Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 23
rd, 2014 at 12:15pm:
Good point about the constitution, Baron. The president of the Australian federation of Islamic councils Ikebal Patel states in your article:
Quote:"It is important for someone who is Muslim or a practising Jew that aspects of our religion which can be incorporated within the greater legal system are introduced.
"This is about personal issues about family, and won't affect any other Australian," he said.
"It's about a system that does not impinge on the rights of any other Australian."
It sounds a bit like the dispute resolution processes, or "courts", already established by Jews. Here's an article posted by Wally:
Quote:VICTORIA'S Jewish community has set up a special court to resolve disputes involving its members.
Specially trained rabbis will handle civil and commercial issues using a combination of Jewish and Australian law.
The court, known as a Beth Din, has previously only dealt with matters relating to divorce and the conversion to Judaism.
Rabbinical Council of Victoria president Rabbi Meir Shlomo Kluwgant said the court would offer parties arbitration and mediation to resolve disputes so they wouldn't need to go through the normal legal system.
"It's not trying to go beyond the law - quite the opposite - it's trying to support the law by creating a venue within the community to resolve disputes," he said.
As you can see - all constitutional, and all within the law. These are processes for family and civil disputes, not criminal ones. No one is arguing for separate criminal courts, which of course would be illegal under the constitution.
What is also illegal under the constitution is discriminating against different forms of worship. Banning religious organizations would require a change to the constitution. Such a change would require a majority vote in both houses of parliament to propose a referendum, followed by a majority vote by Australians to accept a change to the constitution.
The only historical precedent for such constitutional change was Menzies' 1951 referendum to ban the Communist Party. Australians overwhealmingly voted against it. It failed.
So I ask you this: who is advocating changes to our laws and way of life here - those who seek dispute resolution or mediation processes that are recommended under Australian law?
Or those who seek to overturn the constitution to ban people's freedom of worship?
I look forward to your thoughts.