It’s a wonder these poor immigrants (especially females in this case) come to Australia at all!

This woman‘s involvement with “transforming cultures” says it all. She obviously wants to transform Australian culture to suit malcontent immigrants.

She uses “de-skilling” as though an inability for some women to gain employment commensurate with their foreign-gained qualifications is the fault of Australia: Australia, she tries to con us into believing, is doing the de-skilling deliberately. She doesn’t concern herself with the fact that many of these qualifications do not comply with the Australian equivalent. She also doesn’t concern herself that many immigrants don’t have the English skills to perform the jobs they think they should have in Australia.

Australians find themselves having to struggle to understand the “English” of many immigrants who are employed in dealing with the public. Probably the ‘skilled’ people she referred to as working in trades, sales, clerical positions etc. in her previous article in OLO on 28/4/04. In that article, she recognises the problems of people with professional skills not being able to understand or speak “Australian English”.

But, instead of concentrating on that problem and encouraging the people concerned to take lessons in Australian English, she is back, 4 years later, banging Australia over the head and blaming us for other people’s problems.

But, it is all Australia’s fault, claims Christina Ho. She claims that conservative politicians (including John Howard) and unidentified “commentators” of:”… are using gender issues as a proxy for racism and Islamophobia.”

What a silly, politically motivated and racist comment: John Howard could have kept these people out of Australia any time he wanted if he was the racists this woman claims.

Continued...

...continued

However, there is a lesson to be learned from this article. The lesson is that the bipartisan skilled immigration programme of our incompetent (or worse) politicians is a total sham. The politicians chirrup about ‘needed’ skills, and lack of skills while bringing in supposedly skilled people whose English is not good enough for them to gain employment other than in unskilled areas where we don’t need more people. And, immigrants are putting it over us by claiming to be able to use their skills here when they clearly CANNOT because of lack of useable English.

Here, our dishonest Australian politicians are definitely to blame. They don’t want ‘skills’. They just use the expression to cover up their mass immigration policies that bring in more fodder to spend as much as they can and help drive lunatic growth which lines the pockets of big business; how the immigrants get that money, whether or not the learn English of fit in, is quite unimportant.

Putting aside its ‘moaning migrant’ theme, this article supplies further proof that the highly acclaimed skilled immigration programme is just another political confidence trick to cover ulterior motives. More burdens on the country for no gain.

There is a lot of truth in what Ms. Ho says. In China women are, indeed, more integrated throughout all sectors of the work-force. They also recieve a lot more support through both family and employers to enable them to work when they become mothers. The whole debate about "choices" which is carried on in Australia with varying degrees of heat from both sides is unknown in China where motherhood does not bring with it the pressure to make the kinds of choices it does here.

It is also true, to a degree, that some Chinese emigrants do not originally speak English with the degree of fluency they need in the workforce. However, English is compulsory is schools and Universities so, for most, it is simply a matter further practice, especially as colloquial Aussie English can be confusing even for those who speak British or South African English!

One other area not touched upon by Ms. Ho is the pressure felt by younger women - students - concerning sex. Having learnt that Western women are liberated they are often confused that so many young women feel pressured into sexual activity. While young people in China are engaging in far more sexual activity than their parents or teachers dream is happening, peer pressure and societal messages play no part in this.

The realisation that young girls here often become sexually active less from a careful choice than through a need for acceptance, to be cool, or to seem adult, is strange. To them it argues that such girls do not, in fact, have the autonomy over their bodies that Chinese girls do. This is , for some, a contributing factor for the accusations of lack of assimilation with rest of the student body, whose mores are alien (and even somewhat frightening) to them.

I can quite see that women in Australia could easily appear to be more hampered by their gender than those in China.

Well.. you don't have to be a_fortune_teller or an_astrologist to know what will come from my keyboard on such_articles...

It's worth pointing out however.. that most of what I write is a response to something else.

Christina mentions

In the Sydney Morning Herald in 2006 he stated, “There is, within some sections of the Islamic community, an attitude towards women which is out of line with mainstream Australian society”.

No kidding!

I wonder where Mr Howard got this 'rubbish' from ? I mean HOWWWW could John get it so obviously wrong.. so far off the mark..so incredibly dillusional... I mean.. there is just absolutely NO possibility that Muslim men might feel justified in beating their wives due to some clear and unmistakable permission in the Quran..... is there?

Read on!

Quran 4:34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them.

I hope everyone read the last phrase.

Many essays have been written by Muslim apologists to try to make out that 'BEAT THEM' does not in fact mean..'beat' them. Usually written by women.

But hey...don't rely on my blusterings.. after all..I'm a biased whack-a-mossie Christian hyper fundamentalist, hate and fear and loathing promoting rabble rouser ....right?

No no.. let's get it straight from the horses (Arabs) mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58

But wait... this is the ONLY Arab Muslim man who feels this way....right? He is simply 'interpreting' the Quran to suit his own misogynistic agenda....right?

Read/view on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr-vt2DTCFw&feature=related

aah.. another 'fanatic'.....

Lets try this one: a young girl married to an old man.. similar to 53 yr old Mohammad with 9 yr old Ayesha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDLb2GuIM3Y&feature=related

Well...on the evidence.. both doctrinally and experientially.. John Howard was 100% correct..note his words "some sections".. indeed.
Nothing for John to apologise for there.

Christina is quite right in pointing out that Australia still maintains many facets of sexism - in culture, attitude and institutions. No culture or religion is exempt from sexism of some sort - it just manifests in different ways. I think Christina has done a good job in reminding us of this.

I'm not sure why this is another crack at the conservatives. We have been there and done that. They have rightfully been consigned to the political equivalent of Nauru. The only thing left is for the missing link to vacate the whitehouse next year.

hey polycarp
thought your facts needed balancing

from
http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm

quote..>>'The following are but a few of the many similar quotations with footnotes from the Soncino Edition of the Talmud,

the "sort of book" from which Jesus allegedly "drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious" subjects:

SANHEDRIN,55b-55a:"What is meant by this?-Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that.

Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that(2)What is the basis of their dispute? - Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilty (upon the actual offender);whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty(in that respect) (3).

But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman(4)

It has been taught in accordance with Rab:Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day;(55a)(he) ho commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally:or a woman who causes herself to be beastially abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5)."

(footnotes) "(1) The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated in supra 54a,guilt is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a minor; i.e.,less than thirteen years old.

Now, however, it is stated that within this age a distinction is drawn.(2)Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age,no guilt is incurred.

Samuel makes three the minimum.(3) At nine years a male attains sexual matureness. 4) Lev XVIII, 22 (5) Rashi reads ("xxx")(Hebrew characters, Ed.) instead of ("zzz") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) in our printed texts.

A male, aged nine years and a day, who commits etc. There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha
..<<
i am not able[nor wanting to understand what is being wtitten
but people in glass house[speck/plank in the eye[come to mind]

Dear OUG...I'm glad you tracked that down.. it makes most illuminating reading but Jews I know are repulsed by it and usually claim it is a Muslim attack on them...but the source is quite correct.

But to clarify about Jesus.. no, he did not draw His inspiration from the Talmud..He drew it from such realities as "Before Abraham was..I am"

and..

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. (John 1:3-5)

I suggest that the abhorrent practices you described in your links, were illustrative of the very fact that "darkness has not understood" the Light.

The rules developed by the Rabbi's were along the lines of "We MUST have a 'LAW' for every situation in life"..and that included the age of betrothal... But the principles of the Old Testament are pretty clear.. 'common sense' and decency.

Jesus said "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them."

The Pharisees would not allow you to wear sandals with a metal buckle on the Sabbath.. that was WORK (as defined by the same mentality as that which suggested you can have sex with a 3 yr old girl)

Please..if you wish to compare the Quran and Christianity.. let's stick to the Bible itself :

Is this article a poor attempt at humour? If it isn't, we've gone way, way too far with our exclusively white phenomenon known as tolerance.

While tempting to respond by pointing out the fact that it is only white run nations where tolerance of minorities actually even exists, the hide of a

Go out to the Chinese Embassy and protest there! And while you're there, walk down the road to every African, Asian, and Arab embassy (basically the non-west except for Israel) and protest!

Whitey has tolerated racists for way, way too long.

Me too, Boaz.

>>It's worth pointing out however.. that most of what I write is a response to something else.<<

Yep, me too.

>>you don't have to be a_fortune_teller or an_astrologist to know what will come from my keyboard<<

Both observations lead straight to...

>>As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them. I hope everyone read the last phrase.<<

This is rich, coming from a self-confessed daughter-beater, Boaz.

Did you justify your actions through reference to the Bible, by any chance? Or was it just a "make it up as you go" moment?

>>But hey...don't rely on my blusterings.. after all..I'm a biased whack-a-mossie Christian hyper fundamentalist, hate and fear and loathing promoting rabble rouser ....right?<<

At last, at last, some self-awareness is creeping in. Even though you are even now seeking the answer "no, of course not..."

You are going to have to lift your game a little, though, there are some serious challengers coming through the ranks.

Benjam1n seems to be shaping up nicely to inherit your mantle.

>>the fact that it is only white run nations where tolerance of minorities actually even exists... Whitey has tolerated racists for way, way too long.<<

Do you know, Benjam1n, that is one of the reasons that so many of us are happy to live here.

How about you? Would you prefer to live in a free country, or one where your religion is prescribed for you, under pain of severe punishment, even death? Or one where your religion is prohibited to you, also under pain of severe punishment, even death?

Seems a no-brainer to me, but what do I know? I've never committed an act of personal violence on a woman in my entire life.

There are two quotes here that hold a lot of truth. Firstly, “Australian debates seem fiercely resistant to looking at what might be learned from other cultures.” Indeed many posts on OLO attest to this. Some indicate the assumption we’ve nothing to learn from other cultures or that any criticism of Australia is invalid. “Moaning migrants”? What a cop out. The author’s wasting her time for some.

I work with many immigrants who have an excellent knowledge of English who before migrating were IT specialists and medical practitioners. Here they wash dishes. It’s not all about language. There is a reluctance to accept immigrants at face value.

The second is “Instead, conservative politicians and commentators are using gender issues as a proxy for racism and Islamophobia”. The number of articles on OLO regards immigration and migration has fallen recently compared to about 18 months ago towards the end of Howard’s prime ministership. It is no coincidence given Rudd does not ride the wave of fear that drives conservatism.

There are some sections of the Mulsim community that do not share ‘Australian’ values towards women. Old ways do die hard and must be changed. Equally there are some sections of the Australian community that are no different. Recall the recent glassing incident by a Sydney ARL player. He got the press coverage he deserved but "Aussie Christian icon disfigures partner" was not how it was covered.

The word ‘misogyny’ has been around for centuries and it is not by chance it is part of the English vocab. As a whole immigrants are more law-abiding than local born. (can't find the reference but will if required).

We’re a nation of immigrants, people, and some cultures are worth learning from.

Perilous.. reminding me of something I shared with the forum in times past (which seems like a bone to you as u keep digging it up) does not help the debate about this particular issue.

Feel free to call me a few names if it helps you along..then when you have vented your spleen.. actually look at what the Quran says here.

Feel free to criticize the Bible if you like.. after all.. we must be fair here. "Spare the rod..spoil the child" there you go.. it's the only verse I know of which refers to it.

Children who don't know some of the dangers in store for them, are one thing.. a grown adult.. your wife.. is another.

But leave that aside.. just consider that the Quran specifically permits a husband..to whack his wife and it is spelt out in graphic detail by men from countries which are "most Muslim".....

If you don't find some difficulty with the religion on that basis alone...then I would need to put seriously heavy duty panelling around my 'hypocrisy' meter which would otherwise explode as it read your posts.

Pointing to me continually like that only shows you cannot be trusted with information of that nature. You just show how determined you are to avoid facing the issue of the nature of Islam.

My post is a response to what the author says... not you. Criticize it on the basis of truth or falsehood...not on your shabby personal attacks on me.

There's a lot of sense in my last paragraph... it simply points you to the debate...rather than attacking people.

Porky: << I'm a biased whack-a-mossie Christian hyper fundamentalist, hate and fear and loathing promoting rabble rouser ....right? >>

Absolutely. Spot on, old chap.

What fascinates me about many of those who rightly demand that immigrants respect and conform to Australia's latterly acquired values of gender equality, is that they only adhere to them themselves at the shallowest possible level. For example, Porkycrap has regaled us in the past about how his brand of Christianity relegates women to a lesser status to that of men (man as 'head' of the family etc), on the basis of their interpretation of scriptural dogma. He's also gone on at length about how we shouldn't have female police and soldiers, basically because it's men's work.

In fact, with the exception of the exhortation to beat errant women, the Quranic excerpt Porky refers to sound pretty much the way his Brethren treat their women. Even so - as Pericles points out - Porky's beating of his daughter would be much more in keeping with Middle-Eastern cultural values than those found in mainstream Australian society.

Christina Ho's article reminds us that we still have a long way to go with respect to gender equality in Australian society and culture, and migrant women seem to be disproportionately represented among those women who are still treated as lesser citizens than men. As are non-migrant women who have the misfortune to adhere to various versions of Christianity and other anachronistic religions.

Please, spare us the sulks Boaz..

>>reminding me of something I shared with the forum in times past... does not help the debate about this particular issue.<<

Pointing out your inconsistencies is necessary to the reining in of your more tawdry bouts of self-righteousness.

You do remember, don't you, that the thread in question was one that you yourself kicked off.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=50

Does your being shy about it now mean that you have changed your views on beating twelve-year-old girls?

Perhaps you should start another thread on the topic so that we can clear the air.

Until that happens, the event you describe forms a significant part of my online assessment of your character.

But to the point.

You claim "spare the rod and spoil the child" as justification for violence against your twelve-year-old daughter, while other religions use other verses to justify theirs.

Which is the more heinous? The stronger or the weaker verse?

Because you have to admit, that sparing the rod stuff is just a bit wishy-washy, compared with the very direct "beat them".

Yet you find you are comfortably able to use it as your excuse to visit physical abuse on a sub-teen.

It certainly stands in stark contrast to my own pacifism in this area.

Which has absolutely no biblical or religious foundation to it whatsoever.

And I'm sorry, but this did cause me to smile a little:

>>Pointing to me continually like that only shows you cannot be trusted with information of that nature.<<

You make it sound as though it were a secret, a confidence that I have somehow broken.

Once again, it was your "lookitme, lookitme" thread that brought your views into the open. It was even remarked upon - not by me - at the time.

>>you chose to make a personal anecdote and now you complain when your actions are commented upon. Tough.<<

And in case it has already slipped your memory, it was your "pay close attention to the bit about beating" remark that created the opportunity for me to remind you of your own position on the topic.

I have three post-grad degrees including a PhD an undergrad studies with a triple major. Were I to work pemanently in China, apart from academic, expat or a multinational communities, I suspect my potential would quite limited. Probably very limited, indeed.

UTS hired you. At one UWS wanting to "internationalise" its staff, preferring Non-Anglo academics. I assume as "B" (Lecturer) academic, you have a recognized PhD. The "fair" protocol. Metropolitian unis, these days, rarely hire lecturers, without doctorates.

All,

Christina is a Senior Lecturer ("C", I assume) with doctorate. That seems fair to me. UTS has recognized her capabilities. Rightfully, so.

Oliver,

I am quite confused as to your last (2) posts.Are you saying that because Ms.Ho is Chinese and she has a job which utilises her qualifications her entire theme and article are invalidated? Or that, because she is in that fortunate position, she should not speak up for those who are not?

Do you know for certain that she entered the country with her qualifications from a Chinese facility and was hired on the basis of those? Many students from China (whose parents can afford it) now complete their entire Tertiary regime in Australia and such students, indeed, have little trouble being hired subsequently. It's those who received their qualifications in China the article focuses upon.

I also found this puzzling: "Were I to work pemanently in China, APART from academic, expat or a multinational communities, I suspect my potential would quite limited."(My caps.) Yes. You have no doubt your scholastic qualifications would gain you a job in either acadaemia or business. Ms. Ho is making the point that the reverse situation - those with similar qualification to yours but gained in China - can NOT get work in acadaemia or business. And surely, even in Australia, your potential for jobs other than those in your own field are "quite limited"?

I'm sorry, perhaps I am being particularly thick this evening, but I would appreciate it if you could clarify your post a little for me.

Pericles... "cannot be trusted" indeed it is so.

Were I to use your curious "Keeping domestic pets is slavery" to counter every argument you raise which I did not agree with...eventually you might wonder about whether I had anything more to offer regarding the point at hand...no?

Re my daughter.. let me emphasise..I would not
a)Recommend other people do the same.
b)Don't justify it from the Scriptures, in spite of the verse I quoted.
c)Would not see that verse as anything other than a principle that 'discipline is important' and many means can be used to achieve that.

The biblical verse is in the form of a proverb..not a specific permission to beat your spouse. It relates only to a child. I don't find Tim Costello or Hillsongs Brian Houston making detailed explanations about how to do it.

Perhaps your rather quaint view of 'animal slavery' prevents you from seeing things in a broader perspective?

I find myself rather cynical about your motives. By all means call me a hypcocrite.. in fact you usually do.. but that's ok.. as I've said.. "I" am not the Bible, nor am I the Lord Jesus, I am but a struggling parent who stumbles his way through as best he can. I do not promote or agree with domestic violence as a disciplinary tool against spouses, I DO emphasize the need for discipline of children but I'm sure I got it wrong on numerous occasions.

Your failure (inability?) to see the huge difference between emphasizing discipline of children generally in a proverb, and the specific permission to beat one's wife in Islamic (un)Holy writ.. suggests that you are not interested in anything other than sanitizing that faith for reasons known only to yourself. (but perhaps becoming more obvious to observers over time)

By all means, Boaz, be my guest.

>>Were I to use your curious "Keeping domestic pets is slavery" to counter every argument you raise which I did not agree with<<

It might not be easy to stay relevant, but go for it. It is a position that I do not resile from.

But I am exceptionally grateful for your revised and clarified position on domestic violence.

>>Re my daughter.. let me emphasise..I...Don't justify it from the Scriptures, in spite of the verse I quoted...[and] Would not see that verse as anything other than a principle that 'discipline is important' and many means can be used to achieve that.<<

By my reckoning, Boaz, this means that on the subject of corporal punishment for sub-teen girls, you are firmly in the camp of "make it up as you go", since you do not appear to have scriptural licence for your position.

Would that be a fair observation?

I trust that you will in future spare us the deep sigh, the shrugged shoulders, and the blanket condemnation of "MIUAUG" every time someone decides to use their own moral compass.

As you clearly have done in this case.

Deal?

>>I find myself rather cynical about your motives. By all means call me a hypcocrite.. in fact you usually do..<<

I don't recall ever calling you a hypocrite, although I would suggest that some of your wilder fantasies have deserved the label.

But my motives are pretty straightforward, really.

You set yourself up as the judge and jury on the topic of what we should believe about Muslims and Islam, using your religion as the primary weapon.

As an atheist, I consider that to be an argument without a foundation. When you claim something for yourself on this basis, and expect the argument to stand simply because you say so, or because some scriptures that you translate for us say so, I will reject it with every bit of logic and reason at my disposal.

Why?

Because I believe that religious fundamentalism - yours included - poses the greatest present physical danger to our civilization.

I see the same people are still here after all these years.

PERICLES

You haven't changed a bit. Think whitey hits his wife too much? What about the racist black rappers that spew misogyny?

Why don't feminists attack them? Because they'e BLACK! And blacks used to be slaves remember?

I think that's why Malcom Fraser is the dumb way he is with rich Afghanis who fly here to western paradise country hoping for dole.

He's South African...dad probably owned a few! Keep your white guilt to yourself.

Guess what? Even in Australia, Domestic violence among Muslims is extremely low.

Good people? Haha. With just this week senior imams declaring RAPE IS ALLOWABLE IN MARRIAGE, polygamy (but only for the men - no wonder blacks find Islam so appealing - they're pretty bad too in Africa) no wonder the rate is so low.

Not many people escape from prison either mate.

What a crock. I even remember a few ads about dv a few years back, and I actually wrote a letter (which was published in the Australian) asking why no minority women - say one with a veil - were in the ad.

Aren't we all Australians?

No...that's the problem. We change. We used to cover dv up...now we don't.

I feel the same INTENSE BURNING ANGER when I hear Muslims comment on paedo in the church...

Islam SANCTIONS paedophilia for crying out loud! Just look at Mohammed's marriage to a 6 yr old!

WOnder why they've got problems with women?

Bravo, Pericles!

Can I just run that bit again? It's expressed so clearly and unequivocably: -

"But my motives are pretty straightforward, really.

You set yourself up as the judge and jury on the topic of what we should believe about Muslims and Islam, using your religion as the primary weapon.

... When you claim something...and expect the argument to stand simply because you say so, or because some scriptures that you translate for us say so, I will reject it with every bit of logic and reason at my disposal.

Why?

Because I believe that religious fundamentalism - yours included - poses the greatest present physical danger to our civilization.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 2:05:00 PM ".