Clash of religious customs !

Many people are shocked to learn that a twenty-six year old man has married a twelve year old girl - with the blessing of that girl's father. This contravenes Australian law which stipulates that the minimum legal age for marriage is eighteen years. The bridegroom is now in prison and the girl is under state care. This " marriage " also contravenes Islamic law - but it seems that an Imam could be found to conduct the ceremony. The clash of religious cultures is not new to Australia. After the end of the second world war we had a surge of migrants escaping the carnage of Europe and many came from an authoratarian culture which imposed strict controls on family decision making. The choice of education, jobs - even marriage partners was entirely in the hands of parents. Rebellion was inevitable when the children of such families compared their lot with that of Australian born children. Decades later, those children are now grandparents - and their children have merged into the prevailing Australian customs. It seems that it takes a generation or two for change to happen - and we are again seeing the clash of cultures between the Australian way of life and our newest settlers. Female genital mutilation is one of the customs most abhorrent to most Australians. It is used as a form of control, denying the pleasure of sex to the victim ensures she will not stray and be enticed by other men. It is sometimes inflicted here in this country, but many parents take their daughters overseas on a supposed " holiday " to have it done in their old country. Usually it ias done at a young age which denies the victim a choice. We are also heading into the area of multiple wives. Australian law is clear in that multiple wives are forbidden, but we face a dilemma when a man with multiple wives comes from a country where both the political regime and that persons religion sanction it. To insist that other wives be abandoned to comply with Australian law would probably leave them destitute. It raises interesting welfare questions - and the situation remains opaque and without clear resolution. Religion and the customs of other countries will always conflict with the law and the prevailing attitudes that are part of the Australian culture. It is part of the " deal " that we make when we bestow Citizenship that the receipiant swears an oath to obey the laws of Australia - and that means any law that comes into conflict with their religion. The choice is clear. If that obligation is not accepted they must refuse the oath and decline Australian citizenship - and all the protection that offers. This seems to be a " one way " deal. If the new citizen later reneges on that oath the citizenship can not be revoked. It is claimed that this is because of the obligations of International law but surely Australia can withdraw from that law and set it's own protocols - if that is the wish of it's people ? It is noticeable that in the vast majority of instances, disregarding an Australian law only takes place once Australian citizenship is safely bestowed and sealed. It seems strange that people are prepared to put their lives at risk to get here and are so eager to have Australian citizenship that they put up with longe terms in detention centres, but once that citienship is achieved they find many obligations that conflict with the views they hold - and decline to abide by Australian law. Perhaps granting citizenship on a provisional basis for a period of time would assist assimilation - with both parties retaining the right to cancel the " deal " if mutual obligations were not achieved !