Sorry, pelican, but you cannot convince me that this is anything more than an opportunity for another gratuitous swipe at a Muslims, grasped by the populist media with both grubby hands.

>>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.<<

If that is seen as such a problem, please explain this:

http://bethdin.org.au/

"Since its inception in 1905, the Sydney Beth Din has been recognised as one of the pre-eminent rabbinic courts in the world. It serves Jewish communities in Australia, New Zealand and Asia as a forum for obtaining Jewish divorces, converting to Judaism, confirming personal status and adjudicating disputes stemming from divorce, business and community issues."

It's been operational for over a hundred years, for heaven's sake.

And what about this?

http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/report-31

"Aboriginal people must have the final say in the negotiation and consultation surrounding the recognition of customary law... "

As you look through the document, you will find much that is in common with both Beth Din and Sharia. Rules about property settlements, for example. Here's a clip from the intestacy provisions:

"...a narrow, fixed interpretation of next of kin may be wholly inappropriate in the Aboriginal context. The Aboriginal kinship system may include persons who are not blood relations at all (as distinct from classificatory relations), and yet there may be important obligations and rights existing between the deceased and such a person."

So although the "laws" of Australia provide a framework for people who die intestate, is it not reasonable to accept that the rigid definition of blood relations be re-examined in the light of specific tribal custom?

And this is the sort of thing we are talking about here.

Not public beheadings, as The Australian would have us believe.

Dear pelican,

I’m supporting Pericles on this.

I will add the powers of the Australian Building and Construction Commission to interrogate, fine and imprison uncooperative workers is an example of laws that target one specific group. Yet many Liberal and National party voters do not have a problem with them.

I find the compulsory genital mutilation practiced by the Jewish faith to be a bit more than just problematic. It doesn’t fit the criteria of doing no harm to others.

I am not challenging your concerns about Sharia but a blanket ‘One law’ for all does not reflect the current status quo. If you run that line then to be consistent you must be prepared to ask that the indigenous and Jewish courts be disbanded and that turbaned Sikhs be banned from motorcycles.

Perhaps it would be more fruitful to look at ways of accommodating other practices within a robust legal framework that clearly states its absolutes. If there are aspects of Sharia or Jewish law that are incompatible with these absolutes then so be it, they need to be modified to comply.

Don’t forget the Mormons were willing to give up polygamy for admission to the Union. However unfair dismissal laws are not so sacrosanct, even outside the States.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/51586759-180/court-church-european-case.html.csp

Pericles and csteele you both make some robust and valid points worth thinking about more deeply.

My difficulty with is envisioning a State where different rules apply to different people on substantially important issues. Religious observances are not new such as many Christians who cannot work on Saturdays or some faiths who do not eat pork, these are matter clearly of no concern to others and cause no harm.

I had no idea about Rabbinic Courts. It would be interesting to know if there is a 'way out' clause for either party who might wish to go through the Australian Court system or who might not be satisfied with the outcome of the 'Gett'. The dissolving of a marriage might need a religious sanction but there are other issues in relation to property and children.

It might work if there are limitations within those arrangements compatible with Australian Law; and that reduce the possiblity of treatments that would otherwise be unacceptable - similar to those comments made by csteele as follows:

"Perhaps it would be more fruitful to look at ways of accommodating other practices within a robust legal framework that clearly states its absolutes. If there are aspects of Sharia or Jewish law that are incompatible with these absolutes then so be it, they need to be modified to comply."

Pericles I am not worried about beheadings or stonings - I reckon proposals of that nature would not be made in the first place nor would they be seriously considered.

I do hope that our Law does not diminish in relation to some religious practices but rather favour of broader human rights such as in the case of FGM.

Some Mormon sects in America and other Christian sects do flaut the law in relation to polygamy and under-age marriages and while this debate is not about that, it speaks to wider concerns about what is considered acceptable within the wider legal framework.

"I will add the powers of the Australian Building and Construction Commission to interrogate, fine and imprison uncooperative workers is an example of laws that target one specific group. Yet many Liberal and National party voters do not have a problem with them."

Well we agree on that one. How an organisation was ever allowed to hold those powers is beyond rational thinking. But still the ALP has not dissolved those powers. I would argue though that this sort of legislation is easily overturned unlike other pieces of legislation that once embodied and accepted into practice would be difficult to reverse even if there were proof of any systemic wrongdoing.

The Intervention is another policy that required special exemptions under Racial Discrimination Legislation, so I do understand that these universal rights are not always universally observed, but that does not make it right.

I guess it comes down to rational debate on a case by case basis and how any flexibility might be accommodated within the understanding of certain fundamental rights and with 'way out' options for participants of those faiths.

Let me put a slightly different take on this.

Two people, call them X and Y, enter into a commercial contract. They write into the contract that all disputes are to be settled through arbitration by a sharia court in accordance with the principles of sharia law.

A dispute arises over an amount of, say, $1 million. X and Y duly appear before the sharia court which finds in favour of X. The court orders Y to pay X $1 mn.

Note that this is a purely financial matter. There is no question of beheading or stoning or anything of the sort.

Y refuses to accept the verdict of the sharia court and appeals to the secular courts. What should the secular courts do?

It seems to me that under these circumstances, unless the sharia court verdict in some way violates specific principle of Australian law, the secular court should enforce the verdict of the sharia court. All the secular court is doing in that case is enforcing a contract that is binding under Australian law. The secular court should not be acting as a substitute arbitrator.

Now this assumes that X and Y are equal parties who entered into a contract freely. There was no compulsion on either party.

When it comes to marriage or divorce I do not think an agreement to abide by the decision of a sharia court in a marriage contract should be binding. Realistically, while there may be no outright coercion involved there could have been string family and community pressure on the weaker party – usually the woman – to sign such a contract.

But if two EQUAL parties agree in advance to allow a sharia court to settle their differences then that is their choice.

I do not even see how this would require any special legislation. Muslims who were so minded could do this right now.

In fact even non-Muslims could enter into such a contract if they wanted.

Just loved Bugsy's analysis

“It's been canned …next!”

Such naïve certitude!

(A bit like saying China's agreed to curb its CO2 emissions--
“yep,right, that's fixed then!”)

I’m tipping we haven’t heard the end of the call for Sharia.

Sooner or later some reddish–greenish coalition will discover that denying Sharia runs contrary to multiculturalism dogma, or some obscure UN covenant that we signed 60 years ago. So they'll give it the nod.(who needs “overwhelming public support" when you have such moral high authority!)

Firstly, we'll likely see it in a small way with private contracts and bequests--the public beheadings and blasphemy courts will follow later--but, not too much later!