Sharia: The Sultan Of Brunei & the Governor designate NSW Margaret Beazley's views compared.;the official position of the Government Of Brunei vs that of the Supreme Court NSW

by Ganesh Sahathevan











Readers are referred to the article published earlier on this blog about the views of the Governor designate NSW, the former President Of The Court Of Appeal NSW Margaret Beazley AO.
The Governor designate's views are contained in a speech that continues to be broadcast (or "published")  to the whole world on the NSW Supreme Court website:

Governor designate Margaret Beazley AO  will have to clarify her position on Islam very soon.:Her silence in the case of the Malaysian lesbians punished by caning maybe acceptable among judges but not from the Queen's representative

The story above includes this paragraph which the Legal Profession Admission Board NSW, whose chairman is the Chief Justice NSW Tom Bathurst, have deemed to be defamatory,and lacking "insight": 


The Hon Justice M J Beazley AO, President Of The Court Of Appeal ,State Of NSW, Australia ,said in a speech delivered in 2014, but not widely reported:
"...despite a perception that Islam and the Australian law are incompatible, this is not borne out by the caselaw"
She did so in conjunction with the Affinity Intercultural Foundation, the Australian arm of the Fetullah Gulen movement. While Gulen and his followers have been recently victimised by former friend and ally Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the president of Turkey who they helped install, Gulen and his people are not innocent of jihadi activity.
They are nevertheless quite adapt at recruiting Western "intellectuals" to promote their, cause, Her Honour is only the most recent.



Now , compare the views of the highly learned justices to that of the Sultan Of Brunei, an absolute monarch of a Muslim country:




A Powerful Message From Brunei to the World

Why do you care so much what's happening here in an Islamic nation when you didn't even bat an eyelid about the Syrians, Bosnians, Rohingyas, Palestinians, etc.

“In your countries you practice freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, etc. It’s in your constitution. It’s your political system, your national identity, your rights, your way of life. In my country, we practice a Malay, Islamic, Monarchical system and we’re going to start practicing the laws of Islam, Shari’ah Law. Islam is in our constitution, our national identity, our rights, our way of life. We may find loopholes in your laws and justice system, and you may have found ours, but this is our country. Just like you practice your right to be gay, etc. for this world you live in now, we practice our rights to be Muslims for this world and the Hereafter. This is an Islamic country practicing Islamic Law. Why don’t you worry about your kids being gunned down in schools, worry about your prisons being unable to accommodate convicts, worry about your high rate of crimes and DUIs, worry about your high suicide and abortion rate, worry about whatever it is that you should be worried about there. Many religions are against homosexuality, it’s nothing new. The moment you hear that Islam and Muslims making a stand and trying to reaffirm their faith, you judge, you boycott, you say that it’s wrong, it’s stupid, it’s barbaric. Again, go back to those worries that you should focus on I’ve mentioned earlier. Is it not wrong to legalize deadly weapons, is it not wrong to allow unborn babies to be killed, is it not wrong to allow a lifestyle that results in AIDS and discontinuation of the next generation? Why do you care so much what’s happening here in an Islamic nation when you didn’t even bat an eyelid about the Syrians, Bosnians, Rohingyas, Palestinians, etc. Thousands are being killed there and you don’t care, not one is killed here under this Shari’ah Law, and you make a big fuss, even when the citizens here who are directly affected by it, accepts it with peace. Punishments may be harsher but it does not mean it’s easier to be carried out. There are processes to go through before an actual conviction. We are fine with it, we are happy.”

Government of BruneiFacebook

TwitterWhatsAppFacebook MessengerSkype

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ben Robert-Smith : How was Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court able to find that the crime of murder has a civil twin, which can be determined on a balance of probabilities

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevam                                                                                                                  The Hon Justice Anthony Besanko Media reports about the Ben Robert-Smith defamation matter  have at least given the impression, if not asserted,  that Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court found  that Robert-Smith had committed murder. Most if not all reports have been at pains to stress that the finding was based on a balance of probabilities, and not beyond a reasonable doubt, for the matter was a civil and not criminal matter.  However,  reading his summary one can immediately see that Justice Besanko  found not that Roberts-Smith had committed murder but that the " respondents had, (on  a balance of probabilities) established the substantial truth"  that  Roberts-Smith had committed murder.  However, murder is a  crime and a finding of murder in a criminal court (which is the court in which crimes like murder can be determined!) inv
Read more

Who authorised former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller to say anything about the Berejiklian era quarantine fee and why? Fuller's notice confirms suspicion that NSW Berejiklian government had no basis to impose the quarantine fee, nor quarantine persons who were COVID negative 

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevan      Premier Gladys Berejiklian with NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller and Brigadier Mick             Garraway Who authorised former  NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller  to say anything about the  Berejiklian era  quarantine fee and why? Fuller's issuance of his  COVID  quarantine notice, and subsequent silence, would seem to confirm suspicions raised on this blog that NSW's Berejiklian government had no basis to impose its quarantine fee. Fuller's conduct also adds to suspicion that the Berejiklian government did not have the authority, even under its COVID emergency powers, to quarantine persons who were COVID negative. International arrivals had to test negative for COVID before boarding their flights to Sydney, and tests had to be administered within 72 hours of departure. Quarantine on arrival of those who exhibited no COVID symptoms was quite likely unnecessary. It did, of course help bolster Gladys Berejiklian's approval ratings. TO BE RE
Read more

Revenue NSW COVID Quarantine Fee payment demand notices suggest that Police Commissioner Mick Fuller breached the law with his demand for quarantine fees

Image
 By Ganesh Sahathevan  Anyone who has received a Revenue NSW Quarantine Fee demand for payment notice  will be familiar with these words that are contained in the notice: What is the quarantine service fee? A mandatory quarantine service fee applies to all travellers arriving in New South Wales (NSW) who are required to quarantine as part of the public health order. Mandatory quarantine is needed to stop the spread. of COVID-19 in NSW The qurantine fee has been charged pursuant to Section 70 of  the NSW Health Act. However, as previously reported, that section does not permit any imposition of mandatory fees.  However, in apparent defiance of Section 70 of the Health Act, Fuller issued a notice   in which he said  that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee". TOE BE READ WITH  Former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller said in his notice that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee" - Former NSW Ministers Hazzard, Tudehope insis
Read more