Up Yours!

[Possum]

So...Women do NOT have rights over children; they only bear children FOR THEIR HUSBAND!!
I live in Singapore and regardless of my beliefs I am subject to the law of the land. Were I to live in Sudan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc this would also be the case. If my religious beliefs were strongly at odds with the country I chose to immigrate to then I would return home.

Muslim leader wants elements of sharia in Australia PAUL BIBBY
March 8, 2010
ELEMENTS of Islamic law - the sharia - should be legally recognised in Australia so that Muslims can live according their faith, a prominent Muslim leader says.

Addressing an open day at Lakemba Mosque on Saturday, the president of the Australian Islamic Mission, Zachariah Matthews, said parts of sharia could be recognised as a secondary legal system so that Muslims were not forced to act contrary to their beliefs. ''Sharia law could function as a parallel system in the same way that some traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law was recognised in the Northern Territory,'' Dr Matthews told the Herald after the session.

''I don't think we are so unsophisticated that we cannot consider a multilayered legal system as long as it doesn't conflict with the existing civil system.''

The comments shocked some attending the open day. They felt Dr Matthews was advocating the introduction of the penal system under which women have been stoned to death for adultery, and corporal punishment is meted out for some offences.

''It came as quite a shock to some non-Muslims in the crowd when sharia law and the idea of a parallel legal system was mentioned,'' one audience member, Jasmine Donnelly, said.

''One group of people just left straight after that.''

But Dr Matthews said he was referring only to certain elements of family law and inheritance law and was not advocating the sharia penal system.

''I wasn't talking about sharia law in its entirety - we are not calling for the introduction of the penal system which calls for cutting off hands,'' he said.

Dr Matthews said a clash occurred in some custody matters. ''Under sharia law, if a couple divorce and the mother remarries, her former husband has the right to decide whether the children will live with the new husband or not,'' Dr Matthews said.

''There is still a preference for the child to go with the mother, but the father has the ultimate decision.

''This does not exist in Australian law but I do not believe it clashes fundamentally with Australian values or the Australian legal system.''

[Possum]

''This does not exist in Australian law but I do not believe it clashes fundamentally with Australian values or the Australian legal system.''

Rubbish!!! EQUALITY of the sexes is a fundamental Australian value. I’m spewing!

[slinky]

Dr Matthews said a clash occurred in some custody matters. ''Under sharia law, if a couple divorce and the mother remarries, her former husband has the right to decide whether the children will live with the new husband or not,'' Dr Matthews said.

Funny, they don't mention that the mother of the children would have the same right to decide whether the children will live with the ex-husband's new wife or not.

I'm with you, Poss. If living your life according to sharia law is so important to you, stay in countries that practice and recognize it. Don't emigrate to countries that don't have it and then whine and cry about it and expect them to implement it for you. Religion has no place in government with good reason.

[Lili Von Shtupp]

Well said, Slinks. I'm with you two.

[baloo]

I'm not sure what you're getting worked up about. Unlike Singapore, the media will report on various points of view. Thankfully the politicians would realise this is close to political suicide to push this through.

I can't see this getting traction in Australia until the muslim vote gets to a size that it can determine who wins the election. That will be quite some time and hopefully by then the 2nd and 3rd generation children of the extremist muslim immigrants will be have toned their extreme views down as they settle into the Australian way of life.

In Australia, the courts pretty much ignore the wishes/demands of either parent (unless of course the parents agree) and work out what's best for the children. Even a pre-nup can be torn up if the courts decide it's not fair for the children.

[Burbage]

One of the problems with a commercial press is that radical views always get coverage. Essentially the papers make more money by publishing things that the majority disagree with rather than publishing things the public do agree with. If someone stands up and says wouldn't it be really nice if everyone was equal and got on with each other, no one would even hear them, never mind report it in the papers.

[Possum]

..by then the 2nd and 3rd generation children of the extremist muslim immigrants will be have toned their extreme views down as they settle into the Australian way of life.

Interestingly enough many of today’s terrorist attacks are being carried out by those 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants. They get pulled between 2 worlds, start to feel hard done by because their elders moan and bitch about their cultural beliefs not being given the same rights as they would be in their home country- children learn and generally follow the beliefs and behavior of their parents. They do not know where they fit so they find something to believe in so that they feel they finally belong.

[baloo]

Interestingly enough many of today’s terrorist attacks are being carried out by those 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants. They get pulled between 2 worlds, start to feel hard done by because their elders moan and bitch about their cultural beliefs not being given the same rights as they would be in their home country- children learn and generally follow the beliefs and behavior of their parents. They do not know where they fit so they find something to believe in so that they feel they finally belong.

I think you'll find it's not 2nd or 3rd gen.

[Possum]

Dam I just googled terrorist attacks and look what came up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te ... ents,_2010
WOW

[Lili Von Shtupp]

Wow.

[Fat Bob]

''This does not exist in Australian law but I do not believe it clashes fundamentally with Australian values or the Australian legal system.''

Rubbish!!! EQUALITY of the sexes is a fundamental Australian value. I’m spewing!

Hmmmm....are you saying that women should have the full right on where the child(ren) should go? Or that a descision should be made on a case-by-case basis, detailing the various views and objections of all parties, and where the child(ren)'s well-being is the primary concern?

Though I'm more with Burb and baloo, it's a polarisation of the political view that newspapers must include in order to sell their papers. You obviously bought it.

And great link from sharia rights in the family to islamic extremism and terrorism. I can see where that came from.....

[BoD]

If there was a group of people living in a country who had a set of religious beliefs that meant that walking on cracks in the pavement was deeply offensive to them, would you think it reasonable to allow them to adopt a set of laws (applying only to their group) that allowed them to fine each other $10 each time they stepped on a crack?

[T2K]

They could implement such a system on their own, as it wouldn't contravene existing laws or clash with any existing societal beliefs. But this shariah law shit certainly would.

[Rosbif71]

I'm not sure what you're getting worked up about. Unlike Singapore, the media will report on various points of view. Thankfully the politicians would realise this is close to political suicide to push this through.

I can't see this getting traction in Australia until the muslim vote gets to a size that it can determine who wins the election. That will be quite some time and hopefully by then the 2nd and 3rd generation children of the extremist muslim immigrants will be have toned their extreme views down as they settle into the Australian way of life.

In Australia, the courts pretty much ignore the wishes/demands of either parent (unless of course the parents agree) and work out what's best for the children. Even a pre-nup can be torn up if the courts decide it's not fair for the children.

thats better than the UK.
In the UK there is a legal assumption that the children are always better off with the mother and its up to the father to prrove otherwise.
even when the courts rule in favour of the father they often don't enforce it

I have a cousin who's wife left him after she was screwing around with another man. She cleared out their bank account and took their daughter. The courts awarded him visitation rights which his ex refuses to obey. The courts have done nothing to force her to let him see his daughter

[Dinosaur]

thats better than the UK.
In the UK there is a legal assumption that the children are always better off with the mother and its up to the father to prrove otherwise.
even when the courts rule in favour of the father they often don't enforce it

I have a cousin who's wife left him after she was screwing around with another man. She cleared out their bank account and took their daughter. The courts awarded him visitation rights which his ex refuses to obey. The courts have done nothing to force her to let him see his daughter

Rosbif, I've got some personal experience of this too (well, Mr Dino actually). I've got no time for the English court system - it stinks.

BoD - what a wonderful idea.

[Burbage]

The last people who should be imposing laws are religious fruitcakes. Obviously. Even the Australian government must realise this.

[baloo]

thats better than the UK.
In the UK there is a legal assumption that the children are always better off with the mother and its up to the father to prrove otherwise.
even when the courts rule in favour of the father they often don't enforce it

I have a cousin who's wife left him after she was screwing around with another man. She cleared out their bank account and took their daughter. The courts awarded him visitation rights which his ex refuses to obey. The courts have done nothing to force her to let him see his daughter

Don't get too excited. Just because the Courts have those rights it doesn't mean they always make the right decision.

[kittykat]

There's the start of a strong muslim influence in Australia. This school is about 8kms from my house and there was a whole controversy where they banned the Australian Anthem. The teacher who requested it be played was sacked and then it was suddenly put "under review". Also when this school was built it was publicised that non-muslim children would not be allowed to attend even though the school was heavily funded by the Qld Government. As a product of a Catholic education - non-Catholics were certainly allowed at our school as are all other denominational schools in Oz. They also built a campus on the Gold Coast.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/scho ... 1118228618

[Burbage]

There's the start of a strong muslim influence in Australia. This school is about 8kms from my house and there was a whole controversy where they banned the Australian Anthem. The teacher who requested it be played was sacked and then it was suddenly put "under review". Also when this school was built it was publicised that non-muslim children would not be allowed to attend even though the school was heavily funded by the Qld Government. As a product of a Catholic education - non-Catholics were certainly allowed at our school as are all other denominational schools in Oz. They also built a campus on the Gold Coast.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/scho ... 1118228618

No rational society should allow religious schools to exist. Giving religions access to children is the height of irresponsibility. The function of religious schools is to perpetuate the religion first and educate second. Of course, religions have spent a couple of thousand years manipulating politicians. They're pretty good at it.

[Fat Bob]

Where on earth do you think a rational society exists? Society's laws are made by people who have a 4-5 year job security. That job security is improved by doing things the voters want. If the vote is close and one candidate will appeal to 1% of the electorate due to policies such as government funding for religious schools, then guess what? Rationality goes out the window!

Now then, when both leading candidates need that 1% (or higher) of the voters, then both get the policies in place. So who do the people who don't want a religious school on government funding vote for? Oh, the person labelled a racist.

[Burbage]

Utopia.

[Possum]

''This does not exist in Australian law but I do not believe it clashes fundamentally with Australian values or the Australian legal system.''

Rubbish!!! EQUALITY of the sexes is a fundamental Australian value. I’m spewing!

Hmmmm....are you saying that women should have the full right on where the child(ren) should go? Or that a descision should be made on a case-by-case basis, detailing the various views and objections of all parties, and where the child(ren)'s well-being is the primary concern?

Though I'm more with Burb and baloo, it's a polarisation of the political view that newspapers must include in order to sell their papers. You obviously bought it.

And great link from sharia rights in the family to islamic extremism and terrorism. I can see where that came from.....

Brought it no, lived it YES, along with thousands upon thousands in legal fees and countless days in court.

The link being;
Introducing sharia law = segregation in society = confused children pulled between different belief systems = that difference requires individuals to prove “harder” that they belong/are part of a particular group = extreme views one way or the other. Extremism is a core ingredient of terrorism as is religion.
All seems logical to me.

As for Sharia Law: it was written by men for men. Civil law is produced for the people.

[Fat Bob]

Oh, so if you think bringing in sharia law is bad only if it leads to a segregated society? By my logic, that means you think bringing in sharia law for the whole society would be better!

Anyhow, a way around this would be: instead of having separate sharia laws and courts (or any other religious courts), advisors could be made available by concerned religious groups to the current legal system. Where conflicts stand between current laws and religious laws, the state laws would take precedence with the religious advisors having the right to highlight any conflicts within a general furom such as parliament, with the potential to get laws changed as per the normal, democratic process.

This would allow judgements to be analysed from a religious and cultural perspective, and allow education for both relgious advisers in the laws of the adopted state and law makers in that state.

Win win situation all the way around

[slinky]

I don't know if that would be win-win, FB. Can't you just see some of our wimpy-ass Western governments allowing bits & pieces of sharia law into the justice system just so they can appear more PC

[Fat Bob]

At no point did I say sharia law (or any other religious law) would enter into the system. I said it would be debated at the levels required. If there's a democratic reason for bringing it in, that's democracy for you.