Oh Steele, you wish to argue? I do enjoy baffling you:P

This is a simple issue to resolve. Those who want to live under Sharia Law can move home. Oh, your country is so screwed up you don't want to live there. Well to bad. We don't want our country to end up like yours.

This issue is now a mainstream groupthink project, beautifully orchestrated and led by the Murdoch's love of dog-whistle journalism. Witness today's Op-ed leader in The Australian: "Goodbye to rights under Sharia".

Carefully ignoring the facts of the case, we have been offered a smorgasbord of "reactions", to what is, effectively, a classic straw man.

The target of these "reactions", from such thought-leaders as David Flint, is the assertion that "the application of sharia would mean winding back the rule of law" - which does not even form part of the proposal.

But it allows a whole raft of attack-dogs to parade their self-righteousness, oblivious to the fact that they are simply being used as circulation-fodder by the Murdoch machine.

Personally, it doesn't bother me in the slightest if a religious group chooses to make its own decisions on property settlements, custody of children etc., which form the backbone of the suggestions so far. No mention of public canings (which was the subject of the photograph accompanying the article!), no mention of public beheadings, the stoning of rape victims etc. So long as all parties involved consent to the decisions, and these decisions are not against the laws of Australia, they can do whatever their religion dictates.

But this is not the ground upon which The Australian wishes us to debate. They bring out every dog-whistle they can, revolving around one sterling paragraph that carefully constructs the ugliest of straw-men.

"With luck, this might rule out the introduction of public canings or beheadings under an Australian version of sharia. It might also prevent Australian rape victims being stoned to death..."

This ensures that their readership believes these to be, in fact, the proposals under discussion. And, I am sure, will be the playing-field upon which the various whack-a-mozzie groups have their fun and games.

Watch this space.

yeah, Pericles, 'watch this space' for the islamophiles to come up with some 'reasons' why we should welcome a mediaevil set of laws and why we should be glad to do so.

csteele
The post was potentially a flaming torch. There is always a risk when criticising a religion whether it be Christian or Islam that one is going to be described as villifying or racist. Much more honesty is required around certain practices that transcend issues of race, religion or culture, and which focus squarely on human rights.

There are very valid reaons for some of the concerns about Sharia Law. Some aspects have a little more impact than helmet wearing legislation.

The fact is if you have a law that is exclusively for Muslims (as in the example relating to divorce) there is a strong risk that one or both parties in the relationship may not enjoy those same protections as other Australians. Who gets to decide which law to follow given that some Muslims may wish to opt for the standard practice and not one that is confined to those of the Muslim faith. Is that partner going to be forced to submit to a law that actively discriminates against them?

I added my second comment because clearly not all Muslims are advocates of Sharia Law and it is wrong to lump all Muslims into the same basket. Many aspects of Sharia Law have nothing to do with the Koran nor with Islam, it is purely cultural practices from which many Muslims have fled.

How can one create a harmonious and integrated society without a uniform legislature?

Fact is Lexi it is already being used.
That story in todays paper quoted Trad and other Muslim leadership telling us it was in use.
Last night,watching a documentary about unrest in the middle east this was a reminder.
Standard greeting was used gives name to only God and his propert ,so entrenched in every day life is this religion it rules every thing. .
How does this settle with our belief every religion has equal rights.
And what other religions want to have separatist laws.
The whole concept of multiculturalism is bought to its knees if it also wants separation.
What is the end game,the reason we expose our selves to problems not usual in our country.