Open Season on Muslim Women [wife beating in Australia]

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | November 1, 2005 | Robert Spencer

[joesnuffy]

Once the Aussies and rest of the west surrender to their own dhimmitude maybe they can add this event to the olympics

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

I worked with a Pakistani guy whoss sister was getting beaten by her husband. This was in the US. The family forced her to get a divorce. He said wife beating was intolerable. Oddly, the sister did not want the divorce and keep resisting the idea. The family ended up sending her back to Pakistan just to get her away from the abuser.

So no, not all Muslims tolerate domestic abuse.

[russesjunjee]

Let's not make too much fun of the Aussies for being this stupid. Islamic law has already reared its ugly head in Canadian society and its well on its way to be established in the US.

Our politically correct crowd and the US left will fall for this hog swallop hook line and sinker.

After all, Its our duty as citizens to make these Islamic loonies feel comfortable while they are plotting to destroy the free world.

[doc30]

so if I attempt to to stop a man who is beating on his wife, because in my culture that is what I was taught is correct, am I excused from punishment?

No, you are not excempt under PC dictates. You will be punished, not for stopping the beating, but for imposing your world view on a different culture. PC is like the prime directive from Star Trek - no interference allowed. The PC-ists will argue that you do not have the right to judge Muslim wife beating. It also makes you racists for thinking that western, non wife beating culture is superior. You would be, in the eyes of the progressives, guilty of a hate crime for stopping a Muslim wife beating! And I'm not being sarcastic.

[bonfire]

I couldn't get past the first couple sentences. I guess in Australia they are kinder to the animals.

[Savage Beast]

Muslim husbands who beat their wives must be treated differently from other domestic violence cases, as a matter of cultural sensitivity"

Of course.

Stevens, Ginsberg, and the rest of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices who love to consider foreign law in interpreting U.S. law may wish to pay particular attention to this Australian handbook.

After all--the shariah is a very important component of foreign law and simply must not be overlooked!

Oh! And don't forget the beheadings, the stonings, the pushing of walls over on homosexuals, the capital offense of apostasy, the execution of rape victims (obviously they ask for it), the proscription of piggy banks, and all the other important cornerstones of foreign law!

You know...you just can't beat the Left when it comes to the delights of diversity, cultural sensitivity, and international law--though you can certainly beat your wife!

We need more Leftists on the Supreme Court! All those wives need a good beating! Why should the Muslim men be treated differently from the rest of us???

NOW that the Feminist Activists have defended rape and rapists, they need to get behind the move to legalize wife beating!

Once that's done, we can take care of the apostates, homosexuals, and all the rest of the international criminals.

[mamalujo]

you are, sadly, very true.

[Nevadan]

I know someone who works in Morocco, which is probably one of the least oppressive Muslim countries due to the European influence. Nevertheless, the oppression of women there is quite extreme. Imagine turning on your television to view a program on how to beat your wife!

[dpa5923]

B4Ranch,

Please read my comments before your direct me to read anything else.

I never questioned whether officers in Australia were given directions to treat Muslims involved in domestic disputes different that people of other faiths or cultures. I never said that Muslim women, as a whole, were not treated more poorly than women of other faiths or cultures.

I did say the "rule of thumb" as a legal position to beat your wife or child with anything smaller than the diameter of your thumb was an urban legend. It is.

Before you attempt to chide me for questioning what is an urban legend or not, perhaps you should read my comments so you have a general idea what I actually wrote.

[B4Ranch]

Yes, you are correct. Your post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1511852/posts?page=21#21 is what I took to be your comment regarding Muslims mistreating their women.

I replied http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1511852/posts?page=43#43

44 and 45 we continue.

I do apologize.

[Fred Nerks]

"Can you clarify any of this for us up here in the northern hemisphere?"

My take is that the Victorian Labor Premier, a descendant of Lebanese immigrants, is catering to his multicultural voter base and alienating everyone else...because:



The New Anti-Terror Laws in Australia
Anyone supporting the insurgency in Iraq or Afghanistan faces possible jail sentence


by Maz Bukhari

October 14, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca


Email this article to a friend
Print this article


Anti-Terror Laws or “TERRORIST” Laws

Jail Term for ILL WILL & OBJECTORS

Anyone supporting the insurgency in Iraq, Afghanistan or any country where Australian troops are deployed could face a penalty of 7 years' jail under the new terrorism laws.

Control orders of unlimited duration, secret preventive detention, the monitoring of lawyers, and life imprisonment for funding terrorist organisations are also suggested under the new laws.

The draft legislation, disclosed by Greens yesterday, details the far-reaching security regime proposed by John Howard for "very dangerous and difficult and threatening circumstances" in the wake of the London bombings.

New sedition offences will put big constraints on anti-war protests, familiar since the Vietnam era, and come down hard on those advocating violence against any religious, national or political group.

Those charged with sedition can argue they were acting "in good faith" but it is unclear how the courts will interpret this.

The bill sets out new federal police powers to detain terrorist suspects for up to 24 hours, and up to 48 hours with the approval of a judge or magistrate. Suspects will get access to a lawyer to challenge the detention order in a court or complain of maltreatment

Police do not need to give suspects or their lawyers reasons for the detentions and can monitor lawyers. All conversations lawyers have with their clients must be in English or translated into English for the police. Police are prohibited from questioning the detainees but that ban does not apply to ASIO officers.

Last month the states agreed to allow extensions of up to 14 days for detentions when a terrorist act is believed imminent. The suspect must then be released if no terrorist act occurs.

Detentions are secret but suspects are allowed to contact a family member or employers to say they are safe but, "not able to be contacted for the time being". If they disclose the detention they can be jailed for up to five years.

Under the bill, the Government can apply to a court for control orders on terrorist suspects who have not been charged. These orders include house arrest, preventing them using the telephone or internet and restricting their social contacts and work opportunities. Suspects can also be fitted with tracking devices.

The suspect's lawyer can be shown the control order but not necessarily the evidence or reasons behind it.

The orders can last up to 12 months and can then be renewed any number of times.

Persons under control orders may be given "counselling or education" if they agree.

The bill does limit to three months control orders on those aged between 16 and 18.

Also contained in the legislation are wide-ranging search powers that will compel the production of any documents relating to "any serious offence", regardless of any laws protecting privacy or legal privilege.,

The new laws are to be debated this month, after the Labor premiers agreed to their broad outline at the recent terrorism summit in Canberra.

The proposed laws have been strongly criticised by human rights lawyers and some Muslim leaders, who have described them as draconian.

Sweeping new anti-terror laws include a plan to jail people for up to seven years for promoting feelings of "ill will" or hostility between different groups that would threaten the peace.

As John Howard yesterday defended the measures, the federal Government was angered by ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope's decision to publish the 107-page draft bill on his website.

Surprising legal experts with the scope and definition of terrorist acts, the laws would also make it a criminal offence to support a terrorist act, directly or indirectly.

However, elements of the terrorism advocacy provisions are expected to be watered down after a backbench revolt over the draconian laws...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUK20051014&articleId=1079

[Issaquahking]

I like the tone set in in the application and far reaches of the law, now for the scary part...As long as this is used in prosecuting those intent upon bringing harm to the homelan, good on you. This seems to be a handy weapon to help bring terrorists into line, my only fear would be if some libs decided to try and make something of each issue, in regard to persucuting homelanders for minor infractions.

Here in America. the PC jerks have temporarily ruined the judicial system...we are trying to get it back.

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513743/posts

new developments.