I do concede it is possibly a little unfair to ask you to comment. If that is the case then to be absolutely fair that restraint on comment ought be broadly across the topic don't you think?

thing is steven
there is much that needs translation

think why..was..the translation
you supplied..even translated

EXCEPT TO MAKE ARABS GENERALLY LOOK LOW

i note they didnt translate wisdoms
but pure garbage..[you are..what you chose to eat]

just as..'memo-ry'...
[memri]
is what...
it choses to translate

here it has wasted time
on pure gibberish..from a madman

ONE NEEDS TO THINK...
...WHY?

its designed
specifily..*

to make someone..look bad
or insane..or whatever]

but the dirt extends
to those doing..the translations..!

they are..*the ones
to bring this per/version
into this topic..

the quote..you chose to quote
of all the links..you simply ignore..
you chose to quote/post..that link..

of perversion...
because that per-version..
serves their mission..[by per-mission]

serves your mission..
[by your..per/mision]..

[the dude is..'a' sadam insane
or a bin larden..[boogie man][spin]
[ie cia ex-prat...]

doubly serving the mossad adgenda
ran by zionists..for zionism...

nothing but dirt/dirty..
demonic..like those spreading his dirt

Tell me some one what is OUG on about?
Now lets dig a hole a deep one and bury the lie about multi culturism being a good thing.
It has been, was, but no not now.
No migrant group ever so strongly positioned its self to be separate.
No intention to stop freedom to believe, but yes forever to stop intrusion by any group any religion on my country's right to be as it is.

The issue here is "sharia law".

And the "never-ever" defences so far have all been variations on "how dare they think they can change our laws"

We aren't dealing in absolutes here, people. We are talking about communities - some large groups defined by religion, some smaller groups defined by their tribe, and some others by their lifestyle.

Lexi points out:

>>...the fundamental concept that underpins democracy - that everyone is equal under the law.

Sounds eminently sensible, as Lexi invariably does.

But here's a recent snippet on leg-spearing.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3159742.htm

The traditional punishment of sticking a spear through the miscreant's leg satisfies the victim's sense of justice their community. Ours would be banging him up for life.

Better?

For whom?

It is simpler than that, though, when you think about it.

Over the past twenty years or so, "traditional ownership" has distorted what we would like to think of as Immutable Australian Law, Operating Equally for all Australians.

Regardless of whether you think that the recognition of aboriginal sovereignty over various pieces of land is good or bad, it certainly introduces a level of inequality into the process.

As for the influence of Religious groups on the Law, consider for a moment the attitude of the Church to homosexuals. Has that influenced the legal position in any way, do you think.

There is of course not the slightest chance that Australia will ever "implement sharia law". Nor should we. But there is in my view a massive difference between "changing the Law" which so many people are getting hot under the collar about, and recognizing that not everyone in our society - our Australian community - fits a single, cookie-cutter image.

Not people. Nor communities of people.

I'm personally all for tolerance of cultural preferences that do not threaten our fundamental sense of what is fair, and what is right.

And against scare-mongering.

csteele wrote:

>>Surely a primary one [consideration] ought to be that we retain jurisdiction or matters that directly impact legally on Australian citizens, their property and their futures.>>

Not necessarily

If for some reason best known to themselves FREELY consenting ADULTS agree that any dispute between them should be arbitrated by a clerical court in London then that is THEIR choice. A judge would be enforcing AUSTRALIAN LAW if he told them to get a judgment from the London clerical court.

Now please note that I personally would NEVER voluntarily agree to arbitration by a clerical court, ESPECIALLY NOT the London Beth Din. I like my chances of a fair judgment better from a sharia court than that (un)august body.

But freedom does not mean freedom to do what Steven Meyer thinks right.

Furthermore Australia is a signatory to various international treaties such as the one establishing the International Criminal Court . That means Australians could theoretically find themselves on trial in The Hague.

Australia also, as we are endlessly reminded, has certain obligations under the UN refugee convention.

So it’s not as simple as you make out. In the case you mentioned I do not know what sort of agreement a Mizrachi congregation had with their rabbi and neither do you. It may well be that pursuant to Australian law the judge felt it had to be decided by the London Beth Din because of past agreements between the parties to the dispute.

OUG wrote:

>>think why..was..the translation
you supplied..even translated>>

As you know I do not comment on the rights and wrongs of Israel.I do occasionally correct matters of fact.

You made a SPECIFIC ALLEGATION. You asserted that Hamas Member of Parliament and Cleric Yunis Al-Astal had been "misstranslated". That was your word.

I rebutted that specific allegation. From my perspective the matter is now closed.

Pericles,

I have to say that for once we're on the same side. I think there's been a lot of "scaremongering" over this issue.

As always - the voice of reason prevails.
Thank you Pericles.

Sorry Lexi and Pericles, I see no voice of reason here.
It is hard to except that my concerns,truly held,are discounted as not based on understanding or fairness.
Not based on contact, real daily contact, with Australian youth of Muslim faith.
Youth who turn on a penny from nice young men hate filled ranters.
I am charged,even by myself some times, because I truly, think any religion has no right, none to get involved in politics.
I question what is multiculturalism,was it once a welcome door to come and make a life in our country.
To both blend in and keep ones own culture.
Then why is it now powered by separatism?
Why the need for a different set of laws.
Why the desert dress that highlights separatism.
If I am racist so be it.
But understand,this country is concerned,tell those of us who are concerned to be quite is not going to change that.
If any one thinks these concerns are all inclusive, held for every Muslim, they are having them selves on.
I will live and die Australian, free to think as I wish.

stephen by selectivly short quoting
my words missrepresents my last point

""OUG wrote:

>>think why..was..the translation
you supplied..even translated>>""

ie of all the texts they COULD translate
why translate the ones..that reveal blind hate/mate?

clearly in the adgenda
is your reply

""As you know I do not comment on the rights and wrongs of Israel.""

yes your land right or wrong
god took it away from you
and man'belfore letters'..gave it back

those in occupation of the holy lands
are the so called beast...'standing in the holy of holies
AS WITNESSED BY THEIR DEEDS globaly...

from assasination to spin
the proof against zion is in...

[yet we must reveal our own love
of the one true good[god]..by turning the other cheek]

I TOO..do occasionally correct matters of fact.

but not so stephen
instead he revives..the initial thought

""You made a SPECIFIC ALLEGATION.""

mate i have made many specificly

""You asserted that Hamas Member of Parliament and Cleric Yunis Al-Astal had been "misstranslated". That was your word.""

mate that waas in the cut and paste
[from its link]

but i hope people notice
his point scoring..is an own goal

and his saying...""

I rebutted that specific allegation.
From my perspective the matter is now closed.""

that specific point
was the full quote of the short quote YOU quoted

please note again my final point
why chose to translate cccrapp
unless it serves your adgenda?

we never heard of this nutter
till your people..translated his vile words

WHY?

""I think there's been a lot of "scaremongering" over this issue.""

yes there has been
WHY?
think of whats going down in your homelands
the media needs a destraction...just like your peeple allways do

dont worry about us
being worse than the natzie
who finally got the holylands..[for their 4 th reiche]

cause..by their works
you will..*know them

Why is it so?
All the books man wrote, that became the Holly books and Words of their Brand of God.
Had great wisdom within them, every one.
Great evidence of humanity its wrongs and rights.
And indeed brilliant evidence of mans Intelligence.
Hidden within them, again every one, are answers to every question about daily life.
Including both yes and no, to every question.
We see the methods too of control in every one.
I have do doubt, not a bit,good people follow every one of them.
Why have I not yet found the brilliance that gave birth to each of them, in any poster defending them here in OLO?
Just name any great book any wonderful story, it too came from mans great brain.
But if man asks this question, are we ready to stand without the help of props and watch the reaction.
This thread has those who say it is a right, to in some degree impose laws based on fables on me.

Pericles,

I'm surprised by your reference to 'traditional' Aboriginal punishments, as if they are uninfluenced by contemporary political and social change.

Try this: a couple of men from a particular community, one (A) from the power-family - the family which controls the council, distributes the houses and jobs and has overwhelming organisational superiority - and the other man (B) from a marginal family with no particular influence and a lot of vulnerability.

Imagine person (A) kills person (B) in an Alice Springs toilet block. Suppose that the judge orders that a traditional punishment be carried out. What are the options of the family of the murdered man (B) ?

* they can carry out the sentence, spears through the leg, and be thrown off the community: no jobs, no house; or

* they can give the murderer a pin-prick, as long as it draws blood. That way they keep their jobs, their house and won't be beaten up continually and their girls won't be assaulted. Continually.

Hmmmmm .... gee, that's a tough one. It certainly has been for many relatively powerless Indigenous people.

Meanwhile, the social context - if you like, the infrastructural context too - has changed somewhat since 10,000 BC: instead of physical punishment being the only option, people now can be jailed, they can be fined, or they can be ordered to do community work, depending on the severity of the offence. It's a bit like replacing the ducking-stool or stoning with investigation and analysis and perhaps a fine, or the barbaric hacking off of the hands of thieves with a prison sentence.

You know, substituting something civilized for something barbaric and primitive, when the means are available, instead of mindlessly replicating the means of redress of yesteryear, even though the context has been thoroughly transformed.

Joe

Seema Like keysar Trad Got on the ABC programme 'The Drum' with a speel about sharia and it got 350+ comments.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2718918.html#comments

I don't mind muslims using sharia as a guide to the way they run their lives, as long as rhey do not try to implement any aspects of sharia that conflict with our laws.

This is the aim of the submission to the parliamentry inquiry. They are seeking to have our laws endorse parts of sharia that currently are in conflict.

I trust the inquiry emphatically rule that out.

Dear Belly,

Re-read my posts please. At no time am I supporting Sharia Law.
On the contrary I am against a system of Laws based on religion and I thought that I made it quite clear that the Australian Federation of Islamic Council's claim that Sharia is flexible flies in the face of evidence across the world. It is not conpatible with the fundamental concept that underpins democracy - that everyone is equal under the law. I stress again - I am not in support of Sharia Law.

Belly,

I think you will agree that I am not exactly an Islam-friendly sort of guy. I have never made any secret of my LOATHING and CONTEMPT for Islam. But even I think this is a fuss about nothing.

Consider this scenario. Two Muslim men, Abdul (A) and Bashir (B) conclude a contract. They write into the contract a clause to the effect that any dispute between them is to be settled by binding arbitration. The arbitrator is to be a scholar trained in sharia law who will decide the case according to the precepts of sharia law.

A dispute arises. A ships goods to B and says B owes him $1 million. B denies this. He says A supplied goods that were defective. The arbitrator decides in favour of A. He orders B to pay the million bucks.

Unhappy about this B appeals to the secular courts. He says that if the case had been heard in the secular courts he would have won.

Now what should a judge do in this case?

I would argue that, on the face of it, this was a contract between two equal parties. B knew what he was getting into and must now abide by the decision of the sharia scholar. He can’t have two bites at the apple, the arbitrator and, if he is unsuccessful there, the secular courts.

That is the only context in which I can see sharia law applying in Australia – between freely consenting adults in their private lives.

POINT TO CONSIDER:

If, as seems likely, Australia is going to have a large and growing Muslim population who are not going to give up on their culture then SOME accommodations for intra-Muslim deals will have to be made. I don’t see how else this could work.

Steven,

Just as Christians and Jews and others have been able to dove-tail their practices with a democratic system involving the rule of law, equality of the sexes, freedom of and from religion, freedom of expression and assembly, etc., so can Muslims. Those aspects of a democratic society must take priority over any religious, or 'cultural', observance.

If they are so devout, or orthodox, or strict in observance, that this becomes impossible, then they may have difficulty living in Australia, in such a society: other parts of the world may be more congenial. But one relevant aspect of a democratic society is the freedom to leave it.

Joe

Steven yes Under stand all that.
I think you are Jewish but doubt you want laws changed, do not picture you walking around in so different way of dressing.
I have doubts ANY COMMUNITY would,not just here but world wide, threaten to kill ANYONE over a cartoon.
I reserve the Right to wish that one day we grow out of every religion.
That we can, all over the world, live by one set of rules.
NOT one that sees some unaware of anything other than the rules of a religion, undedicated to know the way humanity came about.
Lexi I know your heart And I continue to say just exactly what I think, UNDERSTANDING ,it will bring me trouble.
But so be it, from within the Muslim world, all over the world, will come an understanding of EVERY ONES RIGHTS or a war beyond any nightmare will come.
In my view we try too hard to accommodate them, they try too little to accommodate us, Trad? best I not say.

Joe(Loudmouth)

REALITY CHECK

(1) The Muslim proportion of the population of Australia will grow

(2) Muslims are not going to leave

(3) Muslims are not going to abandon their culture

(4) For the sake of peace SOME accommodations will have to be made

In fact some accommodations have ALREADY been made. A Muslim woman giving evidence in a trial in Perth was told by Judge Shauna Deane that she had to remove her face-covering before giving evidence. However:

>>Judge Deane last week ruled that to make it easier for Tasneem to give evidence comfortably, men would be removed from the court.

The only men allowed in the courtroom while she gave her evidence today were male jurors, the judge's usher, Mr Sayed and the lawyers.

While female journalists were allowed to stay in the court to report on Tasneem's evidence, male journalists were ejected.>>

See: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/muslim-woman-removes-niqab-to-give-evidence-as-male-journalists-are-barred-from-court/story-e6frg6nf-1225940316776

At the time I thought Judge Deane had made a mistake in ejecting men from the court. But the more I think about this the more I conclude that without SOME accommodation to the mores of different cultures Australia will become a pressure cooker that explodes.

I now think Judge Deane made the right call.

Hi Steven,

Yes, I'm in two minds about that: of course, women should be allowed to wear the jilbab or burka if they wish, in order for them to get out of the house, and avoid being kept locked away - at least, that way, they see something of how men and women relate to each other in everyday life in Australia, without wanting to rip each others' clothes off then and there.

But whether it should be a reason for clearing a court of extraneous males, I'm not so sure. There could have been other ways of satisfying the requirements of the judge, even for just a short time, out of respect for the woman involved.

But suppose the woman's husband had communicated to the court that his wife would not get his permission to attend, unless she was wearing the burka ? Would the court accede to HIS requirements, or would it order his wife to attend ? The upshot might have been the same, but the grounds may not have been: I expect the court would ignore such a hypothetical demand and order her to appear, regardless, burka-ed or not: it may not have been all that material to the case, either way.

But there are far more significant issues than this that may arise :)

Joe

Belly,

Yes I am Jewish.

No I do not want Australian laws to be changed to accommodate Jews. While I’m sure there are some Jews who do I personally have never met a Jew who says he wants to impose the Jewish way of doing things on the rest of Australia. In any case Judaism, unlike Christianity and Islam, is NOT a proselytising religion.

But here is another REALITY CHECK.

Numbers matter. Jews make up one fifth of one percent of the global population. Muslims constitute somewhere between 20% and 25% of the global population and the proportion is growing.

If you count only people who practise their religion, as opposed to nominal adherents, it is possible that Islam has ALREADY overtaken Christianity globally.

Australia’s nearest neighbor, Indonesia, is overwhelmingly Muslim and has TEN TIMES Australia’s population. In future Indonesia, not Australia, is likely to be the dominant regional power.

The Muslim proportion of Australia’s population in growing. More to the point, the Muslim proportion of the ELECTORATE is growing.

These are facts that cannot be wished away.

Eventually Australia is going to have to accommodate Islam. I’m not saying I like that. But it is what it is.

The sooner Australians start thinking about what sort of accommodations will have to be made the better prepared the country will be.

LOUDMOUT(JOE) wrote:

>>But one relevant aspect of a democratic society is the freedom to leave it.>>

LET ME BE BLUNT. If you cannot bear the thought of living in a society that has to make accommodations towards Islam it may be you or your children who end up availing themselves of that freedom.

LET’S ALL FACE REALITY

Steven,
I would have thought that the removal of persons from a court purely because of their sex might have rubbed up against our anti-sex discrimination legislation?

Let ‘s not confuse accommodation with submission –a word much favoured by Islamists.

What if the Islamic persons sensibilities extended to not having infidels in the court / the house/ the business?

Here’s an interesting footnote from the European Court of Human Rights:
“(b) As for Refah’s alleged intention of introducing sharia law, the Court found that “sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy”:
http://www.icnl.org/knowledge/ijnl/vol6iss1/special_5.htm

SPQR

Australia is a tiny country located in a region in which Muslims are the dominant population group. The reality that Australia faces is different to the reality that Europe faces.

One of the reasons I think Australians need to think of what sort of accommodations need to be made towards Islam is because we need to identify RED LINES early on.

I have often been called an “Islamophobe” on this forum because of my insistence that Islam is a legitimate target for critique, analysis, attack, contempt, satire and scorn (CAACSS). But I think giving up on free speech is precisely the sort of accommodation we should NOT be making.

Yet there are people here who conflate a loathing for Islam with “racism” and want to, in some sense, outlaw it.

So what are the red lines? What are the accommodations that will NOT be made?

I’m not saying it’s easy. I am saying some sort of accommodation will have to be found or Australia will find itself in the same situation as Israel – a little outpost surrounded by a hostile Muslim region.

This becomes especially relevant because the great power on whom Australia has especially relied on for protection, the USA, is in RELATIVE DECLINE. The danger for Australia is that the US loses interest in the Asia-Pacific leaving Australia to fend for itself.

Let me say it again.

AUSTRALIA NEEDS TO BE REALISTIC ABOUT ITS POSITION IN THE WORLD AS THE ERA OF AMERICAN DOMINANCE DRAWS TO A CLOSE.

Steven,

As long as any 'accommodation' is completely in accord with the principles of a democratic society, perhaps variations on the way that people in that society usually conduct themselves, then there shouldn't be any complications. But to continue with your example, let's consider another hypothetical:

Imagine that a Muslim woman says to her husband (or daughter says to her father) that she wants to go 'outside' in ordinary street clothes, no burka, no jilbab. Suppose he says, "No, you will not." Where does the legal system stand - does it defend her right to dress as she wishes, or does it defend the husband/father's 'right' to restrain her inside the house, unless she dresses as he demands ? Does the offense of illegal confinement occur ? Can a husband or father, by virtue of being Muslim, have the power to order his wife to dress as he sees fit, and against her wishes ? Or will the legal system, in a nominal democracy which supposedly recognises equal rights of men and women, buckle, and prioritise 'culture' over democratic rights ?

Or have we already gone down too far down that path ? So what might be next ?

Joe

Loudmouth / Joe

The short answer is that a democratic state must support the right of a woman to dress in ordinary street clothes if that is what she wants.

Now try to give some substance to that right. I don’t know if it can be done.

What if exerting her right means she precipitates a bitter struggle in which she is estranged from her community and, possibly, from her children? These things are never easy. Mostly I expect Muslim women will convince themselves that they want to wear the niqab.

Another issue which may have to be considered is polygamy. In South Africa multiple wives are becoming if not common no longer rare. I forget how many wives President Zuma has.

In Australia’s nearest neighbor, Indonesia, men may legally take up to four wives though most do not.

As August Comte said, demography is destiny and nowhere is this more true than in a democracy. The time may soon come when eg control of the Senate depends on which way Muslims vote. The Greens seem keenly aware of this.

As the man said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYQZSDOWwww

Steven,

Yes, I agree with you, it would not be at all easy for such a woman to exercise those sorts of rights, in any inequitable 'cultural' group or one under the sway of a backward religious ideology. Ayelet Shachar has explored these difficulties in her book Multicultural jurisdictions:
cultural differences and women's rights (2001). Yes, it would very likely lead to her ostracism, even her expulsion from the community, perhaps the loss of her children, and worse. But the encompassing social and legal systems would have to support her, and protect her if necessary. I guess something like this arises all the time for girls and women who do not want to have their genitals mutilated, or to be forced into arranged marriages.

But does that mean that we have to abdicate any concern for the plight of women in these situations ? Should the state and its legal system turn a blind eye to the abuse of her rights, as a member of our nominally democratic society ? Or is that all just talk: those rights accrue only to other Australian women ? Should we warn women coming to Australia that the rights that they might have heard about won't be available to them, they can forget about it, their men will rule over them here just like in their home countries ?

Are the rights that Australians take for granted (more or less) differentially allocated on the basis of 'culture' and race ?

We are better than that, aren't we ? :)

Joe

Loudmouth / Joe

I need to make one point. I don’t know how much contact you’ve had with the Muslim community. If you think most Muslim women are desperate for a “Western” lifestyle you are mistaken. Many Muslims genuinely look down on “Western” women for the way they dress and are proud to wear traditional Muslim garb.

The niquab may make “Western” feminists twitchy but it’s not something that makes most Muslim women unhappy.

"Western" Lefties get their knickers in a knot about “Islamophobia” and Muslim leaders play them as skillfully as Yehudi Menuhin played the violin. But the reality is that many Muslims view “Western” society with what they regard as its pretensions with real contempt. They regard their Muslim society as very much the superior one.

The truth is that politically correct "Western" Leftie do-gooder airheads have not the remotest idea how derisory and downright foolish they appear to Muslim religious leaders.

I do not know how this is going to play out as the proportion of Muslims in the the Australian electorate increases and parties are compelled to vie for the Muslim vote.

To quote Niels Bohr, or maybe it was Yogi Berra, prediction is difficult, especially about the future.

Dear Steven,

Malaysia is an interesting case. Stridently Islamic, the Sharia courts do have jurisdiction of State Islamic laws covering the 60% who are Malay Muslims but not the other 40% of the population. They “can generally only pass sentences of not more than three years imprisonment, a fine of up to RM5,000, and/or up to six strokes of the cane.”

They also have Native Law Courts which have jurisdiction over native law and custom.

Their system understandably borrowed heavily on the British however trial by jury was banned after 1995.

Last year they commenced installing female judges into the Sharia Court system.

Perhaps as corrupt regimes are replaced, the need to go to a religious ruling class for their perceived incorruptible positives will diminish. The confidence that comes with the removal of persecution and demonisation, plus the gaining of stable democratic government, will possibly allow the sharia system to evolve into a form that will meet the expectations of younger generations and make it less of a concern to non-muslims in countries like Australia.

This is why I think as I do, and what I think.
Show me one Muslim country that would change ANY LAW to accommodate any migrant group.
Show me any Muslim country that would let me wander around in my usual dress beer in hand, being critical of them.
Show me the Muslim worlds accommodation for me.
My head would be taken off if I did those things.
Tell me,but do not say bigotry, how many Muslims who came here for a better life, no bigotry, live on welfare.
Those of us who believe in no God.
In truth the Muslim faith alone is growing, already the worlds biggest maybe its only faith soon.
Am I ok to know that?
Is it once it happens ok?
What form, the century's ago learning and highly cultured Muslim faith?
Or the changing evolving one we see in every religion.
One powered by hate in many cases.
As we look toward space and wounder how long it will be before we find intelligent life there.
I wounder if we will ever find it here
We say we should accommodate that religion.
Not in its country's,but in ours, we are in fact saying here is my culture take it.
Climb out of that PC box see the world as it is look at death starvation and whole peoples without true education or hope, other than in an after life that never will be.
Accommodation of just what future for my country and the world?

All,
Here’s a little snippet we should thoroughly digest before experimenting with Sharia:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prcs91.php

Steven,
I thought you were made of made of sterner stuff--I even had you pencilled-in for the lead roll in the upcoming OLO production of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqFWBNB2xfI

Now I’ll not so sure.

You’re sounding more like a natural for this roll:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxb0FGhs5GI

Belly wrote:

“Climb out of that PC box”

LOL,

I don’t think anyone has ever accused me of being in a PC box before.

BELLY, SPQR

I invite you both to climb into the REALITY BOX.

I ask you to consider the REALITIES of geography, demography and the Australian electoral system with senators being elected on a quasi-proportional representation system.

So what do you want to do?

--Bar Muslim immigration?

--Deprive Muslims of the vote?

--Ban the koran as Holland’s Geert Wilders has suggested.

As the proportion of Muslims in the population rises the Australian society will have to make some changes to accommodate them.

--You know it.

--I know it.

--Everybody who does not have his head buried in the sand knows it.

All I’m suggesting is that instead of the change "just happening" we start thinking now about how to manage it and what red lines to put in place.

Let’s have some REALISM.

Let's not kid ourselves.

IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE ACCOMMDATIONS FOR ISLAM.

To think otherwise is cloud-cuckooland stuff.

Steven

>> IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE ACCOMMDATIONS FOR ISLAM <<

You mean the same way we make allowances for Christianity in our schools, tax-breaks, in government and in being expected to regard Christians as somehow 'special' in a way that the rest of us aren't?

In one way or another we are going to learn to get along with each other - probably won't be in my lifetime or yours, but we cannot keep on giving special privileges to ANY religion and not expect others to want the same privileges.

Steven,
Firstly,I suspect you are mistaking the houiri-dreams of a few community gray beards and the wet dreams of their far left allies with the wishes of the (whole) “Muslim” community. I do not see any grassroots push for sharia—and see below a quote from my previous link:

“In 2004 the Canadian province of Ontario was planning to impose legally binding arbitration according to Islamic law. A furious debate followed led by Muslim women who argued that they had gone to Canada to get away from sharia law and the coercion it embodied. They won, and in February 2006 religious-based arbitration was ended. (p.6)”

Secondly, talk of our near neighbours in the region being Muslim is nonsense.
Outside the (with all due disrespect to Proud to Be Indonesian!)Javanese Empire and the Bumiputera Apartheid Republic.
Our near neighbours are largely Christian: New Guinea(both free and occupied parts), Vietnam , The Philippines & China (rapidly becoming so).
Buddhist : Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos & Burma.
India: largely Hindu
(Forget Bangladesh, its a basket case)

Thirdly, I'm beginning to think this might have more to do with Stevenlmeyer wanting to play devils advocate and tease the good folk of OLO, rather than a reality check, eh ?

You might be right, SPQR, Steven might be having a lend of us :)

Australia has a legal system which does not discriminate against, or favour, any particular group on the grounds of their ethnicity, religion, gender or age - at least, that's the formal position. No group is formally discriminated against, or formally favoured.

I am happy for anybody to come to Australia and contribute to our society (theirs and mine), within that framework. I'm excited about the future contributions of Indonesians and Sudanese and Hazara and Burmese, along with those of wonderful people from Vietnam and Greece and Chile and so many other countries - but all within the framework of equality before the law, and no favours for any particular group or individual.

And, Steven, I don't know that my little hypothetical is all that irrelevant, although I certainly take your point about the pride and dignity with which Muslim women may associate the many ways that they dress. But wait and see :)

Joe

Steven,
You have it right and have put the question fairly in the courts of all OLO posters. Is increasing numbers of muslims in Aus a future problem? If so what is to be done if anything?

The more muslims that enter the country the more political influence they will have to push their cultural practices and ideals. Some may not be aware that the UK had, at least, one government Minister in their previous government that was muslim and he spoke openly about the time the UK would have a muslim PM. This is what can be achieved when a group has sufficient numbers.

Does anyone think the current submission will be the last we hear of Sharia, Keysar Trad spoke about the vitrues of polygamy a couple of years ago. Hatal products are being introduced now. On page 10, I posted about a former Nigerian President prediction for Europe.

I would advocate Stevens first option and introduce discriminatory immigration. Not just specificly muslim but ban immigration of those groups that continue to cause us grief. Like those that carry out FGM, forced marriages, bring old hatreds with them and fight each other. Those that refuse to integrate and have poor social conduct, with no respect for or laws or social standards.

Like it or not, when a group reaches sufficient numbers they do have a dramatic influence on or culture and social life.

It is not good enough to simply say 'I don't like sharia' and continue with the same immigration policies.

BANJO

I am relieved there is at least one poster here who understands that I am NOT doing a wind up.

SPQR, Loudmouth / Joe

Wake up!

ESPECIALLY in a democracy, demography IS destiny. That goes double when there is an element of proportional representation as is the case in elections for the Australian Senate.

The idea that you can import a large number of Muslims and not make SOME accommodation to Islam is RIDICULOUS!

As AMMONITE points out, we already accommodate other religious groups – especially Christianity (no gay marriage!). Do you think Muslim leaders will tolerate their agenda being ignored as the proportion of Muslims grows?

Get your heads out of the sands.

BTW BANJO I do NOT think an immigration policy that discriminates against Muslims is a viable proposition for Australia. The closest you could come is to cut back on immigration generally.

Banjo I hope you do not walk away after Stevens wet dream.
While Muslims want to change our laws, more of them coming here is mixing road gravel in the Christmas pudding.
The hate taking us closer to war than most believe,will be believed all too soon.
After that,if we are not destroyed just maybe from within the Muslim world change Will come
Ignore those links to current English feelings at you peril.
And ignore if you must,the fact is religion is dying in the west and about to smother us in the name of yet another God.
If successful we step back in to the dark ages,and women to slavery.

steven seems to be fixation
on some sort of repricosity
as being due

quote..""IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE ACCOMMDATIONS FOR ISLAM.""

mate
do we make accomindations..to aborigonal law?
[they are near half a million]

their law makes much more sense
[its taught to them by egsample and cerimony
taught them as part of who they are..and what the land is]

see they KNOW..!..*we are insepperable/from the land
[we are a part of the land
like your hand is a part of your body]

land rights and civil rights are hand in hand
[this sepperationm of law...with infinite legal 'experts'

if much like a double Geo-perdy/jeoperdy?..
for those..who honour the true*laws...[respect]

see that a traditional{AB/origonal}..people..
KNOW'S..not to poop into water
or risk being banished..

but along comes whateman[white fella]
and says if you dont poop into the water
..your a savage..

[civil sociaty it seems..enjoys pooping in your waters]

look at how the law is
we needed no jails

you were affectivly outcast
and could only join/with other outcasts
but along comes what?man..and says your black and im right

they actually used the out-casts
to initiate a cast-system

we had no leaders
we acted by concensouse
if we didnt 100% agree..it wasnt on

but whitfella he made chiefs
says you the bossman...if they dont do what YOU say
we will lock the buggarse up..[we will police..you being THEIR boss]

what use to say sharia/more important
than the good of 'the way'[the ways name is..madayain]

meaning the whole system of law..
all the law

[property..criminal/economic/resource
/political/moral/religious/skin]

which all obey..[stand under]
the laws are there..to protect the land
[thus protecting the madayin..:people..flora/fauna]

the law id symbolicly upheld by simple process
the law is recited and held over all alike

the process wana-lupthun
is actually a communal baptism
where the traditional guadian..stands at the waters edge
holding the objects encoding the law..[abouve his/her head]

while this ritual is being done
the rest submerge*themselves..under the waters

the wana-lupthun rite...
signifies that ALL*
are under

the rule/lore/law..of madayin

NO ONE
IS ABOUVE IT

Belly,
I have no intention of walking away from my opinions. Steven is right, if we keep tha same immigration policies of non-discrimatory immigration, there will be more and more muslim political influence, simply by numbers. Then we will have to accomodate them in one form or another.

It has to be realized that there are some cultures that are not compatable with ours and each time we bend to accomodate the wants of another culture, we compromise our own. I blame multiculturalism for this situation. People like Grassby, Whitlam and Fraser should have known better. Fraser was warned by his own department about the Lebs.It is ideolodical stupidity to expect all the different cultures will get on. We may be tolerant, but others are not.

I have always advocated that we stop importing the groups that cause us grief, and I would not replace them with others as too many come now. If we want skilled workers, then train our own.

Banjo while very much solid Labor then and now, by default, Al Grassby!
One of my best political memory is of an ABC documentary filmed in Kings Cross Sydney.
Grassby was accosted by a bloke [I wish it was me]who said excuse me are you Grassby the heap of waste matirial stood to his full hight and proudly said yes, he was unimpressed wiith the blokes opinion of him.
A low note was Grassbys lie to help cover the Murder of Donald, McKay in Griffith, sorry his surname is not spelt right.
Bazz tell me why if we could not migrate to Muslim country's is it wrong to not want to import more trouble.
Be aware it is not us who need to accommodate.

Dear Banjo and Belly,

Given your arguments are echoing exactly those of the Australian's who were deeply antagonistic toward post-war Jewish migration and also given we adopted a Jewish religious court system in this country to support their culture and belief system, do you accept some of us are justified in viewing you as cut from the same cloth?

If not why not?

csteele,
I don't echo anyone, my thought are my own and I know nothing about any move against Jewish immigrants after WW11.

In relation to the jewish 'courts', as far as i can read and from what Steven and pericles have said, these are arbitration bodies and their findings are not law in Aus. Divorcees still have to obtain a civil divorce.

As i see it the submission currently before the parliamentry inquiry is submitting that certain aspects of Sharia be made law in Aus.

I suggest you read the media articles posted in this thread and note what the Islamic spokespeople said.

They said they do not recognise our civil divorces and it must be carried our religiously. That is putting sharia above our law which is not correct and something Aussies will nopt wear.

Interesting to note that in the inquiries that I have been part of, the submissions are not made public until after the inquiry is over. That being so, it is the Islamis people that have approached the media with the story and they obviously wanted it aired to gauge any level of support or to influence the inquiry.

Csteele,

If one can unscramble what you are aiming your ad hominems at, are you suggesting that the same people who were opposed to Jewish immigration after the War are in support of 'a Jewish religious court system in this country to support their culture and belief system' ? Who on earth are you talking about ? Who were/are these mythical people ?

A 'Jewish religious court system' does not necessarily conflict with the Australian legal system. Like the Christian churches' recognition of marriage, it may well be no more than icing on the cake, specifying provisions which accord with Jewish beliefs, easily accommodated within the overall framework of the existing Australian legal system.

In the Australian legal system, gay couples can enter into civil unions - it is up to churches to recognise whether or not they can also be married. Is that, or are Jewish religious court systems, in any way in conflict with - and do their rulings take any precedence over - the provisions recognised under Australian common and civil law, or not ?

Or are you trying to squeeze something out of nothing ?

Joe

Banjo

A few points about the “Jewish Courts”.

Suppose you and I enter into a contract. In the course of our commercial relationship we have a dispute. You decide to sue me. After the expenditure of huge legal fees you win. It is often a pyrrhic victory.

So suppose you and I get smart. We decide to avoid the(expensive) courts. We won’t make the lawyers rich. WE WRITE INTO THE CONTRACT that in the event of a dispute an arbitrator appointed by the Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) will adjudicate.

OK, suppose the arbitrator appointed by the LIV finds in your favour. I don’t like this and appeal to the courts. Unless the arbitrator’s decision violated a principle of Australian law the court will most likely uphold the decision EVEN IF THE JUDGE MIGHT HAVE REACHED A DIFFERENT DECISION.

In other words, having agreed to arbitration I’m stuck with the result. The judge won’t substitute his judgment for that of the arbitrator.

In some cases in England – I’m not aware of it happening here – contracting parties have said that the arbitrator should be a clerical court of some description. In these cases usually the decision of the clerical court – ACTING AS ARBITRATORS UNDER BRITISH LAW – is binding.

But the key points are:

--Both parties must have agreed that the clerical court can act as arbitrator. To borrow Pericles phrase it has to be an agreement between consenting adults.

--The clerical court is acting as an arbitrator under British law.

I suspect something like this must have been the case in the dispute between the Rabbi and his congregation that I am sure csteele will bring up.

Loudmouth / Joe

In Australia you are quite correct. Mostly the Jewish courts are involved in purely religious issues which the parties are free to ignore – just as a divorced Catholic may remarry with a civil ceremony.

The only exception I know of is in relationships between a Rabbi and his congregation. But again it is not clear what might happen if the congregation ignored the Jewish court's judgment.

Steven,
I am aware of that. It seems csteele is not.

I could have sworn that you explained it to him quite plainly.

No intention to offend, I truly think csteel is female.
While that may not be true my opinion about him/her are unshakable.
I am from the new left.
No Socialist left,Communist left, just left of the conservatives position they once held.
Before migrating to the tea party right.
Csteele lives in a past that was always not quite what it seemed,it promoted equality and human rights, but did nothing for either.
Those who bought about real change are the ancestors to the ALP/UNION movement.
We are no Friends of the Australian, or the shattered left now known as the greens.
Csteele cares little for the victims of Saudi Arabia, this mornings story of a woman activist arrested by that country's religious police, for daring to wish to learn to? drive a car!
Throw those verbal rocks at us ,heave them ,but understand both Liberal and Labor care more for human rights than the fraudulent left overs from a once proud movement.
Left has left its concerns for fairness long ago, it cares only to spoil now,you are doing well csteel.

Dear Banjo,

Don’t you read my posts?

You claim “In relation to the jewish 'courts', as far as i can read and from what Steven and pericles have said, these are arbitration bodies and their findings are not law in Aus.” Sure. Go tell that to the congregation of Rabbi Gutnick who now have to mortgage their synagogue and pay the court costs of the NSW Supreme Court.

The counsel for the congregation argued in the Supreme Court that because of their parlous financial state they had to let the good Rabbi go since to keep him and risk almost certain insolvency would be against the Corporations Law of Australia.

The Rabbi had claimed he had ‘lifetime tenure’. I get that the Pope has life tenure and it is used to a degree in our judicial system (at least to retirement age) but I would have thought it was an alien concept to Australians for other offices.

The NSW judge agreed with the arguments put by the Rabbi’s side and added he felt the case could be adjudicated more “efficiently” through the Jewish Court System.

Here is the kicker, the London Beth Din found that ““there are clear Halachic grounds for a claimant to recover his costs from a defendant, where, after a defendant has refused to attend a Din Torah for the resolution of a dispute, the claimant has taken action in the civil courts”. The Beth Din found that “we are satisfied on the basis of the correspondence of the parties… that the Rabbi made repeated requests for a Din Torah and the Synagogue bluntly refused to attend.” The Beth Din found that “the Rabbi is entitled to recover the costs of the Court proceedings from the Synagogue”.

So because the congregation had refused to have the matter heard in a religious court in Australia they were taken to a civil court within NSW and forced to front up to the overseas version and pay for the privilege.

Dear Loudmouth,

To clarify, the ‘we’ are those reasonable types who are proud of the compassion and accommodation shown to post-war Jewish immigrants including the allowing a form of Jewish religious courts within our country. We wish to continue being proud.

Dear Belly,

Why would thinking someone was a female be offensive unless you thought it was a lesser state?

csteele,
You are whistling in the wind.

Just because one party in a dispute decides to use our civil courts does not make the Jewish court in Aus able to rule on matters of law. I say again, jewish couples seeking divorce must do so in our civl courts. Only our courts have authority to rule on law in Aus. Other bodies may arbitrate or mediate but only our courts can rule on law.

The submission by AFIC is requesting that certain aspects of Sharia be made law in Aus. This would be a fundemental change to our judicial system and must be resisted at all cost. I hope the Attorney Generals view is retained.

csteel no not in my mind but maybe yours?
Can you tell me want you want for women in the Muslim world.
Or what you think of the Sharia law that has seen women publicly hanged from a cherry picker in Iran, in front of thousands.
View please on death by stoning sentences.
A child born out of wedlock can not inherit ok with that.
My best mates,two dogs at my feet are unclean, could be shot for entering the wrong yard that ok.
Do you practice a religion, does it want to run every part of your life.
OK is it to turn a sporting Field in to a public execution place and pack it with screaming watchers, new sport?