Muslim leader wants elements of sharia in Australia

[mutation]

Knowing as much as I do about Psychology I am often sceptical of some of the wishy washy aspects of the sociology I am presented with.

A lot of my lecturers seem to think that culture is the main driving force behind identity formation, In other words: nurture has more of an effect than nature. Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge in cognitive psychology and genome structuring knows that this is not the case. 

Having said that, its not like sociology is in the same bucket as homoeopathy...

Sociology lost me when they started lauding Max Weber as the epitome of the craft of social researcher!

I'm afraid I'm a great believer in the old " *censored* in -  *censored* out" school and Weber's data was fatally flawed because of its origins and analysis! Ok his methodology might well have been excellent in principle... but since he had no checks and balances worthy of the name I totally lost respect for the discipline.

The methodologies invoked by Psychology might not be perfect... no social science can be... but at least they *try* for as much mathematical validity as possible.

For me sociology *is* in the same bucket as homoeopathy... i.e. sometimes they just get lucky!

As for your lecturers they do have a point.

Nature obviously interacts with every aspect of the way culture works on identity... but ultimately most 'normal' people develop their social mores etc by immersion in the culture they develop within and thus identify totally with it. I doubt that a gum chewing baseball playing American kid would identify himself much with the cultural imperatives felt by a villager in PNG? Their social identity is predicated on the culture not their genetic makeup.

Well said!


Mutation

[bambu]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/sharia-law-would-harm-aussie-muslim-women/story-e6frg6zo-1225843990296


Sharia law would harm Aussie Muslim women


SHARIA law for Australia is being mooted again. The Australian Muslim Mission and Islamic Friendship Association of Australia are advocating its introduction, especially in relation to family and inheritance, as these would be "an advantage" for women whose civil divorce is not recognised in Muslim countries.

Arbitration courts for conferring an Islamic divorce or even settling disputes based in religion may appear innocuous and a useful option, but relevant experience outside Australia highlights some of the problems.

The saga of sharia law in Ontario, Canada, is instructive. Proponents of sharia courts had argued that the Canadian government should not interfere in religious practice or education. Established under Ontario's Arbitration Act of 1991, these courts dealt with a spectrum of family and business disputes and, although the procedure was voluntary, court decisions were binding.

Homa Arjomand, a Canadian migrant from Iran, had long been aware of decisions that discriminated against women in terms of marriage, divorce and custody. In some cases, domestic violence had gone unpunished, divorced women were faced with minimal alimony and custody of children, and underage girls were sent back to countries of origin where they were forcibly married.

>>>>>

Muslim women in Australia will get what they put up with.
Maybe they like sharia law and want it here, who knows?

Don't like Sharia law?...don't want it here?...then it's up to Muslim women here to protest.

Simple scenario!

[Crimson]

In all fairness,

I don't see in this instance that anything of substance would change,

The Family Court allready considers cultural differences when rulling in custody matters so wether or not Sharia was available in that process it perhaps wouildn't alter any of the out-comes given that the religious and cultural aspects related to the case would automatically be considered.

So really, in the above, the notion of Sharia Law is rather pointless.

As for Divorce, the process is goverened by Federal Law which has its beginnings in Holy Roman Law, meaning that marriage and divorce laws in Australia as elsewhere are directly related to Catholic tradition.

So i think it a touch hypocritical to attack Sharia Law in this instance based on an anti-religious arguement of any type.

Secondly, the out-comes may or may not change in terms of property settlement given that these rullings allready are open to wide ranging interpretations under the current law.

Again, the Islamic Community of Australia will be pushing the excrement up the proverbial trying to push the agenda past that of the feminists here in Australia...

So really, much a doo about really very little, it was a throw away suggestion to begin with that doesn't have much support even from Muslims.

As for seperate legal codes broadly, we allready have them, we have drug courts for drug users and we also have indigenous courts for Aboriginal people where their law applies.

So... really, the thing that could happen here is, we could give the Muslims Sharia Law to deal amongst themselves and then the Catholic Church would then have every right to have its traditional law re-introduced for Catholics/Christians...

Could prove interesting...

Regards,

Crimson

[mutation]

So... really, the thing that could happen here is, we could give the Muslims Sharia Law to deal amongst themselves and then the Catholic Church would then have every right to have its traditional law re-introduced for Catholics/Christians...

Could prove interesting...

Regards,

Crimson

Fine then I want a separate justice system for Anti Theists like me with a right to a trial by a Jury of My peers and that does not mean 12 people randomly selected from the electoral role!


Mutation

[Crimson]

So... really, the thing that could happen here is, we could give the Muslims Sharia Law to deal amongst themselves and then the Catholic Church would then have every right to have its traditional law re-introduced for Catholics/Christians...

Could prove interesting...

Regards,

Crimson

Fine then I want a separate justice system for Anti Theists like me with a right to a trial by a Jury of My peers and that does not mean 12 people randomly selected from the electoral role!


Mutation

You mean you're an atheist?

So would you accept being tried under the same non theist code of ethics as Socrates pilosophised? With the non theist liberal laws and practices of Classical Rome and Greece?

Regards,

Crimson

[mutation]

So... really, the thing that could happen here is, we could give the Muslims Sharia Law to deal amongst themselves and then the Catholic Church would then have every right to have its traditional law re-introduced for Catholics/Christians...

Could prove interesting...

Regards,

Crimson

Fine then I want a separate justice system for Anti Theists like me with a right to a trial by a Jury of My peers and that does not mean 12 people randomly selected from the electoral role!


Mutation

You mean you're an atheist?

So would you accept being tried under the same non theist code of ethics as Socrates pilosophised? With the non theist liberal laws and practices of Classical Rome and Greece?

Regards,

Crimson

No I am an Anti Theist there is a difference though I am also an atheist!

As you well know I am a high-school dropout with no relevant secondary education so I have no idea what non theist liberal laws and practices of Classical Rome and Greece might be  so I cant possibly answer that. Though knowing you i suspect there is a trap in that question somewhere!

Mutation

[Crimson]

So... really, the thing that could happen here is, we could give the Muslims Sharia Law to deal amongst themselves and then the Catholic Church would then have every right to have its traditional law re-introduced for Catholics/Christians...

Could prove interesting...

Regards,

Crimson

Fine then I want a separate justice system for Anti Theists like me with a right to a trial by a Jury of My peers and that does not mean 12 people randomly selected from the electoral role!


Mutation

You mean you're an atheist?

So would you accept being tried under the same non theist code of ethics as Socrates pilosophised? With the non theist liberal laws and practices of Classical Rome and Greece?

Regards,

Crimson

No I am an Anti Theist there is a difference though I am also an atheist!

As you well know I am a high-school dropout with no relevant secondary education so I have no idea what non theist liberal laws and practices of Classical Rome and Greece might be  so I cant possibly answer that. Though knowing you i suspect there is a trap in that question somewhere!

Mutation

No real trap, the laws and practices of Classical Rome and Greece weren't all too different from what we have today only the penalties were often quite harsh.

It is interesting that Law religious or otherwise is usually much the same, only at times ideologies can skew the relationship between the law and those who live under it.

Regards,

Crimson

[bambu]

Wonder if it would include young brides and "swap marriage"?


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1037450/yemeni-child-bride-dies-after-intercourse

A 13-year-old Yemeni girl who had been forced into marriage died five days after her wedding when she suffered a rupture ................

[Chris]

A 13-year-old Yemeni girl who had been forced into marriage died five days after her wedding when she suffered a rupture ................

Every year in the Western world, untold millions of thirteen year old (and younger) girls voluntarily indulge in sex.

What seems to be the real problem here wasn't the sex as such, but that neither bride nor groom had any clear idea what 'preparations' might have been required in order for the sex to have been a more pleasurable or at least less than fatal experience!

He was probably under the impression she was *supposed* to scream... she quite probably had no idea that some sort of lubrication might be essential... and the result was her husband forced himself on her with a resultant tragedy for the girl.

Sady in Yemen this sort of thing happens regularly. At least this girl was in puberty. She could well have been 8 years old or younger.

But again we seem to be drifting way off topic!

[bambu]

How so?

Muslim leader wants elements of sharia in Australia...




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1037450/yemeni-child-bride-dies-after-intercourse

Thousands of conservative women demonstrated outside parliament last month answering a call by Islamist parties opposing the law.

A lesser number of women rallied at the same venue a few days later in support of the law, whose implementation is blocked pending a request by a group of MPs for a review, although it had passed last year in the chamber.

>>>>>

Sure looks on topic to me.

[Chris]

Sure looks on topic to me.

Well you would wouldn't you??

[mutation]

Sure looks on topic to me.

Well you would wouldn't you??

I apologize in advance for this thread Hijacking but I can never beat back my curiosity.

Clearly you  and others have difficulty tolerating Bambu or his posts at least and do a very poor job of hiding it if in fact you try.
 Now it seems to me that this forum operates on a principal that any member has the right to express themselves within the limitations of the rules and the Law and that you in principal embrace this principal except when the post or poster demonstrably  conflicts with your view of things. Dont get me wrong I have similar feelings about others just no Bambu but I wonder how if you embrace this concept of "right to speak" how you can do it selectively. Either you embrace the concept or you dont! If you do embrace it then at the level of "Right to Speak" then every post or poster is equal in value whether you agree with it/them or not.
If you and others continually make "polite" fun of his posts or make "polite" but snide remarks about him or his posts how do you justify that while embracing the concept of everyone having the right to state their opinion. Is everyone equal or are some more equal than others?
I submit that If I made as many snide but "polite" comments about anyone in the admin team I would quickly be put in my place!

Mutation