Society/Culture Q&A 2017

[Maggie5]

You should read this article, don't worry he's not Andrew Bolt or anything, and he has a lot of first hand knowledge of Islam.

My personal view is that people like Yasmin are selling out people who live under oppression due to Islam by saying it's feminist. In this case it's women. Imagine being a woman in Iran who is forced by the theocracy to wear the hijab, or even in Australia who is forced by her family to do so. Instead of addressing this problem, an obscurantist like Yasmin comes on TV and tells everyone that it's actually a feminist religion. It's not helping.

I think my main points are the questions I posed in my post.
If anyone can give me a time line when or if Sharia Law is introduced to Australian Law, then it is worthwhile discussing as many aspects of it are concerning.

I can never see it happening here and superceding the current law therefore I see all the discussion whether it be Yasmin trying to defend it or Jaquie or Pauline using it as fear mongering very divisive.

 

[GreyCrow]

I think my main points are the questions I posed in my post.
If anyone can give me a time line when or if Sharia Law is introduced to Australian Law, then it is worthwhile discussing as many aspects of it are concerning.

I can never see it happening here and superceding the current law therefore I see all the discussion whether it be Yasmin trying to defend it or Jaquie or Pauline using it as fear mongering very divisive.

It may not be current and have not looked for sources but I think there is a push for Sharia Law at the community level. Ahh its at Family Law level

For
Given that many of Australia's 350,000 Muslims (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2006) are already regulating their lives according to Sharia, it is logical to officially recognise and support this. Sharia regulates the legal relationships many Australian Muslims enter into and out of, including marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance, as well as contractual and commercial dealings. Among Australian Muslims, there exists a strong preference to have legal questions answered and disputes settled by persons with Islamic credentials. Except in rare cases, this does not mean there is rejection of Australian laws, but instead there is a desire to conform with Sharia law when it is possible to do so


With divorce, compliance with both systems is possible. A husband and wife can serve out the 12-month period of separation both to have a valid divorce under Australian law on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in accordance with Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and also comply with the extra-judicial form of divorce, known as talaq in Islamic law. A husband is able to pronounce talaq and, if all the legal requirements are met,2 the marriage is terminated, although there is a three-month reconciliation period.


However, compliance with both systems is more problematic for wives. A wife does not have the same extra-judicial divorce option. If her husband does not agree to pronounce talaq, she is left to find someone with authority to hear her case and hopefully to grant her an Islamic divorce. Islamic law has always provided divorce options for wives, but each requires a third party - usually a judge or a body of legal scholars - to make the determination

Against

Recognising a separate system of law and institutions for one religious group could be seen as isolating, differentiating and separating Muslims from the wider community, thus intensifying a "ghetto-isation" for Muslims. Allowing Muslims to regulate family and inheritance law disputes through a legally recognised entity could also intensify divisions within Australian Muslim communities as well as between Muslim and non-Muslims

 

[Maggie5]

It may not be current and have not looked for sources but I think there is a push for Sharia Law at the community level. Ahh its at Family Law level

For
Given that many of Australia's 350,000 Muslims (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2006) are already regulating their lives according to Sharia, it is logical to officially recognise and support this. Sharia regulates the legal relationships many Australian Muslims enter into and out of, including marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance, as well as contractual and commercial dealings. Among Australian Muslims, there exists a strong preference to have legal questions answered and disputes settled by persons with Islamic credentials. Except in rare cases, this does not mean there is rejection of Australian laws, but instead there is a desire to conform with Sharia law when it is possible to do so


With divorce, compliance with both systems is possible. A husband and wife can serve out the 12-month period of separation both to have a valid divorce under Australian law on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in accordance with Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and also comply with the extra-judicial form of divorce, known as talaq in Islamic law. A husband is able to pronounce talaq and, if all the legal requirements are met,2 the marriage is terminated, although there is a three-month reconciliation period.


However, compliance with both systems is more problematic for wives. A wife does not have the same extra-judicial divorce option. If her husband does not agree to pronounce talaq, she is left to find someone with authority to hear her case and hopefully to grant her an Islamic divorce. Islamic law has always provided divorce options for wives, but each requires a third party - usually a judge or a body of legal scholars - to make the determination

Against

Recognising a separate system of law and institutions for one religious group could be seen as isolating, differentiating and separating Muslims from the wider community, thus intensifying a "ghetto-isation" for Muslims. Allowing Muslims to regulate family and inheritance law disputes through a legally recognised entity could also intensify divisions within Australian Muslim communities as well as between Muslim and non-Muslims

I see this paragraph as the key to what I am referring to:

new direction for a pluralistic nation?

Australia is marked by pluralism - cultural, religious and ethnic. Yet, our legal system is not pluralistic. Apart from some concessions to the Indigenous peoples of this country, we abide by the "one law for all" mantra. Both sides of politics have rejected a separate stream of law for specific religious or ethnic communities on the basis that Australia is a secular nation. Freedom of religion and worship is protected, but religion is to play no part in the formal legal system. Australia's former treasurer, Peter Costello (2006), argued, "there is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution. If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for" (para. 44). This year, Attorney-General Robert McCelland confirmed that the

"Rudd government is not considering and will not consider the introduction of any part of Sharia law into the Australian legal system" (Zwartz, 2009).

Rudd didn't consider it then and I doubt that any government will consider it.

 

[igon value]

Scary is the applause when the Muslim woman said Islam was the most feminist religion based on not taking husband's surnames.

She's been an embarrassment since her tantrum over Lionel Shriver wearing a mexican hat.

 

[Sinjin Smith]

Which version of Sharia are you asking about?

I'd bet there's a marked difference between what Yasmin says it is and what a member of ISIS or even a male in somewhere like Saudi Arabia thinks it is.

I've lived in Riyadh and spent considerable time in Iran, Morocco and Tunisia. Yasmin's view is understandable and is representative of Australian Muslims rather Wahhabism and other more conservative views of Islam. This is the divide, Lambie is not helping. There will be conservative fascists from the Islamic domain, * em, they should have no voice.

 

[Lethality]

"Rudd government is not considering and will not consider the introduction of any part of Sharia law into the Australian legal system" (Zwartz, 2009).

Rudd didn't consider it then and I doubt that any government will consider it.

If you're talking about Sharia courts in Australia they already exist.

 

[BORK]

I agree with most of your post but I fear that this phase has some time to go sadly.

Yes I can see a decade of it. There is a little time to pass for the next wedge I am predicting. It is forecast that by 2042 there will only 2.5 people of working age (many will not be working) to support older people. Pension costs will be mammoth. Healthcare costs mammoth.

Both majors parties continue to have the backs of pensioners and property owners and I do not see this changing. Unless there is a major crash in the property market there is room for a party to pop up aiming for the 20-50 age group based around housing affordability and pensions being given to pensioners with decent real estate assets as a loan paid back after they pass. Increased medicare levies based on age among other extremely controversial policies.

If someone wanted to run a huge scare campaign and could energise a fair portion of the population there could be the next controversial third party option in Australian politics in the future. Just a gut feeling of mine based on resentment I can see building and the trends that would fuel the growth of that resentment over the next couple of decades.

 

[Maggie5]

If you're talking about Sharia courts in Australia they already exist.

Is it enshrined in and is it above Australian Law? If so when did it happen?

 

[Lethality]

Is it enshrined in and is it above Australian Law? If so when did it happen?

It's at dispute resolution or mediation level. Divorce settlements also wills, etc. It allows for inequality which is part and parcel of Sharia. English activists like Maryam namazie are trying to get them out of England.

 

[Maggie5]

It's at dispute resolution or mediation level. Divorce settlements also wills, etc. It allows for inequality which is part and parcel of Sharia. English activists like Maryam namazie are trying to get them out of England.

Soit is not law but spreading fear and untruths.
But I knew that, it is a shame more people don't stick to facts.
Not sure what is to be gained to be Lambie and Hanson clones.

 

[Lethality]

Soit is not law but spreading fear and untruths.
But I knew that, it is a shame more people don't stick to facts.
Not sure what is to be gained to be Lambie and Hanson clones.

Lol What fear and untruths? I just told you that sharia courts exist in Australia and what areas they operate in. Those are just the facts of the matter.

In terms of opinion I think we're better off without them, as they enshrine unequal treatment for women and homosexuals.

 

[Maggie5]

Lol What fear and untruths? I just told you that sharia courts exist in Australia and what areas they operate in. Those are just the facts of the matter.

In terms of opinion I think we're better off without them, as they enshrine unequal treatment for women and homosexuals.

I also asked you about their legal standing under Australia Law which you neglected to show.
So anything else you posted is irrelevant.

 

[Lethality]

I also asked you about their legal standing under Australia Law which you neglected to show.

I did, I said it was at mediation, dispute resolution level.

So anything else you posted is irrelevant.

You're being needlessly combative. I'm just giving you information about Sharia courts in Australia and where they sit under the Law.

 

[Maggie5]

I did, I said it was at mediation, dispute resolution level.
You're being needlessly combative. I'm just giving you information about Sharia courts in Australia and where they sit under the Law.

They don't sit anywhere. Not sure why I need this information.
There are no Sharia Courts in Australia that have any legal standing under our laws.
You see, this is how the distrust starts and continues.
I suppose that you do know that other religions have similar mediation resolutions as well don't you?
However they too don't have any legal status under the law.

 

[Lethality]

They don't sit anywhere. Not sure why I need this information.
There are no Sharia Courts in Australia that have any legal standing under our laws.
You see, this is how the distrust starts and continues.
I suppose that you do know that other religions have similar mediation resolutions as well don't you?
However they too don't have any legal status under the law.

Under the law just means that they are recognised, it doesn't mean that they supersede any part of Australian Law, and I'm not making that claim, if that's what you're saying. So this has nothing to do with fostering distrust, I'm just stating a fact about Sharia courts in this country right now.

They are simply courts for dispute resolution, mediation, wills, divorce, etc. Stuff like that for people who want to do these things in accordance with their religious laws. The problem I have with this is not that they supersede Australian Law, but that they discriminate against minorities.

 

[Maggie5]

Under the law just means that they are recognised, it doesn't mean that they supersede any part of Australian Law, and I'm not making that claim, if that's what you're saying. So this has nothing to do with fostering distrust, I'm just stating a fact about Sharia courts in this country right now.

They are simply courts for dispute resolution, mediation, wills, divorce, etc. Stuff like that for people who want to do these things in accordance with their religious laws. The problem I have with this is not that they supersede Australian Law, but that they discriminate against minorities.

I really don't want to continue this discussion with you as this is what the problem is nowadays, someone may read your posts where you say Sharia Law is already here and then not until the above post you say aspects of it and again refuse to add it does not have any legal standing under Australian Law.

This is where the ignorant and the unformed then go on Q&A/Facebook so their ignorance and bias can be fed. Then the sky is falling.
Very deceitful.

 

[Lethality]

I really don't want to continue this discussion with you as this is what the problem is nowadays, someone may read your posts where you say Sharia Law is already here

No, I didn't say that Sharia Law was already here, in fact I didn't even mention Sharia Law being implemented. That was you, just here, accusing me of such. Now who's spreading misinformation?

But that's cool, I think we're in agreement besides a minor misunderstanding. Sharia courts are not Sharia Law, and you are against Sharia Law, as am I.

 

[Maggie5]

No, I didn't say that Sharia Law was already here, in fact I didn't even mention Sharia Law being implemented. That was you, just here, accusing me of such. Now who's spreading misinformation?

But that's cool, I think we're in agreement besides a minor misunderstanding. Sharia courts are not Sharia Law, and you are against Sharia Law, as am I.

You are still missing my point, the ignorant who have decided that Sharia/Muslims=Bad, are not going to see if you posted law or courts nor will they understand that they have no legal basis. It will be just like Lambie and Hanson, sprouting the same ignorant things.

Oh how I missed the old times when the only only racially/religious intolerant were only in the community now we have politicians and the internet.

Give this about 5- 10 years. I already feel sorry for the next group/class/race/religion.

 

[Lethality]

You are still missing my point, the ignorant who have decided that Sharia/Muslims=Bad, are not going to see if you posted law or courts nor will they understand that they have no legal basis. It will be just like Lambie and Hanson, sprouting the same ignorant things.

Yeah well it's not my fault if people can't read.

Oh how I missed the old times when the only only racially/religious intolerant were only in the community now we have politicians and the internet.

LOL when did we not have racist politicians?

Give this about 5- 10 years. I already feel sorry for the next group/class/race/religion.

The difference is this is a religion that seeks to make many of the same points about itself. It recognises that it has problems and wants to reform, but it is opposed both by violent extremists from the Right, and apologists from the Left.

 

[Maggie5]

Yeah well it's not my fault if people can't read.

See, this is a silly comment. But if you want me to break it down...
Sharia Court (your word) mediates etc but what do they use as a reference? Sharia Law. Get it now?
Whether it is court or law, the key word is Sharia that sends people in a frenzy, a bit like halal.

LOL when did we not have racist politicians?

Don't recall any in the Whitlam or Keating eras. (Stand to be corrected)
Menzies, Calwell and of course Howard and Abbott governments and now the list of names is endless.

The difference is this is a religion that seeks to make many of the same points about itself. It recognises that it has problems and wants to reform, but it is opposed both by violent extremists from the Right, and apologists from the Left.

Not quite sure what you are saying but I imagine a high number want to reform but is too disorganized/fragmented and has no real scholars around that can do it.

 

[Lethality]

See, this is a silly comment. But if you want me to break it down...
Sharia Court (your word) mediates etc but what do they use as a reference? Sharia Law. Get it now?
Whether it is court or law, the key word is Sharia that sends people in a frenzy, a bit like halal.

LOL, you have a very low opinion of people. I mentioned Sharia courts and how it's just at mediation and dispute resolution level, wills, divorces, and so forth. There shouldn't be any confusion.

Don't recall any in the Whitlam or Keating eras. (Stand to be corrected)
Menzies, Calwell and of course Howard and Abbott governments and now the list of names is endless.

It's not just about the PM.

Not quite sure what you are saying but I imagine a high number want to reform but is too disorganized/fragmented and has no real scholars around that can do it.

The most recognised centre for reform would be Quilliam, based in the UK. They have a number of scholars on their books, mostly Muslim, but I think they might have a few ex-Muslims as well. They are very organised, but they are fighting the Left all the way.

 

[Maggie5]

Lethality, I am curious why there is so much angst against Sharia Law/Courts when the Jews have a similar system?
http://www.bethdin.org.au/
Since its inception in 1905, the Sydney Beth Din has been recognised as one of the pre-eminent rabbinic courts in the world. It serves Jewish communities in Australia, New Zealand and Asia as a forum for obtaining Jewish divorces, converting to Judaism, confirming personal status and adjudicating disputes stemming from divorce, business and community issues.
A little bit discriminatory don't you think?

 

[Lethality]

Lethality, I am curious why there is so much angst against Sharia Law/Courts when the Jews have a similar system?
http://www.bethdin.org.au/

The angst over Sharia Law itself would be obvious, it's a brutal system that leads to killing, dismemberment, caning, etc for 'crimes' such as apostasy, homosexuality, or alcohol. Where is the Jewish equivalent for that?

Since its inception in 1905, the Sydney Beth Din has been recognised as one of the pre-eminent rabbinic courts in the world. It serves Jewish communities in Australia, New Zealand and Asia as a forum for obtaining Jewish divorces, converting to Judaism, confirming personal status and adjudicating disputes stemming from divorce, business and community issues.
A little bit discriminatory don't you think?

A bit like the courts themselves. Beth Din are mostly about officialdom, such as recognition in the religion of foods, services, and people. It's the last which I have a problem with, and which is also used to enforce marriage upon women. We can talk about the Beth Din if you want, but with only 12 million or so Jews in the world, it's a much smaller problem right now.

 

[Maggie5]

The angst over Sharia Law itself would be obvious, it's a brutal system that leads to killing, dismemberment, caning, etc for 'crimes' such as apostasy, homosexuality, or alcohol. Where is the Jewish equivalent for that?

And there you have it, the extremes which never happen here. It took you a long time to show yourself but I knew you would get there eventually.

A bit like the courts themselves. Beth Din are mostly about officialdom, such as recognition in the religion of foods, services, and people. It's the last which I have a problem with, and which is also used to enforce marriage upon women. We can talk about the Beth Din if you want, but with only 12 million or so Jews in the world, it's a much smaller problem right now.

Man, you will also come up with some sort of justification, no matter how polite your posts, your bias is showing.
Suggest you do a bit more reading on Halachah (which also will never be implemented in full here), I believe they also mention homosexuals.

 

[Lethality]

And there you have it, the extremes which never happen here. It took you a long time to show yourself but I knew you would get there eventually.

. . ummm, you brought it up?

Maggie5: 'I am curious why there is so much angst against Sharia Law/Courts '

I explained that the angst over Sharia Law itself was obvious, and gave reasons why.

Please stop jumping at shadows and accusing people of bias when they're just responding to YOUR questions.

Man, you will also come up with some sort of justification, no matter how polite your posts, your bias is showing.

There's no bias, it just isn't as big of a problem, due to numbers. I've mentioned this in the past, and with reference to Scientology as well, which is also a very small religion. Islam is definitely the most dangerous and oppressive religion at this moment.