<< Nazeem is Muslim Australian who does't share entirely our viewpoint on civil liberties for woman >>

Really?

I doubt Keith got any further in reading the article than beyond the author's name. If he had he would've read the following:

<<<< When it comes to conversations about issues concerning women, men in our community grab the microphone. Sometimes it's important to hear from men concerning women, but more often than not we could do without their two cents worth. Palpably, men are part of the problem. So, sometimes we should shut up. >>>>

Which is progressive thinking from any man of any ideological background.

Interesting how the Keiths of this world love to rant about the primitive attitudes towards women from the Islamic religion, yet never critique the likes of Pell and other equally primitive Christians. As for speaking up on OLO when women are continually denigrated by the same few men - the silence is all encompassing.

David Jennings,
Wrong you are judging me according to your interpretation of what I said. And I pointed out to you that your interpretation was wrong and asked you for an apology. Of course you’ve shown you’ve been too proud to acknowledge your error.

In actual fact you have judged me after applying your simplistic stereotyping.

Mate if you doubt my integrity say so … don’t beat around the bush like a cowardly child. Rest assured I’m the author. You’ll never be taken seriously while you continue to exhibit blind pig-headedness.

CJ

you said you
'think that the formal recognition of any aspect of Sharia Law in Australia would have negative consequences, both for those who availed themselves of it - particularly women - and for the wider society.'

and
'If the author wanted to make the point that aspects of Sharia Law (and indeed fundamentalist religious belief of any description) are incompatible with the advances in gender equity that Western societies have experienced over the past 30 years or so, she could have done so far more successfully if she'd avoided the Islamophobic dog-whistles.'
and this pearler
'There's no question that any versions of Sharia Law that I've seen render women as subordinate to men...'
and this
'Religious jurisdiction should never impinge upon the rights and obligations lawfully afforded to individuals who are not followers of that religion, or who have ceased to follow religions - or who simply wish to disregard the rules of their religion for whatever reason.'

and this
'... from what I understand to be the object of those nutters who want to impose Sharia Law on them.'

Do you realise the logical conclusion to these statements is that you agree with the positions of both James and I? Of course you don’t. You haven’t the brains to work that out.

You call me racist for saying just as you've said.
You old fool.

When I’m in France I’ll enjoy the company of French people.

Severin,

Always the joker!

And of course you’re a woman

Keith, I won't do you the discourtesy of returning your insults, but I think you should take your own advice:

<< You’ll never be taken seriously while you continue to exhibit blind pig-headedness. >>

Also, you could look up the meaning of the words 'stereotype' and 'tolerance' in the dictionary. You don't seem to know what they mean.

Bon voyage, and Salaam Paris :)

"Wrong you are judging me according to your interpretation of what I said. And I pointed out to you that your interpretation was wrong and asked you for an apology. Of course you’ve shown you’ve been too proud to acknowledge your error."

I just responded to what you wrote. Others have viewed your comments in the same way. This is what you said:

"I'll spell it out for you. Nazeem is Muslim Australian who does't share entirely our viewpoint on civil liberties for woman yet he dares to lecture us on what he sees as our racist society."

"I notice you didn't include Indian people or Muslim people in your groups of people who have or are enriching both their own and our collective lives by joining in with the rest of us in this place.
Was that deliberate or does it reflect a current unfortunate reality?
....Let's hear Nazeems attitude to civil rights of women in Australia ... please."

How were we meant to interpret that? The way its written it suggests that Indians and Muslims dont contribute to Australia. (Untrue and Racist) It also suggests that Nazeem holds sexist views because he is a Muslim. (Untrue).

"Mate if you doubt my integrity say so"

I more or less did.

"You’ll never be taken seriously while you continue to exhibit blind pig-headedness."

Good point. Were you standing in front of a mirror when you wrote that? Either way, I can't take youu seriously anymore.

Keith, you stated:

<<<< Severin,

Always the joker!

And of course you’re a woman >>>>

Not sure what point you are trying to make here, the only inference being that you have issues with women as well as Muslims?

Well well you three have never debated my comments, you've all run back and forth to the name-calling factory and continually sought support from each other, like bullies and cowards always do.

Now when faced with the ultimate stupidity of seeing one of your cohort, CJ, actually saying things that mirror my views, the same things you abuse me over, do you either reproach him for his inconsistancy or accept my viewpoint as perfectly valid and non-racist?
Does CJ face with honesty his own comments?

Oh no! You insane fools ignore the realities and just keep up the inane abuse. Really that is indicative of a weakness of thought and character.

You blokes are intellectual midgets ... and have amused my mates and I utterly for days now. I hope you keep it up... but I don't think you can best the fun that was had when I read CJ's comments about Islam ... as posted above.

Know the dif between libel and slander yet Davad?