Benjamin. Your conjectures about what I think and believe are baseless. Even though I stated very clearly that I think all people are capable of racism, you persist in asserting that I hold some sort of chip on my shoulder for Australians. I don't. This renders your entire line of argument null and void.

Yes Benjamin, a lot of churches and synagogues have been attacked in Australia. Do you have evidence of what was the background of who attacked them, or are you making a prejudicial assumption? If I were a police officer investigating, I'd would try to approach the search for suspects without any preconceived notions of who they might be, since that could lead me into dead-ends in my search for the perpetrators.

I also know of three mosques not far from me that have been burnt and graffitied. Indiscriminate attacks on religious buildings would tend to support the point I have been making all along, which is that you can find bigots and racists in any group.

Of course I don't accept Sharia law, Benjamin. I'm not a Muslim. I would've thought that point was so obvious it didn't need to be mentioned.

I haven't been brought up to think only whites are racist. What a muddle-headed concept that would be. And what do you mean, "people like [me] ONLY attack people who are white"? Did you read my posts here and in the other articles? Did you see what I've said about the Sheik? What is a "people like me" exactly, Benjamin? I'm not a "people" I'm a person. Your comments reveal a tendency to view groups of people (including "people like me") as monolothic, and acting in some sort of groupthink. You suggest we should treat others as human beings, not children, but you don't even credit others with the ability to think for themselves.

And obviously I'm in no position to judge whether or not I'm a hypocrite. What an impertinent question. Other readers can make their own judgements about that.

Dee is the classic example of a person who fears Islam without really understanding why.

"Veils do not belong in Australia, have never been a part of Western culture and hopefully never will be." --> Western culture is diverse. There is no one culture in the west. That is such an outdated and prehistoric, pre enlightened way of thinking - that the West represents one ideology - it doesn't. It represents many.
In the same way that the veil is not part of "islamic culture" because there is no such thing.

Do you even know the meaning of impertinent? I think it's a very apt word in this case.

Australians are not obliged to accept alien customs (like veils, genital mutilation and 7th century attitudes to women) --> Who expects any Australian to accept these customs when majority of Muslims themselves don't?

"Muslims have chosen to live in Western countries, not the reverse.

One vital fact YOU have left out is that many Muslims were forced to flee their countries because of Western imperialism over the East. So in a way we should accept Islamic prejudice, just as they are forced to live with the consequences and the ramifications of Western Imperial imposition.

Sympathise with rapists? Interesting call. A woman being scantily clad has nothing to do with rape. It's the need to exert power. It has nothing to do with sexuality - funny that the media is turning his comments into something more sinister.

What he was saying (and what people should be offended at) is that by not covering up and staying indoors women are at fault when they become the target of sexual advances. If there's no truth to this statement - then why are people getting so upset over it? The worst that could happen is some people may be scared into covering up their wives and daughters. I hardly see how potential rapists are being formed in the congregat-oh wait...clearly I haven't been reading sensationalised articles about Skaf and other "muslim rape" incidents recently. Of COURSE that's what's going to happen! Silly me.

If we are to believe the Sheik, it is probable that Muslim men will molest and rape any woman who does not wear a black tent and stay indoors (ie in the 'firdge' as the Sheik put it).

The sheik is familiar with his cultural group and gang rape has occurred so the warnings in his sermon ought be given some credence at least.

Thew sheik's warnings are made more believeable by the obvious unwillingness of moderate Muslims to provide evidence to the contrary.

It follows that our freedom has been greatly diminished if girls and women have to be kept off the streets to be safe.

So my question is for Senator Amanda Vanstone, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and I want to know what went wrong with the administration of:

1) immigration policy and
2) multiculturalism policy,

that Australia is now a much less safe place for women?

I also want to know what practical action will be taken to ensure that Muslim clerics do not encourage or excuse assault of Australian women.

It is very disappointing that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has not led the public debate on the Sheik's warnings.

It is not an adequate response to say that one man should be deported, even if it were possible, which it is not, or that the Musliom community will take care of it. This is a national issue and requires a coordinated national response.

Dear Fleurette,

You say that Muslims were forced to migrate to the West because of Western Imperialism in the East. So why do they choose to come to a country they see as oppressing their fellowcountrymen. A bit disloyal to their fellow countrymen to do that don’t you think.

Its funny how all these people around the world who criticize the West are all actually breaking their necks to get into the West. There are plenty of muslim countries out there to choose from but then the Muslim countries aren’t as tolerant when it comes to taking people from other countries are they. Not even if people are Muslims like themselves. The Sunni muslims and Shiite muslims are committing wholesale slaughter of each other over control of Iraq as an example of that.

You also state that Mohammed ordered Muslim women to cover up because they could not go out side during a civil war at that time, without being raped by the soldiers. Muslim women said in the news after the Shiek Mufti what’s his name made his meat comment about women’ that their wearing of the veil had nothing to do with the attentions of men it was about religion. According to what you say it seems that Mohammed did indeed order the wearing of the hijab and burkha to deflect the attentions of men.

If people choose to come to the West because they envy the way of life of people in the West why do they then seek to change the West
when they get here.

What has me wishing deadly antibodies upon this virus of a sheik and his satanic cult following is the fact that they actually chose to lie to us about the context of his comments being mistaken.

Now THAT is utterly unforgivable, for all time!

A couple of months ago street protest and violence was reported in Bahrain. Muslim males were fighting over whether or not women should dry their under-garments on an outside line. The religious argument was that the sight of these garments would lead otherwise moral Muslim males to rape. A Muslim man can only be charged with rape if it is reported by another male Muslim and the rapist admits his guilt. The rapist is asked to swear by Allah to his guilt or innocents. If he swears in the name of Allah that he is innocent he's innocent. The woman has done something wrong. In the Sudan just a couple of weeks ago a Sudanese reporter was killed for speaking out about the atrocities being committed in the name of Allah, especially many many cases of gang rape.
It is not the question of the nature of the individual Muslim. It is the nature of Islam and it's misogynist structure. Even this week in Afghanistan women and girls are being raped to drive them indoors and
out of a male dominate society