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