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?