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.