Theresa May has apparently been running an enquiry, as Home Secretary, into the consequences of Sharia operating alongside British law.

When pushed on where she sees this going, she said her main concern was on the issue of gender equality but she did say there may be benefits for Muslims.

Do we have another Merkel here? Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for?

Let's hope not. The last thing we want is civil war.

Good question, Bogey. Our Pauline also wants an inquiry into.Sharia law operating alongside Australian law. I’m not sure what Pauline’s concerns are.

Tintedness? Slittyness? The inability to pronounce the letter L?

Please explain.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Theresa May has apparently been running an enquiry, as Home Secretary, into the consequences of Sharia operating alongside British law. When pushed on where she sees this going, she said her main concern was on the issue of gender equality but she did say there may be benefits for Muslims. Do we have another Merkel here? Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for? Let's hope not. The last thing we want is civil war.

She appointed an Imam instead of a Judge to Chair this inquiry on Sharia courts in the UK.

That would be like giving George Pell the Chair on the Royal Commission into child abuse within the church.

Do I need to say anymore?

More here for dim wits like little pecca,arsie, John Smith and Mothra-
onelawforall.org.uk

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 9:09pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Theresa May has apparently been running an enquiry, as Home Secretary, into the consequences of Sharia operating alongside British law. When pushed on where she sees this going, she said her main concern was on the issue of gender equality but she did say there may be benefits for Muslims. Do we have another Merkel here? Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for? Let's hope not. The last thing we want is civil war. She appointed an Imam instead of a Judge to Chair this inquiry on Sharia courts in the UK. That would be like giving George Pell the Chair on the Royal Commission into child abuse within the church. Do I need to say anymore? More here for dim wits like little pecca,arsie, John Smith and Mothra- onelawforall.org.uk

Bloody hell. Just what the UK needs.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 9:09pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Theresa May has apparently been running an enquiry, as Home Secretary, into the consequences of Sharia operating alongside British law. When pushed on where she sees this going, she said her main concern was on the issue of gender equality but she did say there may be benefits for Muslims. Do we have another Merkel here? Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for? Let's hope not. The last thing we want is civil war. She appointed an Imam instead of a Judge to Chair this inquiry on Sharia courts in the UK. That would be like giving George Pell the Chair on the Royal Commission into child abuse within the church. Do I need to say anymore? More here for dim wits like little pecca,arsie, John Smith and Mothra- onelawforall.org.uk

England had fallen.  I'm glad I have residency options in a country with less than 1% Muz

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for?

Jesus, you're a pissy little drama queen.

Did you write that post with a flag draped around your shoulders and a picture of the Queen above your roll-top bureau?

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 9:20pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 9:09pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Theresa May has apparently been running an enquiry, as Home Secretary, into the consequences of Sharia operating alongside British law. When pushed on where she sees this going, she said her main concern was on the issue of gender equality but she did say there may be benefits for Muslims. Do we have another Merkel here? Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for? Let's hope not. The last thing we want is civil war. She appointed an Imam instead of a Judge to Chair this inquiry on Sharia courts in the UK. That would be like giving George Pell the Chair on the Royal Commission into child abuse within the church. Do I need to say anymore? More here for dim wits like little pecca,arsie, John Smith and Mothra- onelawforall.org.uk Bloody hell. Just what the UK needs.

What is being proposed Nicole Page 2016?  Serious question.  Please answer in detail.

She's being compared to Merkel already

It looks like it's going to take decades yet to rid the world of globalist humanist idiocy

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 9:20pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 9:09pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Theresa May has apparently been running an enquiry, as Home Secretary, into the consequences of Sharia operating alongside British law. When pushed on where she sees this going, she said her main concern was on the issue of gender equality but she did say there may be benefits for Muslims. Do we have another Merkel here? Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for? Let's hope not. The last thing we want is civil war. She appointed an Imam instead of a Judge to Chair this inquiry on Sharia courts in the UK. That would be like giving George Pell the Chair on the Royal Commission into child abuse within the church. Do I need to say anymore? More here for dim wits like little pecca,arsie, John Smith and Mothra- onelawforall.org.uk Bloody hell. Just what the UK needs.

It's leftist idiocy to appoint an Imam to chair an inquiry on Sharia courts in the UK, great way to whitewash it.

I reckon the Iranian ex muslim Maryam Namazie is doing a great job in exposing this sham of sharia courts in the UK, she wonders why leftists side with Islamists instead of freedom.

In Australia we have an Iranian ex muslim called Rita Panahi who is one of my favourite journalists.
twitter.com/RitaPanahi

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 9:46pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 9:20pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 9:09pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Theresa May has apparently been running an enquiry, as Home Secretary, into the consequences of Sharia operating alongside British law. When pushed on where she sees this going, she said her main concern was on the issue of gender equality but she did say there may be benefits for Muslims. Do we have another Merkel here? Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for? Let's hope not. The last thing we want is civil war. She appointed an Imam instead of a Judge to Chair this inquiry on Sharia courts in the UK. That would be like giving George Pell the Chair on the Royal Commission into child abuse within the church. Do I need to say anymore? More here for dim wits like little pecca,arsie, John Smith and Mothra- onelawforall.org.uk Bloody hell. Just what the UK needs. It's leftist idiocy to appoint an Imam to chair an inquiry on Sharia courts in the UK, great way to whitewash it. I reckon the Iranian ex muslim Maryam Namzie is doing a great job in exposing this sham of sharia courts in the UK, she wonders why leftists side with Islamists instead of freedom. In Australia we have an Iranian ex muslim called Rita Panahi who is one of my favourite journalists. twitter.com/RitaPanahi

Couldn't agree more on your first point.

Thanks for those names - I hadn't heard of either of them before.

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 9:50pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 9:46pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 9:20pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 9:09pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Theresa May has apparently been running an enquiry, as Home Secretary, into the consequences of Sharia operating alongside British law. When pushed on where she sees this going, she said her main concern was on the issue of gender equality but she did say there may be benefits for Muslims. Do we have another Merkel here? Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for? Let's hope not. The last thing we want is civil war. She appointed an Imam instead of a Judge to Chair this inquiry on Sharia courts in the UK. That would be like giving George Pell the Chair on the Royal Commission into child abuse within the church. Do I need to say anymore? More here for dim wits like little pecca,arsie, John Smith and Mothra- onelawforall.org.uk Bloody hell. Just what the UK needs. It's leftist idiocy to appoint an Imam to chair an inquiry on Sharia courts in the UK, great way to whitewash it. I reckon the Iranian ex muslim Maryam Namzie is doing a great job in exposing this sham of sharia courts in the UK, she wonders why leftists side with Islamists instead of freedom. In Australia we have an Iranian ex muslim called Rita Panahi who is one of my favourite journalists. twitter.com/RitaPanahi Couldn't agree more on your first point. Thanks for those names - I hadn't heard of either of them before.

Dr Wafa Sultan is the best critic of Islam, she is an ex muslim from Syria, I would rate Maryam Namazie at number 2, both of these women deserve human rights awards plenty of videos with them on youtube.

I would rate Aayan Hirsi Ali at number 3.

If you want to hear a female voice from Islam try those 3.  ;)

Hey baron,

I've read  Aayan Hirsi Ali and she's terrific. If the others are ahead of her in your view, that's saying something. I shall go to YouTube!

If I voluntarily agree to become a Member of a Club, I am subject to the provisions of the Constitution of that Club, and I can be dealt with by the Club if I breach any provision of that Constitution.  Yeas?

(That's Step One in the development/explanation of my position, given Nicole Page 2016 found it too hard to explain her position.)

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 10:01pm:

Hey baron, I've read  Aayan Hirsi Ali and she's terrific. If the others are ahead of her in your view, that's saying something. I shall go to YouTube!

Here is an interview with Wafa Sultan, the other videos have her taking on the bearded nutjobs who preach Islam are also worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO2NGpIUe70

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Theresa May has apparently been running an enquiry, as Home Secretary, into the consequences of Sharia operating alongside British law. When pushed on where she sees this going, she said her main concern was on the issue of gender equality but she did say there may be benefits for Muslims. Do we have another Merkel here? Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for? Let's hope not. The last thing we want is civil war.

Cuckservatism.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 10:08pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 10:01pm: Hey baron, I've read  Aayan Hirsi Ali and she's terrific. If the others are ahead of her in your view, that's saying something. I shall go to YouTube! Here is an interview with Wafa Sultan, the other videos have her taking on the bearded nutjobs who preach Islam are also worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO2NGpIUe70

A strong, impressive woman. Thanks, baron.

Here's another excellent truth-teller on the current state of Islam -- Lebanon native Brigitte Gabriel.

Watch her crush the oft-argued PC claim that you can't associate Islam with terrorism because most Muslims are not terrorists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 9:33pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for? Jesus, you're a pissy little drama queen. Did you write that post with a flag draped around your shoulders and a picture of the Queen above your roll-top bureau?

I luxuriate in my penchant for the dramatic and as I hand down my stone tablets I am flanked by the flags of those countries which still defend the great culture of western civilisation.
I am thinking I might have to take the UK out of the lineup at some time.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 9:09pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Theresa May has apparently been running an enquiry, as Home Secretary, into the consequences of Sharia operating alongside British law. When pushed on where she sees this going, she said her main concern was on the issue of gender equality but she did say there may be benefits for Muslims. Do we have another Merkel here? Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for? Let's hope not. The last thing we want is civil war. She appointed an Imam instead of a Judge to Chair this inquiry on Sharia courts in the UK. That would be like giving George Pell the Chair on the Royal Commission into child abuse within the church. Do I need to say anymore? More here for dim wits like little pecca,arsie, John Smith and Mothra- onelawforall.org.uk

Totally disappointing

Theresa has no knowledge of islam the cult

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:14am:

Here's another excellent truth-teller on the current state of Islam -- Lebanon native Brigitte Gabriel. Watch her crush the oft-argued PC claim that you can't associate Islam with terrorism because most Muslims are not terrorists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

I've seen that one before 4E. For some reason the lefties struggle to cope with it  :)

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 2:26pm:

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:14am: Here's another excellent truth-teller on the current state of Islam -- Lebanon native Brigitte Gabriel. Watch her crush the oft-argued PC claim that you can't associate Islam with terrorism because most Muslims are not terrorists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s I've seen that one before 4E. For some reason the lefties struggle to cope with it  :)

Yeah, I can't imagine why either.

It must suck to witness someone make a mockery of your favorite excuse.   

An Imam appointed to chair an inquiry into Sharia law?  She may as well have told them they can do whatever they want and saved the cost of the inquiry.

Sharia Law belongs in Islamic countries, NOT in the UK or in any other western country. If muslims want that Law then they should return to the land of the Koran.

And I don't have a 'picture of The Queen' on the wall maggot.

https://youtu.be/ISNpOkpcWqg

My new hero, wafa sultan. Sorry I'm on an iPad so you'll need to copy the link into your browser.

Wolseley wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 2:30pm:

An Imam appointed to chair an inquiry into Sharia law?  She may as well have told them they can do whatever they want and saved the cost of the inquiry.

Next she's going to appoint a fox to investigate why the population of the henhouse keeps dwindling.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:09am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 9:33pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for? Jesus, you're a pissy little drama queen. Did you write that post with a flag draped around your shoulders and a picture of the Queen above your roll-top bureau? I luxuriate in my penchant for the dramatic and as I hand down my stone tablets I am flanked by the flags of those countries which still defend the great culture of western civilisation. I am thinking I might have to take the UK out of the lineup at some time.

Yes, but you'll leave Germany in, nein?

Eine volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer, ja?

Aussie wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 10:06pm:

If I voluntarily agree to become a Member of a Club, I am subject to the provisions of the Constitution of that Club, and I can be dealt with by the Club if I breach any provision of that Constitution.  Yeas? (That's Step One in the development/explanation of my position, given Nicole Page 2016 found it too hard to explain her position.)

25 responses to this topic and no one has engaged you. This is because:

1.  You're as dumb as a box of rocks
2. You're a nit-picking, haggling little pedant; and
3. As a result of points 1 and 2, no one actually cares about your opinion. 

Warm regards,
Nicole

Fuzzball wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 2:34pm:

Sharia Law belongs in Islamic countries, NOT in the UK or in any other western country.

Outside Islamic jurisdictions, Sharia law is religious form of civil law. It has nothing to do with legal jurisdictions, Islamic or Western. As it is applied in Australia and the UK, Sharia law is a voluntary form of mediation, normally undertaken in family and custody disputes.

In NSW, mediation is required before a matter can proceed to the Family Court. Sharia law usually takes this role. Its rulings can only be enforced through contract law and are not legally binding.

It would actually be unconstitutional to ban this form of dispute resolution. Any laws passed to do this would be challenged and overruled. There are other religious civil processes, including the Jewish court in Melbourne, the Beth Din. Therefore, banning Sharia law alone would be discriminatory, and again, challenged.

Sharia civil and family law is perfectly legal. More, it's constitutional. If there's a legal way to ban religious forms of dispute resolution, I'd love to hear it.

Like Halal food, Sharia law can't possibly be banned in a functioning constitutional democracy.

A royal commission would be completely pointless. Save us the money when you're buying Pauline off, Libs.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:25pm:

Fuzzball wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 2:34pm: Sharia Law belongs in Islamic countries, NOT in the UK or in any other western country. Outside Islamic jurisdictions, Sharia law is religious form of civil law. It has nothing to do with legal jurisdictions, Islamic or Western. As it is applied in Australia and the UK, Sharia law is a voluntary form of mediation, normally undertaken in family and custody disputes. In NSW, mediation is required before a matter can proceed to the Family Court. Sharia law usually takes this role. Its rulings can only be enforced through contract law and are not legally binding. It would actually be unconstitutional to ban this form of dispute resolution. Any laws passed to do this would be challenged and overruled. There are other religious civil processes, including the Jewish court in Melbourne, the Beth Din. Therefore, banning Sharia law alone would be discriminatory, and again, challenged. Sharia civil and family law is perfectly legal. More, it's constitutional. If there's a legal way to ban religious forms of dispute resolution, I'd love to hear it. Like Halal food, Sharia law can't possibly be banned in a functioning constitutional democracy. A royal commission would be completely pointless. Save us the money when you're buying Pauline off, Libs.

Why couldn't Sharia law be banned, especially in the UK, where there are 85 courts set up to practice it.

No nation is required to tolerate a parallel system of justice.

How would it be discriminatory to ban Sharia law and, for that matter, any other that's outside the mainstream? Any nation has the power to flatly declare that its own justice system is the one and only, and all others are null and void.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:25pm:

Sharia civil and family law is perfectly legal. More, it's constitutional.

Did you pluck that bullshit from your ass Karnal?

Cite where our constitution approves of religious laws.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:25pm:

Fuzzball wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 2:34pm: Sharia Law belongs in Islamic countries, NOT in the UK or in any other western country. Outside Islamic jurisdictions, Sharia law is religious form of civil law. It has nothing to do with legal jurisdictions, Islamic or Western. As it is applied in Australia and the UK, Sharia law is a voluntary form of mediation, normally undertaken in family and custody disputes. In NSW, mediation is required before a matter can proceed to the Family Court. Sharia law usually takes this role. Its rulings can only be enforced through contract law and are not legally binding. It would actually be unconstitutional to ban this form of dispute resolution. Any laws passed to do this would be challenged and overruled. There are other religious civil processes, including the Jewish court in Melbourne, the Beth Din. Therefore, banning Sharia law alone would be discriminatory, and again, challenged. Sharia civil and family law is perfectly legal. More, it's constitutional. If there's a legal way to ban religious forms of dispute resolution, I'd love to hear it. Like Halal food, Sharia law can't possibly be banned in a functioning constitutional democracy. A royal commission would be completely pointless. Save us the money when you're buying Pauline off, Libs.

Yet many Sharia Courts/Councils in the UK are over-stepping the line.  Which is an obvious eventuality when incompatible systems are allowed to function alongside the law.


Quote:

The Government is to launch an investigation into whether sharia courts operating in the UK discriminate against women – legitimising forced marriages and issuing unfair divorce settlements. The Home Office said it would examine claims that sharia courts – or councils - may be working in a “discriminatory and unacceptable way”, seeking to legitimise forced marriage and issuing divorces that are unfair to women, contrary to the teachings of Islam. However, it will also seek out examples of best practice among sharia councils.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sharia-courts-in-uk-face-government-probe-over-treatment-of-women-a7049826.html

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 12:31am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 10:08pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 10:01pm: Hey baron, I've read  Aayan Hirsi Ali and she's terrific. If the others are ahead of her in your view, that's saying something. I shall go to YouTube! Here is an interview with Wafa Sultan, the other videos have her taking on the bearded nutjobs who preach Islam are also worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO2NGpIUe70 A strong, impressive woman. Thanks, baron.

The videos of her taking on the bearded nutjobs who preach Islam are very impressive, a remarkable woman who deserves more recognition for her work in human and womens rights.

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 10:06pm: If I voluntarily agree to become a Member of a Club, I am subject to the provisions of the Constitution of that Club, and I can be dealt with by the Club if I breach any provision of that Constitution.  Yeas? (That's Step One in the development/explanation of my position, given Nicole Page 2016 found it too hard to explain her position.) 25 responses to this topic and no one has engaged you. This is because: 1.  You're as dumb as a box of rocks 2. You're a nit-picking, haggling little pedant; and 3. As a result of points 1 and 2, no one actually cares about your opinion.  Warm regards, Nicole

No-one?

Quote:

If I voluntarily agree to become a Member of a Club, I am subject to the provisions of the Constitution of that Club, and I can be dealt with by the Club if I breach any provision of that Constitution.  Yeas?

No disagreement, so we'll move on.

If the Constitution of my Club, in some way is in breach of the Law, then the Law prevails over it.

Yeas?

Aussie wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:13pm:

If the Constitution of my Club, in some way is in breach of the Law, then the Law prevails over it.

Unless it has an exemption.

lee wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:23pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 4:13pm: If the Constitution of my Club, in some way is in breach of the Law, then the Law prevails over it. Unless it has an exemption.

It is impossible to write/grant yourself an exemption from the Law.

Aussie wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:26pm:

It is impossible to write/grant yourself an exemption from the Law.

But legislators can. Which makes some more equal than others.

lee wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:35pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 4:26pm: It is impossible to write/grant yourself an exemption from the Law. But legislators can. Which makes some more equal than others.

That's a tad trite.  Legislators can only make a Law if it passes through Parliament.   

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:07pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 12:31am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 10:08pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 10:01pm: Hey baron, I've read  Aayan Hirsi Ali and she's terrific. If the others are ahead of her in your view, that's saying something. I shall go to YouTube! Here is an interview with Wafa Sultan, the other videos have her taking on the bearded nutjobs who preach Islam are also worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO2NGpIUe70 A strong, impressive woman. Thanks, baron. The videos of her taking on the bearded nutjobs who preach Islam are very impressive, a remarkable woman who deserves more recognition for her work in human and womens rights.

She's a proper feminist. Unlike the bloated, university educated feminazis we have in the west, who have nothing to cry over. Shame on them for not supporting their Islamic sisters like Wafa Sultan.

Quote:

She's a proper feminist.

How?  Just because she is female and rejects extremist Islamic views?

Seems to me that she is just like Christians who disclaim the OT and say that the NT negates the OT. Fine by me, but hardly a big deal.

Aussie wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:42pm:

That's a tad trite.  Legislators can only make a Law if it passes through Parliament.

You mean like Discrimination Laws and them not applying to private clubs?

'Private clubs enjoy an automatic exemption from anti-discrimination laws and are free to restrict membership on attributes including gender.'

http://www.smh.com.au/national/shed-time-at-menx2019s-club-20090805-ea3k.html#ixzz4EGoo7f4S

lee wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 5:09pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 4:42pm: That's a tad trite.  Legislators can only make a Law if it passes through Parliament.    You mean like Discrimination Laws and them not applying to private clubs? 'Private clubs enjoy an automatic exemption from anti-discrimination laws and are free to restrict membership on attributes including gender.' http://www.smh.com.au/national/shed-time-at-menx2019s-club-20090805-ea3k.html#ixzz4EGoo7f4S

That is an exemption given them by Law.  The Clubs did not write/grant it themselves.

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:51pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:25pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 2:34pm: Sharia Law belongs in Islamic countries, NOT in the UK or in any other western country. Outside Islamic jurisdictions, Sharia law is religious form of civil law. It has nothing to do with legal jurisdictions, Islamic or Western. As it is applied in Australia and the UK, Sharia law is a voluntary form of mediation, normally undertaken in family and custody disputes. In NSW, mediation is required before a matter can proceed to the Family Court. Sharia law usually takes this role. Its rulings can only be enforced through contract law and are not legally binding. It would actually be unconstitutional to ban this form of dispute resolution. Any laws passed to do this would be challenged and overruled. There are other religious civil processes, including the Jewish court in Melbourne, the Beth Din. Therefore, banning Sharia law alone would be discriminatory, and again, challenged. Sharia civil and family law is perfectly legal. More, it's constitutional. If there's a legal way to ban religious forms of dispute resolution, I'd love to hear it. Like Halal food, Sharia law can't possibly be banned in a functioning constitutional democracy. A royal commission would be completely pointless. Save us the money when you're buying Pauline off, Libs. Why couldn't Sharia law be banned, especially in the UK, where there are 85 courts set up to practice it. No nation is required to tolerate a parallel system of justice. How would it be discriminatory to ban Sharia law and, for that matter, any other that's outside the mainstream? Any nation has the power to flatly declare that its own justice system is the one and only, and all others are null and void.

Constitutions don't usually reference a "mainstream", 4th. Constitutions outline a countries legislative and legal systems, and the rights citizens have thereof. Mainstreams and minorities don't come into it.

How can a country tell its citizens how to resolve civil disputes? This is up to individuals.

Aussie wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 5:14pm:

That is an exemption given them by Law.  The Clubs did not write/grant it themselves.

lee wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:23pm:

Unless it has an exemption.

lee wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:35pm:

But legislators can. Which makes some more equal than others.

Exactly.  ;)

Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:06pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:25pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 2:34pm: Sharia Law belongs in Islamic countries, NOT in the UK or in any other western country. Outside Islamic jurisdictions, Sharia law is religious form of civil law. It has nothing to do with legal jurisdictions, Islamic or Western. As it is applied in Australia and the UK, Sharia law is a voluntary form of mediation, normally undertaken in family and custody disputes. In NSW, mediation is required before a matter can proceed to the Family Court. Sharia law usually takes this role. Its rulings can only be enforced through contract law and are not legally binding. It would actually be unconstitutional to ban this form of dispute resolution. Any laws passed to do this would be challenged and overruled. There are other religious civil processes, including the Jewish court in Melbourne, the Beth Din. Therefore, banning Sharia law alone would be discriminatory, and again, challenged. Sharia civil and family law is perfectly legal. More, it's constitutional. If there's a legal way to ban religious forms of dispute resolution, I'd love to hear it. Like Halal food, Sharia law can't possibly be banned in a functioning constitutional democracy. A royal commission would be completely pointless. Save us the money when you're buying Pauline off, Libs. Yet many Sharia Courts/Councils in the UK are over-stepping the line.  Which is an obvious eventuality when incompatible systems are allowed to function alongside the law. Quote: The Government is to launch an investigation into whether sharia courts operating in the UK discriminate against women – legitimising forced marriages and issuing unfair divorce settlements. The Home Office said it would examine claims that sharia courts – or councils - may be working in a “discriminatory and unacceptable way”, seeking to legitimise forced marriage and issuing divorces that are unfair to women, contrary to the teachings of Islam. However, it will also seek out examples of best practice among sharia councils.

Ah yes, but religions discriminate against people all the time. In Australia, to do this legally, all they have to do is obtain an exemption through EEO or the Human Rights Commission.

I'm allowed to be discriminated against by the Salvos. They're perfectly able to knock me back for employment because I'm not a Christian. I'm allowed to be knocked back for jobs in domestic violence shelters, Aboriginal positions, jobs as Greek Orthodox priests, rabbis, vicars, etc, etc, etc.

Religions discriminate all the time. In Jewish courts, parties are required to cover their heads. Believe it or not, the Old Testament is pretty discriminatory too.

Whether this is "right" or not is not the issue. If the parties seek such justice with informed consent, this covers discrimination legislation.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

Ah yes, but religions discriminate against people all the time. In Australia, to do this legally, all they have to do is obtain an exemption through EEO or the Human Rights Commission. I'm allowed to be discriminated against by the Salvos. They're perfectly able to knock me back for employment because I'm not a Christian. I'm allowed to be knocked back for jobs in domestic violence shelters, Aboriginal positions, jobs as Greek Orthodox priests, rabbis, vicars, etc, etc, etc. Religions discriminate all the time. In Jewish courts, parties are required to cover their heads. Believe it or not, the Old Testament is pretty discriminatory too. Whether this is "right" or not is not the issue. If the parties seek such justice with informed consent, this covers discrimination legislation.

None of which compare with the abuse that women and children suffer before Sharia courts.   They coerce women to sign agreements to abide by their decisions even though they are not legal.  Sharia courts enable the abuse of women and have no place in western society.

None at all.

Quote:

They coerce women to sign agreements to abide by their decisions even though they are not legal.

Then, given they are 'not legal,' the coerced women can trot off to the real Courts and get the remedy.

Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Ah yes, but religions discriminate against people all the time. In Australia, to do this legally, all they have to do is obtain an exemption through EEO or the Human Rights Commission. I'm allowed to be discriminated against by the Salvos. They're perfectly able to knock me back for employment because I'm not a Christian. I'm allowed to be knocked back for jobs in domestic violence shelters, Aboriginal positions, jobs as Greek Orthodox priests, rabbis, vicars, etc, etc, etc. Religions discriminate all the time. In Jewish courts, parties are required to cover their heads. Believe it or not, the Old Testament is pretty discriminatory too. Whether this is "right" or not is not the issue. If the parties seek such justice with informed consent, this covers discrimination legislation. None of which compare with the abuse that women and children suffer before Sharia courts.   They coerce women to sign agreements to abide by their decisions even though they are not legal.  Sharia courts enable the abuse of women and have no place in western society. None at all.

X 2

Aussie wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 7:58pm:

Quote: They coerce women to sign agreements to abide by their decisions even though they are not legal. Then, given they are 'not legal,' the coerced women can trot off to the real Courts and get the remedy.

Go to dictionary.com and look up "coerce", mor*n.

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 7:58pm: Quote: They coerce women to sign agreements to abide by their decisions even though they are not legal. Then, given they are 'not legal,' the coerced women can trot off to the real Courts and get the remedy. Go to dictionary.com and look up "coerce", mor*n.

I have no need.  I know what the word means.  So, does the Westminster Judicial System.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Theresa May has apparently been running an enquiry, as Home Secretary, into the consequences of Sharia operating alongside British law. When pushed on where she sees this going, she said her main concern was on the issue of gender equality but she did say there may be benefits for Muslims. Do we have another Merkel here? Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for? Let's hope not. The last thing we want is civil war.

On the contrary.

I had hoped she would put some backbone into Britain's misnamed 'Conservative Party', but the feeling I'm getting from the little snippets here and there of her various viewpoints is that once again the UK will have a prime minister who will spend her term in office making sure not to offend any of the minority communities for any reason whatsoever.

 

Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Ah yes, but religions discriminate against people all the time. In Australia, to do this legally, all they have to do is obtain an exemption through EEO or the Human Rights Commission. I'm allowed to be discriminated against by the Salvos. They're perfectly able to knock me back for employment because I'm not a Christian. I'm allowed to be knocked back for jobs in domestic violence shelters, Aboriginal positions, jobs as Greek Orthodox priests, rabbis, vicars, etc, etc, etc. Religions discriminate all the time. In Jewish courts, parties are required to cover their heads. Believe it or not, the Old Testament is pretty discriminatory too. Whether this is "right" or not is not the issue. If the parties seek such justice with informed consent, this covers discrimination legislation. None of which compare with the abuse that women and children suffer before Sharia courts.   They coerce women to sign agreements to abide by their decisions even though they are not legal.  Sharia courts enable the abuse of women and have no place in western society. None at all.

All agreements between two conflicting parties involve an element of coercion, Black.

But there is no way to force someone to abide by a Sharia agreement. Sharia rulings often end up contested in the Family Court.- by women.

If rulings are not enforcable, this ultimately means there is no real coercion.

Aussie wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:04pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 7:58pm: Quote: They coerce women to sign agreements to abide by their decisions even though they are not legal. Then, given they are 'not legal,' the coerced women can trot off to the real Courts and get the remedy. Go to dictionary.com and look up "coerce", mor*n. I have no need.  I know what the word means.  So, does the Westminster Judicial System.

Nicole's taken quite a shine to you, Aussie.

Are you wearing a new cologne?

"Theresa May has claimed Muslims in Britain “benefit greatly” from Sharia law as she launched plans for an “independent inquiry,” headed by a Muslim and guided by two “leading imams," into whether some of the controversial courts’ judgements are at odds with British gender equality laws".


;D ;D ;D

It's just too pathetic to take seriously. It just leaves old ex-pats like me speechless and praying for another Guy Fawkes to come along and send these 'globalists' into the stratosphere on a pillar of broiling smoke.


How many more UK governments must come and go before a British patriot and preservationist is finally elected into the top job to rescue the country from slipping further into this morass of multicultural madness??

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:30pm:

"Theresa May has claimed Muslims in Britain “benefit greatly” from Sharia law as she launched plans for an “independent inquiry,” headed by a Muslim and guided by two “leading imams," into whether some of the controversial courts’ judgements are at odds with British gender equality laws". ;D ;D ;D It's just too pathetic to take seriously. It just leaves old ex-pats like me speechless ...

Stop teasing, Herbert.

Quote:

If rulings are not enforcable, this ultimately means there is no real coercion.

Stop that Karnal.  Take it back right now.  If you don't, you'll have Nicole Page 2016 telling you that you are as dumb as a sack full of rocks.  Go on....take it back.  You know you must, or risk fallopian wrath.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:07pm:

The videos of her taking on the bearded nutjobs who preach Islam are very impressive, a remarkable woman who deserves more recognition for her work in human and womens rights.

Since Nobel Prizes have long since been hijacked by the liberal-progressives, she hasn't a hope in hell of receiving a call to fly to Stockholm any time soon.

Quote:

Nicole's taken quite a shine to you, Aussie. Are you wearing a new cologne?

Nah, she's always been under my spell, just like some of the other Ladies here.  You have to forgive them, you know.  They are only human.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:27pm:

Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Ah yes, but religions discriminate against people all the time. In Australia, to do this legally, all they have to do is obtain an exemption through EEO or the Human Rights Commission. I'm allowed to be discriminated against by the Salvos. They're perfectly able to knock me back for employment because I'm not a Christian. I'm allowed to be knocked back for jobs in domestic violence shelters, Aboriginal positions, jobs as Greek Orthodox priests, rabbis, vicars, etc, etc, etc. Religions discriminate all the time. In Jewish courts, parties are required to cover their heads. Believe it or not, the Old Testament is pretty discriminatory too. Whether this is "right" or not is not the issue. If the parties seek such justice with informed consent, this covers discrimination legislation. None of which compare with the abuse that women and children suffer before Sharia courts.   They coerce women to sign agreements to abide by their decisions even though they are not legal.  Sharia courts enable the abuse of women and have no place in western society. None at all. All agreements between two conflicting parties involve an element of coercion, Black. But there is no way to force someone to abide by a Sharia agreement. Sharia rulings often end up contested in the Family Court.- by women. If rulings are not enforcable, this ultimately means there is no real coercion.

You know very well there is a lot of coercion that takes place out of sight. Maybe some of your good friends here handle things that way.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:46am:

Totally disappointing Theresa has no knowledge of islam the cult

She might start to wake up when some of the Muslim luminaries refuse to shake her hand.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:27pm:

Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Ah yes, but religions discriminate against people all the time. In Australia, to do this legally, all they have to do is obtain an exemption through EEO or the Human Rights Commission. I'm allowed to be discriminated against by the Salvos. They're perfectly able to knock me back for employment because I'm not a Christian. I'm allowed to be knocked back for jobs in domestic violence shelters, Aboriginal positions, jobs as Greek Orthodox priests, rabbis, vicars, etc, etc, etc. Religions discriminate all the time. In Jewish courts, parties are required to cover their heads. Believe it or not, the Old Testament is pretty discriminatory too. Whether this is "right" or not is not the issue. If the parties seek such justice with informed consent, this covers discrimination legislation. None of which compare with the abuse that women and children suffer before Sharia courts.   They coerce women to sign agreements to abide by their decisions even though they are not legal.  Sharia courts enable the abuse of women and have no place in western society. None at all. All agreements between two conflicting parties involve an element of coercion, Black. But there is no way to force someone to abide by a Sharia agreement. Sharia rulings often end up contested in the Family Court.- by women. If rulings are not enforcable, this ultimately means there is no real coercion.

Legally, no.

If a ruling is non-enforcable it hardly needs contesting in the Family Court and I doubt many Muslim women would go against their all male 'Council's' ruling. 

Quote:

Legally, no.

There endeth the lesson.


Quote:

If a ruling is non-enforcable it hardly needs contesting in the Family Court and I doubt many Muslim women would go against their all male 'Council's' ruling.

You 'doubt.'  I guess ~ 'colour me convinced.'

Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:45pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:27pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Ah yes, but religions discriminate against people all the time. In Australia, to do this legally, all they have to do is obtain an exemption through EEO or the Human Rights Commission. I'm allowed to be discriminated against by the Salvos. They're perfectly able to knock me back for employment because I'm not a Christian. I'm allowed to be knocked back for jobs in domestic violence shelters, Aboriginal positions, jobs as Greek Orthodox priests, rabbis, vicars, etc, etc, etc. Religions discriminate all the time. In Jewish courts, parties are required to cover their heads. Believe it or not, the Old Testament is pretty discriminatory too. Whether this is "right" or not is not the issue. If the parties seek such justice with informed consent, this covers discrimination legislation. None of which compare with the abuse that women and children suffer before Sharia courts.   They coerce women to sign agreements to abide by their decisions even though they are not legal.  Sharia courts enable the abuse of women and have no place in western society. None at all. All agreements between two conflicting parties involve an element of coercion, Black. But there is no way to force someone to abide by a Sharia agreement. Sharia rulings often end up contested in the Family Court.- by women. If rulings are not enforcable, this ultimately means there is no real coercion. Legally, no.

Ah.

Still, a royal commission into Sharia can’t hurt, eh?

The UK government is launching an enquiry into their Sharia courts so I guess they feel a need for it.

Aussie wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:52pm:

Quote: Legally, no. There endeth the lesson. [quote]If a ruling is non-enforcable it hardly needs contesting in the Family Court and I doubt many Muslim women would go against their all male 'Council's' ruling.

You 'doubt.'  I guess ~ 'colour me convinced.'[/quote]

Muslims say sharia laws are gods laws, do you think devout muslim women would go against gods laws?

No end of the idiocy from Islamic apologists

Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 10:16pm:

The UK government is launching an enquiry into their Sharia courts so I guess they feel a need for it.

There are two Inquiries.  Not sure they can correctly be described as Government, but that is probably splitting straws.

If people voluntarily submit to "Club' Courts, that is their choice, and it is one that any human being is entitled to take ~  subject to the requirements of the real Law.

Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced".

Quote:

Muslims say sharia laws are gods laws, do you think devout muslim women would go against gods laws?

I have no idea if that is correct, but...if that is their choice..............not my problem and none on my business.

If the Christian Churches require that some mewling and puking baby get their head wet as the key to salvation, why ought I care?

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 10:30pm:

Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced".

Ah, but I do, Nicole Page 2016.  Do you understand how the Westminster Judicial System deals with it?

You haven't said.

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 10:30pm:

Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced".

I think he fancies you Nicole.  He was making inappropriate comments about you in bed earlier.

Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 10:36pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced". I think he fancies you Nicole.  He was making inappropriate comments about you in bed earlier.

:o

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 10:30pm:

Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced".

coercion for a cult member..............

If that does not work, the cult islam will kill you.

Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 10:36pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced". I think he fancies you Nicole.  He was making inappropriate comments about you in bed earlier.

i know. Agnes will be furious.

Oh dear, I have stuffed up.  I have been referring to a 'sack of rocks,' and in doing so, I have verballed Nicole Page 2016, who made no reference to that, whatsoever.  She innocently referred to someone  as being as dumb as a "box of rocks."  Huge difference.

Abject apologies, Nicole Page 2016.

Aussie wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 10:32pm:

Quote: Muslims say sharia laws are gods laws, do you think devout muslim women would go against gods laws? I have no idea if that is correct, but...if that is their choice..............not my problem and none on my business. If the Christian Churches require that some mewling and puking baby get their head wet as the key to salvation, why ought I care?

If you have no idea about islam why do you defend it, anything else you are totally ignorant about that you like to defend?

What is the relevance of christians in a thread on sharia law arsie, just more deflections from morally bankrupt Islamic apologists?


Quote:

The messenger of allah said- Any woman who asks her husband for a divorce when it is not absolutely necessary, the fragrance of paradise will be forbidden to her. sunnah.com/urn/1263740

Allah the most merciful of those who show mercy approves of wife beating if you fear disobedience so a muslim woman cannot use being bashed by her husband as a reason for divorce, how do you think a muslim keeps 4 wives in line?
quran.com/4/34


Quote:

$Profit Mo said- A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife. sunnah.com/abudawud/12/102

As for the hijab allah doesn't accept the prayers of a woman who has reached puberty unless she wears a veil, the veil would be a full face covering which shows the niqab is prescribed in Islam.
sunnah.com/abudawud/2/251

You have no idea of what you are sticking up for, you're a morally bankrupt Islamic apologist who drives taxis.

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 10:56pm:

Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:36pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced". I think he fancies you Nicole.  He was making inappropriate comments about you in bed earlier. i know. Agnes will be furious.

I liked Agnes until she said she was vegetarian, the thought of eating Tofu is a huge turn off.  ;)

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 10:56pm:

Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:36pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced". I think he fancies you Nicole.  He was making inappropriate comments about you in bed earlier. i know. Agnes will be furious.

Gawd....now we will have fallopian melodrama. (Royalty cheque in the mail.)

Oh well.  I guess my devotion and attention is worth the effort.  Carry on, 'Ladies.'

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 10:59pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:32pm: Quote: Muslims say sharia laws are gods laws, do you think devout muslim women would go against gods laws? I have no idea if that is correct, but...if that is their choice..............not my problem and none on my business. If the Christian Churches require that some mewling and puking baby get their head wet as the key to salvation, why ought I care? If you have no idea about islam why do you defend it, anything else you are totally ignorant about that you like to defend? What is the relevance of christians in a thread on sharia law arsie, just more deflections from morally bankrupt Islamic apologists? [quote] The messenger of allah said- Any woman who asks her husband for a divorce when it is not absolutely necessary, the fragrance of paradise will be forbidden to her. sunnah.com/urn/1263740

Allah the most merciful of those who show mercy approves of wife beating if you fear disobedience so a muslim woman cannot use being bashed by her husband as a reason for divorce, how do you think a muslim keeps 4 wives in line?
quran.com/4/34


Quote:

$Profit Mo said- A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife. sunnah.com/abudawud/12/102

As for the hijab allah doesn't accept the prayers of a woman who has reached puberty unless she wears a veil, the veil would be a full face covering which shows the niqab is prescribed in Islam.
sunnah.com/abudawud/2/251

You have no idea of what you are sticking up for, you're a morally bankrupt Islamic apologist who drives taxis.

[/quote]

You should become a muslim arsie, what other religions allow you to bash your wives and have sex with your pet goat?

Quote:

If you have no idea about islam why do you defend it,

Whenever you see me defend Islam, let me know.  I am an equal opportunity agnostic.  I'll not defend any Sky Fairy voodoo.   It is all crap so far as I am concerned.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 11:01pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:56pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:36pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced". I think he fancies you Nicole.  He was making inappropriate comments about you in bed earlier. i know. Agnes will be furious. I liked Agnes until she said she was vegetarian, the thought of eating Tofu is a huge turn off.  ;)

Tofu? Good God!

Real women eat pork. Don't they, cabbie?

Aussie wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 11:02pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:56pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:36pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced". I think he fancies you Nicole.  He was making inappropriate comments about you in bed earlier. i know. Agnes will be furious. Gawd....now we will have fallopian melodrama. (Royalty cheque in the mail.) Oh well.  I guess my devotion and attention is worth the effort.  Carry on, 'Ladies.'

Excuse me, but before you get too carried away with yourself, it was YOU who put yourself in my bedroom. Very poor form indeed.

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 11:10pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 11:02pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:56pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:36pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced". I think he fancies you Nicole.  He was making inappropriate comments about you in bed earlier. i know. Agnes will be furious. Gawd....now we will have fallopian melodrama. (Royalty cheque in the mail.) Oh well.  I guess my devotion and attention is worth the effort.  Carry on, 'Ladies.' Excuse me, but before you get too carried away with yourself, it was YOU who put yourself in my bedroom. Very poor form indeed.

Show us all the link.  (You can't you know, just like you cannot answer my questions.)

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:38pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:46am: Totally disappointing Theresa has no knowledge of islam the cult She might start to wake up when some of the Muslim luminaries refuse to shake her hand.

That's worth pointing out Herb but the trouble is their prime directive is to deceive the infidels, so the cute ones won't get caught out like that.

Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 10:36pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced". I think he fancies you Nicole.  He was making inappropriate comments about you in bed earlier.

Huh?

You're sleeping with Aussie now?!

The mind boggles.  :o




8-)

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:25pm:

Outside Islamic jurisdictions, Sharia law is religious form of civil law. It has nothing to do with legal jurisdictions, Islamic or Western. As it is applied in Australia and the UK, Sharia law is a voluntary form of mediation, normally undertaken in family and custody disputes.

Quote:

“There are thought to be around 100 Sharia Law courts operating throughout the UK, dispensing Islamic justice outside the remit of the UK legal system.” (As per Daily Express online.)

There is NO place for this islamic sh!t in UK or Australia.

Fuzzball wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 9:47am:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:25pm: Outside Islamic jurisdictions, Sharia law is religious form of civil law. It has nothing to do with legal jurisdictions, Islamic or Western. As it is applied in Australia and the UK, Sharia law is a voluntary form of mediation, normally undertaken in family and custody disputes. Quote: “There are thought to be around 100 Sharia Law courts operating throughout the UK, dispensing Islamic justice outside the remit of the UK legal system.” (As per Daily Express online.) There is NO place for this islamic sh!t in UK or Australia.

So what to do? It's legal, its constitutional, there's no way to prevent individuals from seeking religious council on managing their own affairs.

You're stuck with banning Islam itself - also unconstitutional. Religious freedom is clearly spelt out in the constitution.

So we're stuck with Sharia law being something you just don't like. Now I'm curious. I don't like a lot of things, but I don't spend my days here complaining about them. My question is this: what can you do about it?

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 10:08am:

So we're stuck with Sharia law being something you just don't like.

Pigs arse.

Fireball ~ a lot of people swallow this bullshit from Leftwingers who like to peddle the fiction that the Constitution is set in concrete, and that only the Second Coming of Christ has the authority to make any alterations to it.

They are trading on naivety.

The fact is, the constitution can be changed at any time through a popular referendum of the people.

If buggery and 'Gay marriage' were forbidden in the constitution, Karnal would be giving you the thumbs-up on how easy it is to have this changed through the processes of a referendum.

link

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 11:28am:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 10:08am: So we're stuck with Sharia law being something you just don't like. Pigs arse. Fireball ~ a lot of people swallow this bullshit from Leftwingers who like to peddle the fiction that the Constitution is set in concrete, and that only the Second Coming of Christ has the authority to make any alterations to it. They are trading on naivety. The fact is, the constitution can be changed at any time through a popular referendum of the people. If buggery and 'Gay marriage' were forbidden in the constitution, Karnal would be giving you the thumbs-up on how easy it is to have this changed through the processes of a referendum. link

So, if the Constitution can only be changed on a majority of votes etc, what is your problem, Herbert?  Democracy, 'innit?'

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:38pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:46am: Totally disappointing Theresa has no knowledge of islam the cult She might start to wake up when some of the Muslim luminaries refuse to shake her hand. That's worth pointing out Herb but the trouble is their prime directive is to deceive the infidels, so the cute ones won't get caught out like that.

I think you might be right.

More on the new PM ...


"During a Home Office investigation set up to examine the 'mis-use' of Sharia Law, Grey May claimed many Britons benefitted a great deal from Sharia Law. Well buy me a Burkini and call me beach body ready! Grey May already shows signs of pandering to Islamic Justice, which has no place in modern Britain.

And her track record is as dodgy as a Russian athlete's. Lecturing our police whilst failing our white girls in Rotherham. Under-investing in our Border Force Fleet whilst blowing £220 million on a new Border Agency IT system declared 'not fit for purpose' on implementation".

link

Unfortunately it looks like she's just another Leftwinger posing as a 'conservative'. Another Malcolm Turnbull.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 12:19pm:

Unfortunately it looks like she's just another Leftwinger posing as a 'conservative'. Another Malcolm Turnbull.

I think you are correct Herb but I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt at this early stage. I do know that the British police service has absolutely no faith in her, she has made cuts across the board, together with the fiasco called the Border Force, whilst the country has been plagued by illegal country shoppers from the continent, gypsies, not only from Romania etc, but also from The Emerald Isle, not to mention terrorists both foreign and home grown.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 11:28am:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 10:08am: So we're stuck with Sharia law being something you just don't like. Pigs arse. The fact is, the constitution can be changed at any time through a popular referendum of the people.

Yes, Herbie, but a majority in both houses of parliament have to agree to put it to the people first. Now call me a spoil-sport, but I can't see the Liberal Party, the ALP, the Greens, Nick Xenophon, the Lib-Dems, Family First or even Our Pauline voting to overturn the constitutional right to religious freedom, can you?

So I ask again, apart from having a jolly good whinge, what can you do?

Fuzzball wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 2:28pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 12:19pm: Unfortunately it looks like she's just another Leftwinger posing as a 'conservative'. Another Malcolm Turnbull. I think you are correct Herb but I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt at this early stage. I do know that the British police service has absolutely no faith in her, she has made cuts across the board, together with the fiasco called the Border Force, whilst the country has been plagued by illegal country shoppers from the continent, gypsies, not only from Romania etc, but also from The Emerald Isle, not to mention terrorists both foreign and home grown.

Er, the whole point of Brexit was that European country-shoppers are legal, Fireball.

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 11:40am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 11:28am: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 10:08am: So we're stuck with Sharia law being something you just don't like. Pigs arse. Fireball ~ a lot of people swallow this bullshit from Leftwingers who like to peddle the fiction that the Constitution is set in concrete, and that only the Second Coming of Christ has the authority to make any alterations to it. They are trading on naivety. The fact is, the constitution can be changed at any time through a popular referendum of the people. If buggery and 'Gay marriage' were forbidden in the constitution, Karnal would be giving you the thumbs-up on how easy it is to have this changed through the processes of a referendum. link So, if the Constitution can only be changed on a majority of votes etc, what is your problem, Herbert?  Democracy, 'innit?'

Yes, Aussie, but look at the Nazi Party. They overturned their constitution and banned religions, races, hommers, the disabled, the lot. And they didn't have a single referendum.

So it is possible, you know. 

Fuzzball wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 2:28pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 12:19pm: Unfortunately it looks like she's just another Leftwinger posing as a 'conservative'. Another Malcolm Turnbull. I think you are correct Herb but I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt at this early stage. I do know that the British police service has absolutely no faith in her, she has made cuts across the board, together with the fiasco called the Border Force, whilst the country has been plagued by illegal country shoppers from the continent, gypsies, not only from Romania etc, but also from The Emerald Isle, not to mention terrorists both foreign and home grown.

I feel no hope that she will reclaim England from the Muslim colonists, or reduce Muslim immigration.

As with all the previous governments, hers will be patronising the minorities for the same reason the Rotherham authorities allowed 14 hundred children to become the playthings of a group of Muslims.

She doesn't have any balls ~ and that's not a good start.    8-)

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 11:28am:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 10:08am: So we're stuck with Sharia law being something you just don't like. Pigs arse. Fireball ~ a lot of people swallow this bullshit from Leftwingers who like to peddle the fiction that the Constitution is set in concrete, and that only the Second Coming of Christ has the authority to make any alterations to it. They are trading on naivety. The fact is, the constitution can be changed at any time through a popular referendum of the people. If buggery and 'Gay marriage' were forbidden in the constitution, Karnal would be giving you the thumbs-up on how easy it is to have this changed through the processes of a referendum. link

"If a majority of people in a majority of states and a majority of people across the nation as a whole vote 'yes' (called a double majority), then the proposal to amend the Constitution is agreed to.

"Otherwise the Constitution remains unchanged."

"Since 1906, when the first referendum was held, Australia has held 19 referendums in which 44 separate questions to change the Australian Constitution have been put to the people.

"Only eight changes have been agreed to."

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 2:55pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 11:28am: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 10:08am: So we're stuck with Sharia law being something you just don't like. Pigs arse. Fireball ~ a lot of people swallow this bullshit from Leftwingers who like to peddle the fiction that the Constitution is set in concrete, and that only the Second Coming of Christ has the authority to make any alterations to it. They are trading on naivety. The fact is, the constitution can be changed at any time through a popular referendum of the people. If buggery and 'Gay marriage' were forbidden in the constitution, Karnal would be giving you the thumbs-up on how easy it is to have this changed through the processes of a referendum. link "If a majority of people in a majority of states and a majority of people across the nation as a whole vote 'yes' (called a double majority), then the proposal to amend the Constitution is agreed to. "Otherwise the Constitution remains unchanged." "Since 1906, when the first referendum was held, Australia has held 19 referendums in which 44 separate questions to change the Australian Constitution have been put to the people. "Only eight changes have been agreed to."

I think we've scrapped that idea, Greggery.

Plan B is to wait for the right person to come along and overturn the constitution.

In the fullness of time, of course.

Quote:

I think we've scrapped that idea, Greggery. Plan B is to wait for the right person to come along and overturn the constitution. In the fullness of time, of course.

Keep that secret from Herbert especially, Mr Peccary.

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 3:06pm:

Quote: I think we've scrapped that idea, Greggery. Plan B is to wait for the right person to come along and overturn the constitution. In the fullness of time, of course. Keep that secret from Herbert, especially Mr Peccary.

It's Herbie's plan, Aussie. Herbie may not live to see the day that it's carried out, but he sleeps well with the knowledge that the traitors and appeasers who believe in the constitution will be dealt with in the fullness of time.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 2:44pm:

Fuzzball wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 2:28pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 12:19pm: Unfortunately it looks like she's just another Leftwinger posing as a 'conservative'. Another Malcolm Turnbull. I think you are correct Herb but I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt at this early stage. I do know that the British police service has absolutely no faith in her, she has made cuts across the board, together with the fiasco called the Border Force, whilst the country has been plagued by illegal country shoppers from the continent, gypsies, not only from Romania etc, but also from The Emerald Isle, not to mention terrorists both foreign and home grown. Er, the whole point of Brexit was that European country-shoppers are legal, Fireball.

Er, UK was NOT a signatory to The Schengen Agreement before brexit.........therefore was not obliged to 'open its borders' like the other members...........understand?

Fuzzball wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 3:35pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 2:44pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 2:28pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 12:19pm: Unfortunately it looks like she's just another Leftwinger posing as a 'conservative'. Another Malcolm Turnbull. I think you are correct Herb but I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt at this early stage. I do know that the British police service has absolutely no faith in her, she has made cuts across the board, together with the fiasco called the Border Force, whilst the country has been plagued by illegal country shoppers from the continent, gypsies, not only from Romania etc, but also from The Emerald Isle, not to mention terrorists both foreign and home grown. Er, the whole point of Brexit was that European country-shoppers are legal, Fireball. Er, UK was NOT a signatory to The Schengen Agreement before brexit.........therefore was not obliged to 'open its borders' like the other members...........understand?

Owned.

Illegal country shoppers, migrants, border transgressors, whatever you want to call them was not the only reason Great Britain decided to leave. The nation was fed up with the waste and massive amounts demanded of UK, not to mention the bureaucratic monkey spankers trying to dictate to the country.

Returned crippled servicemen who are forced to sleep on the street, while foreign garbage enter the country and take advantage of benefits, housing, and free health care etc.

There's a lot more to it than simply keeping the scum out.

Quote:

keeping the scum out.

Charming.

Fuzzball wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 3:43pm:

Illegal country shoppers, migrants, border transgressors, whatever you want to call them was not the only reason Great Britain decided to leave. The nation was fed up with the waste and massive amounts demanded of UK, not to mention the bureaucratic monkey spankers trying to dictate to the country. Returned crippled servicemen who are forced to sleep on the street, while foreign garbage enter the country and take advantage of benefits, housing, and free health care etc. There's a lot more to it than simply keeping the scum out.

"More generally, Remain supporters never got around to offering positive reasons for Britain’s EU membership that would convince those who weren’t already on their side. Instead, they simply insisted that “any thinking person” would vote Remain, and anyone who disagreed had to be a xenophobic Nazi nice person. Their behavior in the wake of defeat has by and large been the same, alternating between furious statements that the 52% of Britons who voted to leave the EU must all be drooling fascist bigots, and the plaintive insistence that people couldn’t possibly have intended to vote the way they did, and can we please have the vote all over again?

Absent from the entire Remain repertory, before as well as after the vote, was any sense that the question of continued EU membership for Britain involved substantive issues about which it was possible to have reasoned disagreement. It should have been obvious that telling people that their concerns don’t matter, and berating them with schoolyard insults when they demur, was not going to convince them to change their vote. That this was not obvious to the pro-EU camp, and shows little evidence of becoming any more obvious even in the wake of defeat, hints that the issues in question are things that the pro-EU camp is utterly unwilling to see discussed at all.

...


Fast forward to the Brexit campaign. In polite society in today’s Britain, any attempt to point out the massive problems with allowing unrestricted immigration onto an already overcrowded island, which can’t provide adequate jobs, housing, or social services for the people it’s got already, is dismissed out of hand as racism. Thus it’s not surprising that quite a few Britons, many of them nominally Labour voters, mumbled the approved sound bites in public and voted for Brexit in private—and again, the pollsters and the pundits were blindsided. That’s one of the downsides of the schism between the dominant minority and the internal proletariat; once the dominant minority loses the loyalty of the masses by failing to deal with the needs of those outside the circles of affluence and privilege, sullen outward conformity and secret revolt replace the mutual trust that’s needed to make a society function.

...


Fast forward to the Brexit campaign. In polite society in today’s Britain, any attempt to point out the massive problems with allowing unrestricted immigration onto an already overcrowded island, which can’t provide adequate jobs, housing, or social services for the people it’s got already, is dismissed out of hand as racism. Thus it’s not surprising that quite a few Britons, many of them nominally Labour voters, mumbled the approved sound bites in public and voted for Brexit in private—and again, the pollsters and the pundits were blindsided. That’s one of the downsides of the schism between the dominant minority and the internal proletariat; once the dominant minority loses the loyalty of the masses by failing to deal with the needs of those outside the circles of affluence and privilege, sullen outward conformity and secret revolt replace the mutual trust that’s needed to make a society function.

The EU, in turn, made a perfect target for disaffected voters among the working class and the poor because it’s entirely a creature of the same consensus of the affluent as the Labour party after Tony Blair and the Democratic Party after Bill Clinton. Its economic policies are guided from top to bottom by the neoliberal economics that came into power with Thatcher and Reagan; its unwavering support of unrestricted immigration and capital movement is calculated to force down wages and move jobs away from countries such as Britain; its subsidies inevitably end up in the pockets of big corporations and the well-to-do, while its regulatory burdens land heaviest on small businesses and local economies.

This isn’t particularly hard find out—in fact, it takes an effort to avoid noticing it.  Listen to people bemoaning the consequences of Brexit in the latest reports from the British media, and you’ll hear a long list of privileges mostly relevant to the affluent that the speakers worry will be taken from them.  Aside from a few fringe figures, those who voted for it generally aren’t talking, since they’ve learned from bitter experience that they’ll simply be shouted down with the usual shopworn accusations of racism et al..  If they were willing to talk, though, I suspect you’d hear a long list of burdens that have mostly landed on the ordinary working people so many of the affluent so obviously despise.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.au "

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 3:51pm:

Quote: keeping the scum out. Charming.

Christ, ozzie the bush lawyer can read!

Fuzzball wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 3:35pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 2:44pm: Fuzzball wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 2:28pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 12:19pm: Unfortunately it looks like she's just another Leftwinger posing as a 'conservative'. Another Malcolm Turnbull. I think you are correct Herb but I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt at this early stage. I do know that the British police service has absolutely no faith in her, she has made cuts across the board, together with the fiasco called the Border Force, whilst the country has been plagued by illegal country shoppers from the continent, gypsies, not only from Romania etc, but also from The Emerald Isle, not to mention terrorists both foreign and home grown. Er, the whole point of Brexit was that European country-shoppers are legal, Fireball. Er, UK was NOT a signatory to The Schengen Agreement before brexit.........therefore was not obliged to 'open its borders' like the other members...........understand?

I do, Fireball, and I'm glad you're aware of this treaty. Country shoppers from the continent, however, are allowed to enter the UK with a European passport and reside as long as they like. Gypsies, Romanians, even the jolly Irish.

The Schengen agreement is about borders between European states. The belief that Middle Eastern or African refugees can somehow enter the UK from the continent without a visa is one of the great myths of the Leave campaign.

European passport holders have full access to every country in the EU. The EU has been quite firm about this. If England wants its free trade with Europe it must also accept free migration. That's the deal.

I don't know if they'll buckle on this to keep Britain in, but from what I can see, the Tories have every intention of getting out, even if they're completely shell-shocked over the vote.

But getting back to the constitution, how do you suggest we change it?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 8:12am:

Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:36pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced". I think he fancies you Nicole.  He was making inappropriate comments about you in bed earlier. Huh? You're sleeping with Aussie now?! The mind boggles.  :o 8-)

Indeed. I've always wanted to make it with a cab driver. And oz is a smart cab driver you know. He knows all about "The Westminster System" and how it deals with coercion.

Sexy as hell.

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 4:56pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 8:12am: Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:36pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced". I think he fancies you Nicole.  He was making inappropriate comments about you in bed earlier. Huh? You're sleeping with Aussie now?! The mind boggles.  :o 8-) Indeed. I've always wanted to make it with a cab driver. And oz is a smart cab driver you know. He knows all about "The Westminster System" and how it deals with coercion. Sexy as hell.

I thought taxi drivers prefer the Bill Cosby style of dating, taking them after they have passed out.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 5:00pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 4:56pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 8:12am: Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:36pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced". I think he fancies you Nicole.  He was making inappropriate comments about you in bed earlier. Huh? You're sleeping with Aussie now?! The mind boggles.  :o 8-) Indeed. I've always wanted to make it with a cab driver. And oz is a smart cab driver you know. He knows all about "The Westminster System" and how it deals with coercion. Sexy as hell. I thought taxi drivers prefer the Bill Cosby style of dating, taking them after they have passed out.

We all do, Baron, we all do.

Aussie wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 11:14pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 11:10pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 11:02pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:56pm: Black Orchid wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:36pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Go easy on Oz, Baron. He doesn't understand the meaning of "coerced". I think he fancies you Nicole.  He was making inappropriate comments about you in bed earlier. i know. Agnes will be furious. Gawd....now we will have fallopian melodrama. (Royalty cheque in the mail.) Oh well.  I guess my devotion and attention is worth the effort.  Carry on, 'Ladies.' Excuse me, but before you get too carried away with yourself, it was YOU who put yourself in my bedroom. Very poor form indeed. Show us all the link.  (You can't you know, just like you cannot answer my questions.)

Oh, she is back for some more humiliation!  Got that link yet, Nicole Page 2016.

Have you phoned a friend to get the answer to the dilemma.  Worked out how Sharia Law will always be subservient to the Laws of the relevant Country and cannot stand alone and removed from it?  Worked out how our Judicial System deals with coercion?

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 5:11pm:

Worked out how Sharia Law will always be subservient to the Laws of the relevant Country and cannot stand alone and removed from it?  Worked out how our Judicial System deals with coercion?

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils have made numerous submissions to Parliament for legal pluralism with sharia law for muslims, no harm is asking is there Arsie one day a dickhead leftist might let them have it.

When the Imam tells a muslim woman she will reside in the hellfire for all eternity for following the kuffars laws over gods laws do you think a devout muslim will follow our laws?

When Palestinians were given the vote they chose the funda-mentalists called Hamas, muslims will always vote for god if given the choice.

Hezbollah means party of god, when politicians claim to represent god the flock follow.

The testimony of non muslims is not allowed in Sharia courts so no work for taxi drivers who pretend to be lawyers.

Quote:

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils have made numerous submissions to Parliament for legal pluralism with sharia law for muslims,

I'd be interested to read some more.  Links?

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 5:23pm:

Quote: The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils have made numerous submissions to Parliament for legal pluralism with sharia law for muslims, I'd be interested to read some more.  Links?

I have posted them numerous times Arsie, why do you stick up for a belief that is not compatible with human rights?

The muslims are lucky to have so many useful idiots helping them propagate their delusional beliefs

The Buddhists made one submission to Parliament, they said our laws are fine no need to change anything for them.

abc.net.au/news/2011-05-17/muslim-group-wants-sharia-law-in-australia/2717096

The AFIC are the same group rorting the money we give to school kids in religious schools.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 5:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Quote: The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils have made numerous submissions to Parliament for legal pluralism with sharia law for muslims, I'd be interested to read some more.  Links? I have posted them numerous times Arsie, why do you stick up for a belief that is not compatible with human rights? The muslims are lucky to have so many useful idiots helping them propagate their delusional beliefs The Buddhists made one submission to Parliament, they said our laws are fine no need to change anything for them. abc.net.au/news/2011-05-17/muslim-group-wants-sharia-law-in-australia/2717096 The AFIC are the same group rorting the money we give to school kids in religious schools.

Have you read your own Link...dated way back to 2011.

Where are these numerous submissions to Parliament for legal pluralism with sharia law for muslims?


Quote:

why do you stick up for a belief that is not compatible with human rights?

Show me where I have "stuck up" for said belief.  Perhaps you should read what I post more carefully.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 5:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 5:11pm:   Worked out how Sharia Law will always be subservient to the Laws of the relevant Country and cannot stand alone and removed from it?  Worked out how our Judicial System deals with coercion? The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils have made numerous submissions to Parliament for legal pluralism with sharia law for muslims, no harm is asking is there Arsie one day a dickhead leftist might let them have it. When the Imam tells a muslim woman she will reside in the hellfire for all eternity for following the kuffars laws over gods laws do you think a devout muslim will follow our laws? When Palestinians were given the vote they chose the funda-mentalists called Hamas, muslims will always vote for god if given the choice.

Who did they vote for in the last erection, Baron?

Oh, I know. What a tall glass of water that man is. Stop the boats, eh?

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 5:41pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 5:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Quote: The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils have made numerous submissions to Parliament for legal pluralism with sharia law for muslims, I'd be interested to read some more.  Links? I have posted them numerous times Arsie, why do you stick up for a belief that is not compatible with human rights? The muslims are lucky to have so many useful idiots helping them propagate their delusional beliefs The Buddhists made one submission to Parliament, they said our laws are fine no need to change anything for them. abc.net.au/news/2011-05-17/muslim-group-wants-sharia-law-in-australia/2717096 The AFIC are the same group rorting the money we give to school kids in religious schools. Have you read your own Link...dated way back to 2011. Where are these numerous submissions to Parliament for legal pluralism with sharia law for muslims? [quote] why do you stick up for a belief that is not compatible with human rights?

[/quote]

I don't have all day to educate you Arsie, you go look for them I just picked one.

Quote:

I don't have all day to educate you Arsie, you go look for them I just picked one.

No, I won't.  You made the claim, you back it up.  Further, it would not matter how many submissions some loony tune like that wa nker from Hutt River Province made to be exempt from Law, or that the Law bend in its insular or sectarian direction ~ it simply ain't gonna happen.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 5:41pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 5:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Quote: The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils have made numerous submissions to Parliament for legal pluralism with sharia law for muslims, I'd be interested to read some more.  Links? I have posted them numerous times Arsie, why do you stick up for a belief that is not compatible with human rights? The muslims are lucky to have so many useful idiots helping them propagate their delusional beliefs The Buddhists made one submission to Parliament, they said our laws are fine no need to change anything for them. abc.net.au/news/2011-05-17/muslim-group-wants-sharia-law-in-australia/2717096 The AFIC are the same group rorting the money we give to school kids in religious schools. Have you read your own Link...dated way back to 2011. Where are these numerous submissions to Parliament for legal pluralism with sharia law for muslims? [quote] why do you stick up for a belief that is not compatible with human rights?

I don't have all day to educate you Arsie, you go look for them I just picked one.
[/quote]

There's no need, Baron. It's all in your link:


Quote:

Law lecturer Ghena Krayem, who has researched the issue of legal pluralism, says the Islamic community does not want a parallel legal system set up. "[We] found that there's no evidence from any community leaders of any desire to set up a parallel legal system and I think to pose the question in that way presupposes this assumption that the Muslim community wants an alternative or parallel legal system," she said. Rather Ms Krayem says some of the processes around legal matters such as divorce and inheritance could take on board Muslim notions of dialogue and alternative dispute resolution, but the law should service all community members alike.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 6:01pm:

There's no need, Baron. It's all in your link: Quote: Law lecturer Ghena Krayem, who has researched the issue of legal pluralism, says the Islamic community does not want a parallel legal system set up. "[We] found that there's no evidence from any community leaders of any desire to set up a parallel legal system and I think to pose the question in that way presupposes this assumption that the Muslim community wants an alternative or parallel legal system," she said. Rather Ms Krayem says some of the processes around legal matters such as divorce and inheritance could take on board Muslim notions of dialogue and alternative dispute resolution, but the law should service all community members alike.

One look at her photo should tell you everything you need to know about her credibility and which team she's playing for.
http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/ghena.krayem.php

You are familiar with the term "taqiyya," I trust?

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 6:04pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:01pm: There's no need, Baron. It's all in your link: Quote: Law lecturer Ghena Krayem, who has researched the issue of legal pluralism, says the Islamic community does not want a parallel legal system set up. "[We] found that there's no evidence from any community leaders of any desire to set up a parallel legal system and I think to pose the question in that way presupposes this assumption that the Muslim community wants an alternative or parallel legal system," she said. Rather Ms Krayem says some of the processes around legal matters such as divorce and inheritance could take on board Muslim notions of dialogue and alternative dispute resolution, but the law should service all community members alike. One look at her photo should tell you everything you need to know about her credibility and which team she's playing for. http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/ghena.krayem.php You are familiar with the term "taqiyya," I trust?

Oh, the Yanky Journalist Penguin thinks we Down Under have never heard of 'taqiyya.'  How condescending.  Maybe, he can travel over the ground covered by a zillion posts here on that very matter and tell us Yokels something we have never heard before.

Or maybe not.

The whole point that woman was making is that most Muslims (including herself) are not interested in this Sharia Law dominance wank fest.

Gee....maybe she was fibbing, and is pulling the wool over our ever so dumb eyes.

Sheesh.

Get over yourself, Journalist.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 4:37pm:

If England wants its free trade with Europe it must also accept free migration. That's the deal.

Hence the Brexit result.

It's like New Zealand being Australia's backdoor entry-point with every Tom, Dick, and Mohammad needing only to remain in NZ for two years before then automatically qualifying to come swanning across the ditch. 

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 6:18pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 4:37pm: If England wants its free trade with Europe it must also accept free migration. That's the deal. Hence the Brexit result. It's like New Zealand being Australia's backdoor entry-point with every Tom, Dick, and Mohammad needing only to remain in NZ for two years before then automatically qualifying to come swanning across the ditch.

Hence, he was not owned, as your dry premature ejaculation sought to express up there ^^^.

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 6:13pm:

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:04pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:01pm: There's no need, Baron. It's all in your link: Quote: Law lecturer Ghena Krayem, who has researched the issue of legal pluralism, says the Islamic community does not want a parallel legal system set up. "[We] found that there's no evidence from any community leaders of any desire to set up a parallel legal system and I think to pose the question in that way presupposes this assumption that the Muslim community wants an alternative or parallel legal system," she said. Rather Ms Krayem says some of the processes around legal matters such as divorce and inheritance could take on board Muslim notions of dialogue and alternative dispute resolution, but the law should service all community members alike. One look at her photo should tell you everything you need to know about her credibility and which team she's playing for. http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/ghena.krayem.php You are familiar with the term "taqiyya," I trust? Oh, the Yanky Journalist Penguin thinks we Down Under have never heard of 'taqiyya.'  How condescending.  Maybe, he can travel over the ground covered by a zillion posts here on that very matter and tell us Yokels something we have never heard before. Or maybe not. The whole point that woman was making is that most Muslims (including herself) are not interested in this Sharia Law dominance wank fest.

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils made these submissions to Parliament for Sharia law with legal pluralism, of course ignorant taxi drivers take the word of 1 woman and ignore all these submissions that have been made by the AFIC.

A guess the leftist dickheads like arsie and karnal think the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils have nothing to do with community leaders despite the fact they were caught red handing rorting dept of education funding and claiming this money was management fees.

This verse sums up womens rights in Islam, are women allowed to pray with men in mosques or do they segregate women in mosques?
quran.com/4/34

Quote:

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils made these submissions to Parliament for Sharia law with legal pluralism, of course ignorant taxi drivers take the word of 1 woman and ignore all these submissions that have been made by the AFIC.

Read your own Link, Rort.  Perhaps for the very first time.

There is little point just having a personal rant and expecting others to blindly accept it as some neo-Gospel.  So far, you have established not one of your many claims on this matter.

Quote:

This verse sums up womens rights in Islam, are women allowed to pray with men in mosques or do they segregate women in mosques? quran.com/4/34

I could not care less.  Nothing stops them walking away if they don't prefer it.

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 6:21pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:18pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 4:37pm: If England wants its free trade with Europe it must also accept free migration. That's the deal. Hence the Brexit result. It's like New Zealand being Australia's backdoor entry-point with every Tom, Dick, and Mohammad needing only to remain in NZ for two years before then automatically qualifying to come swanning across the ditch.  Hence, he was not owned, as you dry premature ejaculation sought to express up there ^^^.

Something your wife is no doubt all too familiar with bushy

Nooo, if they want UK business they'll abide by British laws on Borders.......f@#k what they want, they've had their way for long enough.........hence Brexit you pricks!

UK nolonger dances to their tune, and on Borders they never did. The scum who got in, did so illegally, unless of course they were granted asylum, will be made to leave.

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 6:44pm:

Quote: The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils made these submissions to Parliament for Sharia law with legal pluralism, of course ignorant taxi drivers take the word of 1 woman and ignore all these submissions that have been made by the AFIC. Read your own Link, Rort.  Perhaps for the very first time. There is little point just having a personal rant and expecting others to blindly accept it as some neo-Gospel.  So far, you have established not one of your many claims on this matter.

I have read the submissions to parliament asking for sharia law, do you recall Costello telling muslims to move if they want sharia law?

In this thread I found the former moderator of our Islam section Abu Rashid was telling muslims we need to make propaganda for sharia in the aussie muslims forum
ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276


I guess there is no point in typing to dopey taxi drivers like you who admit they don't understand islam yet support it 100%.
I cannot fix stupid people like you.

As Freediver said- The impotence of muslims should not be mistaken for lack of intent.

The last thing you need is any close attention from a GMod.


Quote:

Something your wife is no doubt all too familiar with bushy

Not clever.

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 7:00pm:

Quote: This verse sums up womens rights in Islam, are women allowed to pray with men in mosques or do they segregate women in mosques? quran.com/4/34 I could not care less.  Nothing stops them walking away if they don't prefer it.

13 countries with Islam as the state religion have the death penalty for apostasy, the Saudis use beheading to cure those who leave Islam, Iran hangs them.

Do you think muslims walk away from a belief that has the death penalty for those who leave?

This is the religion dim wits like you support.

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 7:27pm:

The last thing you need is any close attention from a GMod. Quote: Something your wife is no doubt all too familiar with bushy Not clever.

GFY

Quote:

I have read the submissions to parliament asking for sharia law,

I'd love to read them too.  Where is the link?  You could also make clear that these 'submissions' were ignored, if not rejected outright.

How many times must I say it?


Quote:

This is the religion dim wits like you support.

I don't support any religion.

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 6:04pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:01pm: There's no need, Baron. It's all in your link: Quote: Law lecturer Ghena Krayem, who has researched the issue of legal pluralism, says the Islamic community does not want a parallel legal system set up. "[We] found that there's no evidence from any community leaders of any desire to set up a parallel legal system and I think to pose the question in that way presupposes this assumption that the Muslim community wants an alternative or parallel legal system," she said. Rather Ms Krayem says some of the processes around legal matters such as divorce and inheritance could take on board Muslim notions of dialogue and alternative dispute resolution, but the law should service all community members alike. One look at her photo should tell you everything you need to know about her credibility and which team she's playing for. http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/ghena.krayem.php You are familiar with the term "taqiyya," I trust?

I am, 4th. Why don’t you respond to Ms Krayem’s peer-reviewed research?

You might want to use some of your own research. Can I suggest you try Yadda’s posts?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 6:18pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 4:37pm: If England wants its free trade with Europe it must also accept free migration. That's the deal. Hence the Brexit result. It's like New Zealand being Australia's backdoor entry-point with every Tom, Dick, and Mohammad needing only to remain in NZ for two years before then automatically qualifying to come swanning across the ditch.

That’s right, Herbie. Every Tom, Dick and Muhammed gets backdoor entry to Australia -

By emmigrating to New Zealand, becoming a citizen, and waiting their two years.

Cunning, no?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 6:37pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:13pm: The4thEstate wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:04pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:01pm: There's no need, Baron. It's all in your link: Quote: Law lecturer Ghena Krayem, who has researched the issue of legal pluralism, says the Islamic community does not want a parallel legal system set up. "[We] found that there's no evidence from any community leaders of any desire to set up a parallel legal system and I think to pose the question in that way presupposes this assumption that the Muslim community wants an alternative or parallel legal system," she said. Rather Ms Krayem says some of the processes around legal matters such as divorce and inheritance could take on board Muslim notions of dialogue and alternative dispute resolution, but the law should service all community members alike. One look at her photo should tell you everything you need to know about her credibility and which team she's playing for. http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/ghena.krayem.php You are familiar with the term "taqiyya," I trust? Oh, the Yanky Journalist Penguin thinks we Down Under have never heard of 'taqiyya.'  How condescending.  Maybe, he can travel over the ground covered by a zillion posts here on that very matter and tell us Yokels something we have never heard before. Or maybe not. The whole point that woman was making is that most Muslims (including herself) are not interested in this Sharia Law dominance wank fest. The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils made these submissions to Parliament for Sharia law with legal pluralism, of course ignorant taxi drivers take the word of 1 woman and ignore all these submissions that have been made by the AFIC. A guess the leftist dickheads like arsie and karnal think the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils have nothing to do with community leaders despite the fact they were caught red handing rorting dept of education funding and claiming this money was management fees. This verse sums up womens rights in Islam, are women allowed to pray with men in mosques or do they segregate women in mosques? quran.com/4/34

You could use Baron’s post to disprove Ms Krayem’s research too, 4th.

That could work.

http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr96/Herbert_04/niqab.jpg

Jihad is being waged in many forms.

As an academic she knows full well there is no religious requirement for her to wear all this faux Islamic clobber, but she does so anyway, and in so doing betrays the jihadist that lies within her.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 8:00pm:

http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr96/Herbert_04/niqab.jpg Jihad is being waged in many forms. As an academic she knows full well there is no religious requirement for her to wear all this faux Islamic clobber, but she does so anyway, and in so doing betrays the jihadist that lies within her.

Jayzuz.....now it's some sort of evil/sinister act to wear what you want, or choose, to.

Ferk me.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 7:48pm:

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:04pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:01pm: There's no need, Baron. It's all in your link: Quote: Law lecturer Ghena Krayem, who has researched the issue of legal pluralism, says the Islamic community does not want a parallel legal system set up. "[We] found that there's no evidence from any community leaders of any desire to set up a parallel legal system and I think to pose the question in that way presupposes this assumption that the Muslim community wants an alternative or parallel legal system," she said. Rather Ms Krayem says some of the processes around legal matters such as divorce and inheritance could take on board Muslim notions of dialogue and alternative dispute resolution, but the law should service all community members alike. One look at her photo should tell you everything you need to know about her credibility and which team she's playing for. http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/ghena.krayem.php You are familiar with the term "taqiyya," I trust? I am, 4th. Why don’t you respond to Ms Krayem’s peer-reviewed research? You might want to use some of your own research. Can I suggest you try Yadda’s posts?

Does your idea of peer review mean a few muslims have read it, who is going to pay money to read her nonsense?

Peer reviewed, pull the other one karnal. :D ;D

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:37pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:13pm: The4thEstate wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:04pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:01pm: There's no need, Baron. It's all in your link: Quote: Law lecturer Ghena Krayem, who has researched the issue of legal pluralism, says the Islamic community does not want a parallel legal system set up. "[We] found that there's no evidence from any community leaders of any desire to set up a parallel legal system and I think to pose the question in that way presupposes this assumption that the Muslim community wants an alternative or parallel legal system," she said. Rather Ms Krayem says some of the processes around legal matters such as divorce and inheritance could take on board Muslim notions of dialogue and alternative dispute resolution, but the law should service all community members alike. One look at her photo should tell you everything you need to know about her credibility and which team she's playing for. http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/ghena.krayem.php You are familiar with the term "taqiyya," I trust? Oh, the Yanky Journalist Penguin thinks we Down Under have never heard of 'taqiyya.'  How condescending.  Maybe, he can travel over the ground covered by a zillion posts here on that very matter and tell us Yokels something we have never heard before. Or maybe not. The whole point that woman was making is that most Muslims (including herself) are not interested in this Sharia Law dominance wank fest. The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils made these submissions to Parliament for Sharia law with legal pluralism, of course ignorant taxi drivers take the word of 1 woman and ignore all these submissions that have been made by the AFIC. A guess the leftist dickheads like arsie and karnal think the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils have nothing to do with community leaders despite the fact they were caught red handing rorting dept of education funding and claiming this money was management fees. This verse sums up womens rights in Islam, are women allowed to pray with men in mosques or do they segregate women in mosques? quran.com/4/34 You could use Baron’s post to disprove Ms Krayem’s research too, 4th. That could work.

The submissions to parliament by the president of the AFIC for legal pluralism disprove her bullshit.

If she doesn't want sharia law she should tell the AFIC to stop making submissions for sharia law.

The AFIC have been rorting government funding for schools, they are more than this lone voice.

Quote:

Peer reviewed, pull the other one karnal.

Of course it was peer reviewed.  You do know how one gets a PhD, don't you?

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 8:13pm:

Quote: Peer reviewed, pull the other one karnal. Of course it was peer reviewed.  You do know how one gets a PhD, don't you?

If it's been peer reviewed you can provide us with a link

Quote:

The submissions to parliament by the president of the AFIC for legal pluralism disprove her bullshit.

Is that the one you already linked, the one which was rejected outright by the AG of the time?


Quote:

If she doesn't want sharia law she should tell the AFIC to stop making submissions for sharia law.

In the absence of any proof provided by you, I am satisfied no such submissions have been made to the extent they need to be stopped.


Quote:

The AFIC have been rorting government funding for schools, they are more than this lone voice.

Which, even if true, has sweet ferk all to do with the Topic.

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 8:17pm:

Quote: The submissions to parliament by the president of the AFIC for legal pluralism disprove her bullshit. Is that the one you already linked, the one which was rejected outright by the AG of the time? [quote]If she doesn't want sharia law she should tell the AFIC to stop making submissions for sharia law.

In the absence of any proof provided by you, I am satisfied no such submissions have been made to the extent they need to be stopped.


Quote:

The AFIC have been rorting government funding for schools, they are more than this lone voice.[quote] Which, even if true, has sweet ferk all to do with the Topic.

[/quote]

I have linked the AFIC and Buddhist submission saying our laws are cool to parliament in this forum, try the Islam section arsie.

It appears every dickhead leftist needs this linked for them, try google for AFIC parliamentary submission they go back to when Costello  was in government or is that too difficult for dickheads who pretend to be lawyers.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 8:16pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Quote: Peer reviewed, pull the other one karnal. Of course it was peer reviewed.  You do know how one gets a PhD, don't you? If it's been peer reviewed you can provide us with a link

I can.  She received her Doctorate for writing the thesis upon which all her views, those you have been referring to, are based.  She has also written many books and research papers.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 7:48pm: The4thEstate wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:04pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:01pm: There's no need, Baron. It's all in your link: Quote: Law lecturer Ghena Krayem, who has researched the issue of legal pluralism, says the Islamic community does not want a parallel legal system set up. "[We] found that there's no evidence from any community leaders of any desire to set up a parallel legal system and I think to pose the question in that way presupposes this assumption that the Muslim community wants an alternative or parallel legal system," she said. Rather Ms Krayem says some of the processes around legal matters such as divorce and inheritance could take on board Muslim notions of dialogue and alternative dispute resolution, but the law should service all community members alike. One look at her photo should tell you everything you need to know about her credibility and which team she's playing for. http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/ghena.krayem.php You are familiar with the term "taqiyya," I trust? I am, 4th. Why don’t you respond to Ms Krayem’s peer-reviewed research? You might want to use some of your own research. Can I suggest you try Yadda’s posts? Does your idea of peer review mean a few muslims have read it, who is going to pay money to read her nonsense? Peer reviewed, pull the other one karnal. :D ;D

Hard to say, Baron.  I imagine the Australian Parliament and ABC News purchased a copy.

Krayem, G (2014). Islamic Family Law in Australia. Melbourne  University Publishing: Melbourne.

$16.99. While stocks last.

Quote:

It appears every dickhead leftist needs this linked for them, try google for AFIC parliamentary submission they go back to when Costello  was in government or is that too difficult for dickheads who pretend to be lawyers.

Whatever you might think of my 'dickheadedness,' it seems my problem with it is less severe than yours. 

Just post the links and stop wasting time talking about how easy they are to find.

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 8:23pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 8:16pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Quote: Peer reviewed, pull the other one karnal. Of course it was peer reviewed.  You do know how one gets a PhD, don't you? If it's been peer reviewed you can provide us with a link I can.  She received her Doctorate for writing the thesis upon which all her views, those you have been referring to, are based.  She has also written many books and research papers.

So how many women work in a sharia court is it zero zip zilch?

Men with beards administer sharia law.

The AFIC have made numerous submissions to parliament for legal pluralism are you saying this didn't happen?

I see why you drive taxis, you're too stupid for anything else

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 8:26pm:

Quote: It appears every dickhead leftist needs this linked for them, try google for AFIC parliamentary submission they go back to when Costello  was in government or is that too difficult for dickheads who pretend to be lawyers. Whatever you might think of my 'dickheadedness,' it seems my problem with it is less severe than yours.  Just post the links and stop wasting time talking about how easy they are to find.

Take your pick dim wit

google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=afic+parliament+submission

They made submissions under Howard,Rudd,Gillard,etc

Quote:

So how many women work in a sharia court is it zero zip zilch?

Could not care less.  None of my business or yours for that matter.  No one has a gun to your head forcing you into such a Court.


Quote:

Men with beards administer sharia law.

How ever so jolly, and bully for them!


Quote:

The AFIC have made numerous submissions to parliament for legal pluralism are you saying this didn't happen?

You are the bloke saying it has happened.  I am the bloke asking that you show me that it has happened.  Do that, and I'll be convinced.  Until then, I'm not convinced.  (Bunging up some google page and telling me to 'go fetch,' does not the mustard cut.)

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 8:32pm:

Quote: So how many women work in a sharia court is it zero zip zilch? Could not care less.  None of my business or yours for that matter.  No one has a gun to your head fording you into such a Court. [quote]Men with beards administer sharia law.

How ever so jolly, and bully for them!


Quote:

The AFIC have made numerous submissions to parliament for legal pluralism are you saying this didn't happen?

You are the bloke saying it has happened.  I am the bloke asking that you show me that it has happened.  Do that, and I'll be convinced.  Until then, I'm not convinced.  (Bunging up some google page and telling me to 'go fetch,' does not the mustard cut.)[/quote]

There is one one on the first page first link, Islamic apologists never read anything that goes against their belief of Islam.

Stick to driving taxis arsie.

Shirin Ebadi is a lawyer from Iran who won a Nobel prize, she supported the Islamic revolution in 1979.

Today she lives in exile in the UK, not much work for female lawyers in the sharia system.

Quote:

There is one one on the first page first link, Islamic apologists never read anything that goes against their belief of Islam.

Yeas, there is.  It's the same one you linked previously.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 8:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 8:32pm: Quote: So how many women work in a sharia court is it zero zip zilch? Could not care less.  None of my business or yours for that matter.  No one has a gun to your head fording you into such a Court. [quote]Men with beards administer sharia law. How ever so jolly, and bully for them! [quote]The AFIC have made numerous submissions to parliament for legal pluralism are you saying this didn't happen?

You are the bloke saying it has happened.  I am the bloke asking that you show me that it has happened.  Do that, and I'll be convinced.  Until then, I'm not convinced.  (Bunging up some google page and telling me to 'go fetch,' does not the mustard cut.)[/quote]

There is one one on the first page first link, Islamic apologists never read anything that goes against their belief of Islam.

[/quote]

Oh, we always read your links, Baron.

Theresa May is proving to be quite brutal with her string of sackings.

"Michael Gove, Nicky Morgan, Oliver Letwin and John Whittingdale were all fired by Theresa May today as she brutally deposed David Cameron's allies before completing her first Cabinet.


"Today's sackings come the morning after Mrs May disposed of George Osborne's services as Chancellor of the Exchequer".


link

She has bricks in her handbag.

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 8:45pm:

Quote: There is one one on the first page first link, Islamic apologists never read anything that goes against their belief of Islam. Yeas, there is.  It's the same one you linked previously.

That is one of the submissions to parliament, I have linked that in the Islam section not this thread.

Here is Abu Mounisa telling muslims how to push for sharia law, nice pommy accent, this is what Arsie and other Islamic apologists support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYktM-4Vspg

I can't, for the life of me, understand why you just do not post the links here, so we can all get over this speed bump.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 8:31pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 8:26pm: Quote: It appears every dickhead leftist needs this linked for them, try google for AFIC parliamentary submission they go back to when Costello  was in government or is that too difficult for dickheads who pretend to be lawyers. Whatever you might think of my 'dickheadedness,' it seems my problem with it is less severe than yours.  Just post the links and stop wasting time talking about how easy they are to find. Take your pick dim wit google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=afic+parliament+submission They made submissions under Howard,Rudd,Gillard,etc

'

One of the links would be the aph.gov link arsie for the submission to parliament, it's the first one at the top of the page

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 11:09pm:

I can't, for the life of me, understand why you just do not post the links here, so we can all get over this speed bump.

I can't for the life of me understand why you are so stupid.

You could listen to this muslim who says they should behead democracy and replace it with Islam, this is what leftists support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYktM-4Vspg

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 11:12pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 8:31pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 8:26pm: Quote: It appears every dickhead leftist needs this linked for them, try google for AFIC parliamentary submission they go back to when Costello  was in government or is that too difficult for dickheads who pretend to be lawyers. Whatever you might think of my 'dickheadedness,' it seems my problem with it is less severe than yours.  Just post the links and stop wasting time talking about how easy they are to find. Take your pick dim wit google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=afic+parliament+submission They made submissions under Howard,Rudd,Gillard,etc ' One of the links would be the aph.gov link arsie for the submission to parliament, it's the first one at the top of the page

FERK!!!  Yeas, that is the one you have previously referred to, the one which was rejected out of hand, made in 2011.

Where are the others you say have been made?

Aussie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 11:17pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 11:12pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 8:31pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 8:26pm: Quote: It appears every dickhead leftist needs this linked for them, try google for AFIC parliamentary submission they go back to when Costello  was in government or is that too difficult for dickheads who pretend to be lawyers. Whatever you might think of my 'dickheadedness,' it seems my problem with it is less severe than yours.  Just post the links and stop wasting time talking about how easy they are to find. Take your pick dim wit google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=afic+parliament+submission They made submissions under Howard,Rudd,Gillard,etc ' One of the links would be the aph.gov link arsie for the submission to parliament, it's the first one at the top of the page FERK!!!  Yeas, that is the one you have previously referred to, the one which was rejected out of hand, made in 2011. Where are the others you say have been made?

Probably on the government website ya dopey dim wit.

Quote:

Probably on the government website ya dopey dim wit.

I'm not doing your fishing for you Mr Rort.  I thought I had made that clear enough.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14^th, 2016 at 6:18pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 4:37pm: If England wants its free trade with Europe it must also accept free migration. That's the deal. Hence the Brexit result. It's like New Zealand being Australia's backdoor entry-point with every Tom, Dick, and Mohammad needing only to remain in NZ for two years before then automatically qualifying to come swanning across the ditch.

Here's the latest reason that Brexit was a good idea ... and why there will most likely be other "exits" to come.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/14/european-court-rules-workplace-hijab-ban-illegal/


Quote:

The European Court of Justice has made a ruling declaring it illegal for a business to fire a woman because she wore a hijab to work, saying customers and employers should get used to it. The case was brought to the court by Asma Bougnaoui who was hired by French IT consulting firm Micopole SA as a project engineer in 2009. Ms. Bougnaoui’s role was to go out and interact and advise clients. When clients of the company refused to work with her because of her Islamic headscarf, or hijab, the company felt they had no choice but to terminate her employment. The court has ruled that the decision to release Ms. Bougnaoui from her contract was discrimination based on religion and therefore illegal, Zeit reports.

Ah, yes -- even after terrorist attacks in France and Belgium, and sexual attacks in Germany, Sweden and the UK, the clueless Eurocrats declare "Europe for Muslims!"

Globalism uber alles!

Good one, T4E.

I'm a little puzzled as to how the European Court of Justice calls this discrimination on religious grounds, when in fact, after questioning,  Islamic scholars have repeatedly informed the public that there is no religious requirement for women to wear the hijab, niqab, or burqa, and that these apparels are expressions of personal whimsy on the part of those who wear them.

No matter how much these women protest to the contrary, these sartorial affectations are nothing more than fashion statements so far as Islamic scholars are concerned. 

As Christians, women could conceivably walk around in head-to-toe 'Virgin Mary' outfits, right down to their Birkenstock sandals - and claim religious discrimination when refused a job as a fashion model or at a suntan clinic. 

It's all idiosyncratic vanity posing as piety and moral virtue.

**

I find it interesting that the clients didn't want to work with her, and I suppose one can only surmise that it wasn't so much her hijab, per se, but that she wouldn't be into the drinking and shaking hands with strange men that is all part of these client-consultant contacts. I think they would have knocked back a working nun for just the same reason.   

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 9:20pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 9:09pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12th, 2016 at 8:08pm: Theresa May has apparently been running an enquiry, as Home Secretary, into the consequences of Sharia operating alongside British law. When pushed on where she sees this going, she said her main concern was on the issue of gender equality but she did say there may be benefits for Muslims. Do we have another Merkel here? Another secret quisling ready to sell out western civilisation, the heritage of the Enlightenment and everything generations of people died for? Let's hope not. The last thing we want is civil war. She appointed an Imam instead of a Judge to Chair this inquiry on Sharia courts in the UK. That would be like giving George Pell the Chair on the Royal Commission into child abuse within the church. Do I need to say anymore? More here for dim wits like little pecca,arsie, John Smith and Mothra- onelawforall.org.uk Bloody hell. Just what the UK needs.

Crikey! No wonder Andrei is grieving and lamenting the loss of Cameron in another topic  :-/

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 15^th, 2016 at 7:08am:

Good one, T4E. I'm a little puzzled as to how the European Court of Justice calls this discrimination on religious grounds, when in fact, after questioning,  Islamic scholars have repeatedly informed the public that there is no religious requirement for women to wear the hijab, niqab, or burqa, and that these apparels are expressions of personal whimsy on the part of those who wear them. No matter how much these women protest to the contrary, these sartorial affectations are nothing more than fashion statements so far as Islamic scholars are concerned.  As Christians, women could conceivably walk around in head-to-toe 'Virgin Mary' outfits, right down to their Birkenstock sandals - and claim religious discrimination when refused a job as a fashion model or at a suntan clinic.  It's all idiosyncratic vanity posing as piety and moral virtue.

Here's the most dead-on quote I've ever heard regarding the hijab:


Quote:

Mark Steyn says in his book America Alone that “there is no evidence that any Muslim woman anywhere ever wore the jilbab before the disco era, when it was taken up by the Muslim Brotherhood and others in the Arab world. It is no more ancient and traditional than platform shoes, bell bottoms, and cheesecloth shirts.”

Here's the latest example of national suicide in the name of multiculturalism:


Quote:

A small, sparsely populated island near migrant-crisis city Malmo in southern Sweden is to play host to a significant migrant centre that could net the owners millions of Swedish Kronor. The Kristianstad municipality in the Swedish county of Skåne is opposing the move, which would see a significant 2,000-man facility of “modular housing” established on the small island of Ivö to house newly arrived migrants. It is reported the plan to create the migrant accommodation is being launched by the Svenska Semesterhem company and could be contracted through the Swedish Migration Board, which distributes hundreds of millions of Kronor a year to accommodation providers. Swedish Television reports the development would take place in a campsite on the picturesque island, which is reachable only by ferry.

And you wonder why Swedish vigilantes set fire to refugee housing facilities that are still under construction ...

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 15^th, 2016 at 3:01am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 6:18pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 14th, 2016 at 4:37pm: If England wants its free trade with Europe it must also accept free migration. That's the deal. Hence the Brexit result. It's like New Zealand being Australia's backdoor entry-point with every Tom, Dick, and Mohammad needing only to remain in NZ for two years before then automatically qualifying to come swanning across the ditch.  Here's the latest reason that Brexit was a good idea ... and why there will most likely be other "exits" to come. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/14/european-court-rules-workplace-hijab-ban-illegal/ Quote: The European Court of Justice has made a ruling declaring it illegal for a business to fire a woman because she wore a hijab to work, saying customers and employers should get used to it. The case was brought to the court by Asma Bougnaoui who was hired by French IT consulting firm Micopole SA as a project engineer in 2009. Ms. Bougnaoui’s role was to go out and interact and advise clients. When clients of the company refused to work with her because of her Islamic headscarf, or hijab, the company felt they had no choice but to terminate her employment. The court has ruled that the decision to release Ms. Bougnaoui from her contract was discrimination based on religion and therefore illegal, Zeit reports. Ah, yes -- even after terrorist attacks in France and Belgium, and sexual attacks in Germany, Sweden and the UK, the clueless Eurocrats declare "Europe for Muslims!" Globalism uber alles!

No, the court found sacking someone for wearing a headscarf is illegal. A court would make the same ruling in the US and Australia.

But again, I'm curious. Do you want to have a stab at how we can ban Sharia? You can suggest how we can ban headscarves too.

I don't think anyone is defending or promoting Sharia here. I'm saying it's constitutional. It's quite legal to seek council from independent parties, religious or otherwise, to manage your disputes with others. This is not only legal in Australia, it's recommended in Family law. In NSW, it's mandatory - mediation must take place before the Family Court will hear a case.