chainsmoker, i must have missed something cos i never realised that blainey denies the holocaust took place.

next you'll be telling me he eats babies for breakfast.

When are we going to see an article from a Muslim that is pro-Australia,anti-terrorism and tells us how happy they are to be in this great country?

It is all about elevating themselves to victim status and gaining as much political and social advantage as the population will bare in the name of racial tolerance.

Muslims are further alienating themselves from the general population by these persistant demands and protests to increase their influence and power.Aparently creating ill feelings in the community doesn't bother them one iota.

This is a dilemma among majority of us - with isolated mentality, less knowledge on international politics and influenced up by exaggerated media - as soon as we see an article written by supposedly a Muslim, identified by name, everyone bombarding on his writings and on him using the same common grounds which are being used against Muslims without any justifications and understating of international politics.

I cannot see any author’s statements where he tried to promote Muslim views, or abuse Australia or Australians. Matter of fact, the central idea of author’s article is to avoid unnecessary seditions law in Australia which could create unnecessary fear in the section of the people not only among Muslims but peace activists…. he has entirely focused on anti-terror laws and seditions….. I am sure if this was written by an author whose name was not reflected a Muslim identity, there would have been several comments supporting his logical and well referenced write-up as I find the article well balanced and the views which have been said by many Australians, journalists and writers before.

I have read so many articles of the same author published internationally in past many years where he has praised Australia and promoted Australia internationally.

Unfortunately, as soon as we find a person with Muslim name, we without wasting time and instead of putting some thoughts on his/her saying, start condemning the person…. What should we expect then from them to think about us….. Shouldn’t this behaviour of ours justify them to feel that yes there are people among us who do have racist mentality and feel that only those Anglo Saxon are Australians whose forefathers came by boats as convicts…..

I think we have to be honest and fair….. I would request all my friends to please judge the author on his sayings not on his background….this will leave good impression to others nationally and internationally

The Liberal(?) Howard Government is, as well said by Frazer, "a party of fear and reaction". And the Australian people, by providing Howard with a Senate majority, proved themselves fearful, reactionary and stupid.

Reporting by the media - critical, unquestioning and compliant, enforced the stupidity.

Curtailed as the Holy Grail of cross media ownership legislation revocation has been held, like Damocles Sword, over the media. Much more at stake than informing the public - political advantage - and the opportunity if compliant - to reap millions.

Bush and Blair have, quite rightly been pilloried for their conduct. Not Howard. No US citizens are subjectd to Guantanamo Bay, all British Citizens have been extradited, but Australian Hicks has been abandoned for the fourth year.

Howard holds the whip hand. Legislation which will make billions for the winners.

The sedition laws, it is suggested, merely up the ante for a compliant media.

Good post Malik!

On sedition laws, from what I understand the laws relating to 'unlawful association' are much more invidious.

Of particular relevance is section 30 of the new law which speaks of acts that Advocate or incite crime. Any person who by speech or writing advocates or encourages:

(a) the overthrow of the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage;

(b) the overthrow by force or violence of the established government of the Commonwealth or of a State or of and other civilized country or of organized government;
[Of course these laws can’t be applied to places like Iraq! )

They do however leave open a wide corridor for political interpretations of where sedition begins and where political dissent ends. So much for our bloody pride in democracy!

Thanks for this article Syed!

PS.
Arjay, since you’re such a prodigious expert – could you tell us all what religion or culture a 'John Smith' would be? You seem to have some intuitive insight into what people’s background are without relying on the evidence us mere mortal use

Has anyone noticed that when Moslems move to the West, they immediately become experts on “Human Rights” and then start lecturing the rest of us on “Freedom of Speech”? Too bad that they and their religion don’t practice what they preach. Where Islam and Mohammud rule, people have very little of either. That is why Muslims want out of Islamic countries.

See how the followers of Mohammud respect personal opinions and “freedom of Speech”. They would kill over a few silly cartoons that are really not that offensive:

http://www.newspaperindex.com/blog/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/

Notice that yours truly is giving them heck, as usual. Notice also how well Muslims defend their dear leader Herr Mohammed from accusations of conduct unbecoming a great moral example - and how much they support freedom of speech (not!).

Mr. Hassan says “One should not forget that freedom of speech is the foundation of all humanity.”

Mr. Hassan is so really concerned with democracy and freedom that he can write whole articles about these in Islamic countries and oops, he forgets to mention them. How pathetic. Please see

http://www.mediamonitors.net/syedatiqulhassan1.html

Yes, these countries have something Muslims call “blasphemy” laws that show how much Islam respects a person’s rights. May I quote: The penalty for contempt of the Holy Prophet, is death and nothing else." (Pakistani Federal Sharia Court, 1990). Please read these links:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/11/news/pakistan.php

http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=4146

Both articles today by Taimor Hazou and Syed Atiq ul Hassan have the same “give all benefit of any doubt to terrorists they are really misunderstood people” attitude that is derived from their absolute refusal to link terror to the intrinsic violence of Islam. The fact is that there is absolutely to correlation between what Muslims say in the West and what they do when they are in control. They talk about freedom of Speech, but they support "shut up or else" anti-villification "be nice to Islam" laws. Ask the catch the CTF Fire folks. You cannot trust Muslims; they cannot be honest about their faith. Sad, but true.

John Kactuzkid