Moderate head-chopping anyone? Moderate child marriages, FGM, burqas, polygamy and wife beatings? Moderate stoning of women anyone?  The camel  has the snout in the tent already,  so how about we allow the Muslims to apply a little public flogging like they do in Aceh, or honor killings, or murdering apostates and blasphemers?
Andrew Bolt:
One law means no sharia law as well
What fits with Australian values is the idea that we are one people bound by one law, not rival peoples with each our own:
THE nation’s peak Muslim group is using the Gillard government’s re-embracing of multiculturalism to push for the introduction of sharia in Australia, but it says it would be a more ‘moderate variety of Islamic law’ that fits with Australian values…
In an interview with The Australian, the organisation’s president, Ikebal Adam Patel, who wrote the submission, nominated family law and specifically divorce as an area where ‘moderate interpretations of sharia’ could co-exist within the Australian legal system….
Mr Patel says the AFIC, as the peak body of Islamic organisations in Australia, “strongly supports that multiculturalism should lead to legal pluralism . . . and twin tolerations”.
Whoever wants to make their own private or religious arrangements about living together can do so, provided they do not conflict with Australian law. But for the law to specifically endorse verdicts of religious groups is to give them a power and legal standing that seems at odds with not just our notion of one law for all, but with our Constitution’s insistence on a separation of church and state:
116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Note, by the way, how multiculturalism encourages those who want to retribalise Australia, rather than stress what unites us.
More on burqa advocate Patel:
