There has been a great deal in the media lately about AFIC Australian Federation of Islamic council and its President Mr Patel.
What do we know about him and his beliefs . A quick search on goggles shows he was made

ACT Australia Day Ambassador and President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Ikebal Patel

http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2011/01/20/3117554.htm




Now we see things like this in the media - Ikebals regrets


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/it-was-a-mistake-to-mention-sharia-law-admits-australian-islamic-leader/story-e6frg97x-1226076664279

It seems an interesting scenario from being made ACT Australia Day Ambassador to promoting sharia law. He says it was a mistake now to mention it but surely if one believes in something that is why they raise it - isn't it?




Searches show there was a submission made to Parliament by Mr Patel for Sharia law in Australia.

This all seems a bit confusing to many people.




What are your thoughts on this if any?

Kerryanne.....lol....you certainly have quite alot of venom and elevated blood levels concerning your profession. In any culture, there are always good and bad points, especially those that DON'T ALL come from the same time-line. Politicians have an incredibly difficult time in making decisions for the whole, and more so when its the birthing of a fairly NEW world order here, and in any Multicultural world society. ( take your pick, 195 countries or so, and find a pure race of people now days, good luck ) its good to take time and Intel:)

The old and the new have come together so fast, 1000's of years of culture are being jammed into the shortest time-frame the world has ever seen, and just BANNING anything that doesn't agree with your evolved sensibilities or profession, doesn't make you the righteous one, in fact.....for some people, it can provoke very dangerous situations.

"What are your thoughts on this if any?"

Now look at the way you have asked this! and you wonder why three days have passed. Anyway, you can just put your mind at ease, Sharia Law Will never happen, and for the same reasons democracy wont take in other opposite worlds. Iam very skeptical on bring the three worlds of difference together so soon, but Iam not the Government. They seem to think it will all balance out with time, maybe it will, I don't know.
But from what Ive seen, which Sharia Law brings to the western world, a reality in that sence just wont assimilate or you can ask them to go backwards if you like, but I don't fancy your chances:)

Now some people are aware of The UK's problems with Sharia Law and this man Pat condell says it in the most politeness way, considering the first world he's so proud of like all are where ever one comes from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-KHHKuVVRc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_zmXa_830M&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLOflbAOeg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjSjpNe1-Vc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6UXS4YtodI

Well, if your a women or an animal rights activist and Sharia Law comes to town, you can kiss your arse good by:)

LEAP

You are very quick to pre judge people& quite offensive. So once only I will respond to your silly comments
Those links imop are offensive but i am sure you meant them it be.

I have many Muslim friends & I can tell you they do not want Sharia Law. However this thread wasn't started for that reason. It is a thread to look more closely at this *one man. People who have known him have expressed great surprise by his recent reactions - & submissions to parliament. Given his position and what appears at least to be a change of mind it is quite reasonable to ask the question.
At what stage ( or time) in his role did he as President decide sharia law was a good idea for Australia.? & If it was before , or even after, he came President he decided sharia law, was a good idea for Australia was it a decsion made with full council backing.?
In other words was in passed in motion of full congress of AFIC & their board members.
If it was a motion passed by AFIC members then was the motion to withdraw also a full council decsion or not .
On what date was the motion put forward. These are in fact quite reasonable question of any organization because unity is important. There seems to be a great deal of confusion around Mr petals position. If the motion was passed by AFIC to lobby Parliament for Sharia law was it then AFIC full council who voted to reverse it.
Or was it in fact something Mr Patel did in Parliament without referring to AFIC council.
On the other hand are their in fact members who really do want sharia law- or have they all had a change of heart like Mr Patel, if indeed such is the case.

[Deleted for abuse.]

This link stinks of lying cry babies that's sinking some of the best countries in the world today......have a good long listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6UXS4YtodI

LEAP

And this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjSjpNe1-Vc&feature=related

If Sharia Law was to be implemented into Australia, there could be a bloody civil war on the Governments hands. Look! When the whole world decides to become Muslim, that's when hell will freeze over, and by the looks of it, it wont be long:)

LEAP

Already the muslim issue is restricting free speech

Hell hath no fury like a HKM scorned.

Record show Mr Patel & AFIC they have done some good things for Australia in the past. They passed a motion in Congress to Ban Live Exports & lobbied the Australia Government to work toward opening more Abattoirs in Australia to create jobs and value add.

In hind site on that issue the Federal Government given the present circumstances many now wish they had listened.
But then the question *has to be asked was the plan always to Ban Live Exports Mr Patel to introduce Sharia law or did something change
in the past months. Mr Patel as records show has always supported stunning - so why the unexpected change & was the change fully backed by AFIC members of committee?

Recent media report show this man arguing with RSPCA over ritual slaughter. So if Mr Patel now says it was a mistake to mention Sharia law for Australia as the article above indicates- one would have thought he had withdrawn his position on demanding ritual slaughter yes?

Apparently not so according to this story -

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3247274.htm

morganzola,

I can say with authority that HKM has never supported ritual slaughter & never will.
As I have pointed out in earlier post there seems to have been it would appear a change in position with Mr Patel on that aspect.
It is important that all AFIC members and associate members now make themselves clear on their position as a council- yes.

We are now are AFIC have accredited among others MLA with their own brand of Halal meat which is ritual slaughtered.

Further more TV radio, newspaper, reports by Mr Patel have demanded The Minister pay 2million $ to Mr Patel for the HKM programe. This is of course a surprise & concern & very much in need of getting a full councils position on ritual slaughter.

If your not careful you risk having Yabbys pick up that for some it would appear the first agenda isn't to help the Animals.
Our position is we do not support ritual slaughter & support RSPCA 100% in their move to ban it from Australia.

Now Mr Patel did say it was a mistake - ok fair enough but then he gave interviews opposing RSPCA on ritual slaughter.

So it really isn't clear what he or the members board are saying because it seems to chang

It's nice to see an extremist Islamist lobby group make bare-faced lies to further its cause;

When the evidence suggests that pendering to specific fundamentalist Islamic sensibilities fosters a stronger extremist sub-community and more sidelined moderate community (UK), while INFRINGING on fundamentalist sensibilities actually discourages fundamentalists from coming to or staying in the countries that enforce them (France, Denmark), and if handled right, strengthens moderate hegemony (Turkey).

If anything we should explicitly do the opposite of what that mob wants from us.

Dear Kerryanne,

I read the article in 'The Australian," where Mr Patel admits he made a mistake by bringing in the word "Sharia." He says that he was after legislation that would help Muslim women regarding their rights in a divorce. He also mentioned Halal meat and financial matters.

Regardless of what Mr Patel says and whether he is to be believed or not Australia has a secular government and no official or state religion. Religious laws have no legal status in Australia and I can't see that changing.

The divorce laws for example to which Mr Patel refers, are those laws enacted by Parliament. The process of divorce and related matters, such as custody of children and the settlement of property arrangements can only be done in accordance with the laws passed by the Australian Parliament. Therefore Sharia Law is totally unnecessary to protect Muslim women in this country as Mr Patel suggests.

All Australians are entitled to the protection of these laws - and there is no need for any religious laws to take their place.
I'm sure that with time Mr Patel will have to learn to accept this and explain things to his fellow colleagues at the Islamic Council.
Many of whom probably were surprised by his action in this matter.

Islam is a minority religion in Australia.

It makes alot of noise, well above its right for representation.

As a minority it feels it has an entitlement to equality with the majority of Non-Islamists.

imho, there are two types of islamists, just as there are two types of Christians..

Type 1:

the extremist zealot who demands to impose their version of religion on the rest of the population

Type 2:

those who peacefully practice their beleifs and co-habit wiht those of different belief

We should welcome only the type 2 Islamists and those type 2 of any other religion

We should, where possible deport those of Type 1 attitude of risk greater sedition in the future.

Zealots of any faith are intolerant of others and present civil spociety with grave risks in the name of their particular zealotary.

Like Peter Costello famously said: If you do not like it here, return to where you do like

and good riddance to you

And once again Lexi is 100% correct.

"Regardless of what Mr Patel says and whether he is to be believed or not Australia has a secular government and no official or state religion. Religious laws have no legal status in Australia and I can't see that changing."

Section 116 of the 1900 Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Constitution) provides that:

The Commonwealth of Australia shall not make any law establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

"Rather Ms Krayem says some of the processes around legal matters such as divorce and inheritance could take on board Muslim notions of dialogue and alternative dispute resolution, but the law should service all community members alike.

But Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland has ruled out any chance of sharia law being introduced to Australia.

In a statement released to the ABC, Mr McClelland said: "There is no place for sharia law in Australian society and the Government strongly rejects any proposal for its introduction.

"Australia's brand of multiculturalism promotes integration. If there is any inconsistency between cultural values and the rules of law then Australian law wins out."

So what ever little slip of the tongue Mr Ikebal Patel made, I think he just didn't read his E-mails:)

LEAP

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/australian-troops-fair-game-for-muslims-in-war-on-afghanistan-hizb-ut-tahrir-believe/story-e6freuy9-1226086675320
I offer this link, and recommend the editorial one that comes up too on opening.
Not as evidence of majority sin.
But to remind some our freedoms can be miss used, the editorial is good but both need to be considered.

I agree that Sharia law, like other theocratic codes, has no place in Australian society. Col Rouge is correct that "Zealots of any faith are intolerant of others and present civil spociety with grave risks in the name of their particular zealotary (sic)". Deportation would certainly be appropriate for non-citizens who are proven to have engaged in illegal incitement to violence or other acts that seriously contravene Australian secular law, however that option would be unavailable in dealing with citizens who engage in such activity. It's also hard to see how such people could be 'screened out' in the immigration process, since they could simply lie to conceal their zealotry.

In recent years there has been a worrying trend towards religious fundamentalism, particularly among Muslims and Christians. While most Australians reject such nonsense for the bunkum it is, it is incumbent upon us to be vigilant about incursions on our civil liberties and hard-won rights by religious extremists from any faith. Australia has a proud tradition of secularism and I think most of us want to keep it that way.

This is what some are saying. I have not formed an opinion accept i oppose ritual slaughter

Problems with the halal market:
http://www.australianislamistmonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4361
Halal certification is a commercial market: The rort continues as certifying agencies only have access to certain markets so if a producer wants access to many markets *do they pay MULTIPLE halal certifiers?

Since some overseas countries also want to charge fees for market access you can easily see that this is simply a rort on the dopey non-Muslims as the Muslims are providing nothing at all – they simply look and dictate and hand out a certificate but they don’t produce anything, they just charge and idiotic companies PAY and YOU pay.

Some claim this benefits Australia because we reach the great Islamic market but this is a nonsense as the NON-Islamic market covers 80% of the world and hence companies should be producing for that market so there is no need for US to be made to adhere to sharia and to pay for the imposition of sharia and halal certification which we do NOT want.

Let companies who want to tie themselves to the Islamic world and submit to its control separately produce their products to suit at the cost of their Muslim purchasers BUT don’t pass those products and extra costs onto US, the 80 % of the world and 98% of Australians who are NOT Muslim! Muslims in Australia make up <2 % of the population so let THEM IMPORT their special halal food if they are incapable of eating ordinary food –which their text and laws allow!

All the costs involved in the halal rort make their food as well as ours unnecessarily more expensive.

King Hazza
Thank you for that comment.
I will ponder my how I can respond in the next day or two.

Lexi,
Sorry I missed u on the other thread. How are you?
To respond to your comment-

TBO, I doubt it & to be fair at times afic has become dysfunctional & undemocratic imop.

*Many of whom probably were surprised by his action in this matter.*

Maybe & maybe not.. It could be that only *some were surprised by his actions.
Australia needs to know if it was a full council &members who voted for Sharia – or just Mr Patel acting alone?.
We need to know if we have the right advisor to the Federal Government.

Or are the Government so keen to get the Islamic Banking $ here they turn a blind eye.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/21/islamic-finance-sharia-islamic-finance-islamicfinance08-cx_ee_mn_0421islam_land.html

Is this way MLA & The Government have allowed 15 abattoirs in Australia to operate under ritual slaughter in accordance to Sharia law .

Other sites show Aussies are paying more tax on 80% of product

Belly,
Thanks for that link.

Dear Col,

Yes , sometimes easier said than done.

There are many type 2 about but the government seem to do zero about the type 1.

Shall ponder the answer i hope

Under Sharia law, as I understand it, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. This has enormous ramifications, which could inadvertently influence legal testimony in Australian courts

Dear Danielle,

Yes that is correct but not all follow it. Here in Australia its interesting to watch the outcome of the two cultures. Muslim women are taking full advantage & asking permission to divorce much more. Mosques are very busy & most of them get consent . No doubt there are aware in Oz they really need not ask. So in keeping with keeping them in the flock very very few are rejected. I reckon at this rate they may have to consider another way- maybe online register because the volunteers wont be able to keep up to demands. What maybe could be looked at is the weddings though for men wanting 5 of them. I once asked when people were speaking of wives being faithful to their husbands if the wife too was allowed five husbands Is he was 5 wives:)
Well someone had to ask. One Muslim gentleman complained speaking of cultures that he hated burkas because the women got to perve on them-- but they couldn't return same.
So reckoned he wanted them banned for equal rights for men.
There are some very nice open Muslims too

Dear Kerryanne,

Of course there are very nice Muslims around - indeed we have had Muslims here since the nineteenth century, and who were important in Australia's history. Muslims are certainly not new to this country.

The problem that seems to be emerging is that moderate Muslims don't express themselves publicly when something we find disturbing arises (and undoubtedly they do to). The consequence of this is that the general public see Muslims as a monolithic group, with fundamentalist attitudes.

Moderate Muslims really need to be more forthcoming.

Most Muslims came to this country to escape the worst facets of Sharia Law. In a recent thread on this topic around Family Law and Divorce, and having done a bit of legal research since, it is already legal and appropriate for people to come to their own arrangements during divorce proceedings.

The Courts only become involved if there are disputes and where arbitration is needed. Sharia Law adds nothing to this and Muslims have as much right as any other citizen to access the secular Australian legal system.

There is no benefit in having different laws for different religions - this goes against secular democratic principles, and will set up all sorts of disadvantages for those who may feel forced to accept conditions that are less than acceptable or equitable.

Individuals are already free to make their own decisions in this sphere, there is no need to enact Sharia Law or any other Law that deviates from the rights of all Citizens to be able to access the Courts.

If there are positive aspects to some elements of Sharia Law then encourage people to learn about them and perhaps if there is enough support these ideas can be legislated for the benefit of all citizens. It should not be assumed that all of Sharia Law is 'bad' despite much of it working against the rights of women. Most Muslim women I have met have been those working in the public service and I have not men one yet that is pushing for Sharia Law.

Pelican,

<< “Most Muslims came to this country to escape the worst facets of Sharia Law”>>

You just made that up –how would you know that ?

<< Most Muslim women I have met have been those working in the public service and I have not men one yet that is pushing for Sharia Law.” >>

Maybe you need widen your circle of acquaintances ( choose anyone –except the guy asleep in the middle, third row)

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/taking-liberties-in-the-name-of-islam/story-e6frezz0-1226086915724

Dear Danielle,

You said
*The problem that seems to be emerging is that moderate Muslims don't express themselves publicly when something we find disturbing arises (and undoubtedly they do to). The consequence of this is that the general public see Muslims as a monolithic group, with fundamentalist attitudes.

Moderate Muslims really need to be more forthcoming.
Posted by Danielle, Wednesday, 6 July 2011 9:30:59 AM*

Danielle,

Your correct in what you say and in a few weeks new leaders will start all over again to do just that. I have been deeply disappointing by Mr Patel and AFIC in the last six years.
Not only as self appointed peak council would that have been nice but I believe there was an absolute responsibility to lead the younger generation in particular.

Hopefully all that will change asap.

We are fortunate to have good people who i think you will be very pleased with. Give it just a little while..

Thanks for your wise comment
Kerry

Dear pelican
*If there are positive aspects to some elements of Sharia Law: citizens.*
The only difference is they usually use their Sharia Law to ask consent for divorce- before finalizing it through our courts.
Cant hurt & makes some of them feel much better. Its a good thing provided its not made law under our laws. Its sort of like when a women could not go on the pill years ago under her church unless the minister agreed. To us silly - but to her important.

**Most Muslims came to this country to escape the worst facets of Sharia Law.** Correct.

* It is already legal and appropriate for people to come to their own arrangements during divorce proceedings.*Correct.

*The Courts only become involved if there are disputes and where arbitration is needed.*Correct

*Sharia Law adds nothing to this and Muslims have as much right as any other citizen to access the secular Australian legal system.*Correct.

*There is no benefit in having different laws for different religions* Correct

It should not be assumed that all of Sharia Law is 'bad' despite much of it working against the rights of women.Correct

You have a very good concept how two worlds can live easily in harmony pelican . Indeed why complicate it.We are free to submit or
not. This is as it should be.
I think you will find Mr Patel will raise this again - just not on Nation TV - then then again.. with Ikebal one might not know whats hes going to come out with next if going by the past is anything to judge by.

SPQR

Ah , yes but you see SPOR their are no woman there- which really was the point you missed i think.

So thats means in Australia their motions will not be passed. Just a bunch of boys together and good to see they are using chairs.

The women are possible all busy driving themselves to their lawyers dear:)

Btw not all Muslim men or leading think that way- very few tbo.

cheer

*So what ever little slip of the tongue Mr Ikebal Patel made, I think he just didn't read his E-mails:)*

Posted by Quantumleap, Sunday, 3 July 2011 10:36:17 PM

Mr Petal in his leadership of AFIC in my opinion is quite sad. I think he just wants people to like him& maybe thats normal to a degree for all.

However as a leader we need leadership & calm direction. As a matter of fact he does forget to read emails- but! i suspect the excuse he gave media about his demands for Sharia law were- just that.

@ KerryAnne

This bit : << Btw not all Muslim men or leading think that way->> sounds highly plausible.

But, with this bit : << very few tbo.>> I think you’re guessing (just like Pelican!)

All you can say with any amount of certainty is that most Muslims you’ve met * SAY* they think that way.

And, some people who've also met a lot of Muslims have good reason to reach a different conclusion:

“Another al Qaeda goal for Islamist governance is “to require a strict application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.” In Egypt 81 percent said they agreed with this goal. Pakistanis were similar at 76 percent; Indonesians, however, agreed by only a narrow plurality: 49 percent supported the goal (just 14% strongly), while 42 percent disagreed. Compared to 2007 Indonesian support for this goal has dropped 5 points, while among Egyptians those saying they agree strongly has risen 6 points (59 to 65%). In Morocco in late 2006, 76 percent agreed. When asked whether they thought this is an al Qaeda goal, majorities in the three countries asked said that it is: 57 percent in Egypt, 53 percent in Indonesia, and 68 percent in Pakistan (where this understanding has grown 15 points.) In Morocco in late 2006, 74 percent saw strict Shari’a as an al Qaeda goal.”

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

But one thing is indisputable: Very few women in Saudi Arabia were *driving* to their lawyers…or anywhere else ;-)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/saudi-women-drivers-arrested-jiddah?intcmp=239

Kerryanne,

I am intersted in comments that all of Sharia law is not bad. Obviously. However, which laws do you think would benefit the Australian legal system?

Personally, I am against introduction of any religious (or cultural) laws into the Australian legal system, no matter if 'seen' to be beneficial. This is a slippery slope.

I believe Australians should not adopt any law or cultural practices from outside, particularly non-Western. All laws should reflect the wider Australian community; as our democracy does.

Posted by SPQR,

**But one thing is indisputable: Very few women in Saudi Arabia were *driving* to their lawyers…or anywhere else ;-)
Reply to SPQR

&#61514;

*Danielle said*
I am interested in comments that all of Sharia law is not bad. Obviously. However, which laws do you think would benefit the Australian legal system?

Personally, I am against introduction of any religious (or cultural) laws into the Australian legal system, no matter if 'seen' to be beneficial. This is a slippery slope.

I believe Australians should not adopt any law or cultural practices from outside, particularly non-Western. All laws should reflect the wider Australian community; as our democracy does.
Reply

Danielle, I couldn’t agree more . I think you may have misunderstood me. I said if it gives the woman peace of mind to seek the blessing of the imun to apply for a divorce – no harm.
So long as they are not charging for their service. After all many people paid & pay the Catholic Church to have their 20 year marriages wiped away – so the can re-marry in the Church.

There is no place in our legal system for Shari law . ACCEPT may i point out to you the our government has given Mr Ikebal Patel AFIC & others consent to perform ritual slaughter of animals which they are paid so much per box + a fee per year. I say this is WRONG and i demand the government stops this NOW. Is it any wonder that these people like Ikebal Patel think they can push more Sharia laws into this beautiful free country of ours when Petal and others are getting mixed messages from our federal government. No wonder why these people call us hypocrites & push for even more extreme Sharia laws.
The attorney general moved quickly to say there would be NO Sharia law ever in Australia.

TBC

continued

Thank you Mr Attorney general so will you PLEASE now act quickly to Ban these cruel ritual slaughters the federal government have given consent to carry out on Australian soil.
It is unthinkable this is going on all day every day in Australia under Sharia Law Mr Attorney general when you said there would be no Sharia law in Australia.
So yes Danielle here is some Sharia law + we have Kosher being carried out in Australia . What we saw on 4 corners is going on right here- right now under Sharia law in Australia.
I will post some picture- links later of what these cruel bastards do in the name of religion . As far as Ikebal Patel goes hes done & dusted and soon will be nothing more than a bad memory
However it does make us wonder how the government does have a better hold over – who- whom are the chosen so called leaders of these groups.
Here is a man who has been standing alongside Aussie polys-& made Ambassador for ACT Australia day .
Patel in my opinion takes the $ which should be used for the purposes to better the community & travels around the world saying- god knows what about us.
It is rumored he pays one hundred and fifty grand to his son in law for building —i don’t know what? Then another 50 G per year to in my opinion by their silence to whatever he does – or does not do..
I doubt there was a full council vote in AFIC on the demand for Sharia law – but i suspect it wouldn’t matter for reasons i mentioned above.
Ikebal Patel & AFIC had a job to do and could have made a wonderful difference- but alas . I have direct knowledge of agreements broken and years of AFIC being highly dishonorable.
I think Col put it best- If you don’t like our ways you are free to leave & good riddens.

Posted by SPQR,

**But one thing is indisputable: Very few women in Saudi Arabia were *driving* to their lawyers…or anywhere else ;-)
Reply to SPQR

Sorry SPOR

That was a >smile<

I also as I have opened another post rather than waste it heard Mr Patel is apparently looking at being sued for not up holding his obligation in a signed agreement to pay his share of office expenditures - wait for it -- for more than 6 years!
Possibly he might feel that having signed signed with a woman she only had a half say in the law.
It will be interesting to see how far his sharia laws take him if this goes to court:)

Patels cries of none money dont really stack up as he trots the world living the high life.

There was another Patel in QLD they called Dr death- I wonder if they are related.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lib-adviser-sacked-after-antiislam-web-posts-20110709-1h7sx.html
It is no secret, I am regarded as a bigot by some.
And that I am unhappy with SOME from this religion.
And any control by any religion.
I stand by my views.
Question the value of introducing a problem to my country.
However this thread is pointing out good and bad true and maybe questionable things.
I offer no other reason than to highlight, we all need to base our comments on facts, I offer this link.
It will be headlines and spoken of very much in my state.
We could do worse than consider its miss use and understanding of the word HALAL.
I know, even highlight, my views will see me branded as they have in the last few months.
And do not fear such, but remind every critic, freedom to say and think what you wish is our way.
As is yours to be critical of my views, however I too, reserve that last right.

Belly, thanks for that story.

Can you find a way to contact Joseph Adams? ( Maybe through the journo) You know that state & I am busy with the inquiry into live exports.

Belly very important pls advisor of what was Mr Adams? No time to search . I hope he is free to work with us. People should realise many are still upset about the world trade the Bali bombings etc and he should NOT have been sacked. btw I have never seen anybody call you a bigot- or even hint at it. Your just a normal average Aussie bloke who sometimes wont like ok often wont but that doesn't make you a bigot.

I read the story and it all comes back to- if this was in his private time- his account-- or in working hours wearing his advisor hat as far as i am concerned.

It wasn't very *clever to sack him and draw attention to it. Maybe this O'Farrell guy isn't as smart - or clever as he thinks of they think. A quiet chat over a beer at the pub would have been my move rather than blast it all over the apers if i were a poly .

But I am NOT a poly & have zero interest in political stuff. So tell me about O'Farrell Gov in NSW pls Belly- I know little but dont like what i hear s0 far- gutless wonders it shouldn't to me.That sniveling Tony Abbott has been popping into the religious radio stations.

**We could do worse than consider its miss use and understanding of the word HALAL.**

Belly the word halal is just anther word for legal to them---- so the bloke was probably just doing as we are now- blogging away & replying to somebody in debate by saying.

BUT I am very concerned your Government are so WEAK.

What we need is a strong state gov not wimps. Otherwise these guys get mixed messages thats BAD Thats very very bad!

I dont think he should have been sacked.

I just read it again ok he was in the electorate office office i see.
Um well that might be seen as a conflict of interest--

Probably the only thing they could do now i read again to see his position tbo.

Wish I had more time. Legally in that position they probably had no other options. Wasn't very clever of the guy tbo.
I will look for comments on this with some interest

Must work now