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.