Australia only has one law, and it’s a secular state. There are not two laws. Anyone who teaches to the contrary doesn’t understand Australia… If they object to Australian law, there might be other countries they might be more comfortable in.
Quoth Peter Costello.* On Lateline tonight. The “second law” he’s talking about is of course, Sharia law.
Cos might be better off droning on about the current account, rather than bolstering his leadership stakes by ranging outside his portfolio.
I’m surprised it didn’t occur to Tony Jones to ask him if he’d say the same to Tony Abbott, who seems to think that “God’s law” about women’s reproductive freedoms trumps the secular law made by the Parliament of Australia under the Constitution.
Just saying…
* I’m typing as he talks – so it’s not quite a direct quote – pretty close, though – check the transcript when it goes up.
Good question Kim, and here’s another: what’s Cossie up to? Bagging lefty teachers one day, reminding us of the Pacific war the next, and now this.
My guess: he’s finally realised you dont get the Libs behind you without being an ugly these days. He’s doing the pre-selection trick, now mandatory in the LP: go in hard with the the most insano RW bollocks you can think of, even if you have to fake it to get over the line.
(i’m assured by someone who ought to know that this is definitely the case in the young libs currently. Its rather like the Left’s Maoist phase circa 68-72.)
Oh well, anything that screws them in the long-term…
Lordy, he was an embarrassment when he got on to matters financial too!
Example: Somewhat unreconstructed Afghan-Australian male beats his wife or his gay son, tells judge it was permissible under his conception of law. Cases not dissimilar to this have presented in Northern Territory courts in relation to Aboriginal customs.
So you would support selected Sharia law applications in Australia, Kim?
Yes or no?
If no: why are you criticising the Treasurer? If yes: strewth.
And aren’t those women’s reproductive ‘freedoms’ contrary to the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI? Muslim authorities, like Abbott, tend also to be dismissive of such freedoms. See other thread where I pointed out to Mark that “common ground” thinking with Islam wouldn’t necessarily be to a liberal’s taste.
Jesus, you’re harsh Kim. I could stop squirming with embarrassment for him when we got safely back onto matters fiscal. At least it sounded plausible.
He was all over the place with his deport the clerics dog whistle. His unfortunate problem is that he cannot stop smirking whenever he feels he’s clawed some rhetorical ground back from the interviewer. You are left with the feeling that he’s a pony who doesn’t realy mean it – it’s all a lark. He’s so light-weight.
Howard always looks like he means it. That’s a real skill.
Tone-bags summed it up – “this sounds like the sort of cheap populist line you’d hear down the pub, Treasurer”.
No I do not support Sharia law in Australia, C.L.
My point is this – there are Ministers in the Government who think that God’s law trumps secular law. Do you agree with them? You, not Pope Benedict? Yes or no, C.L.?
Though I do note your example is absurd. Go condemn some Christian homophobes for once, C.L. I’m waiting.
wbb, I couldn’t see what he thought he was proving by pretending not to know how much the Telstra dividend was! Or is equivocating just a reflex action by now!
CL – I don’t support wife beaters whether they claim extenuating circumstances becuase of the skinful they had that night or because of your theoretical somebody’s conception of sharia law.
But the point is, CL. I’d not be deporting either of them. That’s what gaols are for. Jumbos are for tourists.
Costello was out of his depth.
Kim – he didn’t honestly know! He was temporarily brain spasmed having just ranted for five minute about deporting recalcitrant muslims. Or if you are right – he could see Tony’s set up and was brain spasming having just raved about muslims for five minutes and couldn’t see that the next question would come either way.
“whatÄôs Cossie up to?”
He’s trying out the US playbook here. Fake to the centre while sucking up to the nervous, religious drama queen right.
However Aus is still hardwired differently to the US, thank (insert deity of your choice here).
You may be right, wbb! At one stage I thought perhaps he’d dined too well, if you know what I mean!
Well he was certainly shifting about on his little bottom a fair but so you may well be right, Kim.
Costello needs another 10 years. He’s about a b-list blogger with his sophistry skills once the debate leaves the balance books.
Which one of ‘God’s laws’ would that be Kim?
We’re in safe hands.
I’m sure you know the link that right to lifers make between the Bible and reproductive choices, Mr/Ms Facelift, without my having to instruct you in it.
wbb, should have taped it – there were a couple of moments where I thought – “the guy’s pissed”. On the other hand, maybe it’s my kind nature trying to give him an out for what a tosser he was making of himself…
See, now Saint’s the kinda Christian I’d fuck and then call up the next day.
I suspect Tony didn’t want to go too far off topic with the inevitable rant from Costello, a fundie himself. Certainly a fair enough question.
Sepaeration of church and state, idiots. *headdesk*
I liked Costello’s attempt to rescue himself. There were three moments to his argument:
1) Australians have certain ‘values’. ‘Australia’ is based on this ‘values’.
2) Such ‘values’ include democratic government and its relationship to and the nature of the juridical system.
3)Some people who come to Australia don’t like our ‘values’ (ie form of government and legal system). Therefore, they should think about buggering off.
He attempted to tap popularist sentiment with the first moment. Popularists think of footy and meat pies, V8 commodores and ANZAC Day, and the Ashes and lamingtons. WHat Tony called the ‘pub pickup’ (admittedly, I picked up worse things in pubs). Oh, no, he actually meant the form of government… Can someone point me to an anthropology or even a cultural studies text were the author makes the argument that a form of government and legal system constitute ‘values’? Governments, especially those of conservative and/or right-wing politicians, use devisive talk about ‘values’ to manipulate the soft-headed public, but this does not constitute a form of government or legal system; it is a form of affective governance.
Peter Costello: Values?
Treasurer and Number Two of the current ruling neo-liberal, neo-conservative Liberal party coalition government, Peter Costello, has been implicitly using a very interesting definition of ‘values’. For Costello the form or mode of government and its …
while i’m not one of those myself, it’s logically possible to be an atheist and be concerned about abortion (I know of at least one atheist anti-abortionist), especially late term abortion. I think Abbott’s comments on reproductive freedom are therefore not a particularly good way of illustrating some equivalence between him and Muslim fundamentalists.
Lefties have missed the mark once again.
Costello’s timely and well-expressed opinions will in fact resonate with the Australian public. The inevitable cries of protest from the usual suspects will further isolate the Left from mainstream Australia.
Glen is 100% right. Values underpin a political system and a constitution. A constitution is not and does not create “values”.
Jason, Abbott’s views are driven by his belief about what God thinks on abortion, as he’s been open enough to admit several times.
Further to that, Jason, liberalism encompasses a separation between public political beliefs and private religious ones (secularism is itself a “value” – as Costello seems to realise in a confused way). Costello can find secular arguments for his “concern” but he makes it clear that his real agenda in a perfect world would be to prohibit abortion entirely – because that’s what his take on God’s law requires him to do. Hence he has to be told by Howard to keep his religious beliefs out of his portfolio, and worries aloud about his conscience on a regular basis.
Kim,
Can you please tell us precisely what you mean by ‘trump’? If the gist of your comment is that Abbot thinks it is OK for people to break the ‘law made by the Parliament of Australia under the Constitution’, as you put it, on the basis that it is inconsistent with their conception of ‘God’s law’, then you’ve lost the plot.
ab
firstly, wake up you people.
Merely because someone disagrees with you view you attack him.
It is becoming the parallel universe of Tim Blair.
for a christian Kim God’s law ALWAYS trumps the secular law.
cozzie would have been taught that at Blackburn Baptist and now at St hillarys.
Perhaps he has taken in too much of his brother’s views.
In most cases with regard to abortion women have already made the choice.
You can’t get pregnant alone.
distinction without a difference, Kim. As long as Abbott, if and when he submits a proposal for cutting abortions, advances reasons other than ‘God’s law’ (which it would be in his interest to do as a politician), I don’t see that it makes any difference. The same divide between public and private mean that politicians are as entitled to be as insincere about their reasons for supporting a policy as they want – no one has invented a mind reader anyway. If there is a non-religious basis for a policy change and transparently publicly scrutinisable reasons are advanced for that change, that is all that matters. or shall I discount all our views about just war and capital punishment now because they are influenced by your religion? in fact, should I accuse you and anyone else who opposes murder on religious grounds for being fanatics?
HP, firstly, because this a blog where we express our disagreements, it seems like we are attacking people…
sorry Glen,
but over the past couple of days people have been giving CL abuse merely because of his held views.
I might disagree with him at times, well a lot of times, but I see no reason to merely abuse him because of the position he holds.
the beauty of this blog is that different views could be held and argued without personal abuse.
I hope this continues
What about Aboriginal Customary Law?
I believe that is recognised.
Homer; “people have been giving CL abuse merely because of his held views.”
And CL’s recent abuse re ”morons” (1 retraction, 1 to go) is merely gratuitous?
How has CL been ”abused”, pray tell.
Ok, here’s another example – the Catholic Marriage Tribunals are in each diocese because many Catholics believe that Church Canon Law has a greater validity than secular family law.
The Anglican Church failed to report instances of pedophilia to the police because – in part – Archbishops like Hollingworth wanted to keep the offenders protected within the canons of Church law.
Is anyone calling Catholics and Anglicans unAustralian?
And – can anyone document any Australian Islamic groups actually calling for Sharia law to be implemented in Australia?
Homer, with respect, C.L.’s been calling people hysterical, ignorant, morons etc on another thread. By contrast, despite the fact that many here vehemently disagree with his opinions on Islam, I don’t think it’s been returned.
Actually kim regarding hollingworth you are wrong.
He put secular law concerns above those of the bible.
In the first instance he should have realised that a man who committed adultery could no longer be a minister but he dogged that.
later on he was worried about the legal implications of the case rather theen looking at the biblical implications.
The irony is had he taken the biblical view in each case he would not have caused the trouble he later dug himself into.
Kim, the reason I ask, which of ‘God’s laws’ you were referring to, is that Christians actually live under Jesus’ reformed system, called the New Testament, which brought in two laws which superceded all other laws recorded in the Bible. These are:
i) Love God with everything you’ve got
ii) Love your neighbour as yourself
With regard to women’s reproductive freedoms, I guess it comes down to at which point a pregnant woman decides a ‘neighbour’ has been formed in her womb.
Incidentally, under these laws, Christians are told to abide by the laws of the land, have a good report with unbelievers, pay their taxes, etc, etc.
The best secular way for any person of a particular religious persuasion to advance their values is to involve themselves in the law making process of the land, including standing for Parliament, lobbying politicians, voting and generally having a voice like every other citizen.
I assume by “report” you meant “rapport”. Excellent laws by the way, and ones that fully agree with me.
Shame more people who call themselves Christians don’t live by them.
FaceLift, thanks for that. I agree with Nabs – it’s a pity more Christians don’t have that understanding.
Facelift is partly right.
Jesus didn’t reform the Law he fulfilled it.
He did point out the two most important ones.
One does obey authorities UNLESS they contravene God’s laws.
In terms of abortion it can be inferred that it should only happen when the child is ‘killing’ the mother ie mother is at risk because of the child.
Actually, wherever there is a practicing Muslim, there is shari’a law. Unlike “the law enacted by Parliament under the Australian Constitution,” shari’a law covers things like how to pray, how to fast, heck it even covers how to go to the toilet.
Besides, shari’a is a concept. There is no single book that you can point to and say “there is the book of shari’a law.” What Costello – who is blathering on Muslims because we are a socially-devalued, extremely small minority who are easy pickings for a desperate successorship bid – should be saying is that there is no room in Australia for extremists who want to impose their misguided interpretation of religion on the rest of us. (That would conveniently include Abbott I think.)