Australia rejects call for Islamic courts

[Sonnabend]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,,00.html

THE federal government has ruled out the introduction of Islamic courts in Australia, following debate triggered by the global head of the Anglican Church.Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams said Muslims should to be able to resolve marital and financial disputes under Islamic courts, rather than the mainstream judicial system.

Dr Williams said in a radio interview in Britain that allowing Islamic Sharia law to operate in some circumstances could help improve social cohesion.

A similar proposal was put forward by Australian Muslim leaders to Howard government minister Peter McGauran in April 2005, but was rejected.

Australia's new attorney-general Robert McClelland today also ruled out the introduction of Sharia law in Australia. "The Rudd government is not considering and will not consider the introduction of any part of Sharia law into the Australian legal system,'' Mr McClelland said.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson said everyone who comes to Australia should accept the existing laws. "The idea that in some way you would change your basic values, culture and law to accommodate some people who feel that they don't want to see themselves as Australians first, above all else - under no circumstances would I support that,'' Dr Nelson said.

Yasser Soliman, who sits on the Victorian Multicultural Commission and is president of the Victorian Islamic Family and Childcare Agency, said there could be a role for Islamic courts, but Sharia law had to be clearly defined.

"It needs to be clarified and put down clearly on paper how it would run because everyone walking around has a different understanding of what Sharia means,'' Mr Soliman said.

He said, for example, that Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims would interpret Sharia law differently. "It would have to be accepted by the wider community, as well as the Muslim community, because there has been quite a lot of injustice happening in recent times under the name of Sharia,'' he said.

Mr Soliman said Sharia law was not written down in stone but extracted and deduced from teachings in the Koran and what people agreed with among themselves. "The idea is worth exploring but it is not worth adopting the first suggestion by one group which may be pushing for it - you have got to consult quite widely and it has to be optional for individuals,'' Mr Soliman said.

"I can see some potential applications in matters of family disputes, inheritance law and so on - that would be a win/win for the Muslim community and the wider community.''

Melbourne and Sydney have Jewish courts, or Beth Din, which rule on divorce, conversions and adoptions. Bishop Robert Forsyth, spokesman for the Sydney Anglican diocese, said the move would lead to the "ghettoisation'' of the law in Australia.

"Once you have a society with different laws for different religions of the land you are creating no-go areas,'' Bishop Forsyth said."I don't want a country that has the ghettoisation of the law."We need the same law for all of us, even though we are different.''

He said those who came to Australia needed to accept the law of the land. "You are welcome, but you are welcome to this country on these fundamental terms - the terms are rule of law and secular state.

"I don't care if you don't like cricket or not, but you don't come and say, 'I want this to be a theocratic state'.''

Translation:If you don't like it here, leave.

[Chris_]

At least one country has stones.

[Uhhuh35]

Islam is incompatible with freedom. I'm sure there are plenty of countries that want to live in the 6th century, but Australia is not one of them.

[Lord Undies]

These muslims move into countries and, under the ruse of wanting to remain true to their "religion", they start injecting the idea of sharia law being recognized for themselves.   We dumb ol' westerners are suppose to believe it is about accommodation and freedom of religion.  It isn't.  It is about instigation.

Why are these camel f*ckers in the USA?  Why are they in Australia?  Why are they in Great Britain and Sweden and Spain and every country where freedom rings?  It damn sure isn't to enjoy the fruits that freedom bears.  Those fruits are against their "religion".  So what is the benefit?  Why are we westerners, pressured by the Code of Acceptance, standing by acting as if nothing is going on?  The existing complacency is maddening.

Muslims are not some "other side of the coin" we can live with in harmony.  They are loose in the world to destroy people and cultures not like them.  But no one of any importance is saying or doing a thing to stop the gradual incrementalism the non-radical half of our Islamic enemies are assigned to implement.

Where is the outrage?  Where is the line in the sand?  To even suggest sharia law be instituted in Australia should be enough to have them rounding up muslims and putting them on boats bound for the desert.   

[CactusCarlos]

At least one country has stones.

Part of the reason it's my second favorite country! 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Actually I can't see why they would permit Jewish courts to have the force of law either, on any public legal issues like divorce, relationship, or inheritance; conversion obviously is a strictly internal issue with a religion where it would make sense and it has no public legal consequences.  Any such tribunals really should be treated as nothing more than contracted binding legal arbitration between consenting parties, with their result (if legal in the framework of the nation's laws as a whole) endorsed by real courts.

In Merrie Olde Englande there were three types of courts:  Law, chancery, and ecclesiastical.  The jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts was similar to that described for the Australian Beth Din, however once the hold of the Catholic church as THE state religion was broken, this proved to be an idea that had outlived its usefulness, and jurisdiction over all the matters with any kind of public consequences moved into the courts of equity (Chancellor's courts, or chancery). 

[Chris_]

Actually I can't see why they would permit Jewish courts to have the force of law either, on any public legal issues like divorce, relationship, or inheritance; conversion obviously is a strictly internal issue with a religion where it would make sense and it has no public legal consequences.  Any such tribunals really should be treated as nothing more than contracted binding legal arbitration between consenting parties, with their result (if legal in the framework of the nation's laws as a whole) endorsed by real courts.

In Merrie Olde Englande there were three types of courts:  Law, chancery, and ecclesiastical.  The jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts was similar to that described for the Australian Beth Din, however once the hold of the Catholic church as THE state religion was broken, this proved to be an idea that had outlived its usefulness, and jurisdiction over all the matters with any kind of public consequences moved into the courts of equity (Chancellor's courts, or chancery). 

I'm not sure, but we also have Jewish courts here in the US.....the way it works is the litigants argue before the religious court first, and when a decision is reached it can then be argued before the secular courts.  The specific issue that I remember is in the case of divorces, they must be cleared by the Beth Din first, then the civil courts in order for the litigants to be divorced completely, and remain "kosher" as it were....

doc

[Lord Undies]

Actually I can't see why they would permit Jewish courts to have the force of law either, on any public legal issues like divorce, relationship, or inheritance; conversion obviously is a strictly internal issue with a religion where it would make sense and it has no public legal consequences.  Any such tribunals really should be treated as nothing more than contracted binding legal arbitration between consenting parties, with their result (if legal in the framework of the nation's laws as a whole) endorsed by real courts.

In Merrie Olde Englande there were three types of courts:  Law, chancery, and ecclesiastical.  The jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts was similar to that described for the Australian Beth Din, however once the hold of the Catholic church as THE state religion was broken, this proved to be an idea that had outlived its usefulness, and jurisdiction over all the matters with any kind of public consequences moved into the courts of equity (Chancellor's courts, or chancery). 

I'm not sure, but we also have Jewish courts here in the US.....the way it works is the litigants argue before the religious court first, and when a decision is reached it can then be argued before the secular courts.  The specific issue that I remember is in the case of divorces, they must be cleared by the Beth Din first, then the civil courts in order for the litigants to be divorced completely, and remain "kosher" as it were....

doc

The Jewish faith qualifies for special arrangements in civilized countries because the Jews have helped create western society.  They do not exist to destroy it.  Jews are not mandated to kill everyone who is not a Jew.  There is no comparison.  Jews, with the possible exception of a cat I once had, are not animals with no regard for human life. 

[Chris_]

Actually I can't see why they would permit Jewish courts to have the force of law either, on any public legal issues like divorce, relationship, or inheritance; conversion obviously is a strictly internal issue with a religion where it would make sense and it has no public legal consequences.  Any such tribunals really should be treated as nothing more than contracted binding legal arbitration between consenting parties, with their result (if legal in the framework of the nation's laws as a whole) endorsed by real courts.

In Merrie Olde Englande there were three types of courts:  Law, chancery, and ecclesiastical.  The jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts was similar to that described for the Australian Beth Din, however once the hold of the Catholic church as THE state religion was broken, this proved to be an idea that had outlived its usefulness, and jurisdiction over all the matters with any kind of public consequences moved into the courts of equity (Chancellor's courts, or chancery). 

I'm not sure, but we also have Jewish courts here in the US.....the way it works is the litigants argue before the religious court first, and when a decision is reached it can then be argued before the secular courts.  The specific issue that I remember is in the case of divorces, they must be cleared by the Beth Din first, then the civil courts in order for the litigants to be divorced completely, and remain "kosher" as it were....

doc

The Jewish faith qualifies for special arrangements in civilized countries because the Jews have helped create western society.  They do not exist to destroy it.  Jews are not mandated to kill everyone who is not a Jew.  There is no comparison.  Jews, with the possible exception of a cat I once had, are not animals with no regard for human life. 

I was making the point that religious courts in western nations were not without precident, even in the US.....however, they are secondary to the "law of the land", and serve purposes of the faith only.

Unlike sharia, other religious courts do not attempt to expand their jurisdiction beyond the faith......

doc

[Lord Undies]

Actually I can't see why they would permit Jewish courts to have the force of law either, on any public legal issues like divorce, relationship, or inheritance; conversion obviously is a strictly internal issue with a religion where it would make sense and it has no public legal consequences.  Any such tribunals really should be treated as nothing more than contracted binding legal arbitration between consenting parties, with their result (if legal in the framework of the nation's laws as a whole) endorsed by real courts.

In Merrie Olde Englande there were three types of courts:  Law, chancery, and ecclesiastical.  The jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts was similar to that described for the Australian Beth Din, however once the hold of the Catholic church as THE state religion was broken, this proved to be an idea that had outlived its usefulness, and jurisdiction over all the matters with any kind of public consequences moved into the courts of equity (Chancellor's courts, or chancery). 

I'm not sure, but we also have Jewish courts here in the US.....the way it works is the litigants argue before the religious court first, and when a decision is reached it can then be argued before the secular courts.  The specific issue that I remember is in the case of divorces, they must be cleared by the Beth Din first, then the civil courts in order for the litigants to be divorced completely, and remain "kosher" as it were....

doc

The Jewish faith qualifies for special arrangements in civilized countries because the Jews have helped create western society.  They do not exist to destroy it.  Jews are not mandated to kill everyone who is not a Jew.  There is no comparison.  Jews, with the possible exception of a cat I once had, are not animals with no regard for human life. 

I was making the point that religious courts in western nations were not without precident, even in the US.....however, they are secondary to the "law of the land", and serve purposes of the faith only.

Unlike sharia, other religious courts do not attempt to expand their jurisdiction beyond the faith......

doc

Oh, I got your astute meaning.  I was just putting in my overvalued two cents worth. 

[Chris_]

Actually I can't see why they would permit Jewish courts to have the force of law either, on any public legal issues like divorce, relationship, or inheritance; conversion obviously is a strictly internal issue with a religion where it would make sense and it has no public legal consequences.  Any such tribunals really should be treated as nothing more than contracted binding legal arbitration between consenting parties, with their result (if legal in the framework of the nation's laws as a whole) endorsed by real courts.

In Merrie Olde Englande there were three types of courts:  Law, chancery, and ecclesiastical.  The jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts was similar to that described for the Australian Beth Din, however once the hold of the Catholic church as THE state religion was broken, this proved to be an idea that had outlived its usefulness, and jurisdiction over all the matters with any kind of public consequences moved into the courts of equity (Chancellor's courts, or chancery). 

I'm not sure, but we also have Jewish courts here in the US.....the way it works is the litigants argue before the religious court first, and when a decision is reached it can then be argued before the secular courts.  The specific issue that I remember is in the case of divorces, they must be cleared by the Beth Din first, then the civil courts in order for the litigants to be divorced completely, and remain "kosher" as it were....

doc

The Jewish faith qualifies for special arrangements in civilized countries because the Jews have helped create western society.  They do not exist to destroy it.  Jews are not mandated to kill everyone who is not a Jew.  There is no comparison.  Jews, with the possible exception of a cat I once had, are not animals with no regard for human life. 

Not quite.  The results of the Jewish court aren't binding, except as contract agreements (that is, the parties agree and thus a contract is created).  So, for example, a get isn't necessary for a divorce, but can be introduced as the agreement between the parties. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

The Jewish faith qualifies for special arrangements in civilized countries because the Jews have helped create western society.  They do not exist to destroy it.  Jews are not mandated to kill everyone who is not a Jew.  There is no comparison.  Jews, with the possible exception of a cat I once had, are not animals with no regard for human life. 

Ummm, no.  It's only entitled to be treated like any other extrajudicial forum, i.e. not legally binding in the larger society except as a matter of contract between the consenting parties for their agreed purposes in submitting to it.  Kinda what that whole "Equal protection of the laws" thing means.

[Lord Undies]

The Jewish faith qualifies for special arrangements in civilized countries because the Jews have helped create western society.  They do not exist to destroy it.  Jews are not mandated to kill everyone who is not a Jew.  There is no comparison.  Jews, with the possible exception of a cat I once had, are not animals with no regard for human life. 

Ummm, no.  It's only entitled to be treated like any other extrajudicial forum, i.e. not legally binding in the larger society except as a matter of contract between the consenting parties for their agreed purposes in submitting to it.  Kinda what that whole "Equal protection of the laws" thing means.

Ummmm, yes.  The Jews have a right to their own arbitration, settlements, and divorce agreements and have same recognized by the courts.  In no way is it stepping on equal protection. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

The Jewish faith qualifies for special arrangements in civilized countries because the Jews have helped create western society.  They do not exist to destroy it.  Jews are not mandated to kill everyone who is not a Jew.  There is no comparison.  Jews, with the possible exception of a cat I once had, are not animals with no regard for human life. 

Ummm, no.  It's only entitled to be treated like any other extrajudicial forum, i.e. not legally binding in the larger society except as a matter of contract between the consenting parties for their agreed purposes in submitting to it.  Kinda what that whole "Equal protection of the laws" thing means.

Ummmm, yes.  The Jews have a right to their own arbitration, settlements, and divorce agreements and have same recognized by the courts.  In no way is it stepping on equal protection. 

It's not recognized as matter of legal right because there is anything special about Jewish courts.  It has exactly the same mileage that binding arbitration in a contract does.  There is exactly zero special about the Jewish religion legally.

[Lord Undies]

The Jewish faith qualifies for special arrangements in civilized countries because the Jews have helped create western society.  They do not exist to destroy it.  Jews are not mandated to kill everyone who is not a Jew.  There is no comparison.  Jews, with the possible exception of a cat I once had, are not animals with no regard for human life. 

Ummm, no.  It's only entitled to be treated like any other extrajudicial forum, i.e. not legally binding in the larger society except as a matter of contract between the consenting parties for their agreed purposes in submitting to it.  Kinda what that whole "Equal protection of the laws" thing means.

Ummmm, yes.  The Jews have a right to their own arbitration, settlements, and divorce agreements and have same recognized by the courts.  In no way is it stepping on equal protection. 

It's not recognized as matter of legal right because there is anything special about Jewish courts.  It has exactly the same mileage that binding arbitration in a contract does.  There is exactly zero special about the Jewish religion legally.

[Lord Undies]

The Jewish faith qualifies for special arrangements in civilized countries because the Jews have helped create western society.  They do not exist to destroy it.  Jews are not mandated to kill everyone who is not a Jew.  There is no comparison.  Jews, with the possible exception of a cat I once had, are not animals with no regard for human life. 

Ummm, no.  It's only entitled to be treated like any other extrajudicial forum, i.e. not legally binding in the larger society except as a matter of contract between the consenting parties for their agreed purposes in submitting to it.  Kinda what that whole "Equal protection of the laws" thing means.

Ummmm, yes.  The Jews have a right to their own arbitration, settlements, and divorce agreements and have same recognized by the courts.  In no way is it stepping on equal protection. 

It's not recognized as matter of legal right because there is anything special about Jewish courts.  It has exactly the same mileage that binding arbitration in a contract does.  There is exactly zero special about the Jewish religion legally.

I never said there was anything legally special about the Jewish religion in law.  All I said was they qualify for special arrangements and then went forth to explain why that is so, in my opinion.   

The Jews deserve our respect and consideration.  The wild-eyed soulless camel fornicators do not.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I never said there was anything legally special about the Jewish religion in law.  All I said was they qualify for special arrangements and then went forth to explain why that is so, in my opinion.   

The Jews deserve our respect and consideration.  The wild-eyed soulless camel fornicators do not.

I don't know off-hand if it's ever come up in a US court of record, but by and large they'd treat a Sharia court pretty much the same if there was some question it had decided in a family case that wasn't locked up by existing statutory law, and the family brought it in to get it endorsed (as opposed to contesting it).  Except that so many things in the camel-porker's law (I just kinda like juxtaposing the 'pork' in there, don't you?  ) would be void as against public policy, and a lot of the rest of it (like inheritance) is already set in stone in state statutes so they can't ignore the codified US law to apply Sharia.

[Lord Undies]

I never said there was anything legally special about the Jewish religion in law.  All I said was they qualify for special arrangements and then went forth to explain why that is so, in my opinion.   

The Jews deserve our respect and consideration.  The wild-eyed soulless camel fornicators do not.

I don't know off-hand if it's ever come up in a US court of record, but by and large they'd treat a Sharia court pretty much the same if there was some question it had decided in a family case that wasn't locked up by existing statutory law, and the family brought it in to get it endorsed (as opposed to contesting it).  Except that so many things in the camel-porker's law (I just kinda like juxtaposing the 'pork' in there, don't you?  ) would be void as against public policy, and a lot of the rest of it (like inheritance) is already set in stone in state statutes so they can't ignore the codified US law to apply Sharia.

Ah, but there's the rub and my complaint.  The Cult of Camel'tang will not rest without being separate but equal.  That, my friend, is half their goal.

It is shocking how similar the radical islam agenda is to the radical homosexual agenda in concept.  Their tactics are the same.  Their goals are the same within their "culture".  Stand back and look.  It will amaze you.  It is almost like one hand is guiding the entire process.

The only thing for decent people to do is to now figure out why.  Why are two so seemingly opposite forces coming forth now in such similar ways?   Why now?