Debating bad ideas

The same Australians would not need to be reminded that equality of the sexes is central to Australian democracy. Even those Australians unaware of either the nationwide campaign to suppress domestic violence/abuse or the proposed Women's Manifesto being circulated for discussion could be expected to conclude that HT's chosen scripture plainly conveys an idea which is incompatible with the nation's democratic principles (and forbidden by the criminal law).

That suggested negative response would likely have been reinforced for Australians who were (or have since become) aware that in February 2017 the then President of the AustralianFederation of Islamic Councils publicly stated that the controversial scripture could be defended because what it is really saying is that violence can only be used by a husband "as a last resort".

HT's attempts to use religion to excuse the inexcusable, especially when it affects female equality, is likely to be a reminder to Australians that the rigid "identity" stereotyping central to the ideology underpinning Australia's official policy of multiculturalism produces a contradiction in its sectarian treatment of bad religious ideas.

As the late Ronald Dworkin observed in 2006 commenting on the Danish cartoons  controversy, "No one's religious convictions can be thought to trump the freedom that makes democracy possible."

HT's complaint that its 2017 video was a necessary response to media comment that the laws of Islam had been painted as "barbaric, backward [and] not applicable to our current times" was revealingly frank.

Many, perhaps most, Australians would adhere to the view that the idea expressed in the plain English meaning of HT's chosen English language rendition of Surah 4:34 amply attracted that characterisation.

Australians who take the time to familiarise themselves with HT's one-eyed worldview could also fairly express the opinion that while HT has every right to advocate peacefully for theocracy, and to reject the freedom of religion expressed in s 116 of the Australian Constitution, it is, however, a backward and futile enterprise. HT's self-imposed politico-religious segregation for its members and their children is the antithesis of "inclusion".