Already the muslim issue is restricting free speech

Hell hath no fury like a HKM scorned.

Record show Mr Patel & AFIC they have done some good things for Australia in the past. They passed a motion in Congress to Ban Live Exports & lobbied the Australia Government to work toward opening more Abattoirs in Australia to create jobs and value add.

In hind site on that issue the Federal Government given the present circumstances many now wish they had listened.
But then the question *has to be asked was the plan always to Ban Live Exports Mr Patel to introduce Sharia law or did something change
in the past months. Mr Patel as records show has always supported stunning - so why the unexpected change & was the change fully backed by AFIC members of committee?

Recent media report show this man arguing with RSPCA over ritual slaughter. So if Mr Patel now says it was a mistake to mention Sharia law for Australia as the article above indicates- one would have thought he had withdrawn his position on demanding ritual slaughter yes?

Apparently not so according to this story -

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3247274.htm

morganzola,

I can say with authority that HKM has never supported ritual slaughter & never will.
As I have pointed out in earlier post there seems to have been it would appear a change in position with Mr Patel on that aspect.
It is important that all AFIC members and associate members now make themselves clear on their position as a council- yes.

We are now are AFIC have accredited among others MLA with their own brand of Halal meat which is ritual slaughtered.

Further more TV radio, newspaper, reports by Mr Patel have demanded The Minister pay 2million $ to Mr Patel for the HKM programe. This is of course a surprise & concern & very much in need of getting a full councils position on ritual slaughter.

If your not careful you risk having Yabbys pick up that for some it would appear the first agenda isn't to help the Animals.
Our position is we do not support ritual slaughter & support RSPCA 100% in their move to ban it from Australia.

Now Mr Patel did say it was a mistake - ok fair enough but then he gave interviews opposing RSPCA on ritual slaughter.

So it really isn't clear what he or the members board are saying because it seems to chang

It's nice to see an extremist Islamist lobby group make bare-faced lies to further its cause;

When the evidence suggests that pendering to specific fundamentalist Islamic sensibilities fosters a stronger extremist sub-community and more sidelined moderate community (UK), while INFRINGING on fundamentalist sensibilities actually discourages fundamentalists from coming to or staying in the countries that enforce them (France, Denmark), and if handled right, strengthens moderate hegemony (Turkey).

If anything we should explicitly do the opposite of what that mob wants from us.

Dear Kerryanne,

I read the article in 'The Australian," where Mr Patel admits he made a mistake by bringing in the word "Sharia." He says that he was after legislation that would help Muslim women regarding their rights in a divorce. He also mentioned Halal meat and financial matters.

Regardless of what Mr Patel says and whether he is to be believed or not Australia has a secular government and no official or state religion. Religious laws have no legal status in Australia and I can't see that changing.

The divorce laws for example to which Mr Patel refers, are those laws enacted by Parliament. The process of divorce and related matters, such as custody of children and the settlement of property arrangements can only be done in accordance with the laws passed by the Australian Parliament. Therefore Sharia Law is totally unnecessary to protect Muslim women in this country as Mr Patel suggests.

All Australians are entitled to the protection of these laws - and there is no need for any religious laws to take their place.
I'm sure that with time Mr Patel will have to learn to accept this and explain things to his fellow colleagues at the Islamic Council.
Many of whom probably were surprised by his action in this matter.