Dear Rache
again..."passion" is being confused with 'anger'. I do feel the odd spike of anger.. perhaps righteous indignation ?.. but the spike usually passes and I seek to point out big picture things rather than blather on about how much I hate someone. I find holding hate in one's heart is a very debilitating thing.
You need to distinguish between my on line persona where I passionately advance issues which to me are of historic social importance for our nation, and how I am in person. I would have to say that of all my acquaintances at my gym, the man toward whom I have the greatest affection is an Iranian Muslim. (but he is quickly learning to be an 'ocker' :)

You mentioned the'problem' is Intolerance etc.. let me illustrate what the real problem is.. and ultimately to which I am reacting in my posts.

HILAYLI and the Dark side of MultiCulturalist POLITICS.

1/ He was an illegal immigrant/visa overstayer.
2/ He had links to extremist Islamic organizations.
BUT.....

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20658333-601,00.html

["Keating, then federal treasurer, and McLeay, an influential backbencher from his party's Right faction, made no bones about their belief that Hilali should stay and lobbied on his behalf.
They were under pressure from the growing local Muslim community in their neighbouring western Sydney seats of Blaxland and Grayndler.
The Lakemba mosque where Hilali was the spiritual leader was in McLeay's electorate."]

COMMENT.
So, here in living color, we see how my oft stated mantra "One seat can decide a countries future" is fulfilled before our eyes. You also see, how one seat can effect the flavor of immigration policy, and how the agenda of ONE minority ethnic/religious community can translate into actual country effecting policy.
So, I defend my position as being "politically astute and aware" rather than 'intolerant'

P.S. I always value your criticism.

errr...I have a problem: Firstly, lets separate the fact from media managed frenzy seeking al-Hilali dismissed as leader and replaced, I wonder who is on the sideline being preped for the job, preped by whom?

al-Hilali in arabic sermon compared scantily dressed women inviting risk of rape to cat being attracted to meat on the street: so from women's raging comments on this site it appears that this comment is so offensive that a reasonable discussion is not possible...

Now fact is our sexual behaviour is based on 'women giving 'signals' that she is in want of sexual pleasure and when men respond she has her choice, eg the night club industry is based on this premise...

So firstly how does a woman like a man to differentiate a scantily clad woman, one who is dressed like this because she is interested in some sex to a woman who wants to 'just feel feminine' and all other possible reasons for such dressing...by talking and discussing the matter. Interested its on, if not then no...move on. Forcing the issue is rape, after consensual sex claiming it as rape is fraud

I think the fundamental issue here is the right to sexual expression, here I agree that women need less society inhibitions and restrictions this which forces a lot of sexual activity into the hidden, as it is they have enough on their plate with their own sexual experience depended a lot on mans performance at time...

Sam

Mercurious,

No, I still don't get what you mean. Sad? You're just not clear, no need to insult.

The only thing I can imagine is that you think Australians are rednecks, probably even me, although I ask you to show anything I've said which can be seen that way.

You also didn't (couldn't?) answer me when I said that, far from your comment that I WANT to see all Muslims as being rednecks, your comments proved that you really do want to see the opposite.

If not, what could possibly be the real reason behind wanting the camera's to forget about it now? Even though this is likely the worse thing a leader in Australia has EVER, yes ever, said about women.

I believe that you think this because you believe the "rednecks will have a field day" perhaps?

Although suggestion of a backlash is unwarranted, since, after these sort of issues, as well as Muslim terrorist attacks overseas, it is churches, not mosques, that are attacked, burnt, and shot at in Australia.

I can list about twenty if you'd like.

There is no backlash after their leaders make comments about the west, just as there won't be this time. We don't think of Muslims as one big heard, like say, most Muslims around the world thought of the Danish after a few cartoonists at one newspaper mocked their prophet.

However, if you read my earlier post, you would know that MOST Lebanese Muslims must support him, as all interviewees said.

Even the ones the media are saying has condemned him have only half condemned him, with comments that he was taken out of context, or the media are focusing too much on it.

See how much our media go out of their way to make them look good, by saying the sheik apologised when he didn't, and saying this or that Muslim leader is a moderate?

And you also didn't answer if you thought this means that many within, a large percentage, the Islamic community must be bigots.....

Mercurius, I agree with your comments that the sheik is not the only person that has made such comments before. Certainly others (non-muslim) in Australian society have made similar statements. However, I think the biggest problem at the moment is that the sheik is considered the muslim's leader in this country. Imagine the uproar if the head of the Catholic or Uniting church in australia said the same thing. They might not get quite as much airplay, but the public backlash would be just a strong.

Women in this country have a democratic right to dress as they please. Men (and other women) have the democratic right to think that women who exercise their right to dress scantily are whores (or whatever other terminology you want to use). They dont however have the right to physically impose themselves on these women (either as assault or sexual assault). However, women who choose to put their sexual assets on display, hardly have the right to be offended if someone else finds their manner of dress offensive and comments as such. If you think that all Australians are readily accepting of scantily dressed women, take a bunch of country people (real country people, not people from the Hunter Valley) down to Sydney for a weekend. Its quite amusing!

...Also, anyone who attends that mosque (if they refuse to remove him) is a bigot too, right?

Your point about how you DO believe people are equal, then you think like me, and have just condemned the morality of most Muslims.

You can't accept Sharia's position on women, non-Muslims, homosexuals, and apostates, if you claim to value human rights.

Do you know how many Muslims disagree with a literal interpretation of Sharia?

Less than 1%.

It's hard, given we've been brought up to think only whites are racist, and other cultures backward practices are off limits for criticism, but they must be thought of as humans, not disabled children.

Accepting that, if there are no protests to remove him by the Muslim community, it IS fair to generalise to an extent that the % of rednecks is high.

No, I don't WANT to see that, it simply is reality.

Funny how you see rednecks in our society, which allows others to live here, that considers all people equal under the law, is tolerant, as opposed to cultures where non-Muslims are dirt who are subjugated, where Palestinians are kept in barbed wire camps for 50 yrs because the populations are so racist they don't want them in their society as equals. And they claim to care about Palestinians?

Do you know that we fund their entire state? Not Muslims, us.

Don't you read Amnesty International reports into the treatment of non-Muslims in Islamic nations?

Also, your point about we have to do the same if someone else says it is laughable. People like you ONLY attack those who are white.

We attack skinheads even though experts say only 500 members in Australia, and ZERO impact on our daily lives.

Yet, gangs of hairyheads bash "skips" on a regular basis, sexually harass women and aren't condemned by the left. In fact, they try to hide it by playing it down, like your "too many camera's" comment.

Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

"This reveals an underlying racist core in Australia."

Veils do not belong in Australia, have never been a part of Western culture and hopefully never will be. Your remark reveals your own 'underlying racist core' in your arrogant assumption that Australians are 'racists' because they refuse to accept your cultural and religious baggage.

"the comments by the Sheik are impertinent"

Being likened to cats meat is 'impertinent'? Your choice of this word demonstrates how little understanding you have.

Australians are not obliged to accept alien customs (like veils, genital mutilation and 7th century attitudes to women) without question. Anyone who believes that they have the right to come here and inflict their cultural baggage onto us should perhaps question their own 'racism'.

" .. opposition to the face veil is all about Western prejudice, just as opposition to the mini skirt is all about Islamic prejudice."

One vital fact you have left out. Muslims have chosen to live in Western countries, not the reverse. There is no obligation upon us to accept 'Islamic prejudice' or so-called 'religious leaders' who sympathise with rapists - so long as Australian women are the victims, of course!