I hope the Muslims have gotten too impatient, or perhaps misread the climate of opinion, and made too outrageous a public demand, too soon.

(I am quite, quite sure that there are many more 'under the radar' polygynous households than the Ummah here in Oz is letting on about.

Did everyone notice this paragraph? -

"Very few Australian Muslims practise polygamy {probably that should read: very few Muslims in Australia are known to be openly practising polygamy} and few advocate a change in the law {read: and at present few are bold enough to advocate a change in the law}.
'But, as Joumanah El Matrah, manager of the Islamic Women's Welfare Council of Victoria and an opponent of polygamy, acknowledged this week, it can be surmised that the practice is probably increasing. If it wasn't, the question of its legal status wouldn't have been raised openly."

Sure the two guys who floated the demand "are few, and have spoken on their own behalf, not with the authority of representative community organisations or the Australian National Council of Imams." {Usual ploy: plausible deniability, I'll bet! Use a 'splinter group' to conduct a 'raiding party', so to speak; but I'm sure that if the Attorney-General, et al, had given in and said, sure, fine, we'll change the law, the National Council of Imams would have been busy publicly solemnising polygynous marriages at a dozen a day}.

Anyway: in their haste and arrogance the Ummah forgot something.

Throughout much of its post-1788 history Australia had a preponderance of men over women (I think for some time even after indigenous Australians and, thus, their women, were counted in along with the European-derived population, from 1967 onward). The Northern Territory only achieved gender parity - same number of women as men - quite recently; previously, it had more men than women.

Women were rare and much competed for.

Thus, the very idea that some men should be allowed to corner more than their fair share of women, is deeply offensive to Australians. It contradicts all our ideas of 'a fair go'.

Furthermore, the editorial is ultimately guided by the 'fair go' principle. The editor understands - emotionally- that it devalues women, for more than one woman to add up to one man (and, typically Aussie, having decided that if we permitted polygyny we would have to permit polyandry, then reflects further, and decides that the fairness principle trumps all: that would be devaluing the guys involved, too).

Polygamy fails the fairness/ equality test.

One person must equal one person: balance of power.

It is worth noting also - I 'read the whole thing' - that the editor cites two MUSLIM women who were very much opposed to any recognition of Muslim polygamy.

That reminds me of the furore in Canada about recognition of what Nonie Darwish calls 'family sharia' - groups of Muslim women were amongst the most vocal opponents of the proposition.

This editor still has some fluff in his head - early in the piece he tosses off some token remarks about 'racism' and 'bigotry' - but he has stated the nub of the matter with commendable clarity: "Gender Equality and Polygamy Are Not Compatible".

We may consider that this particular 'raiding party' has met an unexpected level of infidel resistance and has made a tactical retreat.

The Saracens, the Moors, li Turchi, will not, however, give up. Additional raids may be expected in due course. The Attorney-General and other watchful Australians should start building fortresses along the metaphorical coastline, in preparation to defend the citadel of Australian civil law against all comers.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 27, 2008 7:54 AM

I do wish that Bolt (thread above), and others like him, would note--in their columns--the specific Islamic scriptures and accompanying texts from which Muslims claim their 'right' to polygamy (and other 'rights').

How much more disgusted would an 'unbeliever' be to see, in writing, that Qur'an does, in fact, permit polygamy; which includes marrying a Muslim's slaves.

It would be interesting to hear, from Western Muslims, if, as Allah decreed it, slaves are included in that right, anywhere in the world today.

Posted by: PRCS at June 27, 2008 5:30 PM

....and on the other hand, we have more evidence of the diminishing equality of women by infidels. I saw on the news this morning where a drive thru coffee shop has its female 'barristas' (servants) wearing nothing more than than bikini pants on their bottoms and very small pasties on their breats. This gave me cause to think about women's 'equality'. My mother's generation was expected to participate in domestic servitude. My generation was expected to participate in domestic servitude, and to provide a paycheck for her husband. My daughter's generation is expected to participate in domestic servitude, to provide a paycheck for her husband and now, to be a sex object. All I see is less and less equality and respect for women. No wonder the muzzies think they can force poligamy on the kuffir. Look at how women allow themselves to expolited. I've notice that the males of my, and my daughter's generation don't even PRETEND to respect women. Women are there to be used. There's no shame it so far as the younger men are concerned. I think the muslim men just want their sex slaves, and soon the infidels men will decide they want one too......

Posted by: cp at June 27, 2008 6:10 PM

PRCS - those of us who do know those texts, should be writing to the editor of the Age, and to Mr Bolt, and to the editors of every major Australian newspaper, citing the texts, chapter and verse.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 28, 2008 9:43 PM

Hugh Hefner versus the Mormon polygamists of FLDS

How far are we from having it already now that marriage is on the way to being "whatever is clever" in the minds of most?

Posted by: A Simple Sinner at June 29, 2008 1:25 AM