David Jennings – Once again, CONTEXT!

Alice preaches tolerance for imported Muslim related cultures with strong suggestion that born Australians must respect and accept all aspects even those which clash with Australian culture.

Simultaneously she reveals herself an “ex-Muslim” atheist and active supporter of Muslim homosexuals. Under Islamic law that’s double whammy apostasy. And she’s female. Consequently in an Islamic State and certain enclaves here and abroad, Alice would be deemed lowest of the low, unfit to breath the same air by the “cultures” she slavishly defends.

I’ve never visited an Islamic State but have friends and ex-colleagues who have worked in Saudi – mainly in medical fields. Most witnessed nasty stuff perpetrated under sharia. Also abused women at mercy of male ‘masters’ and the odd foreigner – ‘lawbreakers’ or employer abuse. Despite their abhorrence, they avoided conflict. How? By keeping mouths firmly shut bar amongst fellow expats within compounds. By adhering to law and culture of their temporary home and living largely in imposed separation to the population they were ‘tolerated’ – just! Alice on the other hand would be toast if she wished to live and express herself as here. No tolerance whatsoever for its advocate.

Evidence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Saudi_Arabia Google 'Amnesty International' Go http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/20327 Consider also the many women executed by husbands, fathers, brothers for dissent or ‘bringing dishonour’. Those figures never reach light of day. This is ACCEPTED CULTURE.
While unaware of any Saudi groups, there is a ‘brand’ of Islam established here and elsewhere "Western" that embraces the same rigid interpretations of Sharia. Some communities are demanding adoption of Sharia over law. The risk of fatwa against Alice issued by a religious leader here or even abroad is real. Do you understand irony, David ?

As for ‘correctness’ of her argument: Does anyone here believe it’s their right to relocate to any part of the planet and expect to live according to the laws and customs of your homeland even if some practices are complete abomination to the host society? Alice seems to - if it’s destination Australia anyhow. I strongly disagree!

kactuz,
I've read bits of the Koran and it doesn't strike me as any worse than bits of the Christian Bible; since you know it so well, can you point to some of the more evil bits please? I don't know everything and am ready to be edified. But if we're going to ban followers of the Koran, shouldn't we also ban Christians and people like myself who wilfully read Marx? Or feminists who want to overthrow patriarchy? The fact is that ethnic violence in this country is historically perpetrated by the dominant group against minorities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_violence_in_Australia . And even when attacks by minorities on the majority do occur, it wouldn't be hard to argue they are provoked by social exclusion. The Aboriginal and Lebanese community for instance are often in the news as agressors, yet they are also traditionally among the most reviled ethnic groups in Australia. It's all about being comfortable in your skin, and different skin types attract varying degrees of abuse from the mainstream racists who have never been anything but sublimely comfortable in theirs. Humans are profoundly social animals and popular ostracism has far-reaching effects.
I certainly abhor the practice of female circumcision and think it should be a criminal offence in Australia, but I don't think there's any chance it'll catch on.
All you've put up so far is vile ethnic vilification that I find hard to stomach--though it redounds more to yourself than those you abuse. Where's your evidence mate, either from the Koran or on the ground in Oz that Moslems or any ethnic minority is a threat, or that you and you're fascist mates aren't to blame?

Well you are right about one thing, Divine MSN :
On Friday, 11 November 2011 10:19:06 PM you made this comment:

<< Don't know how you've formed that 'logic', though some blind idealogues believe belonging to an "oppressed" minority means derogatory remarks or hate crime against a larger 'dominant' racial group (Caucasian) can NEVER be deemed racist. So if a bloodied aggro indigenous person brought into a clinic for treatment calls me "white cvnt" that's not racist because he's an oppressed black?>>

And on Monday, 14 November 2011 5:56:26 PM, Squeers came out of the closet with this admission:
<< The fact is that ethnic violence in this country is historically perpetrated by the dominant group against minorities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_violence_in_Australia . And even when attacks by minorities on the majority do occur, it wouldn't be hard to argue they are provoked by social exclusion>>

The same people who suffer from a myopia which makes it impossible for them to see racism except where it wears a white skin (probably eye strain from long hours of willfully reading Marx!). Also suffer from a digestive disorder which makes it hard for then to stomach "ethnic vilification" , but easy for them to spew up charges of "racism" or "fascism" without the slightest discomfort.

Squeers,

One can oppose reactionary ideological beliefs, such as:

* female mutilation, to remove any trace of sexual desire;

* female inferiority, in law, in issues of child custody, in property, in concurrence with one's husband choosing second, third and fourth wives;

* either conversion, slavery or death for all non-believers;

* that a believer cannot marry an outsider, a 'non-human';

* that a believer cannot convert to another religion, or abandon his/her religion, as Ms Aslan has done, on pain of death;

without any reference to ethnicity, race, colour, nationality or sexual preference. Most posters here have managed to do that. I don't think you should try to drag all that back in.

Yes, there are many aspects of the Bible which are repugnant - I'm happy, as an atheist, to agree with you wholeheartedly there. But that doesn't make any other crap ideology/religion somehow as pure as the driven snow by comparison. I'm an equal-non-believer in all manner of religious and ideological crap.

Culture reflects unequal social relations in most societies - well, all of them really. Religion - all religions - sanctifies and justifies the most primitive and rigid of these 'cultural' beliefs, which - being based on social relations - have as their foundation unequal economic relations. That seems to be the case for slave-owning societies, capitalist societies and pseudo-socialist societies alike. Just as history is written by the victors, culture is ordained by the powerful, and nowadays protected by the muddle-headed wombats of the Left.

One problem with a totalising religion, as Islam may sometimes become in the minds of some adherents, is an enthusiastic belief in the proper inseparability of religion and state, that the religion IS the state: the Book should rule. In such cases, people have yet to go through even the early stages of their bourgeois-democratic revolutions, as we will have ample opportunity to observe as the next few decades of the Arab Spring unfold.

Squeers,

(Re Extremism & Muslim immigration): "..this is unfortunate as it's based on ignorance and fear of the Muslim faith, whose extremists are the product of US led foreign policies."

Many have noted the broadness of Islamic law, from benign paternalism to extreme sharia and religious jihad (any cartoons ring a bell?). Extremes in the treatment of women etc are also not restricted to parts of Muslim practice, as is seen in honour killings etc within parts of Indian culture, and I'm sure other telling examples can easily be found. However, U.S. foreign policy did not invent sharia or the Taliban, or make Sudaam Husein a B, or the Hutu hate the Tutsi, or Milosovic's Serbia, etc. Religion, culture ... a broad church, much history, no set stereotype. So let's not go laying it all on the U.S. doorstep please. (Not that they are without blemish.)

I am satisfied that we have very many great Muslim families in Oz, and probably much in the majority, and I am impressed with what I have seen of Islamic schools in Oz. I also agree that there have been relatively few blemishes, some of which not necessarily without provocation. Great. If Oz law and general multicultural context can sing along, all's well. But let's not make the mistake of divorcing the matter of future immigration from the equation, and its possible impact on current harmony. We have managed to remove some unacceptable elements, and can reasonably be assured going ahead, but this is not reason to be unvigilant.

"Immigration is a massive topic that we're not dealing with here, but Western conservative discrimination and intolerance."

Squeers and Suze,

On the contrary, consideration of multiculturalism should not be restricted to our current situation. As Suze has rightly identified, all Oz's immigrant cultures have had their ups and downs, and without significant continuing paranoia or problems. Oz has adapted. But, Big Oz? Overload Oz? We still need to be selective (although boat arrivals take some of it out of our hands), and continuing vigilance is the price of freedom. Oils ain't oils.

Joe/Saltpetre,
I don't like the way the world is arranged, but I've put that aside and am seeing matters through realist lenses. It's the conservative class that's looking at the situation as if it was other than it is. Though the conservative class is split fundamentally, just as it was before WW2, between the neoliberals and the neonationalists. The ideal world for the former is one without national borders, wherein both trade and migration flow freely. The neonationalists, on the other hand, and their bogan minions, are living in a world of fantasy, wherein they naively think they can have their four-wheel drives and other luxuries to which they've become accustomed while maintaining an old-world stability and integrity at the level of culture.
Put your realist glasses on! It's a highly politicised and economically globalised world on which we all depend and isolationist or discriminatory policies will have dire consequences politically and economically. Eurocentric Australia is situated plumb in the middle of teaming Southeast Asia, on which it depends for its prosperity, and here's Gillard maintaining the East-West polarity with closer ties to an economically and morally bankrupt US. Australia is choosing a dangerously partisan stance in world affairs and the prospect of an Asian invasion of this virtually empty landmass/treasure-trove we stole ourselves is really on the cards, should the political and economic situation continue to degrade, as it looks like doing. In the current dispensation Australia's only hope of maintaining prosperity and sovereignty ii in remaining a melting pot, indeed increasing its piebald population rapidly. And that means an integration in which all will be assimilated in wanting to protect their lucky situation. Australia is growing rapidly and evolving socially and will continue to do so, the inevitable product of global capitalism. Trying to maintain some fantasy that never was, of national identity and integrity means contraction, invasion and death.
Yes there's sectarian violence, though very minimal in Australia, but it's the product of intolerance, inequality and resentment.
I don't like the way the world is, but I don't close my eyes and pretend it was otherwise.