It seems that “sack-clad” Muslims have twigged that they can avoid showing respect for Australian courts (by not standing) if they arrive AFTER the magistrate is seated.

This occurred in a Melbourne court the day after a group of burka-swaddled supporters of a defendant were lectured the previous day (no penalty, as applied by another magistrate recently) for not acknowledging the supremacy of the court the day before.

People entering a court after the magistrate or judge is seated are expected to pause briefly and bow towards the bench. Ten to one they didn't even extend that courtesy, either.

It's getting away with defiant acts like this that is gradually eroding any chance authorities have of pulling people who hate our culture into line, and proving to Muslims that they can get us to wear ourselves down “by our own hand” as promised.

Dear Ttbn,

Nobody can show respect if they don't have any.
What you are trying to do is to promote fear, rather than respect.
At best you are trying to promote hypocrisy.
If you want people to love your culture, then try to prove its merits.

Yuyutsu,

I am not trying to promote "fear" or " hypocrisy". I am doing nothing. The LAW requires people attending court to stand when magistrates and judges enter. And, if people do not respect our laws and culture, they should not be here. We don't have to prove anything. However, I do recognise the fact that you do not respect Australian culture. You never stop telling us that.

Dear Ttbn,

«The LAW requires people attending court to stand when magistrates and judges enter.»

It is not "The" law, it is Your law.

Now some people discovered a peaceful way around it - good on them!

So long as they are peaceful, you have no rights over them.
By making those demands on others, you are the one who is not peaceful.

«if people do not respect our laws and culture, they should not be here»

Simply because you do not like those who do not do as you tell them. You really think that you own this place, this continent and this planet...

«I do recognise the fact that you do not respect Australian culture»

Why, there are aspects that I do respect and others that I don't. What has this to do with anything?

What I do not respect is oppression, telling others how they must live.

There's the Law of 18c.
And crims in suits who bow to the magistrate after chopping up their family.
"s 24 Local Court Act 2007. contempt of court committed in the face or hearing of the court: s 24(1).

Examples of contempt include:

abusing and swearing at a magistrate:

refusing to answer questions:

refusing to take the oath or give evidence:

refusing to leave the court when directed:

Generally, rudeness and even extreme discourtesy by legal practitioners, will not be considered to be contempt:"
-
Muslims who refuse to stand do it from belief that Muhammed said not to stand for him , so they don't do it for anyone , not even Kevin or Julia . Can't stand them.

Before entering a mosque visitors are asked to
take off their shoes. This is a sign of respect.
If you have a strong objection to walking in
your socks, don't enter the mosque.

Before coming to Australia you will be asked to
subscribe to certain values. If you have strong
objections to those values, don't come to
Australia.

We have laws in this country that we are all expected
to abide by. Therefore respecting Australian laws
and customs such as standing for a magistrate or
judge should be non-negotiable.

Any attempt to placate recalcitrant hot heads by
giving in to their unreasonable demands will only
lead to greater shows of disrespect and noncompliance.
People who exploit the freedoms of this nation to follow
their own ideology have the gall to demand we respect their
belief system while they deride our values. Refusing to
stand in court may seem trivial to some but it speaks of
an attitude that must not be tolerated or ignored.
There is nothing to be gained and plenty to be lost by
tolerating abhorrent attitudes in the interests of
cultural or religious diversity.

This not standing in court is such a problem in NSW
the the government has proposed a new law where the
penalty will be up to 14 days in jail and a $1100 fine.

I would simply ask those who refuse to stand - to
leave the courtroom. No ifs or buts. And if they refuse
to leave they will be escorted out by security guards.

"All stand"
"Why isn't the accused murderer standing?"
"He's Muslim , your wiggy pomposity almighty "
"All right then, he won't stand eh? Send him out. Go away , mossie. get lost"
"Yes I will"
( trot trot trot..)

No. Not trot, trot, trot.
But, Clang, Clang, Clang back
to the cell.

Judge hops onto horse , blows bugle , calls fox hounds.

And where oh where are the sheriffs and the bailiffs?

Dear Foxy,

«Before coming to Australia you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values, don't come to Australia.»

This is a play on words:

'Australia' can mean both the continent and the society/state.

Of course, if one wants to come to the latter then one has to agree to that society's values. Not so when one only wants to come to the former. No society has a moral right to control entry into such a huge section of the planet, the whole of one of God's continents. It is an abuse of power!

Yuyutsu writes:
“Of course, if one wants to come to the latter [society/state] then one has to agree to that society's values. Not so when one only wants to come to the former [the continent].”

Wrong.
There is no option to just arrive in the continent and ignore everything else.
We don’t allow caliphates here.

Yuyutsu writes:
“No society has a moral right to control entry into such a huge section of the planet […]”

Sure they do. It’s called sovereignty.

Dear Dustin,

I know what it is called, but it is immoral.

Only God is sovereign.

Now I have not mentioned caliphates at all, nor has anyone else on this thread: only good people who wish to live their lives in this continent peacefully without hurting anyone. Caliphates too are immoral.

Yuyutsu,

It is hard to believe that you are serious. If you are serious you have my deepest sympathy.

Dear Yuyutsu,

What on earth are you on about now.

Religion instructs its adherents on faith, morals,
and conscience. But there isn't a separate stream
of law derived from religious sources that
competes with or supplants Australian law in
governing our civil society. The source of our law
is the democratically elected legislature.

There are countries that apply religious or sharia
law - Saudi Arabia comes to mind. If people want to
live under sharia law these are countries where they
might feel at ease. But not Australia.

A person who does not acknowledge the supremacy of
civil law laid down by democratic processes should
not come to Australia. This is not optional.
We are asking all our citizens to subscribe to
a framework that can protect the rights and liberties
of all. The rule of law is necessary for us all to live
in cohesion.

Terrorists and those who support them do not acknowledge the
rights and liberties of others - the right to live
without being maimed, the right to live without being
bombed and as such they forfeit the right to live in this
country. Yes Australia is a continent. But it is an
inhabited one with a system of government and a system of
laws. If you are fortunate enough to have been accepted into
this country - you have to agree to abide by its laws.

Why on earth would we defend the rights of foreigners who refuse to respect our laws or show respect in our courts?
Doesn't make any sense to me.

In the lifetime of the wrinkly members , there were problems with mixed marriage. Prod and Catholic families refused to recognise the lawfullness or social acceptance of couples who deviated . By law the head of state had to be non-Catholic. In UK the English crown is not given respect by many in N Ireland or Wales for different reasons .
Is standing up when a judge walks into a court so essential when pollies shout insults at the leaders in the House?

Yuyutsu Quote "Only God is sovereign." There is the problem to the Muslims Mohamed is God, so they don't stand for anyone but him.

Personally I don't agree with standing for the magistrate etc, it is a sign of subservience admitting the other is greater than you, same as I would not bow or curtsy or whatever is done to royalty.

These people are not better than me or any other person, so why should people have to show subservience.

You idiots - go into a court one day and just shut up until you do. The respect is mutual! The magistrate enters and then bows to the assembled people who bow back. If the Magistrate does it to us we should do it back to them. If you do not want to then stay away. If some filth thinks it is clever to disrespect the Magistrate he should give them a two year sentence, cancel legal aid for them and send them to another court. Take a cent off these bludgers and that will soon bring them to heel!

Dear Philip S.,

You ask why should anyone have to bow to anyone else?

Simply as a customary sign of respect. You are in
court for a reason. And the judge or magistrate is
there to decide your fate. You bow to acknowledge
his position.

For Muslims it is required to take off your shoes
before entering a mosque.

In some cultures young people bow or curtsy to older
people as a sign of respect.

It seems that some people would strip us of all signs of courtesy, dignity and decorum. Simple are manners sneered at these days.

Muslims are not stripping anyone . Although you may need to salute when you join their army:
Should Pakistan ex-army chief lead Islamic military alliance? - BBC ...
www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39525449
Apr 9, 2017 - ... Pakistani army General Raheel Sharif salutes as he inspects a military ...

Foxy - How many people do you bow or curtsy to every day, I suspect the answer is none so does that mean you do not respect anyone?

I don't but I have respect for others.

Foxy,

Stop it! If I find myself agreeing with you all the time, who will I have to argue with?

Al-Baqra Verse No:34
2:034 Khan:

"And (remember) when We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves before Adam.". And they prostrated except Iblis (Satan), he refused and was proud and was one of the disbelievers (disobedient to Allah)."
Catholics and Prostratants can bow down flat on the floor with angels which could take a while in crowded courtrooms but at least it's not with Satan.

Dear Foxy,

First, please leave out the Shariah/Islam/terror bits: having had that many conversations between us in the past, you should be quite aware that I do not support any of that, also that I acknowledge and strongly support the rights and liberties of others, including to live without being maimed or bombed. I oppose the Saudi "sovereign" control over the Saudi peninsula in the same manner that I oppose the Australian "sovereign" control over this continent.

When I mentioned the sovereignty of God, I did not mention any laws, certainly not any man-made laws who attempted to represent God. We have discussed the issue of laws in the past, where we seem to disagree. We could also discuss religion some other time, but right here and now my issue was with sovereignty and I rather keep to that topic.

«A person who does not acknowledge the supremacy of civil law laid down by democratic processes should not come to Australia.»

My claim has nothing to do with the incidental fact that Australian law happens to be civil and democratic, but rather, what right has a group of people - any group regardless of their religion or culture, to block the way and dictate who else and/or under which conditions, may enter one's of God's blessed continents?

«We are asking all our citizens to subscribe to a framework that can protect the rights and liberties of all.»

Fair enough, but now you are talking about "citizens", which is an internal affair within your society/group. I am not inclined to interfere, but what I was referring to was the relations between your particular group and other people.

«The rule of law is necessary for us all to live in cohesion.»

It seems that you have a goal to live in cohesion. This is fine within your own group, assuming everyone in your group wants the same.

The rule of law might perhaps be necessary for cohesion, but it is not necessary for us all to live in peace. I rather live in peace.

Dear Ttbn,

Thank you for the sympathy.

BTW, I am all in favour of courtesy, dignity, decorum and good manners.

---

Dear JBowyer,

I have every respect to a Magistrate as an individual, made in the image of God. I just have no respect for what they represent - the power of the state.

Dear Philip S.,

I work part-time as a volunteer in an aged-care
facility. There is a wide mix of nationalities
there. I bow to many of the elderly ladies on a regular basis
usually accompanied by words that I have learned
from them like, "Buona sera," or "Yassou,"
or "dzien dobry," or "Zdravstvuyte."
And I get some lovely endearments in return accompanied
by great big smiles.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I feel that we have more in common than we probably
realise. Still I'm sure that there will be times
when we shall still disagree on things. But that's
what makes it interesting.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I respect your opinion.

I have no wish to argue with you.

It's all fairly simple really. You're not standing to show your respect for the presiding member of the judiciary, rather it's what he or she represents. Not the individual, though some individual members of the judiciary, might like to think it's all about them? It's our laws that preserve good order, equity, and the egalitarian standards for our nation, that's what we all must respect. If not, we should seek to have those laws repealed of amended, through the peaceful processes of Parliament.

"I bow to many of the elderly ladies on a regular basis
usually accompanied by words that I have learned
from them like, "Buona sera," or "Yassou,"
or "dzien dobry," or "Zdravstvuyte."
Excellent . If they demand a bow when you enter their chamber is that a part of your duty? A crim could bow to Your Honour and mutter "Fifty grand in the brown envelope" . Lawful people obey laws without regular bowing and who bows to the arm of the law - the guy with the breathalyzer ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

«You're not standing to show your respect for the presiding member of the judiciary, rather it's what he or she represents»

But how is this possible?

How can anyone possibly show their respect for someone/something which they do not respect?

It's a bit like asking someone to show you the money when they have none - all they could show you is their empty pockets...

Yuyutsu,
If you have no respect for our country or society you should find another country in which to live. We are very tolerant to put up with you. You are the complete hypocrite.

Foxy,
What's wrong? I am in agreement with your first post on this thread.

If one can't accept our laws and rules of our society they should not be allowed here. In a nutshell, that is why I believe we should stop importing those groups that have shown they cannot or will not accept our laws and values. For example, we respect females as equals and do not allow FGM and underage marriage. To stand when a judge enters the court simply shows respect for our laws. Its about time we told those to 'go elsewhere' if they dislike how we do things.

It is our country and we should be more decisive about who can come here and who cannot.

Hi there YUYUTSU...

Are you actually saying you have no respect for the laws of our Country? I find that to be an extraordinary statement to make? Australia is by far, the very best Nation on earth in which to reside without a shadow of a doubt! I must admit, you really do surprise me YUYUTSU?

Dear O Sung Wu,

Australia is indeed by far the best place to reside, but what I wrote is not specifically about Australia. As I live here, I write my views in an Australian forum, but had I lived elsewhere (where I was still allowed the freedom of expression), then I would have written the same in the equivalent forum there.

Banjo wants me to go find another country, but there is currently no such country on this planet whose laws are worthy of respect. At the moment, every single country operates along the same lines of coercion, enforcing its laws over innocent, peaceful people who were never even asked whether or not they wish to be part of all that. This includes people whose only "crime" was to be born there. Under such circumstances, how can any decent person respect such laws?

Dear Yuyutsu,

What you are talking is utter nonsense.

When two cars come to a crossroads they
can't both go through at the same time.
We have to have laws of behaviour so that
we can all be safe. And those laws apply to
you as well whether you recognise their
legitimacy of not. If everyone behaved
according to how they liked - there would
no be any cohesion but chaos.

Judges don't make many Laws , the MPs do and this Forum is banging away at them with contempt. If bowing was the proof of being lawful then we would refer to the "Honourable member" and bow in the street to them or at least in Parliament's gallery

I'm sorry YUYUTSU, without our laws, we have anarchy, and chaos. I will admit some of our laws are somewhat anachronistic, and therefore should be repealed and updated, though without them, we have a climate of pandemonium and disarray.

For you to gather some understanding of our legal system, it would be best if you obtain a basic introduction into jurisprudence, that should acquaint you sufficiently with a better comprehension and understanding of the foundations and philosophy of our legal system?

"some of our laws are somewhat anachronistic, and therefore should be repealed" especially the laws of English language which cause chaos and damage children. Yuyutsu observes the letter of the law when expressing his impeccable syntax and phrasing without his opinion on the language being requested by editors of Oxford Dictionary and judges should bow to his eloquence.

Dear O Sung Wu and Foxy,

«without our laws, we have anarchy, and chaos»

"Anarchy" simply means the absence of control and it's a moral imperative that nobody should control another against their will.

On the other hand, we are afraid of chaos, so what to do?

The solution is, for all those who dislike chaos to consensually agree to organise themselves appropriately into group(s) where chaos is minimised (it is not possible to eliminate chaos completely). These agreements may include [but should not be limited to] laws - but these laws will only apply to that specific group which is in agreement, rather than arbitrarily to anything that walks on two. I predict that at least 99.99% of all people, once consulted in person and given due respect and a true choice, would happily embrace such arrangements.

What about the others and about other groups? Just use common sense!

If they attack or threaten members of your group (but not otherwise), then your group can defend itself. If necessary, as a last resort, this could mean sending a bullet through their head, but in any case you don't take them to your courts as they are not subject to your laws.

Notice the subtle line: you are acting in SELF-DEFENCE, which is your sole legitimate excuse: you have no hidden agenda to control, educate, "rehabilitate" or otherwise bring others to follow your system of order: you merely take those steps that are reasonably necessary for protecting yourself and your group.

«that should acquaint you sufficiently with a better comprehension and understanding of the foundations and philosophy of our legal system?»

I believe that I understand that philosophy well enough, I just disagree with it because it contradicts my own philosophy that is based on spiritual principles, including this primary principle that violence is wrong (also known as Hillel's "Golden-Rule"). As neither of us is a saint, we can for the time-being excuse violence when conducted in self-defence, but not otherwise, not for example in order to try fulfilling one's own goals and aspirations, including the aspiration for social cohesion.

Foxy and O Sung Wu,
You are wasting your time. It is one thing to disagree with another but 'you can't fix stupid'. Maybe he hit his head while riding his cycle without a helmet.

Dear Banjo,

It all boils down to the question whether you accept violence or not.

You seem to believe that violence is OK if it serves your goals. I don't.

A saint would never hurt another, and if attacked, would turn the other cheek.
An ordinary decent person will only use violence in self-defence.
A rogue uses violence whenever it suits them.

To fall on innocent people who have done you no harm and demand that they obey your laws or else, is a clear form of unprovoked violence.

Good morning Foxy
" There is a wide mix of nationalities there. I bow to many of the elderly ladies on a regular basis usually accompanied by words that I have learned from them like, "Buona sera," or "Yassou,"
or "dzien dobry," or "Zdravstvuyte."

And if a lady in burqa says "g'day Foxy" will you bow to her? If a lady magistrate wears a burqa will you bow ?

Dear Nick,

I gave the example of bowing or a curtsy to elderly
people merely as an example of a European tradition, or a
custom that exists and with which I was brought up,
as a sign of respect. I gave the example of having
to remove one's shoes when entering a mosque as
another example of respect - which one is obliged to
do.
One usually tries to honour the traditions of others
if one can.

However - standing for a judge or a magistrate in
court is something that is required to be done in this
country. It goes deeper than doing something purely voluntarily.
It is a requirement when appearing in court.

Your question about my bowing to someone wearing a burqa
is silly. Why would I bow? I can't tell if they are
old or young. It is not their custom or tradition.
However, if they were to greet me then of course I would smile
and say hello back. It would be very bad manners not to acknowledge
their greeting and return one of my own. Something along
the lines of - "Salam..."

cont'd ...

Dear Nick,

My last sentence should read -

"As Salaem-alaikum" (Peace be unto you).

Hi FOXY you possess more patience than I, believe me. If I were to meet the President of the High Court of Australia in a public place, would I bow to him? Of course not he's merely a man, a learned man of the law no doubt, nevertheless a man. As we've said ad infinitum, by us bowing, whenever we enter a court of law, signifies our acknowledgement of our Australian laws. Recognising that no one individual supplants those laws, they are there for us all, with any and all it's flaws and imperfections. Your illustration is perfect, far better than anything I could write.

Thank you and stay well please. Including your dear Mum who, I've no doubt, had a lot to do with influencing you in obtaining a good education, and developing your obvious poise and 'class' in your formative years. All of which has been evidenced herein (the Forum) over the years. It's a great pity POIROT has declined to engage us all as well? Though I was diametrically opposed to her brand of politics, she was another grand lady similar to yourself. It's indeed a great pity we no longer have the benefit of her earthy brand of wisdom, she was really good I thought!

Foxy
You wrote it's an aged care home. "Your question about my bowing to someone wearing a burqa is silly. Why would I bow? I can't tell if they are old or young. It is not their custom or tradition."
What Europeans or Australians today bow? Why would you need to describe it if it's customary? So you know the burqa lady would be old . But " it's their custom not to bow"? You wouldn't do what they don't do? Interesting.
I quoted the Law that says it's not contempt to stay seated . No Law says we need to stand , or shake hands or bow or put our fingers in our ears. We don't even have to stand for the Queen or Gov Gen or Bill Shorten , same as Muslims.

Some more examples from the Law:
"For those who practise other religions and who wish to take an oath it will almost always be possible to adapt the oath so that it fits with their religion, by substituting the name of their God(s) into the standard oath.
Their appropriate holy book should be available as required — although, note that Muslims usually do not swear on the Qu’ran as this might be seen by many as idolatrous.
In most cases, the person’s legal representative or person calling the particular witness will have found out whether the person wishes to be sworn in on the basis of their religion or not. This should also ensure that the appropriate holy book is available if particularly required by that person.
It is always best to state that it is important that the witness swears to tell the truth in the way that will be most meaningful.
It is always important to respect the wishes of the particular person in their choice of whether to take an oath or make an affirmation.
It is also important not to assume that someone who refuses, or is unable, to take an oath is any less likely to tell the truth than someone who chooses to make an affirmation that makes no reference to religion."
Oaths and bowing are surface rituals . If Muslims choose not to say "Merry Christmas" then I'm not surprised ( but crims say it inside Prison ).

Nick,

Now, I've lost interest.

OK this is not for Foxy to read.
"I gave the example of having to remove one's shoes when entering a mosque as another example of respect - which one is obliged to
do. One usually tries to honour the traditions of others
if one can. "
The refusal to stand and bow is part of Islamic faith , a tradition which can be honoured . For them , Allah god is above judges. It's easy to remove shoes or put rubbish in a bin . If Christians are in Muslim countries and hear the call to prayer then do they bow down to Mecca and pray to Allah ? Or refuse

Dear O Sung Wu,

Thank You for your kind words and for asking about my
mother. She, as you know is in the dementia wing of
a nursing home. And she's very well-cared for. I work
there as a part-time volunteer so I've gotten to know
the other residents there, and their families quite well.
They are a wide mix of nationalities (all Aussies now
though) but many have reverted back to their original
languages. Hence I try to learn a few words and get
big smiles in return. Mum is doing well. She has good
days, and some difficult ones. I'm able to walk much
better now - still with a walker, but I'm getting
stronger all the time.

I miss Poirot very much. And yes, I do wish that she
would have stayed. But, hey, we're still here - and
still posting. Which is something.

It is all very simple. The law requires to be acknowledged as a symbol
of the state agreed by us all by our election of our representatives.

If someone decides to insult the state then they should be sent back
to the cells and prison and the case stood over to another date.
This process could be repeated until the offender complies.

Dear Bazz,

So the state is allowed to insult you by locking you up in a cell, but you may not even offer passive resistance against your violators.

All that while the person in question may not even be an offender - they could be innocent (as the trial is still on), or they could just be visiting court to support and hear the fate of their loved ones.

Viva la violence...

Of course Yuyutsu they should accept the result of insolence.
If they are unable to obey the law of the land they should leave that land.
It is their inability to understand these things that has made such a mess of their own countries.

Dear Bazz,

I was not specifically referring to people who have "their own countries": anyone can have the misfortune to find themselves in that position, including those born in Australia.

«If they are unable to obey the law of the land they should leave that land.»

Why should the victims be required to leave the land instead of the perpetrators who made those laws?!

Yuyutsu, because we have decided by agreement that we will govern
ourselves by these procedures. To just having no process for anything
leads to anarchy and the law of the jungle.

Dear Bazz,

«because we have decided by agreement that we will govern ourselves by these procedures.»

I take it that by "we" you mean yourself and some other of your like-minded friends. The rest of us were not party to this agreement, hence are its victims.

«To just having no process for anything leads to anarchy and the law of the jungle.»

Why no process? There are plenty of alternate processes and alternate ways for people to group themselves without coercion, choosing the processes that apply to them by consensual agreement.