Patel argues in the submission that the AFIC claims sharia can be applied in a way that fits in to Australia and is not extreme. Patel was quoted: "This means most of the regulations in Islamic law may be amended, changed, altered, and adapted to social change." (www.theaustralian.com.au)
Well-Being Australia chairman Mark Tronson says that the Christian media has been all over this story as Australia's Attorney General has given an emphatic no to allowing any form of sharia law. Australian Muslims however claim that sharia is being practised in Sydney with Imams giving divorces and involving business disputes. (www.news.com.au)
Australia's Attorney General Robert McClelland said: "Australia's brand of multiculturalism promotes integration. If there is any inconsistency between cultural values and the rule of law then Australian law wins out."
Patricia Karvelas noted that he said we are all blessed to live in a stable democracy underpinned by the rule of law.
"People who migrate to Australia do so because of the fact that we have a free, open and tolerant society where men and woman are equal before the law irrespective of race, religious or cultural background.
"Indeed all applicants for citizenship swear a collective allegiance to the people of Australia and undertake to respect our customs and abide by our laws. The values underpinning those principles will not be changing."
But, Mark Tronson says, it may not be as simple as this, if the Parliamentary Enquiry looks at existing multi-cultural situations. It may become a case of the Enquiry verses the political nous of the Attorney General.
Already some people in Australia think that they should be subject to their own cultural laws – this includes Orthodox Jews, Aborigines in remote areas and now some Muslims.
Moreover some Christians are under the misbelief that we live in a Christian society, rather we in a secular society, and the Laws of the Land are becoming more secular all the time – an example, are the laws about De Facto relationships.
It matters "not one whit" whether anyone goes through any sort of Christian ceremony for marriage, for if they do not sign the secular legal papers, they are not legally married under Australian law. Yet because after two years or three years (depending on the State), a man and a woman living together are effectively married by Common Law (ie De Facto in some States) and have almost all the same rights as married couples – including rights to the courts of law in property and custody settlements if the relationship breaks down. They don't need a formal divorce if they are not formally married.
Moreover, no matter what happens behind closed doors, all residents in Australia are subject to Australia law. There are some 'considerations', as long as Australian law is not broken.
These are two exerts about (1) Aboriginal traditional law and (2) Orthodox Jewish courts. Both say in effect, that anything goes as long as Australian law is not violated, and if it is, then people can be prosecuted.
Exert - An Indigenous Situation
www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/ACL/DP/Part_05B.pdf
The Commission's View: The preceding discussion demonstrates that Australian criminal law differs vastly from its nearest equivalent under Aboriginal customary law. The question what constitutes Aboriginal customary law is properly a matter for Aboriginal people and not something that the Commission is in a position to determine.
Similarly, the Commission is not in a position to dictate the precise nature of the Elders' involvement: the customary laws of the relevant community will determine these boundaries. However, it is important to recognise and support the authority of Elders (including female Elders) and to refrain from imposing unnecessary restrictions on how Elders must resolve disputes within their communities.
The Commission considers that the basic legal foundations of criminal law in Western Australia cannot be altered to recognise Aboriginal customary law. However, where appropriate, legislative provisions, procedures and practices can be adapted in ways that enable aspects of Aboriginal traditional law and punishment to be accommodated in order to assist Aboriginal people to obtain the full protection of (and avoid discrimination and disadvantage within) the criminal justice system.
Exert – The Jewish Situation
www.jlaw.com/Articles/getaus.html
This article considers what the Australian civil legal system can do to assist a spouse who wishes to receive or to grant a "gett" or Jewish bill of divorce, thereby dissolving the Jewish marriage. It does not advocate reform of halakhah (Jewish law) or halakhic (Jewish legal) solutions. Rather, this article advocates the civil courts giving their support to the religious courts in matters of Jewish divorce. However, for reasons discussed below, it is not suggested that the civil courts should directly order a recalcitrant spouse to grant or accept a Gett - also spelt with one "t" - see en.wikipedia.org
Comment
Mark Tronson says of all this, that the Parliamentary Enquiry (Committee) may consider these existing situations in allowing a limited form of "sharia law" to exist within Australia as long as it does not breach Australia law.
The political drama revolves around
(1) the "agenda driven political make up" of this Committee.
(2) Whether the Attorney General has enough political strength to pull-up an "agenda driven" Committee's recommendations.
(3) Will there be safeguards "enough" to prevent opening a "can of worms" for down the track.
From all that he has read in the Christian press, Mark Tronson believes that it is this last point, that many Australian Christians have serious concerns over.
England which already allows Sharia Courts is currently being challenged with a totally different approach. Assist news Service (ANS) reports that under a new Bill introduced in the House of Lords recently, Sharia Courts in England and Wales will be committing an offence punishable by a five-year prison sentence if they falsely claim or imply legal jurisdiction over criminal or family law.
