Sharia should never be part of Australian law. In fact, Australian authorities should be making more concerted attempts to get to grips with sharia law as it is already practised in Australia, and to make sure that the benefits of a secular democracy are better understood in migrant communities.
First of all, though, let’s just be clear that what the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils has proposed in its submission to a multiculturalism inquiry is not about stoning women for adultery or lopping off hands for stealing. What they’re talking about – at this point – is family law; divorces and marriages.
And when AFIC says (in today’s news reports) that they want Government support for a wider spread of schools and halal shops to stop ‘enclaves’ forming, they’re not talking about empire building, but about community support.
It’s important to get that in early, because there’s a lot of hysteria around about what some see as the latest attempt to Islamicise Australia.
That said, we live in a democracy that for all its flaws is the best model we have, and introducing any parallel systems to please a minority is a path that will not lead to better social cohesion, but to a deepening of the chasm between Muslims and non-Muslims.
There is no doubt that a chasm exists, and Australia needs to face it and overcome it through frank and fearless discussion. Non-hysterical discussion.
Hence the need to make the following points:
1. Sharia law (particularly on inheritance, marriage and divorce) is to an extent already practised in Australia, and some advocates would like to see it incorporated into Australian law – so it would apply only to Muslims, and would theoretically clarify the laws. Some argue it would even deliver better support to women.
2. The AFIC submission itself is a moderate if dense and historically based piece of work. It is on a par with a Christian call for their values to be incorporated in our legal system. It’s not a call for a Caliphate.
3. The report today that AFIC want broader Government support for schools (all schools already get some support) and for halal shops is because AFIC spokeswoman Heba Ibrahim says it would help Muslim Australians move into the broader community, rather than gather in existing Muslim ‘enclaves’.
So the proposition is not as extreme as some would have you believe.
But still; it is a proposition that must be rejected outright. And not just because sharia law as it is practised in many countries is an instrument of violence and oppression.
Tolerance is a good thing; moral relativism is something else altogether.
There is such a thing as universal human rights; it is valid and valuable to treasure what we have in our liberal democracy, and to wish the same for other people (and to use what international clout we have to push for better societies without resorting to imperialism).
One of the most important parts of our society is that it is secular; that despite including many beliefs and indeed creating better laws to stop discrimination on the basis of religion or race, we allow none (in theory, mind) to influence our legislation.
Despite Australia’s Aboriginal and then Judaeo-Christian heritage, we are successfully secular despite various religions’ attempts to infiltrate and influence our Governments and our laws.
We need to keep fighting, however, to maintain that secularism. And that means keeping sharia – and any other religion – out.
The AFIC submission highlights that Australia is doing a brisk and increasing trade in Islamic finance and halal foods – they point to that as support for the argument that there is room for Islam within the existing structures.
The difference is while these may be underpinned by accreditation and therefore legislation, they are ultimately market-driven products controlled by our laws, not changes to the law that could control us – and by us, I mean any Australian.
The Australian Government is right to reject sharia law, and it must continue to do so without looking as though it is rejecting Islam; and at the same time the Islamic representative bodies must continue to advocate for their people without looking like they are rejecting Australia’s laws.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision
RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project
I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…
Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics
When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…
Please enter your password
Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
Michael S says:
"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
Change Up! says:
I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented