If Abe Ata thinks that all it takes is a few letters to the editor to show that: “It has become clear that this debate is not structured by a religious and cultural divide separating non-Muslim mainstream Australians from Australian Muslims”, there is not much substance to what he says. Very few people with opinions bother to send them off to a newspaper, just as very few people with opinions express them on OLO. Not much research material to justify his claim, then.

I believe (note) that it is very much an us versus them situation. The ‘offence’ taken by so-called moderate Muslims was not very convincing, and it was very short-lived. It wasn’t long before they had changed their minds and were making the usual excuses for Hilaly and Islam. The simple fact is: there is no chance of understanding or co-operation between Muslims and non-Muslims.

The Keating ALP government should have deported Hilaly when it had the chance, and no Muslims other than those here since original settlement should have been allowed permanent residence in Australian. Future generations will sorely regret the stupid, criminal actions of politicians of all persuasions who have foisted Islam on us.

And no, for the politically correct and name-callers, I do not automatically dislike or hate individual Muslims. It is unfortunate for them that they are lumbered with Islam. It could have happened to me or anyone else in different circumstances. I just regret that it has spread to Australia as visibly as it is now, and I dread to think of how it will consume future generations of Australians, as it will.

I think the problem with Muslims that come to Australia is they have a similar attitude as Borat from Kazakhstan. He has little or no concept of the west and is sadly a reflection of the minority of the so called new “Australians” especially with regards to women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvdFc5beb38 watch from about 30sec onwards and you will see how much Sheik al Hilali and Borat have common. Sad but true.

I completely disagree with Leigh's comment. I find all attempts to justify terrorism appalling.

Now back to the topic:
For reference, I am using the following translation:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20653032-601,00.html. I don't see why we cannot further this discussion with reference to this.

The media response to the sermon was the headline WOMEN COMPARED TO RAW MEAT. This has stuck in the minds of many people as being the offence, rather than the idea within. The dumbing down of the issue has made it easy for Al Hilaly and others, to blame the process of translation.

If this was the offence, then it's a plausible explanation. In English we use the expression "sexual appetite". Would it be a surprise to find that this did not translate into another language. For example, a friend went to a chemist store in South America asking in Spanish for relief for heart-burn. The pharmacist was bent over laughing replying, “there’s nothing here for love sickness.”

The media have fallen for the emotive headline, rather than being upfront with the true offence in the speech. It is the following line: “In his literature, scholar al-Rafihi says: 'If I came across a rape crime – kidnap and violation of honour – I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.'”

Some media did exaggerate saying that Hilaly condoned or excused rape. This was untrue and provided another avenue of escape from the true offence in the speech.

The true offence is that rape and kidnap victims deserve to be jailed for life. This is not a question of translation, but of the reasons for including the quotation in the sermon and importantly whether Hilaly agreed with it partly or totally.

Thanks to the media interest in selling newspapers and advertising, and promoting division and scandal, rather than seeking the truth, we shall never get a satisfactory conclusion to this issue. It is exactly the same game as with politics.

As usual, failure to seek the truth is detrimental to society.

EasyTimes

I am sure I missed something. sacha baron cohen (Borat) is an English Jew.

Did you really think this English comedian was for real ?

I guess the Sheik was referring to Sharia Law which most Muslims understand.....and his statements were obviously reinforcing the commonly accepted (amongst Muslims) fact that women are totally guilty if raped.....I got the following from Wickepedia...
Sharia law criminalizes all extra-marital sex (zina), and makes it exceptionally difficult and dangerous to prove an allegation of rape.
A woman alleging rape is required to provide four adult male witnesses of "the act of penetration", and if the accused man is Muslim, the witnesses must be Muslims themselves. Failure to prove rape places the woman at risk of prosecution for adultery, which does not require such strong evidence.
For married Muslims, the maximum punishment for zina is death by stoning, or for unmarried couples or non-Muslims, 100 lashes. In practise, only imprisonment has ever been enforced, because the maximum punishments require four eyewitnesses as above.

Abe,

I heard the sermon and I master the Arabic language classic and colloquial.

While I can see Sheikh Tag's farming background impact his choice of words, proverbs and examples; I find his comment more offensive to be referring to males as street hungry cats waiting for a piece of meat to show.

While this example might be valid in Saudi or similar countries, the whole speech was irrelevant to the country being Australia.

The sermon being in Arabic is no excuse for his choice of words.
Having said that, its his opinion and he is entitled to it and should not be persecuted for it.

Having degrading views on women and their role in the society should take a holistic approach as many Australian women suffer job & pay inequality, wife & child support evasion, alocohol and drug related domenstic violence, etc..

Why don't we use his comments in a positive way to start an end-to-end campaign to improve women conditions in the Australian society? Right now it just appears to be a glorified character assassination campaign.

Those who wanted the cleric gone blame him for being out of touch with Australian values: in contrast, those who make apologies for him blame it on the translation, or rather mistranslation, of Arabic into English.
Yet he remains. With the lesser of the two points, still being DETRIMENTAL to AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY.
Fact is, the translation was 100% correct, so we need to drop the (mistranslation) argument immediately. There was no mistranslation! (Period)
Secondly those who wanted the cleric (gone), or preferably deported (in many peoples opinion), were the MAJORITY, who once again loose out.

We have the problem, where’s the (allusive) solution.
The answer is simple.
#There is a Problem with Muslims integrating(statement cannot be denied)!
-small number (arguable), but from small things, big things grow.
-failure to integrate, turns multi-culturalism into(tribes) “and tribes fight”
#Need to stop problem getting bigger, in terms of amount of Muslims immigrating to Australia (stop Muslim immigration)< I believe that policy would have a lot of supporters
#Place cameras in mosques, with the statement “comments such as women are like uncovered meat....etc, has abused our generosity and trust, and is not compatible with our society” if it’s not compatible it doesn’t belong<commonsense

If these 3 points were implemented, the future of australia, and the overwhelming majority of australians, would be considerably safer, our way of life will reverse its gradual and exponential decline (gang vilence, turf wars, possible terroist attakcs, and on,and on, what comes nxt? that is a society going down the wrong path).

But why don’t we take these steps?
Ill give you my opinion, in which I share with I believe, a majority of Australians.
If we done that right now, I think we’d all learn why it’s called the religion of peace.
Personally, id rather learn that now then in 30 years time, at our current rate of immigration.

“What then is the place of the Arabic language in all this?”-author. I don’t know, is it just a symptom (albeit a more obvious one), of a gradually increasing, more dangerous problem.

The cleric's speech is idiotic no matter how it is translated. It's really too ridiculous to be offensive but if it has to offend anyone, it offends everyone, because while women may be raw meat, men are mindless animals who cannot restrain their carnal urges.
The real worry is how much air time and press amplification his silly views are given and what purpose this actually serves. Is it really that newsworthy, is there really an issue to debate? Why give a crackpot a megaphone?

The cleric is simply an egotistic,ill mannered buffoon. He should be sent immediately back where he belongs because it is totally clear he does not belong in Australia.
If migrants come to live here ,it is not for us to adapt to their ways or their archaic habits.
Islam and the West do not mix, have never mixed ,will never mix and the faster this is realised the less will be the strife that will follow if this problem is not to become worse.
Muslims live a medievil life firmly affixed to a book written 15 hundred years ago, we are a modern progressive, democratic nation.There is a dividing line that will never be breached between us. We cannot live with the old, they cannot live with the new.

Despite the fact some of my dearest friends are of Muslim extraction, in general I must agree with the other posters here, in so far as I do not believe Muslims are capable (in general) of integrating the way every other culture seems to have managed in a much shorter space of time.

Every culture brings their thugs & criminals, but no other community harbours them the way the Muslims choose to, time & again.

This is not to say there are no decent people among them. Quite the contrary they are probably the majority, but their complete unwillingness to choose Australia as their true home, and their insistence on protecting their own regardless of the seriousness of the crime committed, makes them no better than the actual perpetrators in my eyes.

It really is a case of you're either with us or against us in this situation.

Thoughts are circumscribed by language. How many conflicts - of any size or consequence - stem from misinterpretation, from reading more or less into otherwise neutral comments made by an idealogical enemy? Only weeks ago the pope made his own unwitting contribution to the religion wars.

Abe has posited one theory here - are there any Arabic speakers willing to comment?

"I do not automatically dislike or hate individual Muslims. It is unfortunate for them that they are lumbered with Islam."

I'm sure they're grateful for your sympathy, Leigh.

As regards integration, are they the only peoples who are slow to adapt? I recall not long ago the same remarks were used to describe Chinese. There are many, many Chinese living and working in Sydney but who speak barely a word of English (and don't vote, or pay tax, or drink beer, even!) But they make wonderful food so they're OK.

Obviously, you've placed a bit of thought into your answer but ain't it a bit extreme to prohibit immigration based on religion?
"Australia re-adopts racist immigration policy" would be hard to refute.

(and are you DB in another guise?)

EasyTimes: "I think the problem with Muslims that come to Australia is they have a similar attitude as Borat from Kazakhstan"

I think that Leigh may be the 'Borat from Australia' :)

(and that's before reading the rest of the commentary on this excellent article...)

Lost in Translation: Arabic to English and vice versa

My knowledge of Arabic is limited to a few useful words like makesh, meaning that there isn't any. This was annoying after driving through the North African desert for hundreds of kilometres only to be told at the next petrol station that it didn't have any. It was even worse when I asked at the petrol station after that.

In the first year I was in the nether regions of the Sahara. I had radio contact once a week with an English-speaking Arab some 500km away who might assist me in case of difficulties. Also, I could tell him about the week's progress. He was so impolite. Downright rude, one could say. Of course, I always discussed matters with him in perfect conversational Australian-English, just as if I were a newsreader on the ABC.

His rudeness, even crudity, worried me. I gave it much thought during the hot summer and equally frigid winter nights. What had I done to make him so angry? After much discussion with the many Arab friends I made and also with some of my expatriate workmates, our conclusion was thus. In polite English, there are many courtesy formulas. For example, "would you mind if", "if you don't mind", "excuse me", "I would like you to", "you may", "I suggest that" and so on. A skilled translator, when translating between a male English speaker and an Arab will remove the curtesy phrases. The translator will also replace all the "should" words with "must" and otherwise make the sentences more direct. It seems that, if this is not done, the Arab may well question the English speaker's sexual preferences.

Similarly, when translating from Arabic to English, the translator should insert curtesy formulas and change words if necessary to reach the appropriate level of English politeness.

Is any good translation exact? It all depends because if the purpose of the translation is good communication with a specific audience, then the words delivered should be chosen for not only their context but also for that audience.

The good thing about Ray Martin's interview was that you got to see and hear the Sheik explain himself. Also, the Sheik was in his own setting contrived to suit his purposes.

I sense that I would not be alone in saying that I found his explanations and manner entirely unconvincing.

In kindness I would say his defence was akin to that of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's 'Alice through the Looking Glass':

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

One of the downsides of multiculturalism in this country is that we are often too polite to call the bluff of those who deliberately insult us as the mufti did. Our 'politeness' is seen as weakness in character, beliefs and values. It is to John Howard's credit that he elected not to return fire in kind, but very generously and respectfully called on moderate muslims to pull the mufti into line.

Australian muslims can only draw disgrace upon themselves if they excuse the mufti's offence and allow him to continue to flout universal standards of decency and good manners.

This OLO thread occasionally looks little more than a forum for single-issue anti-Islamists. Some level heads here but a lot of bile as well, a little echo-chamber of fear, paranoia & racism, visited by those looking for confirmation of their bias.

If you believe "it is very much an us versus them situation", consider that muslims make up a tiny percentage of the population, and only a tiny percentage of them subscribe to their ancient scriptures. A "gradually increasing, more dangerous problem" lies in us painting all Muslims as the same. Do you also think of (for example) America as fundamentalist? Consider the restrictions being placed on women's rights there regards contraception and abortion, both under sustained attack from the powerful, evangelical right.

Has no-one ever met an Aussie Mossie? You gotta get out more, peoples!

Everytime there is outrage against something vile yet another muslim has caused, the cry goes up,"but the majority of the muslims are moderate, they would never do this"
If that is the case, why do the majority of supposed peace loving law abiding muslims tolerate these misfits in their communities?
Why allow radical preachers contact with their youth? Why allow the likes of Hilali any position at all?
Because to allow this means they must be judged as being on that side and being sympathetic to those outmoded,unAustralian ideas.Which means they are deemed as bad citizens.
I think the choice is in the hands of the 'majority' of muslims.By their actions or lack of ,they show where their loyalty lies.

“If you believe "it is very much an us versus them situation"-Bennie, we all believe that, even when I play soccer, it is an us versus them situation, where not unified because where playing in the same league, it is our differences that will always make it an us vs them issue, it is our differences in which we will fight, none more then Race and Culture (which religion is a part of). You need to understand human nature
.
“A "gradually increasing, more dangerous problem" lies in us painting all Muslims as the same”-bennie
A problem that can not be categorized is a problem that cannot be fixed, without a more radical solution! (eg new strain of virus, faulty component on car(problem fxed because it was catergorized), or an important fundamental issue such as Muslims in Australia).
Do us white people live in a culture of fear? We need to Categorize it (Muslims), then fix it.

“Consider that Muslims make up a tiny percentage of the population, and only a tiny percentage of them subscribe to their ancient scriptures”-bennie, well consider this, that percentage is increasing. Thus my 1 of my 3 pronged solution “#Need to stop problem getting bigger, in terms of amount of Muslims immigrating to Australia (stop Muslim immigration)< I believe that policy would have a lot of supporters” where s the vote on such a fundamental issue?

It would be wise to listen to an expert on why religion exists in humans, and why it can have dangerous consequences. There is a link between it and survival. Would the people who belive in the god of war, have a better chance of survival then the people who believed in the god of peace?

See Richard dawkins articale. Note- not the essay a quick summary in wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind

cont...

“"Australia re-adopts racist immigration policy" would be hard to refute.”-Bennie. Unfortunately, you, me and most white Australians, are presently living in a culture of fear, in which we’d far rather not come across as racist, then address the problem, and protect our family, friends and free peaceful way of life. I do ask why you’d make up a circumstantial and ficticous heading to an article, instead of thinking about what path this policy is taking Australia down.
We are not racist! Deaths in the middle east, mass genocide in Africa, japans all so strict(and correct) immigration policy. Now the west’s racism “ah hmmm, can you, can you please not wear that burker (can’t spell it), and please don’t say our women asked to be raped” do they compare?

Unfortunately, I and many others have spotted a meteorite, and Bennie and many others will only see it, when it is so big and overwhelming, when it is on their doorsteps, that action must be immediately taken.

Remember, people once beleived that sacrificing people would make the crops grow. people now think that diversity brings strength and unity to a country.

(not db)

Steve Madden - "I am sure I missed something. sacha baron cohen (Borat) is an English Jew. Did you really think this English comedian was for real ?"

WHAT? He is not real? really Steve you are so learned! Seeing that you are so well read can you also tell me is Santa real or is he made up aswell?

Dear Bennie... (and C.J.)

I'm glad that when I see 'bile' and 'anti Islam' descriptors of peoples posts, that I as yet have not contributed to this thread.

Firstly, a bit TICK for F.H. for his honesty on the language/metaphor issue.

THE SOCIAL PROBLEM is much larger than the 'small percentage' who adhere to their ancient scriptures.
The fundamental problem of emphasizing, encouraging, pandering to, 'difference' is that it only takes a small spark to set a blaze going.

The Muslim community in Sydney especially whines "Why do you have to mention ethnicity" in crime reports ? The answer is very simple, it helps in tracking down suspects and narrows the range of possibilities. For the record, I have seen as many references to "of Caucasian/Australian" appearance when crime is reported.
The problem comes when the descriptors are used AFTER the suspects have been apprehended. There is no value or merit at all in this.
To the extent where this happens, there is a justified gripe. But the gripe I see is not proportional to the degree this happens.

This would not be even an issue if there was a greater level of assimilation and integration with mainstream Australia. But it is, and evidence such as 'we own you' on youTube by a Sydney Lebanese Muslim male, 'who has 200 cousins' etc shows the social dimension.
The more 'difference' is catered to, the more the 'moron' element of both groups, Anglo and Arab will sling off at each other and cause problems.

As Dr Mahathir (I think) once said: "Race relations are very easy to destroy, but take decades to heal"

Incorporating Lebs into the LifeSaving program is good, but 'Burkinis' in a life-saving context ? I have my doubts.


Namadi WELL SAID mate.... your wise words could only have been provided based on experience which it appears most posters have not had and it ring soooo true to me who also shares such experience.

Obviously, I was about to change my opinion of you after your fairly well reasoned contradiction to the 'Great British Melting Pot'and consider that there might just be some hope for you and that you had more intelligence than i perhaps hastily judged you to have.

I will say 'well done' on that particular post - even though i don't altogether agree on your 'position' in it I can see you argued fairly well.

Sadly, then you go and let me down here : (

Tell me - Human nature being what you think it is.. do you TRULY want it to be like that? Or would you like to be a part of making it into something better (like where people don't want to kill other people for example? Where the false reasons they use to convince themselves it is ok are shown to be false to them?

If like me you DO then please start doing something NOW - don't fall for false logic. One way is to not focus on our Differences - that is what man has always done - look for the SIMILARITIES and work to strengthening them in ALL cultures so that we are able to APPRECIATE our neighbours and not give them cause to hate us ( and vice versa).

You KNOW it makes sense. ( Please note I do NOT advocate 'appeasement' ok? - I hate intollerance of myself and Australia's 'better' values (we have some disgusting ones too) by other cultures as much as you do. Those who break Laws should expect appropriate consequences.

Yes its the same old excuse, but obviously muslim men belief white women are stupid.
Any australian schoolgirl knows what it feels like to walk past a group of admiring males as compared to a group of disrespectful mysoginists.
That is not something that is misunderstood,ie. the bitterness directed towards you. (even if it is in a foreign language)
ps. i am still waiting for the apology

What poppycock, flimshaw, nonsense, humbug, and whatever other words will do to describe this article.

Perhaps with a language like English, which has meanings in and out of context, endless variations on what connotation may be attached, countless words that mean exactly the same thing, and so on....but Arabic?

You place too much emphasis on what is essentially a desert tribal language.

Besides, this isn't the point as any language, no matter how simplistic or complicated, is capable of translation.

To argue such a case is to hope that your audience are fools who won't question the premises of your extremely weak argument.

Most aren't, simply because it's overused, Muslims always cry mistranslation when one of their redneck leaders say something we infidels weren't meant to hear.

To try to argue for Sheik Hilali does a disservice to the Islamic community.

Although it's far too late now. Muslims had their chance, and are still yet to protest to have this misoginistic bigot who has no problem with young Muslims who pack-rape infidel women (in fact, he said he would set the boys free and imprison the girls for life if he was the magistrate - well, he's only abiding by Islamic Sharia there) which tells most Australians that they support his views.

This will be remembered as a significant event in about thirty years, when this issue is finally dealt with.

As for apologists who claim mistranslation, they are even worse as they think we are so naive, and so worthless, that they think nothing of lying to our faces.

Shame.

Heres an interesting fact.

How many developed nations have been condemned by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as being racist?

Answer - One.

Guess which one.

Wobbles..... is it US ? as in Australia ? I sure hope so, because to be branded thus by one of the UN flunky committees on the "Advancement of Socialism" (as opposed to their real intended function) is something I would consider an unparalleled compliment.

The day we cow tow to lobby group and misguided humanistic/socialist ideas of how Australia should be run is the day we die. (This does not mean that are no 'good' socialist or humanist ideas)

Such things as Wobbles points out, simply underline the importance of AVOIDING the UN conventions at all costs and establishing our OWN which are based on national interest and justice. One countries Justice (a selective immigration policy) is another countries 'racist discrimination') but I don't care a hoot what they think or call us.

What I DO care about is us having the common sense to avoid the many problems of other places by sound policy.

One such policy would allow for the removal of people wrongly given Australian citizenship/residency' for base political purposes, such as the Sheikh.

Braindrain...why are you putting it on Obviously ? Was it at the point where he disagreed with your view ? :) His is the youthful voice of tomorrow, a tad radical perhaps, but his passion will temper with age, but if it ever dies and simply rolls over in the fact of onslaughts from outside....then we all die with him.

I say again. The illegal immigration into the USA is seen by probably most Mexicans as RE-CLAIMING LOST TERRITORY....as shown by my conversation with a Mexican Indian protester at the G20 protest.
He says "Santa Ana betrayed Mexico, and US history is wrong/a lie"

I just don't 'get' why an indigenous Indian (who's people were massacred by the Mexican government) would regard former Spanish territories as 'Mexican' in 2006 ? Curious indeed but THAT is the problem we face from uncontrolled migration. (whacky views about how Australia should be)

Al Hilali is a good example of why anyone who wants to migrate to Australia should have a working knowledge of English and should pass an English examm before being allowed citizenship.

If Al Hilali had been speaking in English, he would have not been misunderstood.

If he had an understanding of English he would ahve been able to communicate his views with a sensitivity to the feelings of the vast majority of Australians.

Al Hilali needs to remember, he is a minority. He can expect to be tolerated by the majority but has insufficient public appeal to ever expect to be an authority in the Country, regardless of how passionate he is about his bizarre and culturally offensive beliefs.

To be honest, his citizenship should be revoked and he should be tossed back to whatever pond it was that he was spawned in.

Oh and if he does not like what I have just suggested for his fate, then remember, the same right to free speech protects me as it does him, according to the values of the country which he has chosen to align himself with.

He wasn't misunderstood. He was understood very clearly. He thinks he has a right to say one thing to Muslims and another to the rest of the community, and he's wrong.

A true leader would teach the same message to all, of self-restraint and tolerance, the message that Muslims claim is at the core of their faith: http://andrewelder.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-display-im-tired-of-silly-articles.htm

Excusing or finding a reason does not limit the ownership of one's words or actions.
Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act,
and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By
free will one shapes one's own life. Every act directly willed is
imputable to it's author. Every human person has the natural right to
be recognized as a free and responsible being. The right to the
exercise of freedom is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of
the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil
authority with in the limits of the common good and public order.

This is the difference between Democracy and Islam. And this is Islam's failure.
Until Islam understands the necessity of this principle, adopts it
as it's own and exercises it with out reservation Islamist will have
great difficulty living along side independent, free thinking peoples.

aqvarivs

Spare us the Catechisms of the Catholic Church.

Every human person, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect.

The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.

I'm not talking about religion I guess you missed the part about "being responsible" and "common good and public order". Killing and adultery are all voluntary acts no one is compelled to either. Those who do must accept the responsibility and face the consequences of their decisions.
There is no cultural mis-speak that excuses or makes reasons for such crimes. Freedoms and the rights of the individual places the weight of ones actions on the individual. One can not turn and say my culture or my holy book made me do it. We are to have support of our ability to reason and control over our will. Failing in this, we are removed from society either for our own protection from ourselves, or to protect society from our indiscriminate actions

"Unfortunately, you, me and most white Australians, are presently living in a culture of fear..."

Geez do you really believe that? And why just white Australians, are they in some way exceptional? The anti-immigration crowd would be so grateful.

Speak for yourself, Obviously. Not everyone sees fear as a useful response to a person's words.

"Unfortunately, you, me and most white Australians, are presently living in a culture of fear..."
you disagree bennie?
i think australians fear if we adress this issue, we will come across as racist. we fear that we will upset these muslims by adressing the problem such as (deportation, closing down mosque).
contrast, yet simarily lefty incline people, fear we will alienate muslims by punishing their punishable behaviour.

the right fears if we dont act, we will have a dangerous problem.
the left fears if we do act, we will have a dangerous problem.

i believe the right wins, because that option stops the problem getting bigger.

"Speak for yourself, Obviously. Not everyone sees fear as a useful response to a person's words."- bennie,
you over simplicate words. sure on one hand their just vibrating air particles, on the other, words can be used to co-ordinate mass attacks, fill people with anti-social thoughts thus leading to anti-social behaviour.

"Speak for yourself, Obviously. Not everyone sees fear as a useful response to a person's words."-bennie

mass fear can turn into mass anger i.e cronulla, therefore is fear a useful response to a persons words? well it has the ability to bring situations into the open, and gives those problems a better chance of being solved.

Thats why i think fear can be a very useful response.

"Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear." - Bertrand Russell

"I fear nothing. Fear is a useless emotion that clouds our reason." - Steve Madden

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin Roosevelt

"Only when we are no longer afraid do we begin to live." - Dorothy Thompson

"Fear has been the original parent of superstition, and every new calamity urges trembling mortals to deprecate the wrath of their invisible enemies." - Edward Gibbon.

steve, you know that the fear response in people is of an evolutionary benefit, for if otherwise it would not exist(period!).

you have taken some of these phrases out of context. in that unqiue situation he said ""The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin Roosevelt. p.s he is a president, his job is not one of great intelliegence, and his play on words are not worth remembering.

"Only when we are no longer afraid do we begin to live." - Dorothy Thompson. that could lead to any horrific outcome.

i think some of the dead sky divers and mountain climbers failed (at their own peril) to listen to their fear mechanism.

why do you not drive with yours eyes closed?
why not jump of that cliff?
why not pick up that snake?
why not wrestle with a lion?

if it wasnt for our fear mechanism, funnily enough no one would be "living"

I can see, O, you're not about to be swayed by any words from me. Keep in mind however, your own comments about "fill[ing] people with anti-social thoughts thus leading to anti-social behaviour." Fear-mongering can do that.

The fear was there before any mongering.

Some of the more attired muslims have been the attention of government and a concern for the safety and security of the Australian Nation.

This professed religious teacher has had ample time in Australia to know what he is saying and seemed to be understood by the Labour government who communicated their needs for the vote of the communities he leads by the nose.

We have already seen the dirty linen aired when Simon Creane exposed the Cambodian community within his electorate, with stories of Cambodian community leaders telling them how to vote.