Australia launches anti-terror raids

[simple1]

Not all Muslims are jihadists.

But all jihadists are muslims.

And all crusaders were Christians. And more lately, so were bombers of family planning clinics.

Jihad is just a word.

The koran and hadith are just words, but look at the death toll (260 million) misery and darkness that those words have caused and continue to around the world today! Crusaders were merely answering at last 300 years of Muslim aggression and some abortion bombers were Muslim, straw argument from you as usual.

I had never heard of the joint Christian / Muslim extremist attack on an abortion clinic, so I looked it up.

Have a read of the following written by a Christian...

“In many ways, Christianity and Islam are more alike than different,” added Santorum. “In several instances – condoms, women’s rights, homosexuality, the subtle push toward unification of church and state – hardline Christians have much more in common with fundamentalist Islam than with the godless heathens of liberal democracy. This bombing marks a new effort to combine the power of our two religions in order to impose our overlapping religious ideals upon the frightened masses.”

http://recoilmag.com/muslims-christians-bomb-abortion-clinic-in-rare-display-of-interfaith-unity/

Over the centuries, with Christian wars, together with imperialist expansionism and colonial occupation, where anyone who stood in their way were murdered, what is the death toll? The leaders firmly believed they had “God on their side”.

Curious where you got the figure of 260 million deaths as a result of Islamic wars of conquest, sectarianism and occupation, got a link?

[JockPieandBeans]

Here is another one for you.

Even if Sharia Civil Law were to be officially recognised in Australia (currently highly unlikely), as it is in the UK, Thailand and so on, current Civil Law will always have precedence; pluralistic legislation is not permitted.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560?nk=7c4f7d521c67cc73a9c9fccdb4839db5

Seems that your statement is way way wide of the mark.

Not my quote. I think simple1 made it and got mucked up in my quote.

As for anything from the daily telegraph, that paper isn't even good enough to wipe my bum with.

That quote is from post #327, the post you made. Having reread it again, I can see nowhere it is a mucked up quote. Even if it was a mucked up quote, the suggestion is that you agree with it. I merely provided examples in both Aus and the UK, where this is not the case.

Daily Telegraph, no idea which way it leans. However is does APPEAR to support the other links I provided, some of them from the official Gov website.

What it does suggest, along with official Government website. Is that certain Muslim practices ( Sharia & Polygamy ) are currently being practiced throughout Australia.

As I said previously, right or wrong, the practice of turning a blind eye, to the actions of minority groups, is not conducive to a harmonious society.

[JockPieandBeans]

“In many ways, Christianity and Islam are more alike than different,” added Santorum. “In several instances – condoms, women’s rights, homosexuality, the subtle push toward unification of church and state – hardline Christians have much more in common with fundamentalist Islam than with the godless heathens of liberal democracy. This bombing marks a new effort to combine the power of our two religions in order to impose our overlapping religious ideals upon the frightened masses.”

Simple 1

Lets have a little look at the above statement.

Hardliners and Fundamentalists are one and the same. Regardless of their religion, creed or colour.

Their goals are to push their ideologies on others who do not want to be part of their ideology.

The godless heathens, who are so different from the worshipping hordes of the figment of someones imagination.

They have no place in a modern society.

[simple1]

Here is another one for you.

Even if Sharia Civil Law were to be officially recognised in Australia (currently highly unlikely), as it is in the UK, Thailand and so on, current Civil Law will always have precedence; pluralistic legislation is not permitted.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560?nk=7c4f7d521c67cc73a9c9fccdb4839db5

Seems that your statement is way way wide of the mark.

Not my quote. I think simple1 made it and got mucked up in my quote.

As for anything from the daily telegraph, that paper isn't even good enough to wipe my bum with.

That quote is from post #327, the post you made. Having reread it again, I can see nowhere it is a mucked up quote. Even if it was a mucked up quote, the suggestion is that you agree with it. I merely provided examples in both Aus and the UK, where this is not the case.

Daily Telegraph, no idea which way it leans. However is does APPEAR to support the other links I provided, some of them from the official Gov website.

What it does suggest, along with official Government website. Is that certain Muslim practices ( Sharia & Polygamy ) are currently being practiced throughout Australia.

As I said previously, right or wrong, the practice of turning a blind eye, to the actions of minority groups, is not conducive to a harmonious society.

Samran is correct, you are quoting from one of my posts.

In the conclusion of the linked government review, it states that for the meantime Sharia Civil law will not be recognised in Oz, even with overiding Civil Law inplace. Very politely put, but it's consistantly repeated by the main political parties it will never happen - acknowledge 'never' is a long time.

Poligamy is illegal in Oz. In private it would exist, as it does with a public declaration by a Christian sect in Oz (I'm sure there would be other sects indulging in this practice). Oz immigration law forbids visas for polygamous relationships, I guess there are scams to get around this restriction, such as a student visa. However, welfare support is not provided for multiple partners nor new migrants. Family reunion visas are heavily restricted, with a current waiting time averaging 20 years.

Edited September 28, 2014 by simple1

[JockPieandBeans]

Samran is correct, you are quoting from one of my posts.

In the conclusion of the linked government review, it states that for the meantime Sharia Civil law will not be recognised in Oz, even with overiding Civil Law inplace. Very politely put, but it's consistantly repeated by the main political parties it will never happen - acknowledge 'never' is a long time.

Poligamy is illegal in Oz. In private it would exist, as it does with a public declaration by a Christian sect in Oz (I'm sure there would be other sects indulging in this practice). Oz immigration law forbids visas for polygamous relationships, I guess there are scams to get around this restriction, such as a student visa. However, welfare support is not provided for multiple partners nor new migrants. Family reunion visas are heavily restricted, with a current waiting time averaging 20 years.

It matters not who the quote came from.

The fact of the matter is. With the links that I provided, it is clear that aspects of Sharia Law and Polygamy are being practiced in Australia. Even though that it is contravention to Australian Civil Law and no legal mandate from the Australian Government. It is more than likely, that the Australian government is following the lead that the UK Government followed. Try and ignore and it might go away. Great plan that worked really well. As previously stated, Muslim leaders had the audacity to take their case to the ECHR to try and force Sharia on the UK. Thankfully it was thrown out. Now if you really do not want to believe that the same will happen in Australia, that is your prerogative. You are good at citing precedence, I am merely giving you that precedence. If you think Australia will be any different. Good luck.

[JockPieandBeans]

Forgot to add.

I guess there are scams to get around this restriction, such as a student visa. However, welfare support is not provided for multiple partners nor new migrants. Family reunion visas are heavily restricted, with a current waiting time averaging 20 years.

I guess there is.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560?nk=7c4f7d521c67cc73a9c9fccdb4839db5

And I also guess, that this would bring into question that they are all hard working, tax paying citizens.

[jacky54]

I had never heard of the joint Christian / Muslim extremist attack on an abortion clinic, so I looked it up.

You seem to have to look a lot of stuff up, why not try looking up the koran and the hadith, then you might start to understand what the problem really is, try:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

for a start and put your religious blinkers aside

Edited September 28, 2014 by jacky54

[samran]

Here is another one for you.

Even if Sharia Civil Law were to be officially recognised in Australia (currently highly unlikely), as it is in the UK, Thailand and so on, current Civil Law will always have precedence; pluralistic legislation is not permitted.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560?nk=7c4f7d521c67cc73a9c9fccdb4839db5

Seems that your statement is way way wide of the mark.

Not my quote. I think simple1 made it and got mucked up in my quote.

As for anything from the daily telegraph, that paper isn't even good enough to wipe my bum with.

That quote is from post #327, the post you made. Having reread it again, I can see nowhere it is a mucked up quote. Even if it was a mucked up quote, the suggestion is that you agree with it. I merely provided examples in both Aus and the UK, where this is not the case.

Daily Telegraph, no idea which way it leans. However is does APPEAR to support the other links I provided, some of them from the official Gov website.

What it does suggest, along with official Government website. Is that certain Muslim practices ( Sharia & Polygamy ) are currently being practiced throughout Australia.

As I said previously, right or wrong, the practice of turning a blind eye, to the actions of minority groups, is not conducive to a harmonious society.

<deleted>, I tell you twice is wasn't me and you still don't believe me.

You don't turn a blind eye to anything that runs contrary to the laws of a county.

But you don't get a harmonious society by tarring and feathering everyone just because they happen to share the same religion as perpetuators of a crime.

Leave that modus operandi to the criminals who run Isis.

Edited September 28, 2014 by samran

[Tep]

I know nothing about Australia. Never been there. But I think it's not outside the realms of possibility that some countries that are now civilised will become less so under increasing Islamic doctrine from an increasing proportion of Muslims, the birth rate alone tells me that.

If you give even a passing nod to the rights of women and children, I can't see how anyone can defend Islamic scripture and teachings.

Have a look at Afghanistan in the 60's . . .

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/1960s-afghanistan#1

Was it just the Russian invasion that changed all this? Genuine question, because I don't know the answer.

A few of the older guys I worked with in Kabul had been through there during the 60's and 70's when it was part of the hippy/drug trail. They also told me it was a garden paradise, although they may have been on LSD or something at the time. 30 years of civil war emeant that there was not one single tree or bush left in any public space in Kabul except in the central square where a bloody great mosque was being built with no permission from the city and which was bulldozing down the remaining trees.

I am no scholar of islam or that region but if I was to look at the causes of radicalisation that have resulted in a huge shift from the culture of the 60's to what we have now, then I would focus on two areas, colonialism and poverty.

Colonialism would not mean the post WWI creation of many of these countries by the colonial master (Britain) out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire but more importantly US dominated post WWII foreign policy. Firstly I would look at the role that the US support of Israel had to play. I am not anti-Israeli. I think it has a right to exist. But it should have come to terms with its neighbours long ago. US backing enabled it to remain cause of tension. So the first signs of radicalisation that I can remember are the left wing terror gangs of the 70's (Bader Meinhof etc) that were in part responses to the Israel issue (there is more complexity naturally). Then I would look at the role of US dominance and actions in supporting puppet rulers, specifically the Shah of Iran and the trade off the US made with the reactionary Wahabists in Saudi Arabia, both to benefit the energy economy of the US and by consequence the energy corporates. The overthrow of the Shah was really the first or one of the first moves of 'radical islam'. I don't touch the Sunni/Shia thing or other issues but i do think colonialism, particularly US post WWII foreign policy is a major contributing factor to the creation of radical islam.

The poverty debate is I think self evident. The income inequity in many of these places where the under-class is not only impoverished but have no political voice found expression in the Arab Spring events of a few years ago. I have been to Dubai many times as a transfer point for travelling to Afghanistan. They are smart there. They have reached a deal with their citizens to subsidise an affluent lifestyle and import Filipinos and Pakistanis to to the service and construction dirty work in exchange for a docile population. Many states in the region don't or can't replicate this. My security briefer in Kabul talked of a shopping list distributed by the Taliban to young, poor rural youth that indicated prices that would be paid for wounds all the way up to the kidnap and murder of westerners. So the Taliban at the front end was a jobs program. What alternatives do young rural youths have?

Obviously those two issues have further complexities and there are other contributing factors to radicalisation and, more specifically, why certain countries are suffering from this i.e. Britain, France, Germany, US, Australia. You remember the riots in the Ban Lieu's of Paris, the long difficulties the Germans have had with accepting Turkish immigrants and now the endless discussions on Jihadism in US, UK and Aust.

This is why I hate the anti-immigrant bigots. The ask people to simplify a complex issue to a superficial racially or ideologically biased point of view. How can you develop responses to problems created by int his case radical Islam without the ability to appreciate the complexities of the issue. How can do you do this in an atmosphere of aggressive, blind, ignorant noise. I find this is an issue adopted by the under-class in Western societies. These people never had power or influence and many of them are now too old to ever have that chance. These powerless lash out at their governments who they say have 'destroyed the fabric of British society', exterminate the muslims etc. This aggression comes from sad and lonely or powerless lives and having to watch new, more dynamic, maybe more muscular cultures getting the attention. But you didn't ask my view on this, just on the cause of radical Islam.

As always, I am ready to be proven wrong. I am sure the Yanks will not like what I have said at all.

[JockPieandBeans]

<deleted>, I tell you twice is wasn't me and you still don't believe me.

Nice language. I have already acknowledged that the quote did not come from you.

You don't turn a blind eye to anything that runs contrary to the laws of a county.

Thats strange, I provided you with enough documentary links that says otherwise. Including the Aus Gov website. So perhaps you could explain why aspects of Sharia law and Polygamy are happening in Australia when it is contrary to Civil Law ? Or do you believe that it is not really happening ?

But you don't get a harmonious society by tarring and feathering everyone just because they happen to share the same religion as perpetuators of a crime.

I never said you did. I did say that you will not get a harmonious society by pandering to the wishes of a minority, regardless of their religion, creed or colour.

[JockPieandBeans]

Colonialism would not mean the post WWI creation of many of these countries by the colonial master (Britain) out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire but more importantly US dominated post WWII foreign policy. Firstly I would look at the role that the US support of Israel had to play. I am not anti-Israeli. I think it has a right to exist. But it should have come to terms with its neighbours long ago. US backing enabled it to remain cause of tension. So the first signs of radicalisation that I can remember are the left wing terror gangs of the 70's (Bader Meinhof etc) that were in part responses to the Israel issue (there is more complexity naturally). Then I would look at the role of US dominance and actions in supporting puppet rulers, specifically the Shah of Iran and the trade off the US made with the reactionary Wahabists in Saudi Arabia, both to benefit the energy economy of the US and by consequence the energy corporates. The overthrow of the Shah was really the first or one of the first moves of 'radical islam'. I don't touch the Sunni/Shia thing or other issues but i do think colonialism, particularly US post WWII foreign policy is a major contributing factor to the creation of radical islam.

The topic is about Australia, not an around the world jaunt.

The poverty debate is I think self evident.

This quote is from a Muslim. I'm happy to post his details

The link between poverty and Islamic terrorism is at best a fictitious one

An overwhelming proportion of British South-Asian Muslims come from Pakistani province of Punjab, the Indian province of Gujarat and from Bangladesh. As compared to the African Muslim migrants they are economically better off. But then the link between poverty and Islamic terrorism is at best a fictitious one. Mohammed Atta and his goons came from the upper crust of Middle Eastern society.

[Tep]

Colonialism would not mean the post WWI creation of many of these countries by the colonial master (Britain) out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire but more importantly US dominated post WWII foreign policy. Firstly I would look at the role that the US support of Israel had to play. I am not anti-Israeli. I think it has a right to exist. But it should have come to terms with its neighbours long ago. US backing enabled it to remain cause of tension. So the first signs of radicalisation that I can remember are the left wing terror gangs of the 70's (Bader Meinhof etc) that were in part responses to the Israel issue (there is more complexity naturally). Then I would look at the role of US dominance and actions in supporting puppet rulers, specifically the Shah of Iran and the trade off the US made with the reactionary Wahabists in Saudi Arabia, both to benefit the energy economy of the US and by consequence the energy corporates. The overthrow of the Shah was really the first or one of the first moves of 'radical islam'. I don't touch the Sunni/Shia thing or other issues but i do think colonialism, particularly US post WWII foreign policy is a major contributing factor to the creation of radical islam.

The topic is about Australia, not an around the world jaunt.

The poverty debate is I think self evident.

This quote is from a Muslim. I'm happy to post his details

The link between poverty and Islamic terrorism is at best a fictitious one

An overwhelming proportion of British South-Asian Muslims come from Pakistani province of Punjab, the Indian province of Gujarat and from Bangladesh. As compared to the African Muslim migrants they are economically better off. But then the link between poverty and Islamic terrorism is at best a fictitious one. Mohammed Atta and his goons came from the upper crust of Middle Eastern society.

Who are you to adjudicate what I say or don't say. I responded to a specific question from a poster. Just because Samran has you chasing your tail, don't take out your frustrations on me.

Your point on poverty is exactly what? You think you have won a point in a delusional battle? I provided first hand experience of the role of poverty in recruiting Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. I let that point speak for itself among those serious thinkers. That, sunshine, is not you.

[JockPieandBeans]

Who are you to adjudicate what I say or don't say. I responded to a specific question from a poster. Just because Samran has you chasing your tail, don't take out your frustrations on me.

Your point on poverty is exactly what? You think you have won a point in a delusional battle? I provided first hand experience of the role of poverty in recruiting Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. I let that point speak for itself among those serious thinkers. That, sunshine, is not you.

I am not adjudicating anything. I am merely pointing out that the topic is about Australia, not the rest of the world.

No one is chasing my tail, and no frustrations here.

Not my point on poverty. The point of a very educated Muslim. As I said, I'm happy to post his details.

No, you provided your opinion on Afghanistan. Which you are very quick to point out that you lived there. Where exactly did you live in Kabul ?

To keep it on topic. from the same scholar.

The point to be noted is that till the Muslim population does not reach a certain minimum mass, the Muslims adapt to the country of adoption. Till then they pretend assimilate the host countries culture, but like to create their Ghettos, away from the mainstream of that country. And when their numbers reach a critical mass, they start what Mohammed started in Mecca, the Razzias or Gazhawats (raids) against the non-Muslims. The Bradford riots were just the tip of the iceberg of such Razzias. The 7/7 bombings were the first warning shots of the Razzias

You think the same will not happen in Australia ? It has already started. I provided the links earlier if you care to look.

Sunshine ? Well done. Revert to type.

[samran]

<deleted>, I tell you twice is wasn't me and you still don't believe me.

Nice language. I have already acknowledged that the quote did not come from you.

You don't turn a blind eye to anything that runs contrary to the laws of a county.

Thats strange, I provided you with enough documentary links that says otherwise. Including the Aus Gov website. So perhaps you could explain why aspects of Sharia law and Polygamy are happening in Australia when it is contrary to Civil Law ? Or do you believe that it is not really happening ?

But you don't get a harmonious society by tarring and feathering everyone just because they happen to share the same religion as perpetuators of a crime.

I never said you did. I did say that you will not get a harmonious society by pandering to the wishes of a minority, regardless of their religion, creed or colour.

I'll leave the enforcement to the authorities, not to a mob. I'll abide by their judgements, not from social media knee jerk reactions. I have no idea of which parts of sharia either comply or contravene Australian law. But I'll bet there are some parts which there are no conflict. Unless you want to make people eat pork.

As for pandering, that's a very leading term.

[JockPieandBeans]

I'll leave the enforcement to the authorities, not to a mob. I'll abide by their judgements, not from social media knee jerk reactions. I have no idea of which parts of sharia either comply or contravene Australian law. But I'll bet there are some parts which there are no conflict. Unless you want to make people eat pork.

As for pandering, that's a very leading term.

Samran

There is no knee jerk reaction, mob mentality or any other reaction from me.

I am merely providing evidence, that there are things happening in Australia that are contrary to Civil Law. The exact same thing that happened in the UK.

If you wish to ignore or deny that evidence, that is your prerogative. It does not mean that it is not happening. Furthermore, it is not rational behaviour for someone to deny something that is staring them in the face.

I find it rather disturbing, that you or anyone else cannot see, or are unwilling to accept anything negative about something. In this case, the muslim population of Australia.

Edited September 28, 2014 by JockPieandBeans

[Tep]

Who are you to adjudicate what I say or don't say. I responded to a specific question from a poster. Just because Samran has you chasing your tail, don't take out your frustrations on me.

Your point on poverty is exactly what? You think you have won a point in a delusional battle? I provided first hand experience of the role of poverty in recruiting Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. I let that point speak for itself among those serious thinkers. That, sunshine, is not you.

I am not adjudicating anything. I am merely pointing out that the topic is about Australia, not the rest of the world.

No one is chasing my tail, and no frustrations here.

Not my point on poverty. The point of a very educated Muslim. As I said, I'm happy to post his details.

No, you provided your opinion on Afghanistan. Which you are very quick to point out that you lived there. Where exactly did you live in Kabul ?

To keep it on topic. from the same scholar.

The point to be noted is that till the Muslim population does not reach a certain minimum mass, the Muslims adapt to the country of adoption. Till then they pretend assimilate the host countries culture, but like to create their Ghettos, away from the mainstream of that country. And when their numbers reach a critical mass, they start what Mohammed started in Mecca, the Razzias or Gazhawats (raids) against the non-Muslims. The Bradford riots were just the tip of the iceberg of such Razzias. The 7/7 bombings were the first warning shots of the Razzias

You think the same will not happen in Australia ? It has already started. I provided the links earlier if you care to look.

Sunshine ? Well done. Revert to type.

You want to do what? You want to debate issues or you want to sling faeces? I can do both but I will not do it simultaneously. You play the man as you have done in all the previous posts that I can recall then we can sling faeces. You play the ball, then I will pay attention to serious points.

Please understand that merely saying something does not necessarily make it real so it is rather meaningless denying a mudslinging attack point by point. We will end up with an endless yes you did, no I didn't sandbox affray.

I pondered over sunshine a lot. There were other words. I knew it would bring a reaction. Hook line and sinker.

Up to you where to go from here.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Tep

[JockPieandBeans]

You want to do what? You want to debate issues or you want to sling faeces? I can do both but I will not do it simultaneously. You play the man as you have done in all the previous posts that I can recall then we can sling faeces. You play the ball, then I will pay attention to serious points.

Please understand that merely saying something does not necessarily make it real so it is rather meaningless denying a mudslinging attack point by point. We will end up with an endless yes you did, no I didn't sandbox affray.

I pondered over sunshine a lot. There were other words. I knew it would bring a reaction. Hook line and sinker.

Up to you where to go from here.

When you wish to discuss the topic, rather than launch into diatribe. Come back and speak to me.

Until then.

Adios

[samran]

I'll leave the enforcement to the authorities, not to a mob. I'll abide by their judgements, not from social media knee jerk reactions. I have no idea of which parts of sharia either comply or contravene Australian law. But I'll bet there are some parts which there are no conflict. Unless you want to make people eat pork.

As for pandering, that's a very leading term.

Samran

There is no knee jerk reaction, mob mentality or any other reaction from me.

I am merely providing evidence, that there are things happening in Australia that are contrary to Civil Law. The exact same thing that happened in the UK.

If you wish to ignore or deny that evidence, that is your prerogative. It does not mean that it is not happening. Furthermore, it is not rational behaviour for someone to deny something that is staring them in the face.

I find it rather disturbing, that you or anyone else cannot see, or are unwilling to accept anything negative about something. In this case, the muslim population of Australia.

Where have I denied anything?

You seem to suggest that the very fact that sharia law operates in Australia is something i deny. It isn't that I deny it, I just don't have a problem if it doesn't conflict with existing Australia law. And from the link you provided we have the following quote

"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."

Meaning, the desire to adhere by it, but Australian law takes precedence otherwise.

I'm not going to deny someone the right to determine what moral code they live by, so long as it doesn't conflict with the laws of the land. There may be elements of sharia which does not and then they have no part in Australia. But I'll leave it to legal experts to work that one out and rule in a considered way whether it does or not. And if those who chose to break the parts which conflict with Australian law are found, I'm happy for them to be fined or jailed, whichever is appropriate.

Edited September 28, 2014 by samran

[Tep]

You want to do what? You want to debate issues or you want to sling faeces? I can do both but I will not do it simultaneously. You play the man as you have done in all the previous posts that I can recall then we can sling faeces. You play the ball, then I will pay attention to serious points.

Please understand that merely saying something does not necessarily make it real so it is rather meaningless denying a mudslinging attack point by point. We will end up with an endless yes you did, no I didn't sandbox affray.

I pondered over sunshine a lot. There were other words. I knew it would bring a reaction. Hook line and sinker.

Up to you where to go from here.

When you wish to discuss the topic, rather than launch into diatribe. Come back and speak to me.

Until then.

Adios

A veritable flounce that was. Well done but please check your knickers. Looks like we won't be interacting then as you could not take up my challenge.

[transam]

I'll leave the enforcement to the authorities, not to a mob. I'll abide by their judgements, not from social media knee jerk reactions. I have no idea of which parts of sharia either comply or contravene Australian law. But I'll bet there are some parts which there are no conflict. Unless you want to make people eat pork.

As for pandering, that's a very leading term.

Samran

There is no knee jerk reaction, mob mentality or any other reaction from me.

I am merely providing evidence, that there are things happening in Australia that are contrary to Civil Law. The exact same thing that happened in the UK.

If you wish to ignore or deny that evidence, that is your prerogative. It does not mean that it is not happening. Furthermore, it is not rational behaviour for someone to deny something that is staring them in the face.

I find it rather disturbing, that you or anyone else cannot see, or are unwilling to accept anything negative about something. In this case, the muslim population of Australia.

Where have I denied anything?

You seem to suggest that the very fact that sharia law operates in Australia is something i deny. It isn't that I deny it, I just don't have a problem if it doesn't conflict with existing Australia law. And from the link you provided we have the following quote

"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."

Meaning, the desire to adhere by it, but Australian law takes precedence otherwise.

I'm not going to deny someone the right to determine what moral code they live by, so long as it doesn't conflict with the laws of the land. There may be elements of sharia which does not and then they have no part in Australia. But I'll leave it to legal experts to work that one out and rule in a considered way whether it does or not. And if those who chose to break the parts which conflict with Australian law are found, I'm happy for them to be fined or jailed, whichever is appropriate.

If folk want to move to a foreign land they must forget all their daft religious laws. If they cannot cope with the "new" lands laws and way of life then stay in their own country. It is soooooo easy, but alas their country doesn't have social security and benefits so they will go for the handouts and try and do their daft stuff....

[JockPieandBeans]

I'll leave the enforcement to the authorities, not to a mob. I'll abide by their judgements, not from social media knee jerk reactions. I have no idea of which parts of sharia either comply or contravene Australian law. But I'll bet there are some parts which there are no conflict. Unless you want to make people eat pork.

As for pandering, that's a very leading term.

Samran

There is no knee jerk reaction, mob mentality or any other reaction from me.

I am merely providing evidence, that there are things happening in Australia that are contrary to Civil Law. The exact same thing that happened in the UK.

If you wish to ignore or deny that evidence, that is your prerogative. It does not mean that it is not happening. Furthermore, it is not rational behaviour for someone to deny something that is staring them in the face.

I find it rather disturbing, that you or anyone else cannot see, or are unwilling to accept anything negative about something. In this case, the muslim population of Australia.

Where have I denied anything?

You seem to suggest that the very fact that sharia law operates in Australia is something i deny. It isn't that I deny it, I just don't have a problem if it doesn't conflict with existing Australia law. And from the link you provided we have the following quote

"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."

Meaning, the desire to adhere by it, but Australian law takes precedence otherwise.

I'm not going to deny someone the right to determine what moral code they live by, so long as it doesn't conflict with the laws of the land. There may be elements of sharia which does not and then they have no part in Australia. But I'll leave it to legal experts to work that one out and rule in a considered way whether it does or not. And if those who chose to break the parts which conflict with Australian law are found, I'm happy for them to be fined or jailed, whichever is appropriate.

Samran

The point I was making. Australia just like the UK has Civil Law that all citizens must adhere to. That is fine, I have no issues with that. Where I do have issues, is that there is a minority who want to adhere to their own laws. In this instance we are talking about Sharia Law. It would not matter to me what religion, race or creed that minority is, the obey the Civil Law in the Country that they are in. Not their own laws or anything else.

Now, I might be mistaken, but I was under the impression that ANYONE who is granted Australian citizenship is required to go through an oath bearing ceremony. Who then swear their allegiance to Australia and its constitution.

If that is in fact the case. Then no elements of Sharia law should be being practiced and neither should Polygamy be happening either. The same applying to any other minority group that might want some part of their laws applied.

It does conflict with the Law of the Land. The majority do not want it happening, therefore it causes unrest. It is not just happening in the UK, but across Europe to. The majority are beginning to kick back.

And let me reiterate, I have no issues whatsoever with controlled migration. I also believe that if you migrate to any particular Country, then you abide by that Countries Laws.

Over to you.

[samran]

I'll leave the enforcement to the authorities, not to a mob. I'll abide by their judgements, not from social media knee jerk reactions. I have no idea of which parts of sharia either comply or contravene Australian law. But I'll bet there are some parts which there are no conflict. Unless you want to make people eat pork.

As for pandering, that's a very leading term.

Samran

There is no knee jerk reaction, mob mentality or any other reaction from me.

I am merely providing evidence, that there are things happening in Australia that are contrary to Civil Law. The exact same thing that happened in the UK.

If you wish to ignore or deny that evidence, that is your prerogative. It does not mean that it is not happening. Furthermore, it is not rational behaviour for someone to deny something that is staring them in the face.

I find it rather disturbing, that you or anyone else cannot see, or are unwilling to accept anything negative about something. In this case, the muslim population of Australia.

Where have I denied anything?

You seem to suggest that the very fact that sharia law operates in Australia is something i deny. It isn't that I deny it, I just don't have a problem if it doesn't conflict with existing Australia law. And from the link you provided we have the following quote

"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."

Meaning, the desire to adhere by it, but Australian law takes precedence otherwise.

I'm not going to deny someone the right to determine what moral code they live by, so long as it doesn't conflict with the laws of the land. There may be elements of sharia which does not and then they have no part in Australia. But I'll leave it to legal experts to work that one out and rule in a considered way whether it does or not. And if those who chose to break the parts which conflict with Australian law are found, I'm happy for them to be fined or jailed, whichever is appropriate.

If folk want to move to a foreign land they must forget all their daft religious laws. If they cannot cope with the "new" lands laws and way of life then stay in their own country. It is soooooo easy, but alas their country doesn't have social security and benefits so they will go for the handouts and try and do their daft stuff....

So if a catholic moves to Australia, they must have an abortion which is legal in Australia even if Catholicism bans it. Do I make them get contraception? Again, against catholic doctrine. Do I make them eat meat during lent?

For a jehovah witness, so I make them take a blood transfusion to save their lives even if their faith bans it?

Do I make Orthodox Jews work on Saturday? Do I ban them from building two kitchens for the seperate preparation of food?

Do I make Sikhs cut their hair?

Do I make Mormons drink alcohol?

None of these things they do, according to religious scripture and beliefs are illegal. Why should I stop them?

Ed - I really don't understand your need to intrude into people's bedrooms. Do we ban homosexuality? It isn't illegal. People were living polygamous lives even without the sanction of a religion. Do we ban them to given they aren't doing so under any religious order?

Edited September 28, 2014 by samran

[jacky54]

I have no idea of which parts of sharia either comply or contravene Australian law. But I'll bet there are some parts which there are no conflict. Unless you want to make people eat pork.

You admit you have no idea then, 'dunno' but I think most here realised this some time ago!

[samran]

I'll leave the enforcement to the authorities, not to a mob. I'll abide by their judgements, not from social media knee jerk reactions. I have no idea of which parts of sharia either comply or contravene Australian law. But I'll bet there are some parts which there are no conflict. Unless you want to make people eat pork.

As for pandering, that's a very leading term.

Samran

There is no knee jerk reaction, mob mentality or any other reaction from me.

I am merely providing evidence, that there are things happening in Australia that are contrary to Civil Law. The exact same thing that happened in the UK.

If you wish to ignore or deny that evidence, that is your prerogative. It does not mean that it is not happening. Furthermore, it is not rational behaviour for someone to deny something that is staring them in the face.

I find it rather disturbing, that you or anyone else cannot see, or are unwilling to accept anything negative about something. In this case, the muslim population of Australia.

Where have I denied anything?

You seem to suggest that the very fact that sharia law operates in Australia is something i deny. It isn't that I deny it, I just don't have a problem if it doesn't conflict with existing Australia law. And from the link you provided we have the following quote

"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."

Meaning, the desire to adhere by it, but Australian law takes precedence otherwise.

I'm not going to deny someone the right to determine what moral code they live by, so long as it doesn't conflict with the laws of the land. There may be elements of sharia which does not and then they have no part in Australia. But I'll leave it to legal experts to work that one out and rule in a considered way whether it does or not. And if those who chose to break the parts which conflict with Australian law are found, I'm happy for them to be fined or jailed, whichever is appropriate.

Samran

The point I was making. Australia just like the UK has Civil Law that all citizens must adhere to. That is fine, I have no issues with that. Where I do have issues, is that there is a minority who want to adhere to their own laws. In this instance we are talking about Sharia Law. It would not matter to me what religion, race or creed that minority is, the obey the Civil Law in the Country that they are in. Not their own laws or anything else.

Now, I might be mistaken, but I was under the impression that ANYONE who is granted Australian citizenship is required to go through an oath bearing ceremony. Who then swear their allegiance to Australia and its constitution.

If that is in fact the case. Then no elements of Sharia law should be being practiced and neither should Polygamy be happening either. The same applying to any other minority group that might want some part of their laws applied.

It does conflict with the Law of the Land. The majority do not want it happening, therefore it causes unrest. It is not just happening in the UK, but across Europe to. The majority are beginning to kick back.

And let me reiterate, I have no issues whatsoever with controlled migration. I also believe that if you migrate to any particular Country, then you abide by that Countries Laws.

Over to you.

The current pledge

From this time forward

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

whose democratic beliefs I share,

whose rights and liberties I respect, and

whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Nothing here says you can't practice your religious beliefs. Of you want an atheist paradise, I'm sure there is still a soviet republic somewhere still standing.

[samran]

I have no idea of which parts of sharia either comply or contravene Australian law. But I'll bet there are some parts which there are no conflict. Unless you want to make people eat pork.

You admit you have no idea then, 'dunno' but I think most here realised this some time ago!

You're back then. I know 2+2 is a tough question, but it shouldn't have taken you 6 hours to solve.

[transam]

@ samran........

What a daft reply......All our western countries have noooooo problem whatsoever with any religion and their practices, EXCEPT ONE........The one that doesn't want to integrate, the one that doesn't want to follow the laws of their new abode, the one that wants to kill anything that moves if it doesn't follow THEIR religious code. You know which one that is don't you, you little rascal..

Unfortunately for the west, the west that has opened doors to all, but then we have folk like you and another, who would rather protect these folk instead of looking after your natives. Every society has folk like you, want to bend over backwards UNTIL you get personally hit by shit.

[JockPieandBeans]

The current pledge

From this time forward

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

whose democratic beliefs I share,

whose rights and liberties I respect, and

whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Nothing here says you can't practice your religious beliefs. Of you want an atheist paradise, I'm sure there is still a soviet republic somewhere still standing.

Samran

1. Loyalty to Australia and its people. Is Australia now a Muslim Country ?

2. Democratic beliefs. Is Islam a Democratic Religion ? Or how about which Muslim Country is Democratic ?

3. Rights and liberties. Is Islam conducive to rights and liberties ?

4. Whose Laws I will uphold and obey. I will not insult your intelligence here. Forced marriage / Multiple wives come where in Australian Law ?

I am not questioning anyones right to practice their religious beliefs. There is a vast difference between practicing your religious beliefs and having the right to practice Religious Laws. Which contradict the Law of the Land.

[jacky54]

The current pledge

From this time forward

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

whose democratic beliefs I share,

whose rights and liberties I respect, and

whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Nothing here says you can't practice your religious beliefs. Of you want an atheist paradise, I'm sure there is still a soviet republic somewhere still standing.

Nothing there about the koran, the prophet and beheading people on the streets then. Nobody is claiming people should not practice their religion, the problem is when that religion is one of hate, division and violence!

Edited September 28, 2014 by jacky54

[Tep]

The current pledge

From this time forward

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

whose democratic beliefs I share,

whose rights and liberties I respect, and

whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Nothing here says you can't practice your religious beliefs. Of you want an atheist paradise, I'm sure there is still a soviet republic somewhere still standing.

I wonder if some of these anti-immigrant Brits realised Australia is not the classist, racist, patriarchal culture they foisted on us? Multiculturalism started around the 80's in terms of government policy but the antecedents are earlier. Much of the anti-discrimination legislation that was passed in the 80's was initiated in the 70's, particularly under Whitlam and my own State, under Dunstan. Plenty of time for significant cultural change.

I had not seen the pledge before. Nice.

[Tep]

@ samran........

What a daft reply......All our western countries have noooooo problem whatsoever with any religion and their practices, EXCEPT ONE........The one that doesn't want to integrate, the one that doesn't want to follow the laws of their new abode, the one that wants to kill anything that moves if it doesn't follow THEIR religious code. You know which one that is don't you, you little rascal..

Unfortunately for the west, the west that has opened doors to all, but then we have folk like you and another, who would rather protect these folk instead of looking after your natives. Every society has folk like you, want to bend over backwards UNTIL you get personally hit by shit.

By natives, I assume you are referring to the Australian Aboriginal population. They have serious issues that are not yet resolved. You wish to discuss this?