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