Hands up all those people who think that it is Australia's responsibility to 'sort out' Islam. Gary Johns thinks that there are such people.

The total removal of Islam from the face of the Earth is the only 'reform' suitable. Until that happens, the politicians responsible for introducing the 'disease' (thank you, Pauline) into the West should should face charges of treason, and all adherents of Islam should be deported, and detained in the Middle East, where they will eventually wipe themselves out.

Who said it was Delbert!? Even so the best way to moderate behavior is through enlightened example, not eternally whinging from the bleachers!

That said, we do need more checks and balances and deployed space age covert surveillance, assisting us on who we allow in?

Why don't we have it and use it to assist immigration and custom authorities? Is beyond comprehension, save a few ('Christian" and or secular) pollies may get hoisted on this very petard, giving public conferences in public places?

And we couldn't have that now could we? Imagine not being able to "misspeak" with former complete impunity? Least the deployed technology picks it up and sends it viral, via social media?
Alan B.

Ttbn,

'It shouldn't be Australia's job to liberalise Muslims.'

And:

'What Australians must decide is, why is this our struggle?'

So your claim that Gary is suggesting that it is Australia - or Australians' -job to 'sort it out' is a little off the mark.

Of course, it isn't primarily the burden of non-Muslim Australians to 'sort out' Islam, but of course we should be doing everything we can to assist any Muslims move to more liberal, or progressive, values, equality of men and women, and recognition of the necessary separation of religion and the State, for starters.

Paradoxically, some may think, but fortunately, change may come gradually since most Muslim people live and work and associate with many other Australians in their daily lives, without much antagonism, except perhaps from other Muslims from different sects - and probably, here in Australia here those differences are less salient, not much of that either. Muslim women see that they rarely come to any harm, or even get dirty looks, from other Australians, despite the regular beat-ups and outright lies in the pseudo-Left press and social media.

Australian Muslims are here to stay. The fascist fantasy that "The total removal of Islam from the face of the Earth is the only 'reform' suitable" would simply match one fascism, extermination of 1.5 billion people, with another, Islamist extremism, and leaves most Muslims with nowhere to go. Good one, Ttbn.

So this is going to be a long, and hopefully peaceful, process. Of course, it's fundamentally an internal struggle, but into the future, Australians Muslims will, every day, encounter, usually fortuitously, examples of Australian values, however you define them: people behaving in ways which don't seem to do anybody any harm yet somehow conflict with what are supposed to be Muslim beliefs.

Joe

From the early 50s I worked as a supervisor in an Open Hearth Furnace Steel Making department. Nearly all the newer employees were New Australians and they were willing to work hard so that they could house and educate their offspring. By the second generation those people were as integrated as the Ten Pound Poms.

Most of those heavy work jobs have disappeared.

Present Muslim immigrants do not appear to be aiming to integrate or to encourage the next generation to be educated to the limit of each individual's capability.

The children of all non naturalized immigrants should be required to attend state schools. Madrassa schools should not be permitted in Australia

While Muslims are only about 2.2% of the population the ABC pays too much attention to them. On proportional grounds only two in 100 panel members on QandA should be Muslim.

Hi Foyle

Good point about the differences between 1950s-1960s immigrants and those of today.

Back then, immigrants from Greece and Italy and eastern Europe could just as easily have moved into labouring jobs in manufacturing back home but of course on much lower wages - the leap to Australia wasn't so great, mainly just language issues.

But the immigrants of today not only come from 'cultures' which are less amenable even to large-scale manufacturing, but also are trying to enter into an economy and society which has evolved far down the track from the old days of factory labour.

The skills needed to start out now are far more developed than those of fifty or sixty years ago. I recall back then, that I could pick up the skills as, say, a storeman, or a dough presser, or a fellmongery-hand, in minutes. But, in fact, as I recall, even those sorts of jobs were becoming hard t find by the early seventies.

Even basic skills needed today may take years to learn. And if people come from societies without much history even of large-scale manufacturing, or from war zones, and with no English, or from 'cultures' which devalue both education and work, of course they are going to be much further behind the play than those of the 1950s.

So of course, there should be government assistance programs to improve people's language skills in the first instance, as the basis for desperately-needed further education in relevant work-oriented skills.

We're talking about intelligent people, whom we have invited or permitted to come to Australia. Having done that, we owe them the chance to become useful Australian citizens as soon as possible.

Cheers,

Joe

"Madrassa schools should not be permitted in Australia"

Lefties are against private schooling but would make an exception to respect Islamic religious culture. They'd hyperventilate in their own hypocrisy at such a suggestion.

Going to the premise of the thread, the major parties will not block muslims immigrating, so education into our values seems something we're stuck with, unless we can do it prior to their acceptance. However, what people do is a truer indication of their values, not what they say, so we have to see how they go after arrival. To that end, proposed citizenship qualification criteria seem good to me.

On the values question, "live and let live" in a secular, democratic society is our credo, under laws made by men, not gods.

We shouldn't be surprised that the ABC has not deemed it necessary to expand Australian's vocabulary by continually, persistently, reinforcing the correct usage of the word, Theocracy, instead employing the incorrect usage of the term Religion, to describe Islam.

Naturally our ABC zealot, drones couldn't resist teaching us other terms such as xenophobia, and all the other newly discovered cultural phobias with the prescribed exception of hoplophobia,of course.

Not MY ABC needs its wings clipped.

“With respect to Islam, the problem we almost invariably find is that they have left the religion, no longer believe in it, but are unable to tell their family and friends for fear of ostracism and retribution.”

This is the fundamental problem for Muslims. They become Muslims because their families teach them that Islam is the way to deal with any problems you may have in life. If Muslims in Australia see that there are other more practical and more successful ways to deal with problems they naturally want to embrace those ways. Embracing those ways is a direct affront to their families who do not want to let go of their dependence on Islamic methods of dealing with problems. If Islam is not the best way then it calls into question their whole life. Could it be true that life does not have to be as full of problems as they have always thought?

This adjustment and its concomitant resentment is too much for older Muslims to bear and so they bury their head in the sand and reject any family member who threatens their denial.

People who want to leave Islam need help to detach themselves from the toxic control in these family relationships and this is where western civilisations should be helping. We have ways based on proven methods to help people gain their emotional independence. This is available to all peoples regardless of the basis on which such dependence is founded.

It is not about us solving the Islamic problem – it is about us offering our help to solve a human problem that everyone experiences to a more or lesser extent. We should be extending a helping hand not with intent to destroy Islam but because it is just something that western societies have matured enough to do for any of its citizens who require it.

Islam will go the way of all religions when younger Muslims find no use for it.

Dear phanto,

Brilliant analysis.

The only effective and humane way to disempower Islam is to educate, usefully employ, and extend human rights to people who currently believe in it. This is exactly what has happened to Christianity, with the result that it is no longer capable of doing significant damage in most nations across the West. And since this coincides with what any democratic government should be doing for its citizens anyway, there's no conflict of interest for the Australian government in doing exactly that.

Jon J:

“The only effective and humane way to disempower Islam is to educate, usefully employ, and extend human rights to people who currently believe in it.”

What if they do not want those things? You cannot force people to be educated, usefully employed or to take up human rights. They see no value in those things. Education is unnecessary because the Koran is all you need to get you through life. The only useful employment is that which gives them the necessities of life in order to carry out the mission of Islam. Human rights do not matter because everything will be evened out when they get to heaven.

They have to want what the West has but they see no need for it.

It's their job to integrate into the country they are coming into.
It's not the countries job to integrate into where they came from.

If they don't like it they should go back to where they bloody well came from.
And if they can't get the message we should shut the door on the lot of them.

I won't accept one single Australian forced to suffer as a valid price we should pay for other peoples ideals of multiculturalism, or to put immigrants rights in this country above our own citizens safety.

Dear Armchair Critic,

Australian policy-makers should be concerned enough to
ensure that ethnic enclaves are not created, as has
happened in countries such as Germany and Britain.

What we want is the creation of an Australia that is
inclusive enough so that people do not feel they have
to hold on to those enmities from the past, because they
feel that there is a different way here.
The more we tag people to being specific to an ethnic
group the more we force them almost to galvanise that as
an ethnicity.

Jeff Kennett pointed out that migrants in this country take
less time to feel at home in Australia than those who migrate
to European countries. But there are still challenges in
Australia, with research showing some second generation
migrants still feeling disconnected and not identifying
themselves as Australian. Mainstream Australian culture
can sometimes impose labels on certain communities and this
can encourage people into identifying themselves other than
Australian and take on past ethnic conflicts.

As stated earlier what we want is the creation of an
Australia that is inclusive enough so that people do not feel
they have to hold on to those enmities from the past, because
they feel that there is a different way here.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/multicultural-australia-a-work-in-progress-20151030-gkn5vz.html

Hi AC,

That's probably hat I was getting at in trying to differentiate 'exclusivist' multiculturalism, and 'inclusive' multiculturalism.

One fosters separation, assumes incommensurability and eventually provokes ghettoes. In the name of 'culture' it promotes mini-societies.

The other fosters inclusion, reconciliation of values, interaction and eventually inter-marriage. Implicitly it promotes a shared society and a shared future. Maybe that goal of reconciliation needs to be more explicit.

What do you reckon ?

Cheers,

Joe

"The struggle over the soul of Islam in Australia is taking place in the mosques, in the universities and in public life."

It's also taking place at Aussies dinner tables.
They brought the problem.

The premise of Gary John's article is wrong. The Western experience with Christianity cannot be used as a template for Islam and Muslims.Its traditional foundations are sound and should not be conflated with the re-form movement known as Wahabbism. Actually its a beautiful religion.

Support for this is given by now retired Historian Dr. Richard Bulliet:

QUOTE
Even though many rulers behaved badly, in other words, Islamic law was generally successful in its claims to being the touchstone of proper governance. Post-Reformation Christendom had no parallel. More and more scholarly studies based on the records of Islamic courts show that Islamic law was perceived of and functioned as the law of the land for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and was administered in a comparatively equitable fashion. For example, in cases where Muslims sued Christians and vice versa, the documents we have reveal no pattern of religious bias. At the level of social order, then, the Islamic legal system actually did provide the framework of an orderly, nonanarchic society, and the basis for a general belief that religious law could protect a population against the misbehavior of rulers.

cont...

cont..

Not surprisingly, some rulers thought poorly of the system because, being rulers, they held despotic aspirations. For rulers such as these, the theoretical path to increasing their absolutism lay in eliminating Islamic legal oversight. In the course of the 19th century, this desire to escape the restraints of Islamic law provided an unspoken rationale for the so-called modernizing or Westernizing changes that were instituted from the top down in Egypt, the Ottoman Empire, and later in Iran. Modernizing rulers sought to push Islam, and particularly the religious scholars who defined Islamic law, to the margins of public life. They replaced Islamic law with law codes borrowed from Europe, they replaced religious school systems with those based on European principles and curricula, and they became as much as possible like the European states of the time. And they did all this with the encouragement of European powers, who, having seen Islam as a threat to Christianity for centuries, were perfectly happy to see the intellectual guardians of the Islamic religious tradition degraded and minimized in influence.”
END QUOTE

Source: Richard Bulliet: Religion and the State in Islam: From Medieval Caliphate to the Muslim Brotherhood http://www.du.edu/korbel/middleeast/media/documents/BullietPaperFinal.pdf

Also see:
"Understanding Muslim Countries: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D664YCeS1Hc

Both lectures are based on papers that can be found online.

1957 vs. 2017...this is what we've gotten to.

Scenario 1:
Robbie, a year 5/6 won't sit still in class and is disrupting other students.

1957-Robbie is sent to off to the school office and is given ‘6 of the best’ by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2017-Robbie is given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie.  Tested for ADHD, undergoes therapy and the school gets extra money from state government because Robbie has a “disability”.

A special rubber lined “quiet room” is installed at the school and kids who need basic supplies are denied because of the cost of this.

Scenario 2:
Faisal fails year 10 English.

1957-Faisal’s mum & dad work their holidays to get him extra tuition over the school break. He repeats year 10 and graduates 3 years later as Dux of the high school. 4 years later he enters his articles of clerkship as a solicitor with a prestigious Sydney law firm.

2017-Faisal's cause is taken up by an ethnic rights group. Q & A does a segment. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is discriminatory.

Rights group files a class action lawsuit against state school system and Faisal's English teacher. English is banned from school’s core curriculum. His English teacher never teaches again.

Faisal is given a school leaving certificate anyway & gives up studies altogether. Ends up in a factory in Auburn sweeping floors for a living, because he cannot speak English.

Scenario 3:
Johnny takes apart some leftover firecrackers from Territory Day celebrations and puts them in a model air-plane, blowing up a bull ant’s nest.

1957-Ants die.

2017-TRG, Federal Police & Anti-Terror Squad called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, AFP and ASIO investigate parents, Johnny’s siblings are removed from their home by DOCS, & computers confiscated. Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Another commentary (and many subsequent simpleton comments) that does the same old generalizing about Muslims and Islam. That is akin to making the extremist Christian group, the Army of God, as the only definer of Christianity. Islam, like every other religion, has a diversity of interpretation and following and to keep talking about it as some sort of single entity is disingenuous or simply naive.

Hi Minotaur,

Of course Islam, like all religions, has a myriad of sects and different interpretations of the Koran and the hadiths. That's really a straw-man, that you knock down and set fire to.

The point of Gary's article, as it says in its title, suggests that it is ultimately the responsibility of Muslims to reform Islam, to bring it in line with the modern world in which Muslims live, along with the rest of us. Personally, I'm more partial towards the Ahmaddiyah positions.

Of course, just like many Christians, many Muslims may privately have misgivings and disagreements with the basic principles of their particular sect, and as Gary suggests, there is not much that any non-Muslims can do about that, except to offer our friendship to our fellow-Australians during those long-term struggles.

As long as Muslims, and all Australians, hold generally to the public value such as equality of the sexes, the rule of law, the separation of religion and the state, and 'a fair go' for all, they will hopefully make those changes eventually. It's their journey.

Cheers,

Joe

Your argument needs numbers to back it, minotaur.

Is it only a few crazed individuals that carry extremist views, or are they just the ones that take action? How reconcilable is Islam, generally, with western values? See under "Assimilation" at
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx#assimilation

I have a French couple staying with me who have fled their country in fear of the way they see things headed there, especially with a new Turkey in the wings, and they're seeking residency and citizenship here. You may find that a little hysterical from your chardy-sipping perch, and perhaps a little pointless given our own immigration policy.

I'm no fan of any religion, and would prefer to accept only atheist refugees. Religion intolerance is the bane of human existence.

No, I do not need numbers as my point is valid without them. And the vast majority of Muslims in Australia appear to be integrating well and many of them have been born here, so well and truly Australian. None of the Muslims I know as friends or teach at university try to push there religion on me or anyone else...unlike many Christians. There is one group that prowls my neighbourhood every weekend pushing their Christian religion and beliefs on people. Another group preaches in the streets and organizes events that they don't state will be religious but then force their message on unsuspecting people.

However, they are not the only faces of Christianity. Just as there are many faces of Islam.

What does the holy book of Islam - the Koran - say about those not misanthropic enough to accept the instructions it has for all believers? That set of instructions targets us - non-Moslem Australians including those silly enough to appease it.

http://freethoughtnation.com/what-does-the-koran-say-about-nonbelievers/

It's all there - every single line. It's directed to all Moslems, from "radicalised" all the way to those trapped in it and wanting out, or merely trying to keep their heads down. The Koran's hate speech is to Islam as Mein Kampf was to Nazism. There's no wiggle room. Read it.

Emperor Julian,

There is always wiggle room.

Not all Muslims practice
their religion in exactly the same way.
Muslims come from a variety of countries,
a variety of cultures, speaking a variety
of different languages. Placing them all in
the one group is not logical.

We should stop moslem immigration for now. A breathing space is needed.
The problem is that the Koran and the Immans tell them not to make
friends of non-moslems, to avoid dealing with infidels where possible.
This is a fundamental of the religion as far as I can see.
Now if we are to encourage them to liberal views it will be a waste
of time is we keep bringing in fresh supplies of old thinking.

Foxy said; ensure that ethnic enclaves are not created,

Unfortunately it is a matter of percentages. Even at 2% we have
enclaves forming. So far the percentage is small so they have not yet
formed sharia patrols as they have in London, Malmo and Paris.
Once it reaches that stage all is lost.

Grateful said; Actually its a beautiful religion.
Oh yes just like it is the most feminist religion !
Grateful said;
And they did all this with the encouragement of European powers,

Then what went wrong ? Why is the Middle East such a dismal failure ?

Mintoaur; Do they threaten you if you reject them ?
Foxy said;There is always wiggle room.

At a very great risk, ask Salman Rushdie and others.

That is generalized rubbish Bazz. And if you'd done at least a little research would know that two of those who thought it a good idea to try and do sharia patrols in London went to jail for what they did.

The vast majority of Muslims are great people, just like those of us with compassion for others and wanting to live the best life we possibly can. To tarnish all Muslims because of the actions of a very small minority is simply being a simpleton.

Well Minotaur, surveys have clearly shown you to be wrong.
There is a very strong assertion that sharia will be introduced and
some 60% in one survey that I read would act to introduce it.
As far as the patrols are concerned, the reluctance of the police to
act has been so obvious, then it was probably a token effort.
Perhaps now they do not wear their day glow vests.
They certainly do in some countries.
I will be interested to see some later information.
Of course they will promote sharia because they dare not say out loud
that they do not want it. We MUST presume they mean it.
It is not the Islamist way to give up any "progress".

Bazz

First, let me comment on the way in which this discussion is being conducted. I think most posts express one way or another a desire to understand and resolve problems as opposed to fermenting hatred and division.

Bazz when you say "We should stop moslem immigration for now. A breathing space is needed." I understand the sentiment but its not based on reason or an understanding of the problem.

When you say "The problem is that the Koran and the Immans tell them not to make friends of non-moslems, to avoid dealing with infidels where possible.", for me the only truth in this is that, like any parent, I do not want my children adopting the negative traits of others.

But this can apply to Muslims, who are following wayward ideology which declares takfir (to declare a Muslim a non-Muslim) on any Muslim who opposes their views, or non-Muslims who fail to see the harm in alcohol and promiscuity.

Let me offer an example. My young daughter has a cousin in her early 20s. She is non-Muslim and with a stereotypical Australian upbringing. Last week my niece tweeted an image of her laughing as her friend vomitted after too much drinking ('girls night out'). This is normal for Australians, and it was normal for me, but its not going to be normal for my children. I want my children protected from these destructive aspects of Australian culture...in fact i want Australian culture to discard these traits and take better care of its children.

cont..

cont...
Bazz
"Grateful said; Actually its a beautiful religion.
Oh yes just like it is the most feminist religion !
Grateful said;
And they did all this with the encouragement of European powers,

Then what went wrong ? Why is the Middle East such a dismal failure ?"

In her recent contribution to the bullying of Yassin Abdel-Magied, Amanda Vanstone wrote

"Ms Abdel-Magied started out with a credibility problem following a Q&A performance during which she made some, to me, inexplicable remarks about women and the Muslim religion."

In fact Abdel-Magied remarks are explicable. For example, Jim Garrison, author, executive and president of Ubiquity University, with a B.A in History from the University of Santa Clara, an MA in History of Religion from Harvard, and a PhD in Philosophical Theology from Cambridge (Huffington Post bio), had no qualms in describing the Prophet of Islam as “easily the most radical and empowering in his treatment of women. Arguably he was history’s first feminist. (‘Muhammad was a Feminist’, Huffington Post)

So why not debate with reason nd evidence and come to an understanding of peoples' point of view rather than belittle and demonise?

cont..

cont..

As for "Then what went wrong ? Why is the Middle East such a dismal failure ?"

In the first question there is the implication that if only ME rulers had followed the Western example everything would have been fine (eg. colonisation, dictatorships, 2 world wars, the holocaust, carpet bombing Cambodia to the stone-age and or course Iraq to name a few).

I recently dug up an old TV documentary, The World at War. The first episode opens with scenes what is now a ghost town. It was known as Oradour-sur-Glane. There the SS separated the men, placed them in barns, shot them in the legs so they could not walk and set the barns alight. They gathered the women and children and locked them in the church and set the church alight. Those who tried to escape were machine gunned. One person survived. Sound familiar? What went wrong?

For a complete answer to your question "What went wrong?" read Richard Bulliet's The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization. He devotes a chapter to critiquing Bernard Lewis's "What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response"

The reality is from the 1800's rulers in Eygpt, Ottoman Empire and Persion DID emulated their Western counterparts (notably Napoleon) and current rulers are being sponsored by the West (notably Saudis).

So what went wrong? What is going wrong?

My general message is, let's not be sucked in by the propaganda. There are people who profit from this violence, anger and hatred. Some are small-time shock jocks, others are very rich people with an insatiable apetite for wealth and power.

grateful

you are right to point out the putriedness of Western values since trashing Christianity that made the West so great. Unfortunately socialist ideology has hijacked our education and political system. Feminist and homosexuals have constantly legislated to destroy the family unit. Islam now uses these characters as useful idiots.I can understand how many mulsims must be repulsed by safe schools and perversion that is promoted by our so called élite. They are not the only ones. For years Fred Nile had urine thrown at him by the 'gay'lobby. Now they make a huge deal out of one of their promoters getting a pie in the face. While I don't condone the man's actions it is easy to understand.

"Notorious US white supremacist Mike Enoch has announced plans to visit Australia as local nationalist group The Dingoes claim him as a speaker at their upcoming Sydney conference. 
The Dingoes, who identify themselves as Australian adherents of the "alt-right", run a podcast that has featured former opposition leader Mark Latham and federal Nationals MP George Christensen. " (SMH, "White supremacist leader Mike Enoch to visit Australia")

When I watch the first episode of "The World at War", which was on the rise of Hitler, I was struck by the similarity in the language that he and his supporters used to attack opponents and the language used by some of our right wing politicians and commentators.

What is going wrong?

Hi Grateful,

It's called 'freedom of expression', i.e. the right to express opinions with which other people may disagree, even the vilest opinions, such as seem to be associated with these groups. This is, of course, matched by the rights of other people not to like what they say and to mount counter-arguments. This shouldn't be so difficult against a bunch of neo-fascists.

It's important that we know what people wish to say, so that we can combat what we see as crap ideas. Obviously, one 'problem' in a formally democratic society such as Australia's is that it is up to others (ideally, everybody, but that's a bit unlikely) to defend what they see as their values, including the valuing of every other Australian from whatever ethnic background - that a healthy society requires constant invigoration and vigilance.

As an ex-Maoist, I was always taken by Mao's slogan 'Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand schools contend' - of course, Mao used this to identify his enemies and exterminate them. But it's not a bad slogan for a healthy society.

Let extreme-right-wing ratbags express themselves - those on both sides of this particular ideological struggle. Let's see what they've got and ridicule it accordingly.

Of course, incitement is another matter entirely.

Joe

This server is crashing and losing everything typed.
Grateful,
The reason the ME is in a mess is simple.
They have been marrying their cousins for thousands of years and have
seriously damaged their genome. It has damaged their IQ and is the
cause of their behaviour problems.
You will probably want to dispute this by referring to the moors in Spain.
You will find that they intermarried with the Jews and Spaniards.
The damage is so severe if they stop the practise now it will take
hundreds of years and many generations to fix it.
It amazes me that the breeders of horses and camels did not understand.
It appears that Mohammed said it was OK.

If you need info lookup NSW Parliament Hansard, Auburn Hospital
Geneticist’s report, House of Commons Midlands National Health
Authority Report on Pakistani Genetic defect rate.
Reports by a Danish doctor on moslem genetic defects, his name
something like Gelling.

This is the root cause of the problems everyone has been having with
moslems for hundreds of years. I know it is not PC but it is one of
the cruelist things you can do to a child.

Perhaps you might realise now that there is no easy fix to accepting
Islam and while not many people understand their problem they show
no intent on stopping the practise although in the UK there is a group
of women who have formed an association. However the Immans are
saying it is unislamic to prevent cousin marriage.

Joe,
I understand where you're coming from. I'm all for a society which allows a range of views to be aired and critiqued. Unfortunately, I believe we are heading in the opposite direction. Much of what passes for "freedom of expression" is personal abuse and very little relates to critiquing ideas, presenting the evidence and forming an opinion based on the soundness of the argument.

The far right, including the likes of Dutton, view "freedom of expression" of a right reserved for white Anglos. For the rest of us it is treated more of a "privilege" so kindly shared to the extent we don't get to uppity or say things that shouldn't be said.

Evidence:

On the same day ABC presenter Yassmin Abdel-Magied was attacked for a Facebook post invoking the phrase "Lest We Forget", Dr Anderson described Anzac Day as celebrating "the failures of our collaboration in imperial war". (‘Sydney University lecturer used Anzac Day to accuse Australian soldiers of murder’, SMH, April 28) .

Unlike Ms Abdel-Magied, Tim Anderson, is employed full-time with taxpayer funds, made remarks that directly attacked the Anzac legacy, has not offered apology, nor has he been expected to, and has not earned the rebuke of the ‘true blue’ brigade.

What is the meaning of "true blue"? Watch the video clip to the John Williamson rendition of the song. It's good old Anglo/white Australia with a token black-fella looking so contented and cheerfully smiling at the end of clip.

Grateful, I and I suspect most others never heard of the doctors comment.
Anyway, you have it 180 deg backwards.
It is the left which is abusive and tries to stop free speech.
So don't just waffle your way through that.
The left are socialists as were the National Socialists abbreviated
from the German as Nazis. It stands for National Socialist Party.

Hi Bazz,

More than that: Hitler's party was officially the German National Socialist Workers' Party [NazionalSozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei]. You probably couldn't get much more 'socialist' that that.

By the way, one of the parties supporting Assad in Syria is called the National Socialist Party. In case anybody misses the connection, its party emblem is a swastika.

Cheers,

Joe

Bazz : "Grateful, I and I suspect most others never heard of the doctors comment."

Tim Anderson is famous. Once a member of the Ananda Marga, set up and jailed for the Hilton bombing until his conviction was quashed many years later.

My point is they didn't go after him despite his public profile, taxpayer funded position and unapologic remarks ANZAC. Which means what?

These guys were out to teach anyone who challenges their world view that they'll be punished. The ANZAC tradition was used and abused.

the 'Left' employ are employing same tactics, but for different ends. Margaret Court is being punished for expressing her opinion to the extent that they want to rename the Margaret Court Arena.

Its all so juvenile if not prepubescent. Its as if people have no idea why they believe what they believe and so when challenged they get "offended" and call for a 'public flogging'. Or perhaps it’s the booze and drugs combined with poor schooling. What ever happened to "the right to express opinions with which other people may disagree" without fear of retribution.

We are creating a culture which is very oppressive and where only a select few are granting themselves the right to "freedom of expression". As for the rest of us: keep you heads down and conform.

Hi Grateful,

No, it's more like the simple fact that Anderson is even more of a nobody than little Yassmin. Is that all you've got ?
.
.
Maybe one bright light in this ghastly mess is that, once they have come to Australia, Muslims may feel much more free to actually read the Koran, and discover how truly barbaric it is. Many may become literate for the first time. Of course, much of the Koran may be hyperbole and flowery puff, but there is so much in it, almost wherever you look, that it is not only inevitably craven and total-suck-hole as in most religious books, but extremely violent, as if some god would wish his or her followers to be like that.

Well, not SOME god, but in the case of the Koran, specifically Allah who is supposed to have composed it, with never a single word to be changed. That doesn't promise much room for 'reform' but we have to hope for the best.

Joe

Joe
You illustrated my point beautifully ...and on cue
Thankyou

"Violent words can lead to violent acts"
Mayor of Portland in response to fatal stabbing of 2 men trying to stop anti Muslim rant by a white supremacist. The murderer had been photographed recently at a march in support of free speech. Time to speak and act more responsibly lest more good people'lives are destroyed. Pray for their families.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/final-act-of-bravery-men-fatally-stabbed-trying-to-stop-antimuslim-rants-20170528-gweqfc.html

Hi Grateful,

In this pissing contest, don't forget to mention the thirty Coptic Christians killed in Libya.

Or the twenty two killed in Manchester.

Or the bombings this week in Pakistan.

Or the bombings this week in Afghanistan.

Or the killing in the Philippines.

Or the bombings etc. in Djakarta.

All in a week's work for the religion of peace.

Is that how you want to play this ? To attribute this murderer's motivations to 'free speech' ?

Of course, what he did was evil, but let's spread the 'love' and take account of all the Atrocities of the Week where they have occurred.

I had a feeling that some slime would use this incident to absolve the rest of the week's incidents. Right on cue, along comes Grateful, to use it against 'free speech'. Must be one of those pseudo-left-wing Greens. Are they being infiltrated by quietly-spoken, beautifully-dressed, so reasonable, Muslims too ?

Joe

Joe
I was talking about being constructive and not inciting violence. Good people of all faiths and non-faith just want to make a future that is safe for their children and community. Join us.

Grateful,

By implicitly opposing free speech ? Otherwise why mention it, why link it to something as vile as white supremacism ?

'People of good faith' would honestly criticise evil wherever it occurs and from whatever source it comes. You've failed that test already.

Joe

Joe
I support free speech more than you. I believe people should be able to put their views and make the case for an idea, and in return expect their argument to be vigorously examined and critiqued.

Freedom of expression should not be used by those power and influence to inflict personal harm: having them sacked from their job or inciting some nutter to violence. The result can lead to deaths of innocents.

You don't oppose hate speech of Wahabbi clerics which has lead to this week's violence. I do.

Being an admirer of Trump, you fully support the massive aid package recently signed with Saudi Arabia which will empower them to spread their creed. I do.

You would support the 'free speech' inciting violence that preceded the genocide in Rawanda: between 500k and 1m killed.

Naturally, Adolf Hitler was merely exercising his freedom of speech when he described Jews as vermin. You would support this. I wouldn't.

So we disagree. I think the abuse of free speech should be called out. Like I said before, "What ever happened to "the right to express opinions with which other people may disagree" without fear of retribution"

Here is an example of how I think our society should be calling out the abuse of free speech. Consider the following statement (of yours)

....
continued

...continue

"Maybe one bright light in this ghastly mess is that, once they have come to Australia, Muslims may feel much more free to actually read the Koran, and discover how truly barbaric it is. Many may become literate for the first time. Of course, much of the Koran may be hyperbole and flowery puff, but there is so much in it, almost wherever you look, that it is not only inevitably craven and total-suck-hole as in most religious books, but extremely violent, as if some god would wish his or her followers to be like that."

I think this statement is pure bigotry. Perhaps I'm wrong. Prove me wrong. support your argument and prove me wrong and by offering the following evidence:

1. the education levels of Muslim immigrants and the educational attainment of their children (relative to other groups, including the Anglos)

2. evidence of the Qur'an being "hyperbole and flowery puff" and "extremely violent as if some god would wish his or her followers to be like that."

As for your statement:
'People of good faith' would honestly criticise evil wherever it occurs and from whatever source it comes. You've failed that test already.

This is desperate. Just refer to my previous posts. I call out evil whether it is perpetrated by Muslims or non-Muslims.

All you can offer is personal abuse. Have you got anything intelligent to say; something that we can all learn from?

Grateful,

If you think I admire Trump, you don't understand satire. But I agree with you about his selling of $ 150 billion worth of armaments to the Saudis and the Wahhabis, since clearly they will use them against Iran, and probably funnel some through to ISIS, or its next re-incarnation. Perhaps Trump is hoping the entire Muslim world will turn on each other, over the next few decades. No, I think he is n utterly horrible person in every way.

I noticed in my little list of atrocities over the past week (I haven't up-dated it for today) that none of them seemed (perhaps I'm wrong) to be committed by non-Muslims. So let's call it as we see it. When Buddhist or Christian or Hindu terrorists commit some vile act, we should describe it as such. No rubbish about loners, or people with mental conditions - if people use their holy books to justify what they are doing, then that's what they are doing, nobody is putting words into their mouths.

So some thug who supports white supremacism killed two innocent people - we should describe him as such. And if al Qa'ida kills 30 Christians in Egypt, we should say so, and that they were indeed al Qa'ida, and that they commit yet another atrocity in the name of Islam. They waved a flag around with the shahada on it.

If some bunch of fascist Christians waved a flag around with "The Lord is my shepherd" on it, and killed thirty innocent Muslims, then we should say so, and describe them for what they are: Christian terrorists. IF and WHEN it happens. But there a bit thin on the ground.

Free speech in a country like Australia

[TBC]

[continued]

Free speech in a country like Australia permits, even demands, that we speak the truth about terrorism. Currently, even in Australia, let alone France or Britain or Egypt or Somalia or Iraq, etc. etc., those doing the killing, do it in the name of Allah. Does Allah condone such vile behaviour ? Yes ? No ? How could a god possibly approve of the brutal murder of innocent people ? And please don't give us guff about 'We can't know the mind of Allah' either.

I admit that I'm on very weak ground with that last observation: the Koran, the very word of Allah, never to be changed, sanctions precisely the murder of innocents, provided they are not Muslim, the Jews in Mecca, for instance: the men killed, 400 of them beheaded, the children sold into slavery and the women into sex slavery.

Strange how so little changes in 1400 years. Well, some may conclude, if it worked then, it will probably work now. It's the task of every decent Australian, every decent person in the world, to prove them wrong.

Joe

"Christian terrorists. IF and WHEN it happens. But there a bit thin on the ground. "

The Christians and Jewish have got their governments to terrorise Muslims in their quest for oil and power. Its government policy.

Returning to the point you are trying to avoid, where is the evidence that would support your previous remarks:

1. the education levels of Muslim immigrants and the educational attainment of their children (relative to other groups, including the Anglos)

2. evidence of the Qur'an being "hyperbole and flowery puff" and "extremely violent as if some god would wish his or her followers to be like that."

Also your evidence for the following:

" the Koran, the very word of Allah, never to be changed, sanctions precisely the murder of innocents, provided they are not Muslim,"

As for
"the Jews in Mecca, for instance: the men killed, 400 of them beheaded,he children sold into slavery and the women into sex slavery."

There are a number of errors in this statement. The easiest way to demonstrate this is for you read the account of Banu Qurayza in Wikipaedia. You'll see that your account differs on three ponts

1. The tribe was from Median (Yathrib) not Mecca

2. You suggest that the men were innocent. In fact they had committted treason by allying themselves with the Quraysh (from Mecca) who had beseiged the city and thereby breaching a pact that had been agreed to by all the tribes of Medina;

3. "children sold into slavery and the women into sex slavery". In fact they were placed in the care of other Jewish tribes.

So please explain...or will we also atribute these remarks to bigotry?

Grateful,

I'll respond more fully when you stop writing rubbish.

Joe

Lol Joe

In other words you obstinately adhere to beliefs without any rationale justification. Next thing you'll be arguing for fairies at the end of the garden!

This is what I meant by "how I think our society should be calling out the abuse of free speech"(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18991&page=8)

Do it with reason and have an expectation that such contentious views be supported with evidence.

But there needs to be a commitment from the community, particularly the schools and opinion leaders ....otherwise 'debate' descends into a primitive tribal bun-fight with the winner being the biggest, most unscrupulous bully.