Australia is a secular country and the law of the state is fair, just and unprejudiced, and presumably all-encompassing and capable of taking care of interests of citizens and foreigners regardless of religions, cultures and political affiliations.
Common law originated in England and comprises statutes (legislation) and precedence of judge-made laws. Other than the moral basis of Christianity and Anglo-Saxon cultural tenets, the courts are given much flexibility interpret and adapt laws to new circumstances. It is progressive unlike certain static laws that are non-negotiable.
It is difficult to conceive how minorities in the country and the world could justify imposing their religious laws unless there is siginificant historical and social meaning, such as Aboriginal land rights.
The bizzare incident of a single crazy Muslim taking Sharia law into his own hands and defying the rules of the land has not found supporters even among majority of the educated moderate Muslim Australians nor the Islamic authorities.
While the originators of Sharia law expect the legal system to be taken in totality, it has been limited to family law in countries that have adopted some aspects of it. Since the ancient expectation of holistic application of Sharia is not feasible or realistic in the modern world, it is difficult to fathom how much Sharia could undermine the existing legal framework with the ground rule that where contradictions exist, the state laws prevail.
Moreover, the strong resistance from other conservative religious quarters who see any concession as capitulation would likely limit the influence of Sharia in years to come.
However, investor dollars are luring academics and governments to make compromises and exceptions. How the authorities could balance economic interests with fair protection and cultural chauvinism tendencies would be quite a challenge.
Laws are evolving. Civil law systems are learning from common law. The World Trade Organisation adopts a rule-based formula similar to civil law.
Intelligent and wise legislature and judicary probably matter more than mere prescriptions.
QUOTES
It's doubtful that sharia specifies the use of electrical cables in this sort of retribution, but that might not be the worst of it. Suggestions have emerged "from one local Auburn source" that the victim may have owed money to a number of people. If so, this could be a normal bit of roughing-up to speed the return of outstanding funds – not unknown in Australia or other common law countries as a method of settling debts.
---
Clearly, the government is keen for Australia to dip into $1.6 trillion worth of Islamic investment.
As academics Ann Black and Kerrie Sadiq write in the University of NSW Law Journal, finance is part of "good sharia law", which has an emphasis on profit sharing instead of charging interest and excluding investment in things contrary to Islamic principles.
If we can made a quid out of adapting our principles to include Islamic methods of finance and investment, then sharia has a welcome place in our system.
On the other hand (a phrase with a special meaning in parts of the Muslim world) Black and Sadiq point to Islamic family law, such as the recognition of polygamy and Muslim divorce, which is regarded as "bad sharia law".
---
The hudud punishments of hand severing, stoning to death and beating with cables are confined to a few countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran. As far as we know there is no credible proposal that they be allowed to function in parallel with the Australian legal system, although you wonder when you see Australians screeching at accused persons as they are driven away in police vehicles.
---
The vast majority of Muslim countries and Muslims have moved on from the middle ages. It was interesting to see a number of Islamic organisations condemn the alcohol-tippling/debt-recovery punishment. Sheikh Taj el-Din al Hilaly, of the Lakemba Mosque, said the attackers should be "assessed for a mental disorder" and those found guilty deported. Guilty of a mental disorder takes our law into uncharted waters, so maybe it's best to say no more about it.
In Britain there are close to 100 sharia tribunals that deal with matters such as domestic relations and inheritance, with appeals to the civil courts.
In Australia, law reform commissions have recommended that aspects of Aboriginal customary law be permitted to function alongside white man's law. The Law Council of Australia welcomes that and, indeed, it has been recognised in the Northern Territory.
Our system of laws is not immune from the the imprecations of Christian fundamentalism, either. For instance, the Reverend Fred Nile is forever trying to impose some sort of Christian sharia on his flock, the people of NSW. Maybe he should be allowed to have his own courts to impose special punishments on prostitutes, gays, and students who skive off from scripture classes.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-good-sharia-is-championed-in-some-surprising-quarters-20110721-1hqy0.html#ixzz1SywuRirw
No comments:
Post a Comment