NationStates Jolt Archive

I received this from a friend. Obviously, I have no idea if it is true or not so I am asking out friends in Australia if it is true or not. Did this happen in OZ?

“MUSLIMS IN AUSTRALIA
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "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," he said on national television.
"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 this is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law, and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off".
"Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spies monitoring the nation's mosques.”

Good on him.

Howard and Costello are brilliant. Good on them.

Let's ask the experts:

http://obsessed.expage.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/flyingcircus16.jpg

Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off".
"Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said.


I.e. White people + White people's values = Australian values.

I.e. White people + White people's values = Australian values.
"White people values"=civilization.

go figure.

Howard and Costello are brilliant. Good on them.


However, if American politicians said the same thing they would be classified as racists. :eek: Where is the justice in the world?

"White people values"=civilization.

go figure.
If you went to Saudi Arabia, asking for your own law system, you would get the same response. So it's not that black and white. Different nations have different cultures.

I'm in two minds of this. In the first hand, it's perhaps a good thing to tell the more radical elements to bugger off if they don't like what they see; it gets rid of them and their influence on the moderate Muslims who are peaceful folk.

On the other hand, it smacks of 'White is Right' sort of thinking, and doesn't exactly sound like something a democracy should do. So, two minds really...

If you went to Saudi Arabia, asking for your own law system, you would get the same response. So it's not that black and white.

You don't find it ironic then that its the immigrants who are now saying "We'll tell you what is and isn't Australian!"

You don't find it ironic then that its the immigrants who are now saying "We'll tell you what is and isn't Australian!"
What immigrants?

What immigrants?

White people.

White people.
Who have inhabited the nation for more than three centuries. Sorry. Not immigrants.

And besides, if secularism is a "white person" value, then perhaps Australia should proclaim itself proudly white.

If you went to Saudi Arabia, asking for your own law system, you would get the same response. So it's not that black and white. Different nations have different cultures.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I was referring to a person who implied that white people in Australia want the muslims out because they aren't white.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I was referring to a person who implied that white people in Australia want the muslims out because they aren't white.
Sarcasm then. No prob.

Who have inhabited the nation for more than three centuries. Sorry. Not immigrants.

Fine, 'convicts' then.

If they want to adapt to 'Australian' society, then adapt to the Australians. Pay attention to the Aborigines, the actual Australians.

I find it highly ironic that Mr. Howards and Co. have the audacity to lecture people on whit is and is not 'Australian' culture and society.

Fine, 'convicts' then.

If they want to adapt to 'Australian' society, then adapt to the Australians. Pay attention to the Aborigines, the actual Australians.

I find it highly ironic that Mr. Howards and Co. have the audacity to lecture people on whit is and is not 'Australian' culture and society.
Well, their ancestors built up Australia and they now run it, so actually yes, they do dictate what is and is not Australian.

I.e. White people + White people's values = Australian values.

No.

Vast majority of Australians(irrespective of skin colour) + Laws imposed by parliament and judiciary = Australian values

It is Australia's right to expell people that advocate the overthrow of the government. People that want sharia law are people that want to replace the government. Very simple. If there are people that want to overthrow the US government and install it with a theocracy than that to is grounds for being thrown out. Why is there people in this thread crying racism? Is racism the answer for everything you don't like?

Fine, 'convicts' then.

If they want to adapt to 'Australian' society, then adapt to the Australians. Pay attention to the Aborigines, the actual Australians.

I find it highly ironic that Mr. Howards and Co. have the audacity to lecture people on whit is and is not 'Australian' culture and society.
Considering the majority of Australia's current inhabitants are Europeans in descent, I would say they are the Australians of today, alongside the aboriginees. They have all the right to say what goes and what doesn't go in a country they govern. If some radicals would like a theocracy, then they should go somewhere where their desires will be catered for. The West bends its back far enough to serve the demands of deviants. Enough.

It is Australia's right to expell people that advocate the overthrow of the government. People that want sharia law are people that want to replace the government. Very simple. If there are people that want to overthrow the US government and install it with a theocracy than that to is grounds for being thrown out. Why is there people in this thread crying racism? Is racism the answer for everything you don't like?

So, if Fred Phelps wanted a theocracy in the US, he should be kicked out, along with his followers?

So, if Fred Phelps wanted a theocracy in the US, he should be kicked out, along with his followers?
No, but you most likely won't see him resorting to terrorism, even though he is highly annoying. However, radical muslims would resort to terrorism, so there you go.

Fine, 'convicts' then.

If they want to adapt to 'Australian' society, then adapt to the Australians. Pay attention to the Aborigines, the actual Australians.

I find it highly ironic that Mr. Howards and Co. have the audacity to lecture people on whit is and is not 'Australian' culture and society.


I'm afraid the Aboriginals aren't the 'actual' australians. The whites are. We moved in. We took it from them. It's ours now. We dominate it, we are now the australians.
If they wanted to keep their country so bad, they could have stopped walking around for 40,000 years, invented some guns and fought us for it.
:headbang:

No.

Vast majority of Australians(irrespective of skin colour) + Laws imposed by parliament and judiciary = Australian values

Apparently not if you are Muslim.... or increasingly so from South East Asia.....or Lebanese.... or Aborigine....

Considering the majority of Australia's current inhabitants are Europeans in descent, I would say they are the Australians of today, alongside the aboriginees.
The Aborigines have been increasingly pushed aside. I know there is a massive population stemming from Europe- but also from Asia. Do they fit into what Mr. Howard feeld is 'Australian'? I fear not.

They have all the right to say what goes and what doesn't go in a country they govern. If some radicals would like a theocracy, then they should go somewhere where their desires will be catered for. The West bends its back far enough to serve the demands of deviants. Enough.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about a theocracy and that wasn't my original point. My point was does no one else find it ironic that the descendents of immigrants are now telling others what is and is not 'Australian culture'?

Are they going to turn around to the burgeoning Asian population and say. "Adapt to Australian culture!"....even though the second most poplous language is Cantonese. How long before we hear "These Asians, must adapt to Australian society and culture!"

Well, that's sorta ancient news...

There was a study of questionable worth done a while ago (some boulevard magazine if I recall correctly). The much publicised result was that there are so and so many Muslims here who want Sharia law.

The government, being the conservative, at times populist, moloch that it is, was quick to add a comment or two. No actions were taken, and nothing has changed since.

By the way, I fundamentally agree with some of it. If people really think that Sharia law goes above the secular law of the state (be it in Australia, or in Germany or anywhere else) then they should go somewhere else where they can practice that. But they can't expect to live in a secular, "civilised" society but ignore its values (not that anyone managed to define Australian values). Religion is not that important.

Nonetheless, I sincerely doubt whether the results of that study are particularly believable.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about a theocracy and that wasn't my original point. My point was does no one else find it ironic that the descendents of immigrants are now telling others what is and is not 'Australian culture'?

Are they going to turn around to the burgeoning Asian population and say. "Adapt to Australian culture!"....even though the second most poplous language is Cantonese. How long before we hear "These Asians, must adapt to Australian society and culture!"
Clearly though, the aspect of Australian culture he was referring to was secularism. Pretty much something everyone can live with.

Apparently not if you are Muslim.... or increasingly so from South East Asia.....or Lebanese.... or Aborigine....


The Aborigines have been increasingly pushed aside. I know there is a massive population stemming from Europe- but also from Asia. Do they fit into what Mr. Howard feeld is 'Australian'? I fear not.



I couldn't give a flying fuck about a theocracy and that wasn't my original point. My point was does no one else find it ironic that the descendents of immigrants are now telling others what is and is not 'Australian culture'?

Are they going to turn around to the burgeoning Asian population and say. "Adapt to Australian culture!"....even though the second most poplous language is Cantonese. How long before we hear "These Asians, must adapt to Australian society and culture!"


The vast majority of Australians don't want Muslim law to be recognised as actual law. That includes the asians and the aboriginals.


We aren't saying "adapt to australian culture". We don't care if they want to continue doing things that are muslim tradition. We do care that they want to have a different law applied to them though. There is one law in australia. Nobody is above the law. It doesn't matter if you're muslim, aboriginal, asian, you can do whatever you like AS LONG AS IT IS LEGAL.

Clearly though, the aspect of Australian culture he was referring to was secularism.
Really?

Thats a leap of faith in Mr.Howard.

Sadly, I don't share it.

The vast majority of Australians don't want Muslim law to be recognised as actual law. That includes the asians and the aboriginals.
Its great that you argue a point with yourself. You can't fail to win.


We aren't saying "adapt to australian culture". We don't care if they want to continue doing things that are muslim tradition. We do care that they want to have a different law applied to them though. There is one law in australia. Nobody is above the law. It doesn't matter if you're muslim, aboriginal, asian, you can do whatever you like AS LONG AS IT IS LEGAL.

Fantastic. Again, not my point.

Really?

Thats a leap of faith in Mr.Howard.

Sadly, I don't share it.
A divergence in opinion then. Personally, I commend his strong stance on secularism. I think it is time the Australians took a hard look at themselves and established what their values are. Maybe now is that time.

Its great that you argue a point with yourself. You can't fail to win.



Fantastic. Again, not my point.

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that you point was that different cultures should be allowed practise their own laws in australia. Terribly sorry. What was your point?

A divergence in opinion then. Personally, I commend his strong stance on secularism. I think it is time the Australians took a hard look at themselves and established what their values are. Maybe now is that time.

As do I.

A divergence in opinion then.
That's cool

Personally, I commend his strong stance on secularism.
Hey, I'm all for secularism. Never said I wasn't, at all. He just manages to throw in 'Australian culture' and 'Australian society' without ever (as Neu Leonstein said) defining what it is.

He is an integrationist and assimilationist in a multicultural and multiethnic country. Oil and water to me.

Hey, I'm all for secularism. Never said I wasn't, at all. He just manages to throw in 'Australian culture' and 'Australian society' without ever (as Neu Leonstein said) defining what it is.

He is an integrationist and assimilationist in a multicultural and multiethnic country. Oil and water to me.
That he may be; however, like I said, Australia must begin carving out some values and defining features for itself, it is to remain a united country. Even the US has some features which define it, and it too is multicultural and multiethnic.

I cannot believe I am reading what I am. Are you people living in the redneck racist time of Pauline Hanson years ago?!?! What exactly is 'Australian Culture'???? There are so many different unique cultures that make up our great country! This is why we value calling ourselves a MULTICULTURAL country. So how do you define 'Australian culture'? What is it now? There are so many cultures in Australia now-a-days, how do you come to decide what Australian culture entails?? Is it simply having bbq's, drinking beer, and watching sport? Well if thats all it is, no way am I proud to call myself Australian. I cannot understand how people still think that secularism is a good idea. Where the hell do you live in this country??
I cant believe the racist, prejudice comments that are coming from some of you people! Who taught you those values and why? That's what I want to know. Perhaps you need a lesson in social justice.
I do not believe that Sharia Law should be bought into Australia, however I cannot agree with the Liberal Government's stance on Muslim's in this country. John Howard and Peter Costello are way in over their feet and need to be bought back to the reality of the situation. And this situation is that Australia is multicultural and we need to embrace this and celebrate it, including reconciliation with the Aboriginal communities around Australia. When this happens, I will be proud to call myself Australian. You guys need to rethink your values in regards to social justice and rights of the many Australian people and citizens who are from many unique cultures.

I cannot believe I am reading what I am. Are you people living in the redneck racist time of Pauline Hanson years ago?!?! What exactly is 'Australian Culture'???? There are so many different unique cultures that make up our great country! This is why we value calling ourselves a MULTICULTURAL country. So how do you define 'Australian culture'? What is it now? There are so many cultures in Australia now-a-days, how do you come to decide what Australian culture entails?? Is it simply having bbq's, drinking beer, and watching sport? Well if thats all it is, no way am I proud to call myself Australian. I cannot understand how people still think that secularism is a good idea. Where the hell do you live in this country??
I cant believe the racist, prejudice comments that are coming from some of you people! Who taught you those values and why? That's what I want to know. Perhaps you need a lesson in social justice.
I do not believe that Sharia Law should be bought into Australia, however I cannot agree with the Liberal Government's stance on Muslim's in this country. John Howard and Peter Costello are way in over their feet and need to be bought back to the reality of the situation. And this situation is that Australia is multicultural and we need to embrace this and celebrate it, including reconciliation with the Aboriginal communities around Australia. When this happens, I will be proud to call myself Australian. You guys need to rethink your values in regards to social justice and rights of the many Australian people and citizens who are from many unique cultures.

If you don't believe that Sharia law should be practiced in this country the what's the solution? There's only one solution. It will not be practiced. If a person wants it to be practiced, they can either learn to live with australian law, or go to a country that does practise it. That what Howard and Costello said. It's the only thing they could have done.

Fine, 'convicts' then.

If they want to adapt to 'Australian' society, then adapt to the Australians. Pay attention to the Aborigines, the actual Australians.

I find it highly ironic that Mr. Howards and Co. have the audacity to lecture people on whit is and is not 'Australian' culture and society.

What is Australian culture?

I cannot understand how people still think that secularism is a good idea. Where the hell do you live in this country??
I cant believe the racist, prejudice comments that are coming from some of you people! Who taught you those values and why? That's what I want to know. Perhaps you need a lesson in social justice.
.

OK this is for all of the mentally challenged people who do not understand where the Australian government is coming from.

1. State Secularism does not mean anti-religion. It is the belief of separation of church and state, that religion should play no part in the desicions of the government and vice versa, while preserving the right of people to practice whatever religion they like.

2. Sharia law is based on Islamic religious beliefs and that the government should be run under this law. Thus the state is basically a theocracy. Last time I checked, Australia was not one, nor should it be.

3. If you move from one country to another, you must respect the laws of your new country, regardless of your own faith or culture. Thats not to say you should abandon your culture, but you cannot expect the majority to conform to you. If I move from the US to France, I cannot say "well, I'm going to follow American laws because thats what I believe/I'm American, to hell with French law." Thats ridiculous and no intelligent person can agree with that.

4. To everyone crying RACISM and INTOLERANCE: The majority of Islamic people are peace loving and just people. It is rather unfortunate that a minority of maniacal zealots insist on using Sharia law and the Quran to justify their terroristic ideology. It has been proven, in the Middle East, Europe and in the US, that some mosques are used to recruit and promote terrorism, so it is perfectly reasonable to monitor activities in them, under the law and with just cause. This does not mean the governments are intolerant of Muslims but are looking out for the interests of all their people by preventing and discouraging terrorist activity.

Well, their ancestors built up Australia and they now run it, so actually yes, they do dictate what is and is not Australian.

Do they dictate Australian culture or does history dictate it? Does the majority of the people currently living in the country dictate the culutre or does the minority dictate the culture?

I received this from a friend. Obviously, I have no idea if it is true or not so I am asking out friends in Australia if it is true or not. Did this happen in OZ?

“MUSLIMS IN AUSTRALIA
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "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," he said on national television.
"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 this is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law, and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off".
"Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spies monitoring the nation's mosques.”
That's how you do it, Europe. :)

...SNIP... Why is there people in this thread crying racism? Is racism the answer for everything you don't like?

Yes, if you are a liberal. :mad:

Do they dictate Australian culture or does history dictate it? Does the majority of the people currently living in the country dictate the culutre or does the minority dictate the culture?
The majority obviously. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

The majority obviously. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.
Neither do I.

I.e. White people + White people's values = Australian values.
I thought he just said he didn't want Shira law. Hmmm... Maybe I need ot learn to read better.


Nope, just read it again. Nothing about white people. Or race at all for that matter. Did you perhaps mean something different?

Yes, if you are a liberal. :mad:
Hold it right there, I'm a liberal and I won't hesitate to say that the muslim religion is full of ignorant, violent, freaks who should stay back in their theocracies where they belong.

Also, black people are lazy. :p

That's how you do it, Europe. :)
Indeed it is.

So, if Fred Phelps wanted a theocracy in the US, he should be kicked out, along with his followers?

Unfortunately, the US cannot kick out citizens. :mad:

Unfortunately, the US cannot kick out citizens. :mad:
Hmm...anyone you have in mind specifically?

The Aborigines have been increasingly pushed aside. I know there is a massive population stemming from Europe- but also from Asia. Do they fit into what Mr. Howard feeld is 'Australian'? I fear not.

So, the Aborigines wouldn't mind Shira Law being introduced into Australia?

He just manages to throw in 'Australian culture' and 'Australian society' without ever (as Neu Leonstein said) defining what it is.
I thought the values that he was refering to were very specific.

Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "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," he said on national television.
"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 this is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law, and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.

Clearly though, the aspect of Australian culture he was referring to was secularism. Pretty much something everyone can live with.

Radical Islamisists can't live in a secular society. What about Iran and Saudi Arabia, would you call them secular societies?

What is Australian culture?

That was my point. :rolleyes:

I thought he just said he didn't want Shira law. Hmmm... Maybe I need ot learn to read better.


Nope, just read it again. Nothing about white people. Or race at all for that matter. Did you perhaps mean something different?

Read it again, especially the part I highlighted. I never mentioned any form of Law now did I? No, I mentioned 'values' and then refered to the 'Australian culture'. Maybe you do need to learn how to read properly.


So, the Aborigines wouldn't mind Shira Law being introduced into Australia?
I don't know. Why don't you ask them instead of making up bullshit posts like this one?

Where did I ever refer to Sharia Law? Find me my post where I stated "Sharia Law would be good for Australia"

Radical Islamisists can't live in a secular society. What about Iran and Saudi Arabia, would you call them secular societies?
No, if you had read my earlier posts you'd see me calling them theocracies. What I meant is that the notion of secularism is universally applicable and a noble cultural ideal.

That he may be; however, like I said, Australia must begin carving out some values and defining features for itself, it is to remain a united country. Even the US has some features which define it, and it too is multicultural and multiethnic.

Bingo! You win all the cookies. ::fluffle:

I thought the values that he was refering to were very specific.
snipped for bullshit.

You think laws = culture?

Wow.

You think laws = culture?

Wow.
Laws are a form of culture. They enshrine a nation's traditions, customs and often cultural beliefs, as well as promoting motives more relevant to the administration of government itself. As they govern society, they are strongly linked to how a culture is shaped.

Laws are a form of culture. They enshrine a nation's traditions, customs and often cultural beliefs, as well as promoting motives more relevant to the administration of government itself. As they govern society, they are strongly linked to how a culture is shaped.

While I agree laws are a part of a nations culture, they are by no means equal to culture in its entirity.

There is a lot more to it, and no one has yet given a definiton of what Australian 'culture' is.

While I agree laws are a part of a nations culture, they are by no means equal to culture in its entirity.
Indeed.

There is a lot more to it, and no one has yet given a definiton of what Australian 'culture' is.
Were I Australian, perhaps I could. Albeit, I am not. That is why I said they should begin figuring out what their culture is and what it is based upon.

OK this is for all of the mentally challenged people who do not understand where the Australian government is coming from.

Very well said. Now, if we could just get some American politicians to stand up and say what the OZ politicians are saying...but I guess that would be asking a bit much.
:mad:

Gah! I hate this sort of thing, mostly because I can never quite make up my mind. I know that most Muslims are great people who can live perfectly fine and productive lives as valuable members of society. Then again, I also know that there are enough nut-jobs for them to need special mention. I want Multicultural Australia, not white law or sharia-law, I want there to be anough beer-drinking, bbq having yobbos out there, but also everybody else to balance them out.

As you can see, I don't really know what I want, or what I think about this. Yahrr...

Were I Australian, perhaps I could. Albeit, I am not. That is why I said they should begin figuring out what their culture is and what it is based upon.

I think that is the essence of the whole problem. The use of 'culture', without even knowing what one's culture is vague and leaves it open to manipulation by various parties (extrenists on both sides).

The problem with defining Australian culture, is that the is no single one. It is increasingly a multi ethnic and multi cultural society, and assigning a single (Australian) culutre can only lead to strife.

Assimilation is clearly not the right policy for that particular country... in my opinion of course ;)

No, if you had read my earlier posts you'd see me calling them theocracies. What I meant is that the notion of secularism is universally applicable and a noble cultural ideal.

Agree.

Very well said. Now, if we could just get some American politicians to stand up and say what the OZ politicians are saying...but I guess that would be asking a bit much.
:mad:
But we don't have this problem in America. Crime is not rampant among the muslim community, and they are integrating fairly well. We aren't having any riots either, like they did over in Europe not long ago, so there's really no reason for any politician to bash muslims in this country.

Hey, remember during the cartoon debacle how there were no protests over here? That's because the muslims over here respect our laws and customs, and if they started raising hell because their precious prophet (who was incidentally a dirty rotten war-mongerer) was offended, then it is very likely that they would suffer grave bodily harm.

I, for one, would not stand in the way of that.

I think that is the essence of the whole problem. The use of 'culture', without even knowing what one's culture is vague and leaves it open to manipulation by various parties (extrenists on both sides).

The problem with defining Australian culture, is that the is no single one. It is increasingly a multi ethnic and multi cultural society, and assigning a single (Australian) culutre can only lead to strife.

Assimilation is clearly not the right policy for that particular country... in my opinion of course ;)
Clearly, I think they meant secularism.

Clearly, I think they meant secularism.
Again, you are assuming.

Have you ever actually read any of Howards speeches or listening to him speak?

Again, you are assuming.

Have you ever actually read any of Howards speeches or listening to him speak?
I admit that no, I haven't but I'm pretty sure he explicitly said something about secularism. Let me go check. Yeah, he definetely mentioned secularism.

I think that is the essence of the whole problem. The use of 'culture', without even knowing what one's culture is vague and leaves it open to manipulation by various parties (extrenists on both sides).

The problem with defining Australian culture, is that the is no single one. It is increasingly a multi ethnic and multi cultural society, and assigning a single (Australian) culutre can only lead to strife.
I think the evocation of the word culture was perhaps a reflexive one. Politicians tend to use the word a lot when referring to the rule of law.

Assimilation is clearly not the right policy for that particular country... in my opinion of course ;)
I suppose that is for Australia to decide. Establishing what its unifying cultural values are does not preclude the potential for it to remain multicultural; it would just give it better definition as a nation.

I think the evocation of the word culture was perhaps a reflexive one. Politicians tend to use the word a lot when referring to the rule of law.
Maybe.

All I know is if I were a politician or a Prime Minister and I was talking about 'law', I would have used the word 'law' ;)


I suppose that is for Australia to decide. Establishing what its unifying cultural values are does not preclude the potential for it to remain multicultural; it would just give it better definition as a nation.

Yup, I agree.

I admit that no, I haven't but I'm pretty sure he explicitly said something about secularism. Let me go check.

No, he refers to secularism when he wants to talk about secularism. He is a firm believer in intergration and assimilation. He believes multiculturalism cannot work.

the problem is, he wants immigrants and others to 'integrate' into Australian society and culture- but what is Australian culture? Is it merely the Anglo culture? Or is it something unique to Australia?

He hasn't defined it yet, it is still vague and... politicised.

Maybe.

All I know is if I were a politician or a Prime Minister and I was talking about 'law', I would have used the word 'law' ;)



Yup, I agree.



No, he refers to secularism when he wants to talk about secularism. He is a firm believer in intergration and assimilation. He believes multiculturalism cannot work.

the problem is, he wants immigrants and others to 'integrate' into Australian society and culture- but what is Australian culture? Is it merely the Anglo culture? Or is it something unique to Australia?

He hasn't defined it yet, it is still vague and... politicised.
Well, I'll go out on a leg on this one and talk from my own personal experience. In America, we have all kinds of different cultures, anglo culture, asian, italian, vietnamese, etc. (I realize that was kind of redundant but who cares). You name it, we got it. However, everyone respects the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Constitution clearly states that government is not to "aid one religion, or all religions." Basically, everyone plays by the rules over here. It seems to me like in Europe, for example, there is a certain, ahem, immigrant minority that wants to have everything their way, and this included sharia law. So, I don't claim to know anything about Australian culture, but I do believe from what I've read that secularism is one of the central tenets of it, and anyone who disagrees with that should indeed leave.

Maybe.

All I know is if I were a politician or a Prime Minister and I was talking about 'law', I would have used the word 'law' ;)


He hasn't defined it yet, it is still vague and... politicised.

I think that's one of the problems, people don't like the word "law", the word "society" or "culture" are much more appetising.

And of course its politicised, he's a bloody politician. A scum bag to boot.

You think laws = culture?

Wow.
If you don't think laws = culture, you need to go back to school. Theu are a part of and are driven by culture and in this case he was talking about specific parts of Australian culture. Specifically secular democracy and the rule of secular law.

What's next, are they going to tell Christians that they can't follow the ten commandments? Nowhere can I see that muslims were advocating Shaira law for anyone but muslims, and nowhere did muslims say not to obey Australian law. If they want to obey their commandments, let them.

In an organised religion, you follow a set of rules, or laws. For a Christian in Australia, you follow the same basic laws as everyone else, and you also obey Christs rules and teachings. It is a pity the teachings from Muhammed have been labelled 'laws', which makes it seem that they want to undermine our courts and justice system. This is a fabrication, if anything they enhance our laws, in the same way Christs teachings do. Again, they never said to disobey the Australian law.

This is merely Johnny and co. riding the xenophobic Pauline Hanson bandwagon. It is disgusting, and completley un-Australian. It reminds me of the begginings of the Holocaust, where Jews were ostracized for simply having their own culture. Next will we have all muslims wearing patches and being herded into ghettos?

What's next, are they going to tell Christians that they can't follow the ten commandments? Nowhere can I see that muslims were advocating Shaira law for anyone but muslims, and nowhere did muslims say not to obey Australian law. If they want to obey their commandments, let them.

That is the key issue; they want a universal law that applies to all Australians. Sharia is essentially religious law, as would be any law code derived from the Bible (there is far more to it than just the Ten Commandments, much of which does not influence which laws apply in a given secular society).

I received this from a friend. Obviously, I have no idea if it is true or not so I am asking out friends in Australia if it is true or not. Did this happen in OZ?

“MUSLIMS IN AUSTRALIA
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "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," he said on national television.
"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 this is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law, and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off".
"Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spies monitoring the nation's mosques.”

How old is this info, as Brendan Nelson hasn't been Education Minister for quite a while (thank god i might add)!

I cannot believe I am reading what I am. Are you people living in the redneck racist time of Pauline Hanson years ago?!?! What exactly is 'Australian Culture'???? There are so many different unique cultures that make up our great country! This is why we value calling ourselves a MULTICULTURAL country. So how do you define 'Australian culture'? What is it now? There are so many cultures in Australia now-a-days, how do you come to decide what Australian culture entails?? Is it simply having bbq's, drinking beer, and watching sport? Well if thats all it is, no way am I proud to call myself Australian. I cannot understand how people still think that secularism is a good idea. Where the hell do you live in this country??
I cant believe the racist, prejudice comments that are coming from some of you people! Who taught you those values and why? That's what I want to know. Perhaps you need a lesson in social justice.
I do not believe that Sharia Law should be bought into Australia, however I cannot agree with the Liberal Government's stance on Muslim's in this country. John Howard and Peter Costello are way in over their feet and need to be bought back to the reality of the situation. And this situation is that Australia is multicultural and we need to embrace this and celebrate it, including reconciliation with the Aboriginal communities around Australia. When this happens, I will be proud to call myself Australian. You guys need to rethink your values in regards to social justice and rights of the many Australian people and citizens who are from many unique cultures.

Couldn't of said it better myself!

I think that is the essence of the whole problem. The use of 'culture', without even knowing what one's culture is vague and leaves it open to manipulation by various parties (extrenists on both sides).

The problem with defining Australian culture, is that the is no single one. It is increasingly a multi ethnic and multi cultural society, and assigning a single (Australian) culutre can only lead to strife.

Assimilation is clearly not the right policy for that particular country... in my opinion of course ;)

The Australian culture is much like the American culture. Both are unique in the world. Both countries are countries of immigrants. Both countries are multicultural and multiethnic. However, both countries have their unique and separate culture. They are a mix of the people who inhabit them. They can celebrate the traditions of the countries from which their people come from while celebrating the unique traditions of the country they have made. Yes, there is an Australian culture, an American culture, a Canadian culture and each of those cultures is a mix of the people who inhabit the country and each is different from every other culture in the world.

[/SIZE]Very well said. Now, if we could just get some American politicians to stand up and say what the OZ politicians are saying...but I guess that would be asking a bit much.
:mad:

Our current Immigration debate and the Australain debate are totally different situations. The last time I checked, Mexico was not a muslim country...:rolleyes:

"When a whole nation is roaring Patriotism at the top of its voice, I am fain to explore the cleanliness of its hands and the purity of its heart." Ralph Waldo Emerson

snip...the problem is, he wants immigrants and others to 'integrate' into Australian society and culture- but what is Australian culture? Is it merely the Anglo culture? Or is it something unique to Australia?

He hasn't defined it yet, it is still vague and... politicised.

Here is the dictionary definition of culture, and it is hard to pinpoint

6 entries found for culture.
cul·ture Audio pronunciation of "culture" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klchr)
n.

1.
1. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
2. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
3. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
4. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.
2. Intellectual and artistic activity and the works produced by it.
3.
1. Development of the intellect through training or education.
2. Enlightenment resulting from such training or education.
4. A high degree of taste and refinement formed by aesthetic and intellectual training.
5. Special training and development: voice culture for singers and actors.
6. The cultivation of soil; tillage.
7. The breeding of animals or growing of plants, especially to produce improved stock.
8. Biology.
1. The growing of microorganisms, tissue cells, or other living matter in a specially prepared nutrient medium.
2. Such a growth or colony, as of bacteria.

I think when we are talking about a national culture we are talking about defintions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4.

If you don't think laws = culture, you need to go back to school. Theu are a part of and are driven by culture and in this case he was talking about specific parts of Australian culture. Specifically secular democracy and the rule of secular law.

What is the "rule of secular law?" :confused:

I cannot believe I am reading what I am. Are you people living in the redneck racist time of Pauline Hanson years ago?!?! What exactly is 'Australian Culture'???? There are so many different unique cultures that make up our great country! This is why we value calling ourselves a MULTICULTURAL country. So how do you define 'Australian culture'? What is it now? There are so many cultures in Australia now-a-days, how do you come to decide what Australian culture entails?? Is it simply having bbq's, drinking beer, and watching sport? Well if thats all it is, no way am I proud to call myself Australian. I cannot understand how people still think that secularism is a good idea. Where the hell do you live in this country??
I cant believe the racist, prejudice comments that are coming from some of you people! Who taught you those values and why? That's what I want to know. Perhaps you need a lesson in social justice.
I do not believe that Sharia Law should be bought into Australia, however I cannot agree with the Liberal Government's stance on Muslim's in this country. John Howard and Peter Costello are way in over their feet and need to be bought back to the reality of the situation. And this situation is that Australia is multicultural and we need to embrace this and celebrate it, including reconciliation with the Aboriginal communities around Australia. When this happens, I will be proud to call myself Australian. You guys need to rethink your values in regards to social justice and rights of the many Australian people and citizens who are from many unique cultures.

Dude, you're a total hypocrite. If multiculturalism is SO necessary(it totally isn't), why can't the Muslims practice sharia law(is it not multicultural enough?). Although you mean well, you're a hypocrite by default because multiculturalism itself is a stupid and contradictory value. You say that multiculturalism is good and should be celebrated. So what of cultures that don't believe that multiculturalism is okay? Are they ignored? Persecuted?for not meeting your elitist mindset. You're no different than the very same people you claim to be enlightened to.

What is the "rule of secular law?" :confused:
Law not driven by religious consideration.

My apologies to the thread, I didn't mean to post twice.

Ok, make that three times. I'm still trying to figure out this whole thread thing. Once again, sorry.

Law not driven by religious consideration.

Name one country please whose laws are not driven by religious consideration.

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

(Yeah, way to stave off terror attacks by pissing them off.)

Sigh. Shar'iah law and terrorism are not the same issue. No, I don't want to see Shar'iah law in Australia, but that's irrelevant - it'll never happen anyway. It reeks of another case of people trying to draw a conclusive link between being Islamic and being a terrorist.

Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard

Heh, this made me laugh. Of course, no Christians are required to pledge loyalty.

Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament.

Why, that's a surprise coming from the man who claimed that Australia was built upon "christian values". (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2272)

Just how secular are we, Mr. Costello?

Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off". "Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said.

Hm, would Mr. Nelson care to explain just what "our" values are? I bet I don't share many of them. Should I clear off too?

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spies monitoring the nation's mosques.”

Would he please monitor Christian churches, too? Y'know, they might get all upset and attack an abortion clinic or something.

Dude, you're a total hypocrite. If multiculturalism is SO necessary(it totally isn't)...

Multiculturalism isn’t necessary, it’s a fact. There are thousands of cultures in any country and they are not simply defined according to ethnicity or country of origin, e.g. country and city people have a different culture and yet they exist within the same nation.

…why can't the Muslims practice sharia law(is it not multicultural enough?).

They can. But considering the opinion of the fast majority of Australian voters, it aint going to happen.

Although you mean well, you're a hypocrite by default because multiculturalism itself is a stupid and contradictory value.

I don’t see how recognising diversity that already exists, and accepting the value of future contributions to such diversity is stupid or contradictory. Surely it is more constructive to view our own evolving national culture as one containing many smaller emergent cultures. Our democracy allows us to facilitate the common values, but that doesn’t mean we should try cling to some ridiculously 2-dimensional view of what Australia is.

You say that multiculturalism is good and should be celebrated. So what of cultures that don't believe that multiculturalism is okay? Are they ignored?

Sure why not. ‘Should’ denotes an ethical claim, so to say it should be celebrated rests on the belief that such recognition has benefits. Denying the diverse cultures in our nation may have it own benefits in the eyes of some people, but if the majority disagree, there’s not much that they can do. Recognising multiculturalism doesn’t mean accepting that every cultural rule should apply to everyone else. I can disagree with a cultural value, and still accept that there are benefits in allowing it to exist. If we try and wipe out all values that do not conform to some ridiculous ideal we will become culturally inbred and our democracy will be rendered impotent.

Hmm, I see no problem with forcing those who try and invoke Religious laws like killing Women who get raped and stuff to go take a hike. Now if we can only do it to the other Extremists in the other countries. (And I'm not talking just Muslim extremists.)

Any democratic country in which religion exists will have religious influences on the laws, because all these worshippers vote.

That means politicians in democratic countries are wise to consult religous leaders on policies, because they can be said to represent a block of voters.

Provided this is the extent of the influence, and government is limited, this is fine with me. An attempt to excise the degree of religion described above from politics can only happen at the expense of democracy, and personal liberty, tyrannical secularism.

Yes, its true...not that I agree. Unfortunately, I am 15, and can't vote against that bald bum of John Howard.

I received this from a friend. Obviously, I have no idea if it is true or not so I am asking out friends in Australia if it is true or not. Did this happen in OZ?

“MUSLIMS IN AUSTRALIA
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "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," he said on national television.
"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 this is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law, and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off".
"Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spies monitoring the nation's mosques.”

Has Howard grown some balls? I've never heard him talk tough like this before.

You idiots, Howard is referring to those people wanting to establish Sharia Law as the Law of Australia, replacing the stable political and legal system inherited from Britain.

However, I am the biggest Howard hater around, but he does have a point in saying that if you wish to live in a country under Sharia Law, then move to one.

He did not attack Muslims, just those wishing to impose extreme laws on ALL of Australian society, which has always been secular (for those people not from Australia, and those Australians who are so stupid that they claim that denouncing extremism is somehow racist.).

You idiots, Howard is referring to those people wanting to establish Sharia Law as the Law of Australia, replacing the stable political and legal system inherited from Britain.

However, I am the biggest Howard hater around, but he does have a point in saying that if you wish to live in a country under Sharia Law, then move to one.

He did not attack Muslims, just those wishing to impose extreme laws on ALL of Australian society, which has always been secular (for those people not from Australia, and those Australians who are so stupid that they claim that denouncing extremism is somehow racist.).

HOWARD! HOWARD!

JOHN HOWARD'S OUR MAN! IF HE CAN'T DO IT NOBODY CAN! WOOT WOOT!

I don't even talk lik that mate but Ima rootan for ya

Please man, I hate Howard enormously. It is just I hate psuedo-intellectuals that claim everything is FUCKING RACISM WHEN IT IS CLEARLY NOT.

If he said "All Muslims - GET OUT", then their arguments would have some merit. BUT THEY DON'T.

Actually, Senzunova has a real point here.

I certainly do.

I strive for commonsense to be upheld, even though I am only 17yo.

Whilst the Howard government probably could have worded it better, the general conceit behind what they're saying is pretty sound. If you're an extremist and are actively attempting to establish a system as fucked up as Sharia law, then you're not welcome.

Keep in mind I despise the Liberals.

Falhaar2, we have something in common.

Whatever anyone says, the Westminster system is pretty good.

Hmm, I see no problem with forcing those who try and invoke Religious laws like killing Women who get raped and stuff to go take a hike. Now if we can only do it to the other Extremists in the other countries. (And I'm not talking just Muslim extremists.)

In that case i see no problem giving the boot to anyone who disagrees me. I mean who cares if they're legal Australians with family and friends here. Their minority opinions are such a threat to my mainstream lifestyle that is enjoyed by pretty much all Australians that there really is no other concievable way to get around this. And can we get rid of Stan Zemanek and Gretal Colleen while we're at it?

The opinion that Australia should be governed by Sharia law is so insignificant in that it could only happen with the consent of the majority of Australians, and that is not going to happen. Isolating this minority of decenting voices and kicking them out is a form of persecution, whether you see it as racism, religious, political or whatever.

What Howard's government are talking about is kicking people out for holding an opinion about a style of government. What would be better for a robust democracy is if such opinions were defeated in a fair debate rather than simply removed from our society altogether.

Unless opinions favorable to democracy and to aristocracy, to property and to equality, to co-operation and to competition, to luxury and to abstinence, to sociality and individuality, to liberty and discipline, and all other standing antagonisms of practical life, are expressed with equal freedom, and enforced and defended with equal talent and energy, there is no chance of both elements obtaining their due; one scale is sure to go up, and the other down. J.S. Mill On Liberty

However, I am the biggest Howard hater around, but he does have a point in saying that if you wish to live in a country under Sharia Law, then move to one.

How is that a valid point? Who is he to suggest which Australian citizens should leave? Sure the majority don’t want Sharia law (including me) but by the same token why hasn’t the government suggested that all people who whish to change the current system leave, not just Muslims. There are plenty of socialists, communists, anarchists etc that would fit the same criteria. Where is the call to kick them out? Sure Islamic extremism is flavor of the month these days, but surely government have to be consistent of they whish to implement their own extreme actions. Either that, or cop the reasonable accusation of discrimination.

He did not attack Muslims, just those wishing to impose extreme laws on ALL of Australian society...

He and his colleges did threaten Muslims, a minority Islamic group, but Muslims nonetheless. Would he threaten to deport a small Christian group if they wished to impose a stronger influence on our legislating bodies? I doubt it, merely because of the uproar it would cause over people more popularly recognised as being Australian.

...and those Australians who are so stupid that they claim that denouncing extremism is somehow racist.).

Denouncing extremism is one thing. Identifying a minority group of legal Australian citizens and threatening to deport them is totally different. Do you really think pushing a problem away is going to solve it? Surely it is better for extreme ideas to compete on equal terms with others and be shown in front of everyone to be stupid and unpopular, rather than adding fuel to an extremists fire.

What is your problem Kirmania?

You seem to say that because they are Muslim they should not be isolated because it might be perceived as racism??

I doubt a small Christian group would try to overhaul all existing law of Australia and replace it with their own, and if they did, they would face the same fate.

I do believe that the Australian Government has told people wanting to change the system of government and law to get out of the country (i.e. Communism in the 1950's under the rule of Robert Menzies), and most communists back then were white Anglo-Celts.

You also fail to realise the threat that Islamic extremism poses today, and you are so incoherent that it would be nice if you would keep off the internet.

You also fail to realise the threat that Islamic extremism poses today, and you are so incoherent that it would be nice if you would keep off the internet.

Quick question for you: Do Australian citizens not have the right to petition their elected representatives for change to the law and do they or do they not have the ability to vote for alternative representatives or run for office themselves if the former fail to do so?

Yes they do, however, their elected representatives can dismiss such requests.

Does anyone here want Sharia law become the law of Australia? If so, continue defending the people who want it.

If Muslims want to change things they can run for parliament or vote for people who represent their interests.

And you do not realise that these people are very much in the extreme minority.

Does anyone here want Sharia law become the law of Australia? If so, continue defending the people who want it.

That's a little reminiscent of "If you're not with us, then you're with the terrorists". That line of argument never convinced me then, and it doesn't now.

I do not want Sharia law. If anyone challenges me in a debate over it I will be only be too pleased to run their arguments into the ground. If anyone ever ran a political campaign based around it's introduction I would enthusiastically campaign against it. However, I do not, and will never support the deportation of a citizen based on their political beliefs.


And you do not realise that these people are very much in the extreme minority.

So?

What was said by Howard is that they are not going to get deported, merely that if they want to live in a country that has Sharia law, they are more than welcome to leave Australia and go live in one.

What was said by Howard is that they are not going to get deported, merely that if they want to live in a country that has Sharia law, they are more than welcome to leave Australia and go live in one.

Oh. Well, that's slightly better, if a little worrying.

What is your problem Kirmania?

I’m not sure, but it would seem that I’m not that popular with 17-year-old crusaders of ‘common sense’.

You seem to say that because they are Muslim they should not be isolated because it might be perceived as racism??

Yes exactly. If the problem is extreme violence, then target extremely violent people. An opinion on the best type of government is up to individuals, and they should not fear being deported because of it.

I doubt a small Christian group would try to overhaul all existing law of Australia and replace it with their own, and if they did, they would face the same fate.

Why on earth should they face being deported? What is the point of a democracy if ideas are not allowed to compete?

I do believe that the Australian Government has told people wanting to change the system of government and law to get out of the country (i.e. Communism in the 1950's under the rule of Robert Menzies), and most communists back then were white Anglo-Celts.

So? The fact the governments in the past have preyed on popular fear doesn’t justify such an action or the stupid laws is involves. The idea of Australians being deported on the basis of their ideas is still ridiculous.

You also fail to realise the threat that Islamic extremism poses today…

I do realise the threat. I also realise that as a consequence Australian citizens are being threatened for holding an opinion that does not necessarily pose any danger to the rest of Australia.

…and you are so incoherent that it would be nice if you would keep off the internet.

What on earth are you responding to then if I’m so incoherent? Let me spell my position out. Violence is bad and should be addressed. Opinions are necessary for a democracy to function well. Australian citizens are involved in a democracy and should not be threatened for expressing an opinion. Politicians should not use popular fears to attack such rights, especially by targeting individual minorities on the basis of their opinions. If groups are to be targeted, it should be on the basis of violence, and they should be dealt with as violent Australian citizens with the right to due process and sentencing in Australia. No Australian citizen should be forced by the government to leave the country.

There is no forcing of anyone to leave the country.

As I said before, what was said by Howard is that they are not going to get deported, merely that if they want to live in a country that has Sharia law, they are more than welcome to leave Australia and go live in one.


Kirmania = Pseudo-intellectual :rolleyes:

Kirmania = Pseudo-intellectual :rolleyes:

On the bright side, he's not making a fool of himself by constantly using Ad Hominem arguments.

There's an easy way of deciding who's values and culture are the prevailing ones in a nation - those that belong to the majority. I don't see why Australia, or any western nation should have some guilt trip thrown on them to make them feel like they have some obligation to harbour the scum of the earth, regardless of the damage that they're doing to the nation. All that needs to be said is "We're the majority, and our values prevail. If you don't like that, though."

That said, I can't see a mainstream western politician like Howard actually doing anything about the islamic extremists in Australia. If he's anything like the politicians here he would be far too gutless worrying about the poor muslim extremists being persecuted to send them back to where they belong. But there's a very simple solution to these problems, if the will is there. Our friends in America have proved that. Grab them, shove them on a plane and render them to one of those nice places like Egypt or Jordan. After that I doubt they will be in any position to seek islamic law in Australia.

On the bright side, he's not making a fool of himself by constantly using Ad Hominem arguments.
Burn.

i realise i have come in a long time after this debate had started, but i did have a lot of time on my hands and have read the entire thread, or whatever the things are called. Anyways, we must keep in mind that for a democracy to work, the people of the country do not have to "respect" the laws imposed upon them simply because they are law! If this was the case then african americans would still be riding at the back of the bus, women still wouldnt have the vote and gay and lesbians would still be persecuted. This is not to say all laws are made to be broken, to have a law changed it requires the use of democratic systems in place for exactly this reason. In order for a democracy to work the people of the country should respect the RIGHTS of people living there, in an ideal model. We should respect Muslims right to practise religion and voice their opinions about whatever they want. Everybody on this thread has had the right to their opinion, so why cant Islamic groups have theirs? Yes if they break the law, then they may well be charged and tried for it, but it doesn't mean they are, "extremist" or "terrorists". These people are Australian citizens and should be treated accordingly. Without predjudice towards their backround, skin colour or religion because im sorry but yes that is rascist and yes that is discriminatory. If they feel that ALL Australians are to live under Islamic law then so be it. If a Catholic preist teaches at his sermons that everybody should live as jesus did, by following certain practises, should they be deported? Are anti-gay and anti-lesbians lobi-ists herded onto and island and made to live there simply because of their personal veiws and vice-versa? No. This goes deeper than peter costellos or john howards comments in one interveiw on one particular day. What about the cronulla riots, or dont they matter anymore? Why were those people not deported? If you dont want to live in a country with multi-cultural acceptance and opinions, why dont you go somewhere else (sarcasm people). I hope that everyone can see my point.

There is no forcing of anyone to leave the country.

Whether it is forced or suggested the principle remains the same. A democratic government should not be telling citizens to leave their own country because of the opinions they hold.

As I said before, what was said by Howard is that they are not going to get deported, merely that if they want to live in a country that has Sharia law, they are more than welcome to leave Australia and go live in one.

That was not what was merely said.

Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off".

Howard’s ministers were clearly targeting Muslims that hold a certain opinion and saying that because they hold that opinion they should leave the country. They were not simply saying they are welcome to leave, they are saying that they are not welcome to stay, a suggestion which is totally outrageous coming from ministers in a democratic government.

Kirmania = Pseudo-intellectual :rolleyes:

You’re so cute when you use the word ‘pseudo’ to accuse people of pretentiousness.

On the bright side, he's not making a fool of himself by constantly using Ad Hominem arguments.

Damn it. I wanted to be the pseudo-intellectual that said that. Ad Hominem = pointless and boring arguments.

You know I've heard in some places, like towns with a high extremist population they are using Sharia law without Premission. Is this true or just a rumor. If it's true then ship them off to Iran for all I care because they're opressing people with their sick system.

Jim Crow laws, Sharia laws, any law that is designed to simply oppress someone,
DOESN'T DESERVE TO EXIST!

And that goal, the ending of such oppressive laws, is something I'll fight for. (By policy and non-Violence if possible)
Who disagrees that Oppressive laws are wrong?

Let's ask the experts:

http://obsessed.expage.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/flyingcircus16.jpg

hahaha ahhh aussies. race and ethnic relations have never been their strong point.

Who disagrees that Oppressive laws are wrong?

All laws are oppressive to some extent. The question is to what kind of balance we want to have enforced in our own country.

You know I've heard in some places, like towns with a high extremist population they are using Sharia law without Premission. Is this true or just a rumor. If it's true then ship them off to Iran for all I care because they're opressing people with their sick system.

*snip*

This is just bullshit, I suspect you just made it up.

Australia doesn't have towns with "high extremist populations". Some areas have a higher concentration of muslims living in them, but to label them extremists is not correct.

I have decided to put my 2 cents.. I'm an Australian and the point is Sharia Law totally undermines the whole system of government that Australia has.. as opposed to the racial discrimination laws as existed a long time ago.

The point is people where being specifically mis-treated by the law because of a certain attribute where no muslim in australia is being specifically being mis-treated by the law.

If Muslims in Aus wanted to make a law that all meat in Aus had to be Hallal... then that's an issue for the parliment to decide (whether or not it is accepted or not) but then there is... "we have this system and it totally contradicts the foundations of your existing system but extablish this system and we'll be happy" which yeah, as if ANY nation is going to do that... We might just as well get Australians/UKians to establish the westminster system in Iran. Iran's not going to establish the Westminster System unless it wants to and neither will Australia will establish Sharia law

Accept that or move on...

If they wanted to keep their country so bad, they could have stopped walking around for 40,000 years, invented some guns and fought us for it.
:headbang:


Lmao, well said mate!

Bazalonia']The point is people where being specifically mis-treated by the law because of a certain attribute where no muslim in australia is being specifically being mis-treated by the law.

actually they are being mistreated by the law. Or has everyone forgotten the consequences for voicing their opinion. They have been threatened with deportation, and im sure the anti-sadition laws have got islamic extremists covered as well.

I'm afraid the Aboriginals aren't the 'actual' australians. The whites are. We moved in. We took it from them. It's ours now. We dominate it, we are now the australians.
If they wanted to keep their country so bad, they could have stopped walking around for 40,000 years, invented some guns and fought us for it.
:headbang:

Lmao, well said mate!



Suggesting that guns make people right and give them the right to take whatever they want is disgusting and absolute crap. I suggest you think about it next time someone sticks a gun in youre face and takes your wallet. Wouldnt it be ironic if he was aboriginal. By your reasoning this would of course be perfectly acceptable. Or maybe the scary "extremists"should take up arms. Is this the way society should work?... i didnt think so.

Hello there. As an Australian (living in Lefty NZ :mad:) I would like to comment on this. The Australian Government (ie, Johnny Howard) has been voted in by the population of australia, which includes Aboriginies, Asians, and Muslims, as well as the rest of them, ie convict descendants and European immigrants. The majority voted them in in a landslide victory in a democratic election. This goverment therefore has the mandate to create, maintain, or remove laws, govern, and look after its citizens. Now if the muslims were a large proportion of the population, they could petition the Govt to introduce Sharia law in the interests of this large proportion of the population. However:
1) Sharia law is the Law of the Quran, and as such is a religious law, enforced not by government officials and police, but by (self-elected) religious leaders. Australia is a secular democratic country, not given to stoning adulterers, cutting off burglars hands etc. and so can't adopt Sharia in any way shape or form.
2)The muslims have come into the country of Australia from Islamic countries and brought their religion with them. Australia has let them stay despite knowing their Islamicity (is that a word?!), and its obvious links to terrorist activity (which is rife in Australia). The laws (or the basis for the present ones) of australia have been in place for a long time (10s-100s of years). Like all the other immigants, muslims must respect these laws and australia's sovereignty. If John Howard and the Govt didn't to at least threaten to deport (that means kick out) troublemakers, they would be abrogating their authority and responsibility to govern, and to protect australia's citizens from extremist elements (and let's face it, Sharia Law is extreme). Therefore, Howard and Costello's comments are totally legal, fair, and just, when one takes into account the authority they hold as elected representatives.
And cut out that total shit about the aboriginies! Australian aboriginies were part of the population that voted in the government, and yes, there is an australian aboriginal member of parliament.
Thankyou for your time, Will V.

actually they are being mistreated by the law. Or has everyone forgotten the consequences for voicing their opinion. They have been threatened with deportation, and im sure the anti-sadition laws have got islamic extremists covered as well.


Threatened with deportation over the overthrow of a government... I'm glad I don't live in that nation... oh, wait I do. :rolleyes:

That's what would be needed because implementing sharia law would require a change in the constition to get rid of this silly thing called democracy... oh and seperation of church and state... oh .. oh and THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT

Well... unless Australia somehow becomes so flooded with extreme muslims that Sharia becomes THE law of Australia, requiring both a parlimentary majority and requireing referenda to change the nations constitution.Information (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/elect/referend/rintrod.htm) on Referenda

And let me add I have no problems with muslims wanting to live under Sharia law (as best as they can while still following Australian law) for themselves, as long as they don't try to push it on anyone else.

EDIT: Quote from the lateline TV show as quoted by a link provided by a poster later in this thread...

Essentially, the argument is Australia expects its citizens to abide by core beliefs — democracy, the rule of law, the independent judiciary, independent liberty. You see, Tony, when you come to Australia and you go to take out Australian citizenship you either swear on oath or make an affirmation that you respect Australia's democracy and its values. That's what we ask of people that come to Australia and if they don't, then it's very clear that this is not the country — if they can't live with them — whose values they can't share. Well, there might be another country where their values can be shared.

yeah, so im a bit delayed in this, but i thought i'd point out that there are two sides to this story. the article quoted in the op is sort of biased and hyped up, i think.

this is a quote from the following website:
[although i can't Definately account for its authenticity, tis interesting nonetheless]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp

The individual statements attributed to Australian government officials included in the e-mail reproduced at the head of this page are thus essentially accurate, but the selectively-quoted excerpts of controversial material from different news stories create the misleading overall impression that Australia enacted a formal policy to force some Muslim groups out of the country. The statements quoted were part of the public debate over an issue that flared briefly in the immediate aftermath of the London Tube bombings.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp ( A different version of the story)


a couple of the quotes have been taken out of context, and the story itself is about a year old.

and the viewpoints expressed in the article are definately not held by the overwhelming majority of australians. i love having lots of cultures surrounding me. having said that, i do agree that, no matter what, if you don't want to live by "any country's" laws, then dont live in "any country".

Suggesting that guns make people right and give them the right to take whatever they want is disgusting and absolute crap. I suggest you think about it next time someone sticks a gun in youre face and takes your wallet. Wouldnt it be ironic if he was aboriginal. By your reasoning this would of course be perfectly acceptable. Or maybe the scary "extremists"should take up arms. Is this the way society should work?... i didnt think so.


If this dude waving a gun around was an aboriginal, he'd be guilty of breaking Australian Law. If he calls himself a true Australian who doesn't have to abide by our legal systems, then he can also do without our housing, employment and living standards too. Let's see how many aborigines we'd have left then.

If this dude waving a gun around was an aboriginal, he'd be guilty of breaking Australian Law. If he calls himself a true Australian who doesn't have to abide by our legal systems, then he can also do without our housing, employment and living standards too. Let's see how many aborigines we'd have left then.


...were you at Cronulla? Dude, give em some respect!

Bazalonia']Threatened with deportation over the overthrow of a government... I'm glad I don't live in that nation... oh, wait I do. :rolleyes:


First of all, i think the issue may be a little confused and i think were essentially saying the same thing here just with a different veiw of the original topic. Saying they want to live under shari law dosnt mean they want to overthrow the government and the article isnt detailed enough to draw this conclusion in the first place.
secondly

Bazalonia']
And let me add I have no problems with muslims wanting to live under Sharia law (as best as they can while still following Australian law) for themselves, as long as they don't try to push it on anyone else.

And i agree, and im sure this is probably what they meant. But this depends on what you mean by "push" onto "anyone else". Obviously their veiw is their own but trying to share this veiw with others is the basis of religion. However they are still entitled to their political opinions, some Liberal party members in Australia are deeply religious. As for Australia being "flooded with extreme muslims", muslim culture is not "extreme". These 2 terms are thrown around way too much, however there are people of muslim faith who are militant. This is no different to the national guard in America though. How many terrorist attacks have taken place in Australia? youd think thered be a few more now that we've been flooded with extremists wouldnt you? Someone bombing an embassy in Iraq dosnt mean all muslims are extreme.

One muslim bombing an embassy does NOT mean that ALL muslims are extreme.
One muslim bombing an embassy DOES mean that that particular muslim is extreme.


One muslim following Shari'a does not mean all muslims are extreme.
But one muslim following Shari'a does mean that that particular muslim is extreme.

The Australian Government (ie, Johnny Howard) has been voted in by the population of australia, which includes Aboriginies, Asians, and Muslims, as well as the rest of them, ie convict descendants and European immigrants. The majority voted them in in a landslide victory in a democratic election. This goverment therefore has the mandate to create, maintain, or remove laws, govern, and look after its citizens.

Just because a majority voted the Liberals into government (although with our system of preferences and the way the senate is run it is possible to gain power in both houses with a minority of the primary vote) doesn’t give Howard a mandate to do whatever he likes. As democracy he still has an obligation to protect the rights of those that disagree wih him. What he and his colleges are suggesting in regards to removing Muslims with a particular viewpoint is a threat to our democracy as a whole.

Now if the muslims were a large proportion of the population, they could petition the Govt to introduce Sharia law in the interests of this large proportion of the population.

Exactly. Its up to the population to decide what they want in terms of government, not for the government to decide what sort of opinions should exist in out country.

1) Sharia law is the Law of the Quran, and as such is a religious law, enforced not by government officials and police, but by (self-elected) religious leaders. Australia is a secular democratic country, not given to stoning adulterers, cutting off burglars hands etc. and so can't adopt Sharia in any way shape or form.

Which raises the question, what is the point in sending Australians with such a viewpoint away if their opinions are extremely unlikely to make any serious impact?

2)The muslims have come into the country of Australia from Islamic countries and brought their religion with them. Australia has let them stay despite knowing their Islamicity (is that a word?!), and its obvious links to terrorist activity (which is rife in Australia).

Well this is mostly bullshit. Your average Muslim has as much a link to terrorist activities as Catholics do to terrorist groups such as the IRA.

Like all the other immigants, muslims must respect these laws and australia's sovereignty.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean that shouldn’t hold a dissenting opinion

Therefore, Howard and Costello's comments are totally legal, fair, and just, when one takes into account the authority they hold as elected representatives.

Their power gives them a responsibility to all Australians to act appropriately as leaders of a democratic country, not the right to do whatever they want.

…and yes, there is an australian aboriginal member of parliament.

Who? The only person I can think of is Senator Aden Ridgeway, and he was voted out last election. There’s also the ALP president Warren Mundine, but he’s not a member of parliament. So which Aboriginal parliamentarian are you talking about?

If he calls himself a true Australian...

And what exactly is a 'true Australian'? Who gets the privilege of deciding that?

And what exactly is a 'true Australian'? Who gets the privilege of deciding that?

As usually, the majority.
From your way of asking that, I rather get the impression that 'majority' excludes 'you'.

Tough luck, wot?

As usually, the majority.

A majority is simply a group of different individuals that share one or a few chracteristics. How does that constitute a definition of a 'true Australian'? Does it mean that any minority is not Australian? What about situations where individuals hold common and uncommon characteristics?

I'm a white, middleclass Australian citizen from a family with loose Christian background. In that sense I form a majority and am therefore 'truly Australian'. However as a male with long hair, having been through 13 years at Catholic schools and currently studying design/art education at the college of fine arts, I form an incredibly small minority, and am therefore not a 'true Australian'.

How useful is your definition if it means a person can be both 'truly Australian', and not 'truly Australian' at the same time?

How valid is the term 'true Australian'?

First of all, i think the issue may be a little confused and i think were essentially saying the same thing here just with a different veiw of the original topic. Saying they want to live under shari law dosnt mean they want to overthrow the government and the article isnt detailed enough to draw this conclusion in the first place.
secondly


I'm thinking Law as in law of the land.. the Laws set down by the Australian Government... establising Sharia law as the law of Australia would require an overthrow. Any Muslim wanting to establish Sharia law as the Law of Australia should be deported.

Any muslim who follows the moral code established by Sharia personally, and does not force others to do so (encouraging other muslims to follow the Sharia moral code and politiking on moral issues through the framework provided by Australian politics does not come under this banner). I will be happy to live next to. Doesn't mean I agree with their religious beliefs, but as long as we respect each others beliefs (even if one was trying to evangelise the other) then I can see no security or other problem.

A majority is simply a group of different individuals that share one or a few chracteristics. How does that constitute a definition of a 'true Australian'? Does it mean that any minority is not Australian? What about situations where individuals hold common and uncommon characteristics?

I'm a white, middleclass Australian citizen from a family with loose Christian background. In that sense I form a majority and am therefore 'truly Australian'. However as a male with long hair, having been through 13 years at Catholic schools and currently studying design/art education at the college of fine arts, I form an incredibly small minority, and am therefore not a 'true Australian'.

How useful is your definition if it means a person can be both 'truly Australian', and not 'truly Australian' at the same time?

How valid is the term 'true Australian'?

Philosophically, the term is pointless.

Politically, it's beyond any form of doubt of scepticism.

Majority: a thing that manifests itself at the ballot box.
(Vox populi, vox dei).

This is just bullshit, I suspect you just made it up.

Australia doesn't have towns with "high extremist populations". Some areas have a higher concentration of muslims living in them, but to label them extremists is not correct.
So it's just a rumor? Thank goodness! Like I said it was only something I heard.

If there were towns that invoked Sharia law without the Governments premission then I will consider them extremists however.

I wish America would do this with christianity.

I wish America would do this with christianity.

Here, here!