Losing Our Freedom Section by Section

In Canada, as I'm sure you know, we are plagued by something called Section 13, that part of our federal "human rights" statutes that allows for state censorship. Section 13, along with our entire "human rights" system, a quasi-totalitarian racket, was pushed for by well-meaning Canadians, especially Jews, who thought such measures would protect them from hate speech. Instead, it has ensured that our national "human rights" thinking is in line with the UN/IOC "human rights" thinking--i.e. shut up and don't "blaspheme" Islam, impudent kafir. In sum, Section 13 and the rest of the "human rights" palaver is slowly and steadlily clawing back our freedom.

In Australia, as you may not know (I didn't) they are plagued by something called--get this--Section 14, another really bad "human rights" measure that is having a similarly disasterous effect on that country's freedom. A Melborne barrister writing in Aussie rag The Australian goes into it here, explaining that because of this "human rights" Section, there is no legal means to keep sharia law out of the province of Victoria (a state of affairs which, shockingly--at least to me--does not seem to upset him in the least):

...In Victoria, the Charter of Human Rights actually permits the use of international laws and judgments in applying the charter.

Section 14 of that charter provides for freedom of religion. The issue then arises, does this mean that Muslims are entitled to have Shariah law applied to them in the Victorian courts?

Obviously, Islam is a religion. Less obvious, but more important is that, unlike Christianity, Islam is a complete religion governing every aspect of the believer's life, including law.

Shariah law is actually an integral part of the Islamic religious belief and, under the charter, must be protected and applied. Section 32(2) of the charter throws more light on the issue.

That subsection states: "International law and the judgments of domestic, foreign and international courts and tribunals relevant to a human right may be considered in interpreting a statutory provision."
It is important to understand that there are "courts and tribunals" applying Shariah law to the 1.6 billion Muslims in the Muslim world.

In addition to that, the Islamic world has its own Human Rights Covenants -- the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, 1990, which is intended to "serve as a general guidance for member states in the field of human rights".

In the Cairo Declaration, it is made clear that all human rights derive from the Koran.

For example: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shariah" (Article 19(d)); "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this declaration are subject to the Islamic Shariah" (Article 24); and "The Islamic Shariah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration" (Article 25).

These human rights must be fully respected. Australian Muslims deserve no less.

Decisions on Islamic human rights must be relevant in deciding whether Shariah law is applicable in Victoria.

Quite obviously, those Islamic decisions powerfully state that Shariah law must be applied. The Victorian courts must consider these decisions under the charter, thus it makes it very likely that, at some stage in the future, Shariah law will be applied.

Further, there is precedent in Victoria through courts that are for the exclusive use of a minority group, in this instance Aborigines (known in Victoria as Kooris).

As a matter of principle, there is no difference between special courts that are racially defined (Koori courts) to those which are religiously defined (Shariah courts).

In fact, the Muslims have a much stronger case because their devoutly held beliefs actually include a legal system (Shariah).

It is this sort of process that the Oklahoma citizens voted against. In Victoria it is too late.

Spoken like a true dhimmi.