Foxy as usual you are trying to take a middle ground and look on the
matter with the kindest of eyes.
However, this is not the place for it this time.
Sharia; A woman's word in evidence is worth only half of a man's evidence.
If a woman is to prove rape she has to find four men to give evidence.
If she cannot she is considered to be an adulterous and the punishment is death.
They do not always execute her for that but imprisonment is common.
What chance do you think that gives her.
In Europe at present it would be the four men who raped her.

Dearest Foxy,

You' re absolutely right:

"I think that what Senator Lambie was trying to point out was that in this country we have one system of law that we are all expected to abide by. Religious laws have no legal status. We are a secular State."

Uncanny ! Almost by chance, I put this up on another thread:

"As an atheist, I suggest that one can interact with other people .... regardless of whether or not one has a religious backing. Of course, we need to be tolerant and open to other people (except to those who are INtolerant) and to try to understand where they are coming from.

That certainly does not mean that we have to be silent about injustices done to our fellow-Australians merely by virtue of their gender, as (perhaps I'm wrong ?) Yassmin Abdel-Magied seemed so ready to gloss over on Monday's Q & A.

Thanks to our general system of law, which applies to and for everyone (or should), women formally have the same rights as men. That certainly cannot be said, as Yassmin tried to assert, about the situation for women in Muslim countries. When women there can:

* wear whatever they like, whenever they like,

* when FGM and honor killing have been extinguished from the face of the earth, and

* when women can leave the house without getting a man's permission, or having to be accompanied by a male relative,

* when they can drive alone and

* when they can study anything they like at university,

then we can start to talk about Islam and its links to feminism. Any other prattle may well be simply a manifestation of a lifelong Stockholm Syndrome."

I'm gobsmacked that, as far as I can tell, no Australian feminist has had the courage to rebut any of Ms Abdel-Magied's assertions. What on earth did any of them ever sign up for ? What vapid pretence of feminism do they support these days ?

They could all learn a lot from Senator Lambie. God, I never thought I would ever write that.

Joe

Dear Bazz,

I've consistently stated on this forum that I
firmly believe if a person wants to live under
sharia law there are countries where they might feel
at ease. But not in Australia. We are asking all
the people of this country to subscribe to a framework
that can protect the rights and liberties of all.
We have a robust tolerance of difference in our society.
But to maintain this tolerance we have an agreed
framework which will protect protect the rights and
liberties of us all. Therefore there is an institutional
framework - one law we are all expected to abide by.
It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the
Australian Constitution.

Dear Joe,

I quite like Jacqui Lambie.I Have done from the beginning.
She's a straight shooter and we certainly could use more
straight shooters in our Parliament who have the courage
to put the interests of their electorate and the nation
above those of their party's political agendas or their
own ambitions.

Peter Costello in his Memoirs wrote:

"My eighteen years in Parliament - in Opposition and in
Government - have confirmed me in the conviction, formed
in my youth, that politics, for all its rough edges, is a
civilised and civilising calling. Despite all the obloquy
shovelled on the head of politicians, they are men and
women who work the machinery of our liberal democratic
way of life. They reflect public opinion - and at their
best lead public opinion - and transmute it into laws
that shape our society and our country."

Sharia or Jewish law in the west only applies where all parties in dispute agree to having it. It doesn't apply to crimes but only to personal agreements.
".. whether the Australian legal system, at this point in time, should give limited recognition to Shariah law in resolving disputes between Muslim Australians. Could we recognise and
endorse the authority of Imams or Islamic scholars, boards or tribunals to make determinations in accordance with Islamic legal norms in the resolution of family, inheritance and other inter-personal disputes between Muslims in this country? As is evident from the Archbishop’s ( of Canterbury) statement, Australia is not alone .."_ Uni Qld.

On The White Knights of Islam,
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/marginoferr/2014/10/17/4-fictional-arguments-that-the-liberal-defenders-of-islam-have-thoroughly-debunked/#disqus_thread

Sharia law is in its very nature sexist, homophobic and religiously intolerant.

Australian law must always take precedence. Someone can agree to submit to sharia law, but should always be allowed to change their minds later.

Similarly the Burqa is the most powerful symbol of the oppression of women, and religious extremism.