sonofgloin,

Re my "sheeshes"....it's not so much frustration, as incredulity.

misanthrope,

Yes, sorry if I seem a bit hard on you. But I'm a person who believes that every government deserves to be monitored and critiqued...keeps them on their toes. That's healthy for democracy.

I wasn't so much criticising your spelling per se, more surprised that such a fan of the party and its leader couldn't see their way to spelling it correctly.

Dear rehctub,

Our "peace loving way?"

Tell that to the people who are abused on our
trains, trams, in our sports arenas, shops,
pubs, et cetera,
simply for being visibly different.

Not to mention the warm fuzzy feeling they'd derive from reading comments in places like OLO.

I'm always fascinated by the hypocricy undertaken by those who criticise hate-speak...... often practiced by people who indulge in the very same practice to articulate their criticisms.

Strange old world.

It's frustrating that there seems to be so much confusion, and misplaced 'argument', over urgent issues - perhaps there are some posters who are, yes, racist, IF they see the issues around this fuzzy issue as racial, and perhaps there are some wacko Christians who want to assert that their bundle of beliefs and ideologies is better than someone else's, IF they perceive the issues as those of religion. And then there are others here who mix up nationality with race with religion with 'visible difference'.

Let's clear up a couple of points:

* refugees on boats are very UNlikely to be Muslim terrorists. Currently most boat-people are Tamil Sri Lankans. Previously, most refugees - and still many of them - were/are Shi'ite Hazaras, from a population which has been persecuted by the (slight) majority Pathans, by Sunni Muslims, &c., but who do not seem to have ever been involved in suicide bombing (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong). Similarly Iraqis.

* the issues, at least from my POV, deal with ideology rather than religion, and certainly ideology rather than nationality, color, language or shoe-size - issues which relate directly to the treatment of women, to notions of human equality and the rule of law, to issues of how do we relate to each other - i.e. an imperfect, human-derived, more-or-less democratically-sanctioned system of equality of the law with respect to everyone in a particular society.

As an atheist, I can't take revealed dogma all that seriously, except insofar as it has led to forced conversions, both by Muslims and by Christians, and perhaps by Buddhists as well. I'm happy with the notion that Australia is, fundamentally, a secular society with a industrial or post-industrial legal system, that is a long way ahead of any society or legal system supposedly based on the unquestioned revelations of some Book.

[TBC]

[C]

So any criticism of Christianity or Islam or any other body of ideology on those grounds - or on the grounds that one or the other is seeking to impose its values by force or violence or by terrorising ordinary people, you and me, indicated that it is no better than previous systems, such as colonialism, imperialism, etc., and most certainly does not deserve the slightest respect.

I support this government in its reaffirmation of our secular and imperfectly-democratic system, of equality of all before the law and in its defense of the rights of hitherto-oppressed groups in our society.

Questions: in a society or ideology of YOUR choice (no names), that YOU would defend, would a woman Prime Minister be possible ? Would gay rights be at all possible ? Would a 'Left' be possible ? On the other hand, (in the 21st century, for goodness' sake), would slavery be possible ? For non-believers, of course ?

I'm glad that's all sorted out :)

Joe

On the subject of a female Prime Minister or President, if we think about it, there haven't been all that many outside of industrialised countries - in Europe: Germany, all Scandinavian countries, Lithuania, Britain, Ireland (but not in many other Catholic countries), Australia, New Zealand .

Not too many in Muslim countries, only Benazir Bhutto (assassinated by Hizb-ut-Tahrir?) and Sukarnaputri (both daughters of a revered former Prime Minister and President respectively), only two in Africa (Liberia and Malawi), three? in South America (Bachelet, Kirchner and Roussef) - and, surprise ! almost none in any of the so-called socialist countries: the only one I can think of would have been Ana Pauker in Rumania in the forties. So much for a total of several hundred years of socialism, across thirty-odd countries.

But in India, Sri Lanka, now Thailand, the Philippines, yes - again, in each case, the relation of powerful ex-PMs and Presidents and favoured candidates (e.g. Aquino).

So there are the glaring stand-outs - the Muslim countries and the so-called socialist countries, in which women would have (or have had) Buckley's.

Maybe I've got it all wrong ? Female equality is NOT an indication of progress, but of regression ? Female leadership of a country is ideologically evil, backward, bourgeois and Western ?

Sorry, I don't believe so.

So, Poirot, behead me ;)

Cheers,

Joe