Sharia Law Breaches Sect 44 Of Constitution Claims Palmer United Adviser
Palmer United staffer Rob Messenger pictured (ironically) on the far
right with Jacqui Lambie, Clive Palmer and Glenn Lazarus.
A
senior Palmer United Party adviser is standing by a series of alarming
predictions he made about the threat Sharia law poses to Australia,
despite facing criticism from an expert in both Australian and Islamic
law that he does not understand either.
Rob Messenger, Chief of Staff to PUP Senator Jacqui Lambie, told New
Matilda he believed anyone in Australia practicing sharia was in breach
of the Australian Constitution, and that he had not changed his mind
since authoring a series of posts defending Dutch anti-Muslim politician
Geert Wilders and calling on leaders to speak out against “extremist
Islamic religious ideology”.
“I’m concerned about any law that’s not Australian operating in
Australia. Any law other than Australian law indicates a divided
loyalty, is a breach of section 44 of our constitution and possibly
treasonous,” he said in an email.
The Palmer United Party remains tangled in a public feud after
Messenger’s boss called for supporters of Sharia law to leave Australia,
but then failed spectacularly to define the term ‘Sharia’ when probed on ABC program Insiders.
Despite signs of division in the PUP camp, Messenger was not backing away from the issue when quizzed on Monday evening.
In his correspondence, Messenger posited his own definition of Sharia.
“It’s a law that’s not Australian and being promoted by terrorists, extremists and murderers,” he said.
But Dr Ghena Krayem, a lecturer in law at the University of Sydney,
ridiculed Messenger’s understanding of both Sharia and Australian law,
saying the former had nothing to do with terrorism or extremism.
“That’s an incredibly ignorant definition,” Dr Krayem said.
“Sharia is not just the legal code that we associate it with, so it’s not just about law.
“Sharia is the whole framework that Muslims live by, their day-to-day
things like how they pray, their interaction with people, the food that
they eat, all of the things that we don’t normally associate with any
legal system.
“It’s kind of like our moral code.”
Dr Krayem said that banning Sharia would in effect mean banning
Islam, an act that, ironically, would not be supported by the Australian
Constitution, which prevents the Commonwealth making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
“Perhaps Mr Messenger hasn’t heard of Section 116 of the Australian Constitution,” Dr Krayem said.
She also noted that Section 44 of the Constitution, cited by
Messenger, outlines the conditions under which someone may be banned
from sitting as an MP in the House of Representatives.
“I’m not sure what he’s talking about there,” she said.
A former member of the LNP and of the Queensland Parliament,
Messenger has previously compared the danger Islam presents to modern
Australia to that faced by the people of Germany in the 1930s.
“There was a time when the German people could have emphatically said
‘No’ to the Nazis’ special message of hate and crazy,” Messenger wrote in a May 2013 letter to the Brisbane Times.
“We are living in similar times and face a similar evil. And the
world will suffer a similar fate as the generation of 1930s and 40s, if
we do not loudly condemn the leaders and followers of the extremist
Islamic religious ideology driving this current world madness.”
Asked if he had gone too far in the comparison, Messenger upped the
ante: “Given the recent level of barbarity displayed by the sharia
extremists - the comparison didn't go far enough.”
Pushed to expand on the number of “extremists” he thought were active
in Australia, Messenger replied: “We're in a new world. It only took 19
sharia extremists to bring America to its knees at 9/11.
“There are hundreds of Australian extremists fighting overseas. It’s
not a case of numbers it is a case of capacity and motivation to inflict
harm. The extremists have both.”
Dr Krayem said that in her experiences researching Sharia in
Australia, no-one she met had advocated establishing a parallel legal
system.
“My research indicates that certainly the overwhelming majority of
Muslims in Australia would find that it’s their legal and moral code
that makes them feel comfortable to be Australian and to abide by
Australian law,” she said.
“I mean I’ve heard repeatedly from the Imams that have been
interviewed that your first obligation here in Australia is to abide by
the law of the land.”
While still an MP, Messenger also introduced a bill calling for the “pre-emptive banning of Islamic Sharia Law” in Queensland.
“Not one media outlet reported on my speech,” he lamented in a blog
post. “Not one member of the LNP or Labor Party spoke to support a
debate on this matter.”
On Monday, Lambie hit back at her critics in Parliament, defending her Sharia stance.
“I’ve been criticised by some because I couldn’t properly define what
Sharia law is. It’s not going to come as a shock when I tell you that
I’m not an Islamic scholar,” she said.
“However, I will tell you what I do know about the supporters of
Sharia. Every major terrorist attack on Western world citizens and
Australian citizens — 9/11, the Bali bombings, the Boston marathon
bombings, recent beheadings and massacres — have all been carried out by
supporters of Sharia law. If people want more detail on this law, my
advice is to google ‘Sharia’.”
Days earlier, the Senator was called out for sharing an image from
her Facebook page showing a Muslim woman dressed in a burqa and holding a
pistol, with text superimposed calling for the burqa to be banned.
Lambie was apparently unaware the image was of Afghani policewoman
Malalai Kakar, who had formed a women’s crimes unit and been
assassinated by the Taliban as a result of her work.
Messenger denied being responsible for the Kakar post but said that,
with Lambie’s permission, he took a role on advising in all areas,
including policy matters relating to Muslim communities.
“Senator Lambie and I have been working together as a political team since before the last federal election for about 18 months.
“We’ve done so because like most politicians and their [Chiefs of Staff] we share similar political views,” he said.
Dr Krayem said she intended to offer her assistance to Lambie in
understanding Sharia and its Australian context, but that Messenger’s
assumptions appeared to be on shaky legal ground.
“I think maybe he should come to some of our Constitutional law
classes 101, because he’s got to get some basic facts straight,” she
said.
“Before Mr Messenger or Jacqui Lambie talk about banning anything, they need to get their facts right first.”
In his letter to the Brisbane Times, Messenger said “Islamic
terrorists… cleverly hide amongst us” and made alarming predictions
about the kind of weapons they would use to do harm to Australians.
“One of the greatest risks our children face is that meat cleavers,
knives, home-made bombs and guns will be replaced with sophisticated
modern weapons of mass destruction - poisonous chemicals, nuclear bombs
and deadly viruses,” he wrote.
New Matilda asked Messenger why he had singled out “meat cleavers” at
two points in his letter to the Brisbane Times, and whether he saw any
need to restrict the sale of the implement.
“The use of "meat clever" [sic] was a direct reference to one of the
weapons that the killers of Trooper Lee Rigby used. The letter was a
direct response to that horrifying event,” he replied.
“Your simplistic, leading question disturbs me because it indicates a
complete lack of knowledge about that extraordinary terrorist attack
and a predetermined editorial position.”
For the record, New Matilda has no editorial position on the sale of
meat cleavers. We do, however, have pretty strong views on ignorance.
senior Palmer United Party adviser is standing by a series of alarming
predictions he made about the threat Sharia law poses to Australia,
despite facing criticism from an expert in both Australian and Islamic
law that he does not understand either.
Rob Messenger, Chief of Staff to PUP Senator Jacqui Lambie, told New
Matilda he believed anyone in Australia practicing sharia was in breach
of the Australian Constitution, and that he had not changed his mind
since authoring a series of posts defending Dutch anti-Muslim politician
Geert Wilders and calling on leaders to speak out against “extremist
Islamic religious ideology”.
“I’m concerned about any law that’s not Australian operating in
Australia. Any law other than Australian law indicates a divided
loyalty, is a breach of section 44 of our constitution and possibly
treasonous,” he said in an email.
The Palmer United Party remains tangled in a public feud after
Messenger’s boss called for supporters of Sharia law to leave Australia,
but then failed spectacularly to define the term ‘Sharia’ when probed on ABC program Insiders.
Despite signs of division in the PUP camp, Messenger was not backing away from the issue when quizzed on Monday evening.
In his correspondence, Messenger posited his own definition of Sharia.
“It’s a law that’s not Australian and being promoted by terrorists, extremists and murderers,” he said.
But Dr Ghena Krayem, a lecturer in law at the University of Sydney,
ridiculed Messenger’s understanding of both Sharia and Australian law,
saying the former had nothing to do with terrorism or extremism.
“That’s an incredibly ignorant definition,” Dr Krayem said.
“Sharia is not just the legal code that we associate it with, so it’s not just about law.
“Sharia is the whole framework that Muslims live by, their day-to-day
things like how they pray, their interaction with people, the food that
they eat, all of the things that we don’t normally associate with any
legal system.
“It’s kind of like our moral code.”
Dr Krayem said that banning Sharia would in effect mean banning
Islam, an act that, ironically, would not be supported by the Australian
Constitution, which prevents the Commonwealth making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
“Perhaps Mr Messenger hasn’t heard of Section 116 of the Australian Constitution,” Dr Krayem said.
She also noted that Section 44 of the Constitution, cited by
Messenger, outlines the conditions under which someone may be banned
from sitting as an MP in the House of Representatives.
“I’m not sure what he’s talking about there,” she said.
A former member of the LNP and of the Queensland Parliament,
Messenger has previously compared the danger Islam presents to modern
Australia to that faced by the people of Germany in the 1930s.
“There was a time when the German people could have emphatically said
‘No’ to the Nazis’ special message of hate and crazy,” Messenger wrote in a May 2013 letter to the Brisbane Times.
“We are living in similar times and face a similar evil. And the
world will suffer a similar fate as the generation of 1930s and 40s, if
we do not loudly condemn the leaders and followers of the extremist
Islamic religious ideology driving this current world madness.”
Asked if he had gone too far in the comparison, Messenger upped the
ante: “Given the recent level of barbarity displayed by the sharia
extremists - the comparison didn't go far enough.”
Pushed to expand on the number of “extremists” he thought were active
in Australia, Messenger replied: “We're in a new world. It only took 19
sharia extremists to bring America to its knees at 9/11.
“There are hundreds of Australian extremists fighting overseas. It’s
not a case of numbers it is a case of capacity and motivation to inflict
harm. The extremists have both.”
Dr Krayem said that in her experiences researching Sharia in
Australia, no-one she met had advocated establishing a parallel legal
system.
“My research indicates that certainly the overwhelming majority of
Muslims in Australia would find that it’s their legal and moral code
that makes them feel comfortable to be Australian and to abide by
Australian law,” she said.
“I mean I’ve heard repeatedly from the Imams that have been
interviewed that your first obligation here in Australia is to abide by
the law of the land.”
A screenshot from Messenger's blog
“Not one media outlet reported on my speech,” he lamented in a blog
post. “Not one member of the LNP or Labor Party spoke to support a
debate on this matter.”
On Monday, Lambie hit back at her critics in Parliament, defending her Sharia stance.
“I’ve been criticised by some because I couldn’t properly define what
Sharia law is. It’s not going to come as a shock when I tell you that
I’m not an Islamic scholar,” she said.
“However, I will tell you what I do know about the supporters of
Sharia. Every major terrorist attack on Western world citizens and
Australian citizens — 9/11, the Bali bombings, the Boston marathon
bombings, recent beheadings and massacres — have all been carried out by
supporters of Sharia law. If people want more detail on this law, my
advice is to google ‘Sharia’.”
Days earlier, the Senator was called out for sharing an image from
her Facebook page showing a Muslim woman dressed in a burqa and holding a
pistol, with text superimposed calling for the burqa to be banned.
Lambie was apparently unaware the image was of Afghani policewoman
Malalai Kakar, who had formed a women’s crimes unit and been
assassinated by the Taliban as a result of her work.
Messenger denied being responsible for the Kakar post but said that,
with Lambie’s permission, he took a role on advising in all areas,
including policy matters relating to Muslim communities.
“Senator Lambie and I have been working together as a political team since before the last federal election for about 18 months.
“We’ve done so because like most politicians and their [Chiefs of Staff] we share similar political views,” he said.
Dr Krayem said she intended to offer her assistance to Lambie in
understanding Sharia and its Australian context, but that Messenger’s
assumptions appeared to be on shaky legal ground.
“I think maybe he should come to some of our Constitutional law
classes 101, because he’s got to get some basic facts straight,” she
said.
“Before Mr Messenger or Jacqui Lambie talk about banning anything, they need to get their facts right first.”
In his letter to the Brisbane Times, Messenger said “Islamic
terrorists… cleverly hide amongst us” and made alarming predictions
about the kind of weapons they would use to do harm to Australians.
“One of the greatest risks our children face is that meat cleavers,
knives, home-made bombs and guns will be replaced with sophisticated
modern weapons of mass destruction - poisonous chemicals, nuclear bombs
and deadly viruses,” he wrote.
New Matilda asked Messenger why he had singled out “meat cleavers” at
two points in his letter to the Brisbane Times, and whether he saw any
need to restrict the sale of the implement.
“The use of "meat clever" [sic] was a direct reference to one of the
weapons that the killers of Trooper Lee Rigby used. The letter was a
direct response to that horrifying event,” he replied.
“Your simplistic, leading question disturbs me because it indicates a
complete lack of knowledge about that extraordinary terrorist attack
and a predetermined editorial position.”
For the record, New Matilda has no editorial position on the sale of
meat cleavers. We do, however, have pretty strong views on ignorance.
Print 
No comments:
Post a Comment