Re- David Latimer 4/9/06.
David Latimer's invective lacks perspective and a true appreciation of our Western system of law and good goverance.

Quote from David,"The remainder of your post is an invalid claim of superiority over a particular religious group.Such claims are considered abhorrent in Australia.If you live here,please show respect for Aust values."

Well David,if you haven't noticed,Muslims want to subjugate women to the point of slavery.They have made representations to our Federal Govt to begin to introduce Sharia Law into Australia.Irfan Usef has written article on this forum espousing the virtues of Sharia Law and why we should accept parts of their laws to appease their demands.No other religious or immigrant group has made such demands on our Govt.No other religous group has caused such friction and angst in Australiam society since WW2.Why don't we have special prayer rooms for Buddhists or Hindus at our Universities as we do for Muslims?Those who threaten violence,get the attention of our weakness.Well,who is the odd man out?

There is a limit to tolerance,and many productive law abiding Australians have had enough of left wing weakness,that uses concepts of racism,and religious vilification to undermine the present status quo,which they[the left] have failed to defeat in the past.

I see no difference between the Muslim Facists, the Nazis nor the Communists.Muslims on average,don't believe in democracy,and so are our arch rivals.

I won't tolerate being told how to dress,what to believe or what god I should believe in.Go to many Muslim countries and this is exactly the cultural norm which many want to see introduced into Australia.

If court jesters like David Latimer think that appeasing the potential violence of Muslim Facists will buy them freedom,then people like my father and his brother who suffered in Changi Prison at the hands of the Japanese,were fools who fought for no reason.

Conservative politicians traditionally have made law and order an issue at election time, then do little after being elected. Now we have terrorism being pushed harder than what would appear warranted. We have more chance of being killed in a car accident than being harmed by terrorists in Australia.

Matt you say that Marilyn Sheppard might like to join a community group to help the less fortunate. To be honest, it would be a scary world if people shut up and conformed to median views as Matt's attitude seems to imply. Our neo con friends would like such a world where people conform. Our fathers, grand fathers, and great grand fathers fought for the freedoms we now enjoy which are being taken away by Mr.Ruddock and Co.

The noses of Federal politicians have increased in the last decade, they appear to want to please their sponsers and abuse their constituents. For example, the pure cynicism of using tax payers money to promote policies which are not in the interests of numerous tax payers, is astounding ("Work Choices"). Keeping people living in fear is their way of keeping us controlled

Matt if you look very, very carefully you might notice that I have been working for free to improve the lives of refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran that we incarcerated for up to 5 years while we were also stealing from the Iraqis to give the money to Saddam and bombing their countries to bits.

If you look very carefully you might notice that it was me who discovered that DIMA had been locking up Australians, deporting people with false documents and tormenting innocent children in Woomera.

In fact I have been working with the likes of Frank Brennan, the Woomera lawyers and all sorts of other people.

Why the hell should I do anymore, and why should I just shut up?

I have advocated for the past 4 years for Australia to get real in Afghanistan now and send 5,000 soldiers and billions in rebuilding money - they refuse and Afghanistan is a disaster today.

I want out of Iraq but billions in rebuilding sent. Our government led the cheersquad for Israel to blow up Lebanon based on lies and distortions.

Tell me just what they hell there is to like about any of that?

Arjay has posted a lot of nonsense about Australian and Victorian law (3 Sept 2006 9:37:17 PM) and instead of retracting it, goes further down the same path by adding even more nonsense (4 Sept 2006 9:03:25 PM).

The Sex Discrimination Act (1984) says that Australia must provide for the "elimination of all forms of discrimination against women", however Arjay says Muslims "want to subjugate women to the point of slavery."

Should we believe Arjay or is he/she bigoted? Are Muslim Australians undermining our fundamental values or is Arjay making false accusations against a religious group and thus not a law-abiding person under the Racial Discrimination Act (1975)?

Arjay's evidence is "that Muslims have made representations to the Government to introduce Sharia Law." By virtue of our constitution, Australians are free to chat with their local MP, join a political party and/or stand for election. It does not matter their religion. Any person can discuss the merits or otherwise of Sharia Law.

But have such representations about Sharia to the government been made? Give Peter Costello's speech (http://www.treasurer.gov.au/tsr/content/speeches/2006/004.asp) if this had happened it would have been mentioned. Instead Mr Costello quoted from an ABC interview. So the answer is probably “no”.

On the other points Arjay is absolutely wrong. The Sex Discrimation Act has an exception for priests. Universities have facilities for all religious groups, including Christian, Jewish, Buddist and Hindi. What nonsense to suggest otherwise. If Arjay is being told how to dress, perhaps chat with the friend or the family member concerned. And its not surprising or worrying that Muslims believe in God.

It’s taken a few words to once again, show the fictional, substandard quality of Arjay’s post -- even to the point of blaming Muslims for his/her bad dress sense.

But seriously, it is a great shame that some people want to attack honest, decent and law abiding Australian Muslims, which of course is itself an act dishonest, indecent and an affront to Australia law and values. (although terrorists may approve.)

David Latimer

Your post contra Arjay is like a wolf in sheeps clothing.
On the surface it looks ok, but it has a fatal flaw.
Your espousing of 'Australian values' to pound Arjay is also your undoing.
Look at this video and realize that THIS is what "many Muslims" mean to any country they come to. There are people like this among every population of them. The worry is, the bigger the population, the more of these types there are, and they are not talking about namby pamby 'representations to Government, they are screaming death murder and revolution -against US..and they mean it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E4rMJVHyeg (its a safe link)

I had an interesting conversation with my Muslim friend in the gym last night. What he said is illustrative of 'popular understanding' of Mohamed in parts of Iran. He related how Ayesha, favorite wife of mohammed busted him humping one of the servant girls and she became indignant..(it was 'her turn' I believe). SUDDENLY.....'revelation time'.....

NOTE.. the following constitutes an 'artistic work' by me, an imaginary dialogue.(similar to Sasha Cohen in 'Da gospel according to Ali G', which, according to the letter from the EOC to me, is quite ok)

Allah speaking: "MOHAMED ! Dude... listen up.... ALL women are lawful for you"

Mohamed "WOAH, Allah, are u SERIOUS" ? (naughty glint in Mohameds eye)

Allah "Of course I am dude.. if I was not, you would experience serious congitive dissonance.. I mean the mother of all headaches as you contemplate that what you are doing is evil, and contrary to what your telling all your followers, and we can't have that ....can we"?

Mohamed "But Allah... what about all my followers? How would things be if they ALL did what I'm doing"?

Allah: "Dude.. no problemo... I'll just add a rider that while you can hump whoever you like whenever you like, your followers can only have a max of 4 wives, but they can all have sex with their slave girls anytime, so.. problem solved"

Boaz... interpreting religious scripture is a dangerous practice.

I'll probably get hammered for this, but hey, here's my interpretation of the book of job:

Devil: hey god, check that guy out. Damn he's loyal to you.

God: yep. he's a good sort.

Devil: but, you know it's only cause he's got loads of possessions right?

God: Nope. He likes me cause I'm tops.

Devil: Nah, it's cause he's got it made. I Betcha he wouldn't like you if you destroyed his family and possessions.

God: we'll see about that. Die family! Possessions begone! Suffer!There. See. He still worships me. I am tops after all.

Devil: yep. (hidden guffaw) you sure showed me. Well done god, you're so much smarter than I am.

No doubt you'll be able to come up with a more palatable interpretation which is a bit less blasphemous.
My point is, there's plenty of questionable things in the bible too, and if you found my interpretation disrespectful, I'm sure plenty of muslims would feel the same way about yours.