I suppose that, by "voluntary" the Senator means that producers and manufacturers caught up in the halal con volunteer to pay the religious tax because there is no legal requirement for them to do so.

Fiddlesticks! They were coerced, made an offer they couldn't refused: pay up or no export to Muslim countries. Plain extortion.

Consumers certainly did not volunteer to pay more for essential items to add to Muslim coffers! And they the cannot "choose" what to buy, because there is very little this 'certification' does not cover.
It has nothing to do with Islam, incidentally, but with shonks who might or might not be genuine, practising Muslims. Many in the Muslim heirachy have condemned it.

The halal religious tax, making a few people millionaires, can not be "so easily dismissed" as the Senator states. That is a decison for the people, not politicians.

As halal certification has nothing to do with Islam itself, I will not comment on the Senator's other observations, which should be left for another discussion; save to say that the old one about Muslims living here since the 1800's is irrelevant. Those people were isolated from the current global mania. However, has the senator forgotten the murder of Australian train passengers during WW1 by two Turkish Muslims?

Having made my criticisms, I should say that I think that Senator Leyonjhelm is the only sane member of the Senate on most matters. His opinion of the divisive apartheid-like proposal of Constitutional recognition of aborigines can can be read in The Australian today.

PS

I recently ask the PM if his government would tolerate this stunt if Christian and other people purporting to represent their religion/ way of life pulled the same stunt.

As usual NO RESPONSE from this man, who is ignorant of and frightened of anything Muslim, genuine of not.

I still regard the views of another one person "Party" - that intellectual Jacqui Lambie - as more humourous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZignPUwvvPU

Amazingly I'm almost in complete agreement with David Leyonhjelm.

Except for one thing: I think a ten year wait for citizenship eligibility would be counterproductive.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn, if exporting to Muslim countries is profitable, the certification pays for itself, so your claim about consumers paying for it is laughable. And if it isn't profitable, it's clearly not an offer they couldn't refuse.

If you regard halal certification as a religious tax, do you regard advertising on A Current Affair and Today Tonight as a bogan tax? If not, why not?

I agree with contents of David Leyonhjelm's comment -

"My party, the Liberal Democrats, has a policy of restricting citizenship to those who have established themselves in the community over at least ten years, who share our values of freedom and democracy, and who have demonstrated their desire to build a long-term future in Australia."

As a New Zealander who arrived in Australia in January 2005, my family is here on a Special Category Visa (SCV) which allows us to work and/or own a business, employ others, pay equal taxes, and live here permanently. We have been here continuously for just over 10 years.

The Special Category Visa however is not regarded the same as a Permanent Residency Visa. Kiwis on the SCV are regarded as permanently temporary visitors and therefore not entitled to apply for citizenship, vote, or share equally in the social benefits other permanent residents enjoy. Did you know that if a Kiwi couple have a baby born here in Australia that child is not an Australian citizen by birthright? Kiwis are not entitled to equal medical benefits or social welfare in the event they become unemployed, even though they have paid taxes for 10 years or more.

Kiwis who arrived in Aus prior to 2001 are able to apply for citizenship. So for the sake of an arbitrary date, 1000's of families are legally discriminated against.

Australians entering NZ are entitled to everything, they are welcomed with open arms and allowed to voted as permanent residents.

It would be nice if our Government could wake up to the unfairness of the current immigration policy applied to New Zealanders. The Labor Party and Greens are no more interested in righting this injustice than the Coalition. So much for ANZAC Spirit

But ConservativeHippie, you are allowed to apply for a Permanent visa, which would allow you to apply for citizenship and access welfare which you would otherwise not.

Why can't you apply for a Permanent visa?

David is right that we should not treat all Muslim groups the same. He does however need to get his head out of the sand and learn what Islam teaches. Most secularist misrepresent and don't know the Christian gospel so they have little chance of representing Islam.

Yes David, and can only add, after the ten years of exemplary drug and crime free cohabitation, outside any capital city or Ghetto, intending citizenship applicants should be able to produce no less than three third generation native born Australians as more than willing sponsors!

Who would have known them as genuine friends for not less than say ten years; similar to firearm licence applications, to affirm genuine integration (not assimilation) and a genuine respect for our laws, values, social mores and traditions, as outlined in some depth by you!

And applications and sponsors' stat dec's should be filled out and in good basic english and signed, in front of a confirming J.P. retired Judge or some such?

Said sponsors should all come from a different religious, cultural and ethnic disposition or diaspora to the applicant; if only to provide more convincing conformation of genuine rather than posed integration!

Citizenship should be something worked towards earned and therefore valued, not handed out like samples at some sort of supermarket product marketing exercise!

Those failing to accept citizenship under our conditions and within a reasonable time limit, (say 15 years) should be offered a one way return trip to whence they came as their deserved reward. And that could include those granted Permanent Residency?

As sometimes remarked, if it is better where you came from, then go back there!

Something which could be offered to some so called new Australians. Who indubitably remain intractably opposed to virtually everything we stand for or believe in?

We need none of the things David has so ably outlined as being both unwanted here and unaustralian, which surely has to include some of the ethnically pure Ghettos or enclaves, some of our non invitees have established!

New emigres should settle where they're told, and in rural or regional Australia, rather than big towns or capital cities, where they can disappear into this or that established Ghetto/morphological mass?
Rhrosty.

Brave Sir Rhrosty

But where you say "ten years of exemplary drug and crime free cohabitation," were would that place Rastafarians who smoke Ganja out of sincere religious belief. Behold this chappie https://youtu.be/S8tsRWuxkBY . Yeah maann!

Poyda

Aidan,

Glad you got a laugh, even though you have a very strange sense of humour.

You clearly know as little about the matter as you know about economics. Consumers do pay extra, so you know nothing about business either.

I don't mind Muslims bankrolling their own organisations, but few non-Muslims, apart from you, would want to help them do it.

As for your reference to advertising on ACA & TDT, you've got me there. Perhaps you are using bogan-talk, with which I am not familiar, avoiding as I do lightweight sensationalists TV programmes. I find that I learn more from reading. Try it some time. You recently misread something a contributor said, and got a serve from him about; so, perhaps reading is not your thing.

Nevertheless, we still live in a democracy where we are supposed to have the freedom to think and say what we like. It's good that you are helping to preserve those rights by using them. I don't mind criticism in the least.

Conservative Hippie,

"It would be nice if our Government could wake up to the unfairness of the current immigration policy applied to New Zealanders."

It would be nice indeed, especially as all and sundry, especially politicians have been on the ANZAC bandwagon, and will no doubt continue to ride it for the next few years.

Sorry David. Accidentally replied in the thread on capital punishment and am not allowed to double up. My reply was full of praise and included some information about jizya and halal certification.

Hey David, if most people view Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen negatively "as a group", then why are Muslims any different?

Your denial of group judgements looks a little foolish when you, yourself, called the people which you looked down on "the great unwashed." By that I presume that you mean uneducated and ignorant people from the lower classes? Apparently such people do not bathe. That is a negative prejudgement.

Then you contradicted yourself and admitted that well, gee, we do have a few problems with Muslims, like child marriages, homophobia, misogyny and support for terrorism. Guess what, David, you just negatively stereotyped Muslims.

Perhaps you are implying that most Muslims do not believe in those concepts? Then you just pre judged them as a group once again. You see, David, if it is OK to prejudge entire groups of people with positive characteristics, it must be OK to prejudge them with negative ones also.

Now, could you please tell us how Muslims do not believe in these concepts if they accept Sharia Law as the core value of Islam? And if they do not accept Sharia Law as the core value of Islam, how are they Muslims?

You can not be a Nazi or a Ku Klux Klansmen unless you believe in the core principles which make you a Nazi or a Ku Klux Klansmen. Same for Muslims. You can't say that most Muslims do not believe in the core values of Islam, and that most Muslims are really progressive social democrats (it is just a few hotheads that give all of them a bad name) unless you extend that logic to Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen.

But you won't do that, will you?

Islam is fundamentally opposed to the core values of a liberal and secular democracy. Therefore, it's adherents must be similarly opposed to our value systems and have no place in our society. On simply one point alone, the belief among Muslims that all apostates to Islam should be murdered, should permanently prevent Muslims from immigrating into Australia.

LEGO, Islam is a religion, not a terrorist organization nor a philosophy of persecuting certain ethnic groups.

Muslims who do not accept Sharia Law as the core value of Islam are still Muslims because they believe that thhere's one God and that Mohammed is His prophet. Most avoid pork and alcohol (though in practice many consume alcohol when thhey're young but subsequently give it up). Praying toward Mecca five times a day is another sure sign, as is fasting during the daytime in Ramadan. And they've been to Mecca, or intend to go in future if they can afford it.

Sharia Law is not usually regarded as one of their core values. And there are also many Muslims who accept it as a code of ethics but would oppose it becoming the law of the land.

and they believe that the Koran is the word of God, as revealed to Muhammad; that is the stumbling block.

The Koran is the word of God, Mohammed is his prophet. Each is faultless. If you accept all of its nastiness without exception you're a Moslem. If you don't you're not. It's that simple despite the obscurantism Moslem "community leaders" and Western apologists throw over it to gull the punters.

The nastiness of the Koran is contained in the instructions that "abrogate" earlier parts. The earlier, nicey nicey parts, were put in there as "taqiyya" - the Moslem term for tactical lying - to fool people until Mohammed gained enough power to start his wars of conquest, rape, robbery and murder to expand the rule of Islam. It's still on - PC taqiyya, then terrorism and brutal murder when they gain the upper hand. Here's a very small selection of the instructions in the Koran that you must take to heart to be a Moslem:

22:19 (or 22:20):- But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads. (http://www.multimediaquran.com/quran/022/022-019.htm) [[ See footnote, "Fire garments" ]]
47:8 (or 47:9):- But as for those who disbelieve, let them perish:
47:35 (or 47:37):- Be not fainthearted then; and invite not the infidels to peace when ye have the upper hand
48:16:- Ye shall do battle with them, or they shall profess Islam.

True they’re not racists. Their target for annihilation isn’t an ethnic group, it’s infidels, meaning those not evil enough to accept the Islamic message. Bertrand Russell rightly labelled Islam part of the intellectual armoury of fascism.

Aiden, Islam is a bunch of misogynist thugs masquerading as a religion. It is not only a "religion" it is a complete social, political and legal system which Muslims insist is beyond criticism. As such, it is undemocratic and contrary to core western values of freedom of speech, personnel freedom, gender equality, and secular government. Why you as a supposed "liberal' would defend this fascist ideology, is beyond me. Perhaps your mind registers "Muslim", "minority" and your brain over rides your critical analysis circuit, and you then reflexively parrot the slogans of multiculturalism, thinking that it makes you sound intelligent.

If any Muslims do not believe in Sharia Law, they had better not go around saying it to their friends, or the local mullah will probably have them murdered.

The "moderate" organisation speaking for Muslims in Australia is the Australian Islamic Council. So far, the AIC have asked from the Australian government, Islamic divorce courts where you and I know the Muslim women will get shafted, and for Muslims to be exempted from voting, as democracy is contrary to Islam. The leaders of the AIC are so devout and holy, that some of them have ben charged over defrauding the Commonwealth over the number of Muslim children in their madrasses.

Catholics believe in the core values of Catholicism, and if they do not, they are not Catholics. They are supposed to believe in no divorce, no contraception, no abortion, and no sex before marriage, but plenty of Catholics have engaged in those sins. But they know what they are doing is wrong, according to their own religion.

Muslims believe in the core values of Islam, and if they do not, they are not Muslims. There may be some Muslims who are comfortable living in a democracy and voting, and who may even drink alcohol, but they know that what they are doing is wrong, according to their own religion.

Lego,

"Catholics believe in the core values of Catholicism, and if they do not, they are not Catholics."
They are still Catholics, although 'in error'.

"They are supposed to believe in no divorce, no contraception, no abortion, and no sex before marriage, but plenty of Catholics have engaged in those sins. But they know what they are doing is wrong, according to their own religion."
but you make the erroneous assumption that these are core values, they are not.
Core values are expressed in 'The Creed' and there is, outside of this , vast disagreement; and to an extent abortion, contraception (some forms of which are approved by the Church) and divorce are allowed and sex before marriage has been condoned and even encouraged in the past, especially where such proof of the bride's fertility was socially necessary to demonstrate her capacity to start a family.

Conservative Hippy;
I think the problem with the rights of New Zealanders is tied to the
way New Zealand became a way station on the way to Australia.
Too many became NZ citizens just to get the right to come to Australia
with no restrictions.
It became a case of many spoiling it for the few.

On a separate matter, it should be possible to deport all naturalised
moslems. When they swore the oath of allegiance they probably did it
on the Koran.
However there is a paragraph that permits them to lie to infidels.
Could an oath made in court be valid if the book you make the oath on
allows you to lie ?
Likewise is the oath of allegiance valid in that case ?
If I was a lawyer I would object to a witness swearing on the Koran.