Extremism - Australia next if we allow it!

+1 Yeah - I agree.

I don't see why there is any less chance of a judge having a subjective view of the facts than a jury doing so.

McLovin said:

Bench only trials are quite common. I really don't see the difference between a judge or jury deciding if someone is guilty.

Click to expand...

It's the reasons for it that I find disturbing.

MrBurns said:

It's the reasons for it that I find disturbing.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's a fair point. But at the same time I could see how a jury could be biased. Attempted murder is a serious charge, so I can see why the judge erred on the side of caution to ensure a fair trial. In the US, the right to trial by jury is at the discretion of the accused.

McLovin said:

Yeah that's a fair point. But at the same time I could see how a jury could be biased. Attempted murder is a serious charge, so I can see why the judge erred on the side of caution to ensure a fair trial. In the US, the right to trial by jury is at the discretion of the accused.

Click to expand...

If a persons religion is so abhorrent a jury has to be left out of the picture perhaps that religion should be on trial.

What he's saying is that my religion will predjudice the jury because it flies in the face of accepted Australian culture and it's laws.

Not on.

12 months jail and then deportation.

MrBurns said:

If a persons religion is so abhorrent a jury has to be left out of the picture perhaps that religion should be on trial.

What he's saying is that my religion will predjudice the jury because it flies in the face of accepted Australian culture and it's laws.

Click to expand...

I agree. Which is why it was overturned. But the point is that regardless of the man's religion he still deserves a fair trial for the crime he is accused of committing. His religion is not on trial so it should not be allowed to influence the jury, either positively or negatively.

McLovin said:

Bench only trials are quite common. I really don't see the difference between a judge or jury deciding if someone is guilty.

Click to expand...

Ahhhh sorry I didnt read the whole thing, it was overturned, OK thats right, the original judge should have known better.

Brings to the surface the fact that some religions actually do fly in the face of Australian law and should be outlawed.

I mean I cant open a school for bank robbers or rapists but Sharia law teaches punishment of women that is unlawful here.

Some one in the legal fraternally, most likely the prosecution, has decided that Australians are racists and therefore he can't get a fair trial good thing he pleads guilty.


There can't be much compassion in the Muslim world when a man can want to kill his loved ones over some thing so trivial.
So now do we have two sets of rules or one rule for each religion, religion should have nothing to do with it is a belief just like UFO watchers.
The man in Egypt watching a porno and saw his wife on the big screen may have reason after all if she is acting and not sharing the proceeds how inconsiderate can one be. .

Suppose it's only a matter of time before it happens here...

Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs


Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html

DB008 said:

Suppose it's only a matter of time before it happens here...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html

Click to expand...

So much for "equality before the law".

What's wrong with a private party (or two) negotiating a civil matter that breaches no law in whichever method they choose?

Rabbinic law in divorces has been in existence in the UK for well over 100 years.

The only issue I would have is that women may not voluntarily agree to have their case heard in Sharia court.

McLovin said:

What's wrong with a private party (or two) negotiating a civil matter that breaches no law in whichever method they choose?

Rabbinic law in divorces has been in existence in the UK for well over 100 years.

The only issue I would have is that women may not voluntarily agree to have their case heard in Sharia court.

Click to expand...

If the Sharia law is not binding on all parties and is contestable in the normal courts that would be a start, but a claimant doing that would possibly be subject to some of the atrocious "honour killings" that have wormed their way into Britain.

Better to just have one law for all and do away with this Sharia nonsense, which is in reality another form of enslavement to a particular looney religion.

SirRumpole said:

If the Sharia law is not binding on all parties and is contestable in the normal courts that would be a start

Click to expand...

It is. Sharia does not have equal status to the law of Britain. It is nothing more than a method of arbitration. It's not different to a couple getting divorced agreeing on how to divide their assets then presenting it to the family court to be rubber stamped. Sharia doesn't usurp the protections in the legal system.

I don't know what the law of England and Wales is wrt to disinheriting people, but in Australia it is very difficult to disinherit children, for example.

McLovin said:

It is. Sharia does not have equal status to the law of Britain. It is nothing more than a method of arbitration. It's not different to a couple getting divorced agreeing on how to divide their assets then presenting it to the family court to be rubber stamped. Sharia doesn't usurp the protections in the legal system.

I don't know what the law of England and Wales is wrt to disinheriting people, but in Australia it is very difficult to disinherit children, for example.

Click to expand...

I agree with SirRumpole on this. Sharia may not usurp the protections in the legal system, but could you imagine a woman or other person disadvantaged by Sharia arbitration who lives in one of the many Muslim enclaves that are now in Britain contesting such arbitration in the courts. To do so would invite permanent maiming if not death in many cases.

If there is no intent to deny equality to women and others, why allow such rights to be "voluntarily" arbitrated away. Who would "voluntarily" give up one's rights unless pressure from other sources is overwhelming.

We should be legislating to make it easier for people to enjoy their rights and freedoms, not pandering to the wishes of extreme religious bigots.

SirRumpole said:

If the Sharia law is not binding on all parties and is contestable in the normal courts that would be a start, but a claimant doing that would possibly be subject to some of the atrocious "honour killings" that have wormed their way into Britain.

Better to just have one law for all and do away with this Sharia nonsense, which is in reality another form of enslavement to a particular looney religion.

Click to expand...

Geez Rumpy, Inever thought it ever happen.

But I am happy to sing from the same song book as you.

bellenuit said:

I agree with SirRumpole on this. Sharia may not usurp the protections in the legal system, but could you imagine a woman or other person disadvantaged by Sharia arbitration who lives in one of the many Muslim enclaves that are now in Britain contesting such arbitration in the courts. To do so would invite permanent maiming if not death in many cases.

Click to expand...

What I don't have an issue with is two parties reaching a decision outside of court as long as that arbitration is reviewed by a court and deemed equitable according to the law. If that set up is going to create a system that uses intimidation against one party, and I have deep suspicion that it would, then I'd rather keep the status quo.

DB008 said:

Suppose it's only a matter of time before it happens here...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html

Click to expand...

Chip, Chip, Chipping Away

Excellent article that I couldn't agree with more. Our freedom of speech is gradually being eroded by a politically correct mindset that accepts intolerance in the name of religion over freedom. This is the US, but we see the same happening here.

Brandeis University's treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a disgrace. She has put her life on the line to expose the injustices to women in Islamic societies and needs armed protection wherever she speaks.

A triumph for the Boston Bombers

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/04/18/a-triumph-for-the-boston-bombers/


Brief Bio:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an outspoken defender of women's rights in Islamic societies, was born in Mogadishu, Somalia. She escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the Netherlands in 1992 and served as a member of the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006. In parliament, she worked on furthering the integration of non-Western immigrants into Dutch society and defending the rights of women in Dutch Muslim society. In 2004, together with director Theo van Gogh, she made Submission, a film about the oppression of women in conservative Islamic cultures. The airing of the film on Dutch television resulted in the assassination of Mr. van Gogh by an Islamic extremist. At AEI, Ms. Hirsi Ali researches the relationship between the West and Islam, women's rights in Islam, violence against women propagated by religious and cultural arguments, and Islam in Europe.

It would appear our level of community violence, is spiralling down to the lowest common denominator.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/24395602/south-east-metro-residents-terrorised/

We may have Australian values, doesn't mean all have to adopt them.
Attacking homes in broad daylight, has not been a common trait, that I've seen over the last 50 years.
Well not in an Australin Capital city within 5k's of the CBD.

This guy has been deported from the Philippines for his extreme Islamic preaching and we allow him back in Australia to do the very same thing.

I say lock him up now and throw away the key.,,,we do not need this guy here.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ves-in-melbourne/story-fnihslxi-1226998255175

The Islamic movement has been going on for 1400 years........So nothing has changed much in that time except they now killing each other.

To profile, or not to profile? (Rant-of-the-Day)

SAD WORLD WE LIVE IN--BUT THE FACTS DON'T LIE
This is all factually (and historically) correct - and verifiable.

In 732 AD the Muslim Army which was moving on Paris
was defeated and turned back at Tours, France, by Charles Martell.

In 1571 AD the Muslim Army/ Navy was defeated by the Italians and Austrians as they tried to cross
the Mediterranean to attack southern Europe in the Battle of Lapanto.

In 1683 AD the Turkish Muslim Army, attacking Eastern Europe, was finally defeated in the Battle
of Vienna by German and Polish Christian Armies.

...this crap has been going on for 1,400 years and half of these damn politicians don't even know it.

If these battles had not been won we might be speaking Arabic and Christianity could be non -
existent; Judaism certainly would be... And let us not forget that Hitler was an admirer of Islam and that the
Mufti of Jerusalem was Hitler's guest in Berlin and raised Bosnian Muslim SS Divisions: the 13th and
21st Waffen SS Divisions who killed Jews, Russians, Gypsies, and any other "subhumans".

Reflecting, a lot of Americans have become so insulated from
reality that they imagine that America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.

Pause a moment, reflect back. These events are actual events from history. They really happened!!!
Do you remember?

1. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male.

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim males.

3. In 1972 a Pan Am 747 was hijacked and eventually diverted to Cairo where a fuse was lit
on final approach, it was blown up shortly after landing by Muslim males.

4. In 1973 a Pan Am 707 was destroyed in Rome,
with 33 people killed, when it was attacked with grenades by Muslim males.

5. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim males.

6. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim males.

7. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim males.

8. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was
murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim males.

9. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue
passengers was murdered by Muslim males.

10. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim males.

11. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim males.

12. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim males.

13. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade
Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and
crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim males.

14. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim males.

15. In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and beheaded by---you guessed it was a--- Muslim male.

16. In 2013, Boston Marathon Bombing 4 Innocent
people including a child killed, 264 injured by Muslim males.

No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport
security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. So, ask yourself "Just how
stupid are we???"

Absolutely No Profiling!

They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper
identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old,
Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave
Muslim Males, alone lest they be guilty of profiling.

Ask yourself "Just how stupid are we?"

Have the American people completely lost their minds or just their Power of Reason???
As the writer of the award winning story 'Forrest Gump' so aptly put it, 'Stupid Is As Stupid Does'.