Laws give polygamists court recourse
Michael Pelly; 26/6/08
Even though polygamy is banned under Australia’s marriage laws, there is nothing to stop polygamists from going to the Family Court to settle their disputes. Marriage is defined as “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others”, but the Family Law Act says a polygamous union “entered into in a place outside Australia, shall be deemed to be a marriage”. Although a Family Court spokeswoman said the court had never heard a case involving polygamy, a leading family law solicitor said he was aware of one man who had come from Ethiopia with three wives. Ian Kennedy, head of the Law Council of Australia’s family law section and a senior partner at Kennedy Wisewoulds, said Muslims who “took another wife” in Australia - without making those unions official - were now covered because of changes to the Family Law Act.
See; http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23923780-5013404,00.html
Legalise extra wives, says radical Muslim cleric; Stephen Fitzpatrick; 25/6/08; http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23923781-5013404,00.html
Polygamy fights for an Aussie home
Sian Powell and Natalie O’Brien; 26/6/08
Australia prides itself on its tolerance and its wide acceptance of different mores, but polygamy appears to be a bridge too far for even the most ardent multiculturalists, Islamic and otherwise. Debate raged across the nation yesterday about whether a pluralistic and free society could happily accommodate the practice of polygamous marriage. Keysar Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association, spoke out this week, admitting he had once considered marrying another woman. He also backed calls by another senior member of the Islamic community, Sheik Khalil Chami of the Islamic Welfare Centre, for polygamous relationships to be recognised. Sheik Chami said polygamous marriages, although illegal, existed in Australia and he had been asked almost weekly to conduct polygamous religious ceremonies. Although he refused, other imams did not.
See: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23923768-601,00.html
Probing polygamy
Natalie O’Brien; 26/6/08
When his wife was away in Lebanon for several months with their six children, Keysar Trad was lonely and considered taking a second wife. It seemed the natural thing to do for Trad, 44, who lives in Sydney’s western suburbs. Trad had already lived through the experience of being the son of his father’s second wife, who became part of the family after the first wife became too ill to look after their children. A childhood spent living with a mother and a stepmother was completely normal. “There was nothing out of the ordinary,” Trad tells The Australian. “My mother and my stepmother were always best friends. They never argued. She looked at my mum like she was her sister.”
See: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23922968-28737,00.html
One law fits all
26/6/08
Polygamous “marriage” is not the Australian way. The system of one law for all has served democratic, civil societies, including Australia, well for generations. This is the fundamental reason that polygamous marriages should not be awarded legal recognition. Sheik Khalil Chami of the Islamic Welfare Centre in Lakemba, southwest Sydney, admits polygamous “marriages”, although illegal, exist in Australia and wants them recognised. He and Islamic Friendship Association of Australia president Keysar Trad claim that recognising polygamous unions would help protect the rights of women in such relationships. They are entitled to their views, but this newspaper, like the vast majority of Australians, we suspect, does not agree.
See: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23922778-16382,00.html
Monogamous marrieds already have enough trouble
26/6/08
Further to Keysar Trad’s call for Australia to recognise polygamy for the protection of the rights of women, their rights would be better served if many of his fellow Muslims embraced the Australian position that woman are the equal of men and deserve respect. Being Wife No 4 will not assist that wife nor indeed, I suspect, wives 1, 2 and 3. In my experience as a family lawyer, enough men have difficulty making proper provision for their wives and children from their one and only marriage, let alone trying to cater for four marriages and the resultant children. Perhaps, however, I had it wrong and Trad was actually suggesting that a woman should have the right to polygamously marry such that she could have up to, say, four husbands. On his argument, that would protect the rights of the men. It may also be socially advantageous in furthering the rights of their children, as there would be up to four men to support the one wife and the children, with presumably less recourse to the state for assistance in any resultant break down in their relationship(s). James Richardson; Sydney, NSW
See: http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/ comments/monogamous_marrieds_already_have_enough_trouble/