It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Muslims who want Islamic law told to leave Australia

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
A senior government official in Australia has stated that Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law should leave. He also hinted that some of the more radical clerics would be asked to leave the country. Treasurer Peter Costello indicated on a news broadcast that Australian law was made by Parliament and that it was a secular state. These statement comes on the heels of the U.K debating a crackdown following the London bombings.
 



news.yahoo.com
SYDNEY (AFP) - Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law should get out of Australia, a senior government minister has said, hinting that some radical clerics might be asked to leave.

Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament, Treasurer Peter Costello told national television late Tuesday.

"If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," said Costello, who is seen as heir-apparent to Prime Minister John Howard.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I'm not surprised by this at all. Forced into a corner, this is the obvious move by many countries. However, will it do any good? You can boot out a few clerics and deport radicals, but then what? You have cleared the playing field of the obvious ones, but the sleepers remain. I'm not really sure what the problem is, but the U.S. will be hit sooner rather than later. As Israel experienced, you can have really tight security, but you cannot stop all of the suicide bombers.




posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Well personally I think that this is the message that respectable goverments such as Australia should be giving to all religious groups like this. Religious law is quite possibly the most anti-freedom form of goverment possible.

If Muslims want to practice their peaceful religion on their own, fine. They can encourage others to join them if they'd like for all I care. That goes for all non-extremist religions. But if religious groups want to force their religion down the throats of everybody else like some crusader, they can get the heck out of the country.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false.

That statement is very powerful, and shows that this man means what he says. These clerics have had their way for too long under the guise of free speech. It is time they learned some manners.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Sharia Law isnt about forcing the religion down everyones throat (Atleast the way they want it in places like Australia, Canada and the United States), its about being able to enforce their laws in their communities. The problem with this is that then there are basically 2 justice systems, one for muslims religious problems and one for everyone else. That is why governments are reluctant to let them enforce sharias law.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
As Israel experienced, you can have really tight security, but you cannot stop all of the suicide bombers.


Find the most efficient way to prevent "suicide bombers/homicide bombers" from breeding, and impliment the plan immediatley.

Those who kill randomly and indiscriminatley are worse than evolutionary U-turns in the human evolutionary scale of mankind, they represent the pinacle of the spiritual tree of geneology, with as many branches as the telephone poles out front by the street.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
To put it frankly; good. These are our government's laws, you live here, and you abide by them.

If we allowed these people to make their own religious laws, what about other peoples' religions, and their laws? What if people had a religious law that allows them to do horrific things to others, over a mere trifle of a disagreement?

Would that be allowed? If this Sharia Law is allowed, it would be discrimination based on religion if they weren't allowed to practice their religious laws.

The best way to avoid it is to not let people do these things, and simply ask them to abide by the government's laws.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Once the problem is identified and the line is drawn in the sand, it is much easier to solve the problem.
Denial is what would perpetuate the problem. Just watch my country's way (U.S.), and see how not to do it.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
This is fair. For starters if you enter a country you most go by there laws. Plus can i go into a Muslims countrys and practice my western laws YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.The proplem with this world is everything thinks there way of life is rigth and has to push that on EVERYONE.
Let me be free to believe what i like and i will do the same for you no questions asked.

[edit on 24-8-2005 by helium3]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 02:32 AM
link   
helium3, why do you want to practice law in islamic countries?

Am I missing something? If you violated the rights of a Muslim, in an Islamic country, then you should go by their law.

Its not exactly as extreme as its made out to be. Most Arabs that I have met (long before this Iraq bidness) expressed a desire for the United States to not have as much impact in their countries, and I have even known a guy who's father worked for Qaddafi, back when he was considered a 'bad guy'


Qaddafi's child was killed by the United States a few years ago, in case you didn't know why he was a little reluctant in making friends with them, without them apologizing.

I know an Iraqi doctor who left Iraq freely, during Saddam Hussein's reign, oh, oh.. But that also means his family suffered during the Gulf War, despite most people's impressions that it did not inflict the people of Iraq.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I like Costello and see him as a strong future leader for my country


^^ when did the US kill Qaddaffi's kid ? Maybe that's why Qaddafi renounced terrorism once the consequences personally affected him.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
yeah, rogue your country seems to have the right idea, i wish the US would take a page from britain and australia and deport these people instantly.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Muslims who want Islamic law should be told to go home. If you come to a new country you must accept AUS law or any countries law. If you go to the middle east you can't drink beer then you respect that before you decide to go. To stop terrorism then deport ALL nationalities back to their homelands GAME OVER.....





If you don't want to be an AUSSIE then GO HOME we don't want you.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezza deport ALL nationalities back to their homelands GAME OVER.....


I wonder how indigenous people would feel about such a statement?
I'm a firm believer in the old standard "when in Rome, do as the Romans do", but just how far should we go with this?

The fact of this world today is that people have the ability to move anywhere they wish, since there is a need for expertise which they can provide. The thing that comes to mind immediately is the shortage of doctors in my area...should we send them back too?

The problems which immigration bring is nothing new...it's been going on for centuries. Countries need to look more closely at who they're allowing citizenship, without a doubt, especially after the latest wave of terrorism, but, lets be very careful about exactly who we're going to ship out.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlanSmithee
Sharia Law isnt about forcing the religion down everyones throat (Atleast the way they want it in places like Australia, Canada and the United States), its about being able to enforce their laws in their communities. The problem with this is that then there are basically 2 justice systems, one for muslims religious problems and one for everyone else. That is why governments are reluctant to let them enforce sharias law.

en.wikipedia.org...



This may be true, but all these countries are federal democratic republics guided by constitutions that set up our governments, we have no place for a separate legal system ruled by religious law for any of our citizens, even if they want it.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I apologize, for I'm a little short-tempered right now, and may type some things that are a little bit harsh. If you feel the need to correct me (I'm sure many of you will), just keep in mind that I really am open minded, and will not flame back if you're nice about it. : )

I'm a follower of the idea that "Governments cannot rule without the consent of the governed". The idea presented in that statement is not exclusive to governments. It can also very easily be applied to religious sects. I try very hard everytime I think about this to keep an open mind when it comes to the idea that not all muslims are violent extemists, either on the level of being terrorists, or just psychoticially strict religious zealots. Logically, I know they're not ALL like that, but how come I don't hear of any Muslims doing anything EFFECTIVE about it!? I'm almost to the point where I am going to decide that all Muslims fall into the same category unless I see a significant portion of the International Muslim community fighting TOOTH AND NAIL with their radical counterparts. Silence in this kind of a situation, is the same as consent. I know that if I were a Muslim, I would be willing to put my life on the line to prevent my interpretation of the Q'uran as a peaceful script on how to live in love, from being dragged through the mud.

Thanks for listening, guys...
/me braces for impact...



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Good.

This is why we seperate the church and the state is to stop things like this. Why the heck should they think their religious laws should overrule the countries laws? If this was Pat Robinson I would (and have, over and over) say the same thing.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
akilles, how was el-KaDaffy's son killed by the U.S.? You do you remember, right? And, you do remember why we attacked, right? Do you remember the guys who were killed in the disco?
Let's not make it sound like poor ol, el-KaDaffy is just a poor, timid recluse mourning the hateful loss of his son.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
While I agree with Treasurer Costello's remarks about Shariah law, I feel compelled to point out some inconsistancies here. Firstly, Aboriginal communities have been give significant leeway in punishing their own through tribal courts and from elders. This is akin to Shariah law amongst the Islamic community. If we (i've spent most of my life in Australia) continue to allow Aboriginal communites the right to enforce their own rules/laws then you cannot bar Shariah law. We either allow extra-judicial penalties or we dont, no half measures and exceptions.

Secondly, while we are at it can we remove all christianity inspired laws that we have on the books? Bigamy laws have no basis in a non-religious context, the same applies to euthanasia. I dont tolerate Shariah law but I tolerate double stanards even less!

[edit on 24/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
akilles, how was el-KaDaffy's son killed by the U.S.? You do you remember, right? And, you do remember why we attacked, right? Do you remember the guys who were killed in the disco?
Let's not make it sound like poor ol, el-KaDaffy is just a poor, timid recluse mourning the hateful loss of his son.


As long as we're remembering things, it was his daughter who was killed, not his son.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
While I agree with Treasurer Costello's remarks about Shariah law, I feel compelled to point out some inconsistancies here. Firstly, Aboriginal communities have been give significant leeway in punishing their own through tribal courts and from elders.


Not really, sure they have some control over penalties for certain things but not much, they are still subject to Common Law. They have those rights because they are the original inhabitants of the country.
Comparing aboriginal law to Sharia law is ridiculous.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join