Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You for giving us all those reasons as to why
people come to this country. There's even more I'm
sure than the ones you've listed. Outside of
Australia's Indigenous people, we are all immigrants
or descendants of immigrants - some earlier than others
but all with an experience of immigration during the
foundation of modern Australia.

Australia's immigration experience is also a broad one.
Originally it was Anglo-Celtic, but after the war our
immigrants came from elsewhere and today Australia is
often described as a successful diverse society.

The political and cultural institutions that govern
Australia are absolutely critical to an attitude of
harmony and tolerance. Within an institutional framework
that preserves tolerance and protects order we can
celebrate and enjoy diversity in food, in music, in
religion, in language and in culture. But we could not
do that without the framework which guarantees the
freedom to enjoy diversity.

Therefore we have a right to question certain sections
of our community that wish to prevent some of its own
members from fully participating in their communities.
The burqa should be questioned and its limitations
discussed. As should any cultural customs that prevent
cohesion or are not acceptable to Modern Australia
such as FGM (female genital mutilation) or child-brides.

Foxy

Mahommed ( peace be upon him) and his Bagpipe and Burqa Unit drove pagans out of Mecca as far as Pakistan.

The Oxford History of Music says that a sculpture of bagpipes has been found on a Hittite slab at Euyuk in the Middle East, dated to 1000 BC. The world’s largest manufacturer of traditional bagpipes, outside of Scotland, lies in Pakistan, in the industrial city of Sialkot. ANZAC DAY 2013, Walking with the Bagpipes in Sydney - YouTube.

Dear Foxy,

«The political and cultural institutions that govern Australia are absolutely critical to an attitude of harmony and tolerance.»

I challenge this statement, which is in fact twofold:

One, that as a result of these governing institutions we now have an attitude of harmony and tolerance: a glance at the comments here, as well as at that poll that shows 56% in favour of banning the Burqa, indicate that this is not the case.

But more importantly is the second claim, that these institutions are the ONLY way to achieve an attitude of harmony and tolerance. While I'm wholly in favour of harmony and tolerance, I believe that they are better achieved in non-coercive ways.

«Within an institutional framework that preserves tolerance and protects order»

"Preserving tolerance" and "Protecting order" are two, completely different issues. Why bundle them together?

Regarding the latter, creating an order in order to protect an order... loses sight of what we really want to protect: real, actual, live people and their freedoms, rather than some artificially-created mechanisms.

«we can celebrate and enjoy diversity in food, in music, in religion, in language and in culture.»

This paternalistic statement suggests that otherwise we couldn't.

«But we could not do that without the framework which guarantees the freedom to enjoy diversity.»

This hinges on the words "the" and "guarantees". Your claim is as-if this specific framework is the ONLY one where we could enjoy freedom and diversity; and as for guarantees, none exist in real life.

«Therefore we have a right to question certain sections of our community that wish to prevent some of its own members from fully participating in their communities.»

Why "Therefore"? This is a new statement which doesn't follow from previous statements.

The baseless and dangerous assumption here, is as if everyone who happens to live in this continent must want to belong to your particular community.

«The burqa should be questioned and its limitations discussed. As should any cultural customs that prevent cohesion»

So why ramble about freedom? What you actually want is cohesion: the two are incompatible, you can't have both!

Bagpipes are worn around the ears and prevent conversation. The kilt is a complete bum-cover and oppresses manhood in cold weather.

Yuyutsu, you say that Mohammad's vile action are not a fact, but an allegation. Maybe yes, maybe no, but all Islam's "sacred" writings say that he did many, many very evil things. These are the same writings that Najla uses to tell us that Mohammad was a wonderful, kind man, except that she can't find any references to those wonderful, kind deeds. She did not even comment on the few (of many) quotes about his attacks on peaceful neighbors.

Is it too much to ask Muslims to be honest about what their own histories say? If the lie about the basics, why should anybody believe them when they talk peace and tolerance.

In other words, what this woman is saying in her response, by omission, is that anything Mohammad did is beyond question. Also, while she would no doubt condemn any of us (nonMuslims) for murder, rape, torture, she does not apply these standards to all, thus murder, rape, torture, etc are not really wrong, it just depends on who is doing them. This is standard Islamic dogma. Under Islam, one cannot question anything, except maybe silly practices. The great moral issues are not up for discussion in Islam. Note that even the so-called 5 pillars of Islam have no moral content. It is just "do this, do that" and and you are a good Muslim. None of that silly "Thou shalt not kill" for Muslims, much to the contrary.

This is the culture, these are the moral standards that Muslims bring with them. Then when so-called normal people go out and kill in the name of Allah and Mohammad, Muslims pretend it has nothing to do with them.

The burqa is no different from a swastika or a white robe with a pointed hood. It is a symbol of oppression, hate and violence.

Nijla writes again using words like "support, tolerance, collaboration and harmony".

Where exactly in the Islamic world is there support, tolerance, collaboration and harmony for Non-Muslims?

Muslims want for themselves what they deny to others, always.

As I have said here at OLO year after year after year, we will pay for Muslim immigration in blood. These people will cause untold problems that we cannot even imagine. When one of her co-religionists attacks a school or church, killing dozens of people including children, Nijla will get out the standard form letter that Muslims use in these occasions, filling in the blanks with date and location, saying she condemns this outrage and that it has nothing to do with the true islam. It will happen; it has happened.

Remember, her dear prophet said "I am made victorious with terror".. What could go wrong? Oh yes, Nijla, do you want a reference for that quote?