Poirot goes on about Muslims being only 2% of the population,

BUT,

in a democracy that matters.

It is easy for ethnic groups, their lobbyists and religious leaders, to blackmail political parties and candidates with either the threat or promise of influencing a voting margin that could swing a marginal seat. Come our way and there is an extra 2% in it. Appear to oppose and lose 2%.

On top of that there is the threat of conducting a continuing hate campaign in the media, including social media and with the assistance of the tabloid media (count the ABC in there!) against anyone who questions and stands in their way, accusing them of xenophobia, racism, islamophobia and other foul epithets.

How does Poirot imagine that the shocking practice of ritual slaughter was ever tolerated in domestic Australia (politically correct authorities turned a blind eye) and eventually reversed the federal and State DPIs' humane slaughtering regulations that were supposed to be cast in stone?

The Standard used to be stunning prior slaughter that resulted in immediate unconsciousness and death, ie., irrecoverable. Absolutely necessary for the larger food animals (including sheep) that are bred to have larger necks, significant muscle mass and deeply inset arteries.

To top it off, federal and State authorities know that boutique slaughtering establishments and private butchers and individuals are still conducting ritual slaughter as performed in the Middle East, ie entirely without even the pretence of prior stunning of the animals. Where are the prosecutions?

Medieval religious fundamentalism demands cruelty - the knife hacking at the throat of a live animal that is either fully conscious, or where prior stunning is forced on the religious fundies, that the stunning power is sub-optimal, allowing for the animal to recover just before the knife is drawn.

If so many of that 2% are moderate and one would hope have some commonsense, how the hell does ritual slaughter continue in Australia? And what if there is another religion where fundamentalists insist on ritual slaughter? Make the swing 3-5% maybe and heaps of negging for any politician foolish to say no.

otb,

We got around that by live exporting livestock...or haven't you noticed that.

So now all the livestock gets to have a long cruel journey before they are ritually slaughtered at their destination...or just cruelly slaughtered, depending on the country of destination

Are you holding us up as some sort of kind-hearted angels for that?

It's all about profit and damn whatever happens to the animals during the journey or at the end-point.

We recently saw shocking images of cattle being bludgeoned with sledge-hammers in Vietnam...we don't appear to have ceased live export to that country though.

"A leaked email from within the live export trade seems to suggest the industry put dollars and profit before welfare of animals.

Australian Livestock Exporters' Council chairman says email was "essentially saying it's better use the carrot than than the stick"

After viewing brutal pictures of Australian cattle sledgehammered to death in abattoirs in Vietnam, the chairman of the Australian Livestock Exporters' Council, Simon Crean, was adamant animal welfare was a priority."

""It was Meat and Livestock Australia that [were] actively involved in facilitating the cruelty of cattle in Indonesia, so to now see them encouraging profits over compliance in Vietnam, when non–compliance means sledgehammering cattle, is just appalling" she said.

The ABC raised the internal email with Mr Crean, who said, "We don't want them to beat the system. If they beat the system … we'll close them and then they will be out of business"."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-17/email-leak-suggests-profit-before-welfare/7521620

Don't try and make out we're particularly altruistic on that front.

poirot: ""It was Meat and Livestock Australia that [were] actively involved in facilitating the cruelty of cattle in Indonesia,

We all know that the woman that reported that in Indonesia set the whole thing up by hiring some local thugs, who had never had anything to do with cattle in their life, then bribing the Security man on the Weekend to make her film. That's greenies for you & not the first time they've been caught doing something similar.

But again, poirot, you divert with heightened enthusiasm. Please try & stick to the subject. You keep forgetting. All-sigh-mers maybe? ;-)

ttbn,

Here you go again with this assumption of yours that non-belief equates to an indifference to Islam. I thought we had sorted this out at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18387#326181.

It's no wonder you want to cling to a belief you no longer even hold.

<<And, does anyone still think that we a Christian country, with enough people of faith left to "fight the good fight".>>

There are Christians who fear atheists more than Muslims, because Muslims at least believe in moral absolutes and a god (and the same god at that). Likewise, there are some sections of Islam offering an olive branch to Christians in order to fight atheism because they see it as a greater threat than Christianity.

As for Sharia law, I don’t fear it at the moment because projections indicate that our Muslim population will still be under 5% by 2030. A part of me is ever-so-slightly concerned for my children’s, children’s children, but given the number of young Muslims leaving the faith (and I don’t even think the projections take that into account), I’m fairly confident that Islam will die out in the West almost as fast as Christianity is.

I follow on Facebook, and read the works of, plenty of young Muslims who have left the faith and are encouraging other Muslims to do the same.

We just need to ensure that we maintain high levels of education. That seems to the kryptonite for all forms of superstition.

Loudmouth, no feminist has ever spoken up for the Moslem cult. Anyone doing so has forfeited any entitlement to the term “feminist”. The reason for this is stated incontrovertibly by Pat Condell at http://www.patcondell.net/feministe-whores-for-islam/ .

The smart-aleck term “islamophobia” was launched on the world by Brfitish writer Mike Dobbins. What he now says, having done the research necessary for acquiring knowledge of the topic, is at http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2015/04/mike-dobbins-gives-public-apology-to.html . Apologists and appeasers including those who falsely present themselves as feminists need to take on board what he wrote on the basis of serious research. Or, even better, do some serious research themselves based on the actual self-description of the Moslem cult in its own holy books.

Cringing away from truth in order to feel “with it” leads only to untruth and to betrayal of feminism and every other decent product of the Enlightenment.

For anyone game enough to face up to the TRUTH about the march of Islam, see

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/12/27/islamic-india-the-biggest-holocaust-in-world-history-whitewashed-from-history/

The Holocausts committed by Germany in the 1940s and by Turkey in the early 20th century are mere historical blips compared with the centuries-long bloodsoaked Moslem reign of terror in the Indian subcontinent and Indonesia which expresses itself in pockets within those conquered and subdued regions to this day.

Disastrous as the British invasion was for the Australian Aborigines, it may have averted something very much worse.