Do you feel threatened by terrorists in Australia?

[jim]

About sharia. There is no chance that the more horrible applications of sharia (stonings, beheadings and whippings for example) could legally be applied in Australia, even if Australian muslims wanted them which I rather doubt many of them do. What sharia could do is for example provide councils that could adjudicate in the case of women who had obtained a divorce from their husbands in court, and wished to be able to remarry in their religion. In other words sharia could provide a way to peacefully reconcile muslim tradition and secular law.

[ricktas]

Yes true, it was a simple question.
If I was interested in the very fabric of our society and what should and should not be tolerated, I'd have started a thread about that.

In a world where 'what do you want for dinner?' can end up like the start of world war III, one must ask of your question in this thread topic.. What did you expect?

[pjs2]

On a positive note, the vast majority of terrorists and Islamist extremists are as dumb as bricks. Anyone who believes that they will be rewarded with virgins in "paradise" for the act of blowing the crap out of themselves and anyone else in their vicinity has got to be seriously deluded.

Wait until they get there and find out that nowhere in the contract was it stated that the virgins would be of the opposite sex.

Anyone who believes that they will be rewarded with virgins.

REINCARNATION, A WANDER THROUGH THE PEARLY GATES, WALKING THROUGH THE FIELDS OF VALHALLA. I DONT THINK THE POOR DELUDED BUGGERS ARE ON THIER PAT MALLONE.


TO THE DRONGO AUSTRALIANS
CAN WE PLEASE STOP USING THE SOUTHERN CROSS AS THE NEW WE HATE EVERYONE SWASTIKA.
OUR GOVERNMENT KNOWS THAT SMALL MINDS ARE EASLY SCARED

THINK PEOPLE

- - - Updated - - -

What sharia could do is for example provide councils that could adjudicate in the case of women who had obtained a divorce from their husbands in court, and wished to be able to remarry in their religion. In other words sharia could provide a way to peacefully reconcile muslim tradition and secular law.

WHAT DO YOU RECON INSTEAD OF CUTTING OFF THIER HEAD JUST LOBB OFF A COUPLE O FINGERS HEY.

WE HAVE AUSTRALIAN LAWS HERE IN AUSTRALIA THAT ALL AUSTRALIANS LIVE BY. EVEN OUR AUSTRALIAN WOMEN NEW OR OLD.IF OUR NEW AUSTRALIAN WOMEN OR OUR OLD AUSTRALIAN WOMEN GET ANY RULING IN OUR AUSTRALIAN COURTS THE MATTER IS FINAL AND NOT SUBJJECT TO ANY OTHER LAWS OR RULINGS.

[ameerat42]

TO THE DRONGO AUSTRALIANS
CAN WE PLEASE STOP USING THE SOUTHERN CROSS AS THE NEW WE HATE EVERYONE SWASTIKA.
OUR GOVERNMENT KNOWS THAT SMALL MINDS ARE EASLY SCARED

THINK PEOPLE

Hear! Hear!

But will it fall on deaf ears?

[bobt]

About sharia. What sharia could do is for example provide councils that could adjudicate in the case of women who had obtained a divorce from their husbands in court, and wished to be able to remarry in their religion. In other words sharia could provide a way to peacefully reconcile muslim tradition and secular law.

Call me skeptical, but I suspect that the last thing women need is Sharia law! Women are far more likely to get a fair deal from our existing laws than any application of Sharia!

[Kym]

About sharia. There is no chance that the more horrible applications of sharia (stonings, beheadings and whippings for example) could legally be applied in Australia, even if Australian muslims wanted them which I rather doubt many of them do. What sharia could do is for example provide councils that could adjudicate in the case of women who had obtained a divorce from their husbands in court, and wished to be able to remarry in their religion. In other words sharia could provide a way to peacefully reconcile muslim tradition and secular law.

We can't have more than one set of laws - EVER! It is discriminatory and we cease to be egalitarian (at least in theory).
It is a way to keep the country divided; which is never heathly.

[Steve Axford]

I agree, we should have equality in the law. Unfortunately, the Australian constitution seems to enshrine race as a reason for difference and there is no mention of egalitarian.

[jim]

Originally Posted by jim

About sharia. There is no chance that the more horrible applications of sharia (stonings, beheadings and whippings for example) could legally be applied in Australia, even if Australian muslims wanted them which I rather doubt many of them do. What sharia could do is for example provide councils that could adjudicate in the case of women who had obtained a divorce from their husbands in court, and wished to be able to remarry in their religion. In other words sharia could provide a way to peacefully reconcile muslim tradition and secular law.

We can't have more than one set of laws - EVER! It is discriminatory and we cease to be egalitarian (at least in theory).
It is a way to keep the country divided; which is never heathly.

Did anybody who replied to this post actually read it?

[bcys1961]

I agree, we should have equality in the law. Unfortunately, the Australian constitution seems to enshrine race as a reason for difference and there is no mention of egalitarian.

Please Explain! I would think the constitution would say the same laws apply to everyone regardless of race. I might be wrong and admit to not having read the constitution.

[Kym]

25. Provisions as to races disqualified from voting
For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at
elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of
the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectio...n_of_Australia

[bcys1961]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectio...n_of_Australia

I have read this about three times and do not have a clue what it is saying! It certainly put me off reading any more of the Constitution though , so thank you.!

[Steve Axford]

Please Explain! I would think the constitution would say the same laws apply to everyone regardless of race. I might be wrong and admit to not having read the constitution.

You have to remember when the constitution was written. At that stage, the Aboriginal people were not considered as people and while we did partly correct this and give them the vote, we have never corrected the more general provisions in the constitution. Specifically, this is section 25,

Section 25 of the Constitution of Australia is a provision of the Constitution of Australia headed ‘Provision as to races disqualified from voting’ and providing that ‘For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted.’

[bobt]

Did anybody who replied to this post actually read it?

Yup .... you suggested that we should have Sharia law working alongside our existing laws, which would be a foot in the door for watering down our own laws in favour of those from another culture.

[jim]

Thanks for that bobt. Though I don't see how the example I gave above could possibly result in the "watering down" of Australian law. Nor in fact do I feel qualified to make any suggestion on the subject. I wouldn't dismiss out of hand the possibility that sharia could be helpful is all.

[Mark L]

You have to remember when the constitution was written. At that stage, the Aboriginal people were not considered as people and ......

Makes me think about starting a thread asking who our first people think are terrorist. But the ones who have an opinion are long gone.
Oh no, I went off the topic of this thread.

[bcys1961]

You have to remember when the constitution was written. At that stage, the Aboriginal people were not considered as people and while we did partly correct this and give them the vote, we have never corrected the more general provisions in the constitution. Specifically, this is section 25,

Section 25 of the Constitution of Australia is a provision of the Constitution of Australia headed ‘Provision as to races disqualified from voting’ and providing that ‘For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted.’

Fair enough . And they are talking about fixing the constitution for aboriginals now - in 2017! . There has at times been a push at times to allow aboriginals to solve their disputes using customary law . Many of their customary laws are as denigrating to woman as sharia law , but I suppose the aboriginals at least have the argument that it was the law of the land before we arrived!

All other races of people ( Iraqi's Syrian's ...) now , once granted citizenship have the right to vote , so I don't think we really discriminate against anyone based on race.

[Kym]

A positive trend...
http://www.news.com.au/technology/on...-1227065544531

[Steve Axford]

All other races of people ( Iraqi's Syrian's ...) now , once granted citizenship have the right to vote , so I don't think we really discriminate against anyone based on race.

I don't think that there is much legislation that is actively discriminatory. It's just a bit of the constitution, and some attitudes of people ....

- - - Updated - - -

Makes me think about starting a thread asking who our first people think are terrorist. But the ones who have an opinion are long gone.
Oh no, I went off the topic of this thread.

I have some friends (who happen to be aboriginal) who lost some of their ancestors in a massacre near Patches Beach. They found human remains there in 1998 which included 6 skulls of girls under the age of 20. Some had indications of being clubbed to death. One was about 6 years old. But not all are long gone.

[bobt]

Thanks for that bobt. Though I don't see how the example I gave above could possibly result in the "watering down" of Australian law. Nor in fact do I feel qualified to make any suggestion on the subject. I wouldn't dismiss out of hand the possibility that sharia could be helpful is all.

One of the basic tenets of our society is the separation of church and state. Our culture bases its law on factual information based on hundreds of years of practical experience in a western society which reflects our whole underlying way of living. Sharia law is based on religious belief and is allegedly either the word of God or of the prophets.

Islamic laws do not represent or reflect Australian society, they reflect beliefs which are based on religious texts rather than modern day principles. We keep religion and laws separate for very good reasons, otherwise we might be finding ourselves subjected to the archaic religious teachings of centuries past.

Australia has a western culture, and it is vastly different from middle eastern cultures. Other cultures would not accept western laws being introduced to replace or work alongside sharia law, and we certainly do not want to introduce their legal system in Australia. We accept people from other cultures on the understanding that they submit to our laws, just as we adhere to their laws when we visit their countries. The ramifications of accepting the laws of other countries as an alternative to our own laws are significant and would prove highly detrimental.

In Belgium recently, the Muslim community tried to stop school children having pork in their lunches because it went against their religion. The authorities very quickly told them that if they wanted to introduce religious constraints on Belgians, then it was time they went back to an Islamic country. The bottom line is that people must adapt to the culture they adopt rather than expecting their adoptive country to change.

[jim]

some good points there bobt, though I'm not sure why you've addressed them to me. I'd ask you yet again to look at the example I gave in my original post.