Thanks Mohammed; from one of your links:

"To begin with, many Muslims in Australia do not simply give up their identity as belonging to a global community merely because they happen to live in Australia. Many have not bought the liberal idea of individualism, and so see events happening on the other side of the planet as personally related to them. So, when a Muslim woman is killed collecting firewood in Afghanistan, these youth are angered at the fact that their sister was murdered. When a Muslim man is crushed to death in Palestine, they lament the loss of their brother. It may not make sense to a Western audience, but that doesn't matter."

I see a chasm there because Australia, and all Western nations are based on the "liberal idea of individualism"; this principle is the cornerstone of our legal and political system. Given this the pertinent question is:

Do Muslims obey the laws of a liberal, individual rights based society or strive to replace them with Sharia?

Corollary questions:

Is there any acceptable criticism of Islam? Can satire be used; sarcasm; irony? Or is Islam beyond reproach?

Why should a crime or incident involving Muslims overseas be an issue in Australia? Should not the laws of where that incident took place prevail?

Do you support the moves to introduce through the UN a crime of Islamophobia

Now I am confused. First you say:
“...some people are confused, which is why they're bringing in things like 'freedom of speech', 'multiculturalism' 'human rights' etc thinking that it defeats my argument. Please don't try to lock me into the left-right divide, you'll only confuse yourself.”
Not only is this statement rather patronising, but then you go on to say:
“Questioning the reality of concepts such as multiculturalism is exactly what I'm alluding to; not only of whether it works...”
Is it just me, or do these 2 statements seem at odds with each other?
It seems you would be more comfortable asking your own questions of yourself, Mr Tabbaa.
If I may be allowed to question multiculturalism, it has always seemed to me that modern racism is a misnomer. Although I've known a number of 'rednecks', most of them were concerned more with cultural differences than racial ones.
A couple of years working on a citrus farm taught me that while racial generalising must be abhorrent, there were very real cultural differences in the various groups of backpackers and seasonal workers.
Some of their toilet and sanitary habits were most distasteful.
This most definitely isn't racial; after all, we've been bagging the Poms for their bathing habits for decades.
I think sometimes 'tolerance' and 'understanding' should give way to common sense. At some point, we have to explain to our children that Santa doesn't really exist. Fairies aren't real. If you're sick, see a doctor.
Through centuries of trial and error, 21st century western culture is demonstrably more peaceful, more tolerant and more mannerly than 6th century culture.
So why on Earth should we be tolerant of 6th century beliefs, or for that matter, year dot beliefs, when they clash with 21st century beliefs?
Madness.

It is good that Mohamad Tabbaa has chosen to respond to the demonstrably angry rebukes that have appeared in our comments. Noticeably, he launched his remarks with a lament about tone, and throughout his response ducks the question of content.

To summarise the content. For many centuries, humanity was in conflict with ecclesiastical authorities and their hangers-on who brutally suppressed the right of individuals and groups to dissent.

The characteristic weapon of the European ecclesiastics was burning at the stake (beheading was more the weapon of their aristocratic allies). They can’t get away with that now so it’s fallen into disuse.

The weapons of choice for the Moslem ecclesiastics have been, and remain, stoning dissenters to death or beheading them. Over much of the world they can still get away with it and they do it. Outside their area of control they howl angrily or bleat piteously for the restored power to do it. As in Martin Place.

Truly apocalyptic struggles have taken place in Europe and America and now much more widely to establish, consolidate and defend the right to dissent. It’s what the Enlightenment is about. Dissent is the route to knowledge as opposed to mere assertion (think of Galileo).

The right to dissent governs life in Australia, and it is not surprising that as Australians are made aware of serious threats to the right of dissent we will identify the threats as alien and will become confrontational. If those who in the words of Geoff of Perth (above) speak for Islam had not been constrained by their imams (“cool it, boys - not yet”) from mounting a second attack on freedom last weekend they might well have met not only police batons but also civilian fists. As Winston Churchill famously proclaimed: “We will fight them.”

[To be concluded with a short paragraph]

[conclusion]

Mohamed seeks reasoned argument, but there can be no reasoned argument against the very right to reasoned argument, which he refers to as secularism as if secularism was just another cult like Islam. Instead, he should address the challenges in these reader responses, starting with a clear statement (shorn of taqiyya) of whether he endorses the right to dissent in the form of unbelief, apostasy, blasphemy and impiety.

Mohamad,

Algerian president Houari Boumedienne"One day millions of men will leave Arabia to go to Europe. And they will not go there as friends. They will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."

former President H B 1932--1978

This is what is taking place in Europe today and is earmarked for Aus as well. For 30 years we have given in to muslim demands, without muslims compromising on anything. We have put up with muslims being critical of our society, critical of the way our women dress, claiming offence at nativity scenes in shopping malls, anti social behaviour and even demands that lingere and liqour shops cease trading. Hey, muslims even tried to stop guide dogs from riding in taxis, so why should muslims now want dialogue.

Are muslims likely to compromise on their attitudes and cultural beliefs? I think not, muslims here see themselves as pioneers for Islam.

It is beyond time we began selective immigration and refused entry to those groups that hold us in contempt.

Important note not to fail,
How to explain this ?
More islamophobia more conveted to islam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue3_I6Mvpi4&feature=g-all-u