Yassmin Abdel-Magied's “Australia Wide” program has been axed by the ABC. Although the ABC denies that the action has anything to do with the silly girl activist's Anzac Day comments, SMH reports say that ABC staff have let on that her comments “sealed the fate" of the program.

I believe it is coincidence. It was to be axed, which had everything to do with its poor worth and absolutely nothing to do with her idiotic, attention-seeking ANZAC Day comment.

Maybe her future is in advertising clown requisites, make-up and gear.

I feel confident the getup clowns will give her a job.

...Just wondering too about all of those equal opportunity and equal pay jobs offered internationally by 'the most feminist religion', that is Islam.

She would have some beaut opportunities and contacts from her recent Aussie taxpayer-funded tour? Say 'YES!', that would be the 'Progressive' thing to do. -You know, for her to show up the backward Australia of the ANZACs by taking one of those plum careers for women offered in one of the many wonderful Islamic countries she visited and told (lectured) everyone about on Q&A, with Tony Jones beaming consensus (Jones might consider one of those choice relocations too).

leoj,

That was sarcastic..... an' I loved it!!

That was amazing.

What an excellent riddance.

I thought in Islam women needed to be accompanied by a family member. This sacking is purely for her religious purity.

Noting that Gillian Triggs had a second go at alleging racism. The sort of troublemaking that she and the 'their' Human Rights juggernaut are notorious for.

Of course there is always something in it for Triggsie, who is casting about for those '-isms' excuses she maintains she doesn't need.

Triggsie and Julia Gillard could be peas from the same pod. Both will be enjoying forever that glorious golden handshake from the taxpaying Aussie workers they despise and believing they were always entitled to it and more.

Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been appointed as
the next Vice-Chancellor at the University of Adelaide.
Prof. Gillian Triggs will be writing her life story in
a book offer that she's received from Melbourne University
Press.

The following link - for your information - tells us about
retiring federal politicians who will get six figure pensions
for life (plus all the other perks). This has been the
case for decades and covers politicians from various sides of
politics. It is not confined merely to a select few.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/retiring-federal-politicians-will-get-six-figure-pensions-for-life-20160303-gna6c1.html

Hmmm,
Q1, Did Gillard do in the VC before?
Q2, Gillard doesn't get any cutlery like a sword as part of the regalia one hopes, now does she?
Q3, Have they tried the academic gown over the rear end of a quarter horse, for fit?

Life's little coincidences,

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/09/university-of-adelaide-100m-grant-from-professor-gillard-12-days-before-she-lost-prime-ministership.html

For those who don't know who Michael Smith is here are
a few links to let you know the type of person you're
dealing with:

http://itsnotnormalisit.com/2015/06/30/sacked-shock-jock-michael-smith-wants-you-to-pay-him-to-show-you-how-to-suck-eggs-here-ill-show-you-for-free/

And -

http://itsnotnormalisit.com/2015/03/25/the-big-question-is-did-michael-smith-have-a-barbers-chair/

There's much more on the web about this man.
Including how George Brandis and Barnaby Joyce attended the
guy's wedding all at taxpayer's expense. And then some.

Nice.

Talking about -

Life's little coincidences ...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/brandis-joyce-attended-wedding-on-taxpayers-tab-20130928-2ulgn.html

Foxy,

Gillard did grant that $100 million just before she stepped out of her job. You are not denying that.

There could be argument as to whether the money would have achieved more bang for the TAXPAYER'S buck (well, 100million of them) if it ent to research already being done and not into buildings.

But you are not disposed to argue that either.

Obviously you are chuffed that an already very well advantaged (and at public expense) Emily's Lister has got the gig as a VC at Adelaide Uni.

What do you get out of it though? Just more affirmation that 'jobs for the Leftist girls' is as common as ever?

While accepting one trusts, that any favouritism doesn't include you. They out-fox you there :)

Correction:

Gillard must have been appointed Chancellor of the Uni of Adelaide, because Professor Rathjen from the Uni of Tasmania has just been appointed VICE-Chancellor of the Uni of Adelaide: check out The Australian today.

The Chancellor's position is far more ceremonial, involving very onerous duties such as attending this and that, attending very important conferences around the country and overseas, and occasionally speaking on extremely important matters.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Thank You for that information. It casts a totally
different light to the one that leoj was trying
so hard to shed. It's much appreciated.

Well picked that man and from the University of Adelaide's site,

"Prof Peter Rathjen to return to Adelaide as new VC
Tuesday, 30 May 2017
Prof Peter RathjenRenowned scientist and respected university leader, Professor Peter Rathjen, has been appointed as the next Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Adelaide"

Thank god Ms Gillard hasn't seen to him, Rudd style. Those 'networking'(sic,
playing favourites) Emily's Listers have devised an alternate use for their Wiltshire 'Stay Sharp' knives and nothing to do with a kitchen, naturally enough.

But hopefully she has not managed to do the Rear Admiral any harm either. Hopefully he is making himself scarce :) while she is about.

Foxy,

Perish the thought and it is a very game poster to say this out loud, but I do believe you may be wrong, or at least pre-emptive, where the Labor's best forgotten ex-PM and jobs at Adelaide University are concerned. Maybe Julia has become' a 'chair' somewhere.

It seems as if Yassmin has been forgotten on this particular thread.

Gosh, what a shame.

Joe

Foxy,

BTW, it WAS you who originally posted that 'Julia became VC at Adelaide Uni' story wasn't it?

Just checking. It is just that you now appear to be implying different.

leoj,

Actually it was you who introduced the topic of
both Prof. Triggs and our former PM Julia Gillard
to this discussion which has nothing to do with
the topic.

Selective memory?

Here we go,
Foxy, "Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been appointed as
the next Vice-Chancellor at the University of Adelaide..."
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 30 May 2017 7:48:19 PM

That turned out to be absolute bollocks of course.

Back to 'Yapping Yasmin' and 'Islam, the most feminist religion' (where is Rosie Batty, one wonders),

"Then comes the third stage, the issue of beating.."
http://tinyurl.com/most-feminist-Islam

Bollocks for some. Truth for others.

Here we go:

http://medium.com/@OnDitMagazine/former-pm-julia-gillard-appointed-as-the-next-vice-chancellor-of-the-university-of-adelaide-609cee54df5c

What was the date of publication?

cont'd ...

That information was current at that time.

Now back to the topic of the outrage that
Yassmin caused and the unbelievably strong
reaction against her even to the point of
blaming her ANZAC comments for her "Australia
Wide" program being cancelled by the ABC by
some people.

This comment taken from a reader on the web:

"What exactly was it that got everyone so outraged?

Did she attack veterans? No?

Did she dishonour ANZACS in past wars? No?

Did she commit a crime? No?

She used her free speech (which only a select few
are apparently entitled to do)
to remind people, as they take in the horror
and loss that the world is still
a bleeding and suffering place.

How DARE a Muslim Woman do such a thing in 21st Century
Free Speech Australia?"

Therefore when objecting to the restrictions
placed on Muslim Women
in Islam we should also be aware of the restrictions
we place on some Muslim Women in this country as well.
Yassmin Abdel Magied is a good example of that.

Foxy,

There's a word for all that but Graham won't let us use it. Of course Ms Magied has as much right to freedom of expression as any other Australian, many of us here have said so, but I just can't believe you would link the restrictions placed on women under Islam and as championed by Ms Magied, to her stupid remarks on Anzac Day.

She's entitled to make those remarks, and others are equally entitled to criticise her for them. Get over it. You don't have to be a lickspittle, Foxy, you surely have your own mind.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I have expressed my views very strongly about
Ms Magied on another discussion quite strongly
in fact stating that they were not appropriate.
However I thought that the reaction towards her
was over the top. And whilst we criticise Islam
and its treatment of women (and rightly so) in
the case of Ms Magied - we should take a step back
and look at how we're treating her - in 21st
Century Free Speech Australia.

If that makes me a - what was it you called me?
a "lickspittle" I'm not familiar with that term.
It's not used in my circles.
What does that make you I wonder?
Someone who can dish it out,
but not take it - Perhaps?

For god's sake, don't be so childish, Foxy.

Dear Joe,

For your own mental well being don't
get hysterical. This is only a discussion
forum after all and we are all entitled
to our opinions are we not?

Free speech and all that.

Reference your, Foxy, Wednesday, 31 May 2017 7:07:35 PM

That date was 1 April, Foxy.

You really need to be able to laugh at yourself. You sure did change the subject quickly though. LOL

leoj,

Well you're smarter than I thought you were.

I've got to hand it to you. Well done.

We can now both share in the joke.

And it was a great one!

It is good if you could finally wake up to laughing at your own lapses, Foxy.

There is a lot of quiet mirth when you stoop from on high to lecture other posters on how to research and present an argument, or even their morality, all of which are always sadly lacking.

Then there are those patronising and sarcastic quotes that put down the inferior 'Dears' you ride your high horse over.

Now, what about that clown Yassmin, hasn't she had them all bluffed too? Her ABC handlers should be ashamed of themselves for teasing the 'Useful Idiots', the baying, self-righteous leftist 'Progressive' Hipsters from Ultimo, that seem to be the ABC's audiences, at least where the camera is concerned.

Come on now, step back a mite and think: Yassmin with the grain silo sized headdresses (more pretentious than a Russian Orthodox Church bishop) and all of her get-up (maybe a pun there) and a shiny red nose to top it all off. Precious! Not even 1 April to tip those adoring, ever so 'Progressive', Hipsters off either. Naughty ABC!

While above flies the almost bursting, powdered pastel blimp of ego that is the puffed-up scowling legal Princess Gillian, who is writing a book you say, which could help to explain why she was so absent minded where QUT students are concerned.

Dear Foxy,

Yassmin Abdel-Magied is a very bright and highly accomplished young Australian. I think Julie Bishop standing by her was an indication of the respect she garners outside the more frenetic right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yassmin_Abdel-Magied

She is paying the price of being politically incorrect. The right revel in being un-PC and applaud when their side engages in it. Most of us just move on when we hear it but not the snowflakes of the right. They will keep banging on about this until the cows come home.

Kinda sad really.

SteeleRedux,

You try very hard to grow that long nose, but a bright red Bozo add-on can still be found, luckily for you!

Julie Bishop 'stood by Yassmin'? Is that what shrugging one's shoulders at crass stupidity and directing counselling for the deserving one is now to be called?

leoj,

What lapses?

I had read about what the student newspaper had done
in wikipedia's article on Gillard sometime ago.
I thought it an appropriate response to your diversions
on Gillard (and Triggs) in a discussion that had nothing to
do with either. I then went back on topic to Yassmin.

Yet you continue with your ad hominems. Those tactics
have well and truly worn thin.

Dear Steele,

I don't know that much about Jassmin Abdel Magied.
So thanks for the information. I did think that her
comments on ANZAC Day were inappropriate - however the
reaction to them was certainly over the top. Also her comments
about Islam on Q&A deserved the reaction Jassmin received
from Senator Jacqui Lambie. However,
it can't have been easy being a female and a
Muslim to boot to achieve as much as Yassmin has.
You've got to admire that.

I agree with you about some of the posters on this forum.
Quite a few of them are not capable of arguing on a mature,
intelligent level. No one likes or supports an abusive,
illogical or weak debater. Still, the art of
reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill not easily acquired.
I keep coming back to the forum because of people like
yourself, AJ Philips, Paul, just to mention a few. Please keep
on posting.

Foxy,

So now after it had to be explained to you that your glowing announcement in respect of Gillard was actually a April Fools Day prank you are claiming that you actually knew that all along?

Pull the other one.

You are yet another who is growing a very long nose today. LOL

Come on now, go for that last word too.

leoj,

No. Julie Bishop did more then just "shrug" as you
put it:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/05/08/bishop-sticks-abdel-magied

Obviously Julie Bishop believes in a person's talent,
abilities, and of course free speech.

Foxy,

" .... it can't have been easy being a female and a Muslim to boot to achieve as much as Yassmin has ....."

It's called 'identity politics', dear. It's been the utter downfall in Indigenous politics and organisational structures for decades. For the life of me, I don't know how some (no, let's be honest: most) Indigenous 'leaders' ever get into top positions, they're almost always less qualified and experienced than many of their staff, and sometimes younger as well. I blame the Labor Party.

Joe

SteelRedux:

“She is paying the price of being politically incorrect.”

She is paying the price for being culturally insensitive and it is her job to be culturally sensitive. She showed a complete lack of understanding of the relevance of Anzac Day to most Australians. There is nothing politically correct about honouring those who gave their lives for our freedom. It is the most natural and human of responses to mark their sacrifice with a day of remberence.

Anyone who could not acknowledge the logic of that most human of responses is not fit to hold a position where cultural and human sensitivity should be basic pre-requisites for the job. Her attempts to detract attention from the focus of the day in order to peddle her own personal grievances aroused the ire in most Australians. Even if her issues are important in themselves it does not negate the lack of timing and sensitivity that she showed.

How can she call, with any credibility, on the rest of Australians to be sensitive to other cultures when she is so ignorant of theirs? It makes you question whether she actually knows what cultural sensitivity means.

Dear phanto,

She's young and needs guidance in many areas.
As she learned from her insensitive ANZAC day
posting. However how many older experienced
politicians and leaders of society do we know
who are totally insensitive to the feelings of
others? I could name quite a few, as I'm sure so
could you. And what's their excuse?

Foxy:

She was appointed to a position based on her credentials. If she is young and needs guidance then she should not be in that position.

Other politicians can be insensitive but that does not excuse her behaviour. When they act in the same way they should be criticised in the same way.

Re that lying Moslem woman, ABC Lateline had an excellent segment last night on terrorism being not caused by mental instability, not caused by retribution for US actions in the Middle East, not caused by anything whatsoever but religion. A particular religion: Islam.

There was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing about the role of ASIO but that what essentially had to be confronted "without pussyfooting around", confronted with something more than ASIO can do, was the Islamic religion which calls for death or subjugation of everyone not stupid or evil enough to embrace it.

The Lateline segment can be recovered using I-View or at www.abc.net.au/lateline

The responsibility for the terrorist menace in Australia lies in unthinking importation of a Moslem Fifth Column. Potato Head, as Minister for Immigration, needs to look closely at guidelines for allowing individuals to enter the country. Ms Merkel has already blown it for Europe.

Specific suggestions for rules governing entry follow.

First and foremost, entry should be forbidden for anyone who is known to have breached, while outside Australia, Australian laws relating to national security. Returning IS fighters should be sent straight to gaol to languish there for at least 30 years (my own druthers would be to take them out and shoot them, or to lock them up for 30 years and then shoot them).

Other entrants should receive a card in PC multiculti language on which the entrant must sign a declaration that s/he will totally respect the right of every person in the country to adhere to or speak out against any religion or to reject the requirements of any religion - penalty for breach being deportation to point of embarkation.

Foxy, "And what's their excuse?"

Yet again the red herring 'Tu quoque', ad hominem fallacy.

Joe (Loudmouth),

I don't believe that it is "identity politics" with
Yassmin Abdel Magied as you suggest. I believe that
she's achieved what she has due to her impressive
background (qualifications and talent):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yassmin_Abdel-Magied

Phanto,

I shall again quote what I cited earlier:

"What exactly was it that got everyone so outraged?

Did she attack veterans? No?

Did she dishonour ANZACS in past wars? No?

Did she commit a crime? No?

She used free speech (which only a select few are
apparently entitled to do) to remind people, as they
take in the horror and loss the world is still a bleeding
and suffering place.

How DARE a Muslim Woman do such a thing in 21st Century
Free Speech Australia?"

And she did this on a private Facebook account (her own)
which she immediately removed and apologised for.

I would say that she had been very sensitive to other
people's feelings under the circumstances.

EJ,

You wrote - "That lying Moslem woman."

How exactly did she lie?

leoj,

What I wrote earlier was relevant to this discussion.
It was not a red herring or an ad hominem fallacy as
you posted. How about you actually contributing
something to discussions instead of consistently
condemning and pointing out false faults in what others
post. Be a problem solver not a spotter.
Try again.

Foxy:

She didn’t do any of those things you have carefully selected but that does not mean she is innocent of any wrongdoing at all.

I have explained what I think she did wrong and why it was important given the position she holds in influencing government policy.

If she was just making personal remarks then she would not have done so in front of an audience of 20 thousand Facebook followers. That is just another example of her insensitivity.

Foxy,

More ad hominem from you. And yes, it was 'Tu quoque', a herring or an ad hominem fallacy before.

You do that a lot.

Phanto,
You are entirely correct in your two posts on page 7.

What Yassmin posted on Anzac day was not only insensitive it showed her ignorance of our society. It shows she is unfit to hold a position on any government advisory body.

Foxy ,and others, should note carefully what you said on page 7.

Foxy,
All the criticism of Yassmin was simply because we were offended that anyone could possibly suggest we share our honor and respect for our service men and women with any other group. Especially those that came here intent to gate crash our borders and take advantage of our generosity.

I remind you that a male person at SBS was seriously critisised for disparaging Anzac day, a couple of years ago. He was sacked because of that

Banjo,

Both posts, well said.

Thanks too to phanto, for this gem of a post, page 7,
phanto, Thursday, 1 June 2017 1:49:19 PM

Just noticed a query from Foxy:

"EJ,

You wrote - "That lying Moslem woman."

How exactly did she lie?"

She lied on Q&A that Islam was a feminist religion that respected women. Senator Lambie called her out on it but the liar was professionally trained and Senator Lambie had not done her homework on Islam (as anyone who can read should be doing and keeping up to date as it is a Fifth Column imported into our country, including its misogyny and bigotry on steroids).

Dear EJ,

I believe that she was explaining Islam
according to her own religious
beliefs. Therefore does that constitute a lie?
I'm not sure that it does. But, Thank You for your
explanation.

Now back to the topic - regarding her ANZAC Day
comments, the outrage she caused, and the demands
for her to be sacked.

"It is important to remember Yassmin Abdel Magied's
comments were not made when she was actually
presenting on the ABC."

"Are the critics saying that the ABC must be responsible
for the views expressed in other forums by anyone who
might be a part-time presenter?"

"Critics are always insisting the ABC should have more
conservative presenters. If more conservatives are
appointed to present one or more programs, should what they
said elsewhere follow ABC guidelines and be under strict
ABC control? Hardly."

"In terms of the content of Abdel Magied's post, vocal
advocates of removing restraints (notably 18C of the Racial
Discrimination Act) to promote "Free Speech" can't object
when someone speaks out."

"The fact that a remark is considered disrespectful
(or insensitive) or against Australian values is hardly the
point - or - perhaps it is the point.
The test of your commitment to free speech, a core
Australian value, is when you don't like what's being said."

"Abdel Magied's comment upset many people, but was mild
compared with, for example, some of the dialogue in
Alan Seymour's famous "The One Day of the Year."

"In that play, the young character Hughie declares -
"That whole thing - ANZAC - Gallipoli - was a waste.
Certainly nothing to glorify."

"Wicka Dawson tells Alf, fellow digger and Hughie's father -
"He's got the right, to think and say what he likes.
Any fightin' we did, you 'n' me in any wars, it was to give
him that right."

"Seymour's play written in 1958, caused a furore, including
a bomb scare during a dress rehearsal and death threats to
the author. It went on to be seen as a classic in Australian
writing."

(Michelle Grattan, April 26th 2017 - the conversation.)

http://theconversation.com/abdel-magied-anzac-row-is-a-storm-over-not-much-76708

contd ...

My apologies for the typo. the character Wicka Dawson
should be - Wacka Dawson.

Foxy, she told the audience that Islam was a feminist religion that respects women. She was not expressing a religious belief, she was describing to a non-Moslem audience a religion which quite plainly in its own literature available for anyone who gives a damn to look at ascribes an inferior role to women as part of its general misanthropy. If she was explaining Islam according to her own religious beliefs rather that what its own literature says about it she was engaging in taqiyya (look it up) - a form of lying intended to serve the march of Islam.

The woman was lying.

Try reading http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx which describes taqiyya based on the actual texts of what the Koran and Hadiths say about it. Try taking it on board to avoid the risk of pussyfooting appeasement of an imported Fifth Column.

Dearest Foxy,

So ........ if someone tells a lie, but, with innocent eyes blinking in confusion, says that they thought it as true, that's not a lie. Oh, Right.

Surely she - and probably you as well - are aware that in Islam - a woman's word in court is worth far, far less than a man's ?

Surely she - and probably you as well - are aware that female genital mutilation, hacking out a young girl's labia and clitoris, is a vile practice which is deliberately meant to deprive a woman from ever experiencing the ecstasies that a man is free to experience ?

Surely she - and who knows, maybe you as well - are aware that a woman inherits vastly less than a man-child, and loses far more on divorce, even of the property that she brought to the marriage ?

Surely she knows - and just probably, you as well - know that, on divorce, once a child has been suckled, it goes to the ex-husband, and the now-useless wife, sorry ex-wife, will be thrown out of the family home ? Back to her birth-family, in disgrace, and penniless?

Surely she, and even you possibly, know that woman in Saudi Arabia, i.e. a strictly Islamic country - not a single synagogue or Christian church after all, can't leave the home without a male relative, and only in full tent-garb ? That they can't get a driver's licence ? Or even ride a fb%*uyn43n@ing push-bike ?

And yet she - and just possibly you too - claim that somehow, Islam is a feminist religion.

I don't recall signing up to being a supporter of that sort of feminism. Did you ?

Joe

Loudmouth's clearly expressed challenge deserves to be met, not squibbed.

EJ,

A lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent
to deceive; an intentional untruth.
I do not think that Yassmin Abdel Magied gave a false
statement made with deliberate intent to deceive or
told an intentional untruth. That is your interpretation
of what she said. I am merely trying to point out the
possibility - that she simply stated what she believed.
Misguided as it may have been in our opinion.
Of course
I cannot prove that this is the case. At the same time
you cannot prove that it's not.

Joe (Loudmouth),

I have made my position about Islam quite clear many
times on this forum.

I have stated repeatedly that in this country there is
one law which we are all expected to abide by. It is the
law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian
Constitution and anyone who breaks the law will be dealt
with accordingly.

I have read all of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books. And I have
reserved a copy of her latest work.

I have nothing further to add to this discussion.

See you all on the next one.

A demonstrable lie is something that can't be "interpreted" away from.

Loudmouth's challenge remains unanswered or run-away from.

Maybe like Yassmin, Foxy can roll her Rs outa dere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P7iD4z_O2w

leoj,

In any particular language?

I speak several of them.

Gosh.

But that shouldn't prevent you from rolling your Rs outta places.

Foxy,

A person that intentionally tells a lie is liar.

The first test is whether what Yasmin said, i.e that "Islam is the most feminist religions" was a lie. Given Islamic practices and the abundance of examples of the devaluation of women in core Islamic texts, this is patently false.

The second test is whether Yasmin could reasonably be expected to know what she said was bollocks. Given that she has undertaken a taxpayer funded "study" trip to learn about the subject, any claim of ignorance is untenable.

Therefore the claim that Yasmin is liar is more than reasonable.

leoj,

The rolled r comes up in so many languages.
You can hear it in various forms in Czech,
Thai, Hungarian, and of course Spanish,
Italian and Portugese. Yet it seems to be
something that evades native English speakers.

See you on another discussion old chap.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The question is did she intentionally lie -
or did she just say what she believes to be true.
Yes she did do a tour of those countries, however one
sees what one is shown, who one meets, what one
is presented with, as a guest.

I think it was
George Bernard Shaw who travelled to the Soviet
Union during Stalin's reign
and came back to England raving about how
wonderful it was. He had only been shown what they
wanted him to see. We are looking at Yassmin's
statements incredulously from our point of view.
All I am suggesting is - lets look at it from hers.

Waleed Aly's wife also echoed the same sort of
sentiments as Yassmin about Islam.

Anyway, I am merely expressing a different take on the
situation. I am certainly not agreeing with it.

I have nothing further to add to this discussion -
although I would appreciate it if personal insults
were left at the door of discussions in general.
Especially by advocates - (eg. leoj) -
who profess to be for "free speech."

cont'd ...

Dear Shadow Minister,

http://www.rbth.com/arts/literature/2016/07/26/bernard-shaw-i-cant-die-without-having-seen-the-ussr_615147

Foxy,

Those poor nuns must have been weeping with exasperation: thou shalt not tell wobblies and it is off for another twenty rounds of the Rosary for you.

Nice try at diverting the tread with your usual ad hominems, but very few here buy into that with you any more, choosing not to respond, and you are so skilled that you always win anyhow, even holding out for the last word.

Yassmin's hubris and wobblies have been revealed to the full glare of the publicity she swam in. How could someone so egotistical, superficial, so ignorant and so prone to picking 'blues' (she would have a fight in a phone booth!), ever be held up as a positive role model for girls?

Of course the ABC has many more like her. That is why the ABC has to be held accountable. But the simple truth is that the ABC doesn't have a role any more.

Foxy,

So you are going for the insanity plea?

Bernard Shaw is good comparison as a liar, as in 1930s Bernard Shaw was pilloried for being an apologist for the Soviet Union in the face of the clear evidence of politically based mass executions.

Yassmin is well educated and travelled, and with an engineering degree supposedly trained in analytical thinking, and clearly not stupid. Unless she has never read a newspaper in her 26yrs the plea of ignorance is beyond tenuous.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I was hoping to leave this discussion but because you've
again addressed me I feel obliged to respond.

I'm not pleading anything of the sort that you
suggest.

I am merely offering the possibility of
Yassmin'e interpretation of Islam to be genuine
for her.

In any civil debate we're bound to hear views we don't
share. There clearly are people who just want to hear
their own views reinforced. To hear their own opinions
celebrated and echoed. But that is not what free speech
is for. Hurling abuse may amuse some people's
staunchest supporters, but it doesn't change minds.
Even worse, the constant abuse and personal attacks of the
winner-take-all warriors drives reasonable people from the
field.

Unless we can meet and discuss our differences of opinion
in a civil debate we shall prevent people like
Yassmin Abdel Magied and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and those who
critique their differing interpretations of Islam,
from holding the discussions our democracy needs.

cont'd ...

Dear Shadow Minister,

As for George Bernard Shaw opinions?

Yes of course he was abused for his beliefs about the
USSR. And rightly so. That is precisely the point
being made. They were what he believed. I am not for
one moment suggesting that he was right. The same applies
in the case of Yassmin Abdel Magied. If we believe
in free speech - we should be able to create environments
for debate. Where we can meet to discuss our differences of
opinion - even if we may disagree.

Whether Yassmin was lying or not is impossible to know without reading her mind.

If someone pulled her up and discredited her claim by citing contradictions, she probably would have said that she doesn’t consider those contradictions to be true Islam/Sharia-law. Christians do this all the time, there’s even a common fallacy that describes this excuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman), so I don’t know why it’s so difficult to believe that Muslims could use it too.

Want to know why Catholicism is wrong? Ask a Protestant. Want to know why Lutherans are wrong? Ask an Anglican. Want to know why the people in the first row of pews are wrong? Ask the people in the second row.

Christian apologists, Matt Slick and Jesse Morrell, debated soteriology recently (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvODWeEjeXg). It’s a fascinating debate to watch because both quote from the same book, yet each one comes to a completely different conclusion, neither of which I can fault.

Islam is far more de-centralised than Christianity (with the absence of any religious authority being a core tenet of Shi'ism) so why do we assume that every Muslim must believe the same things about Islam?

I suspect the only person Yassmin lied to, and continues to lie to in this respect, is herself.

AJ,

" ..... why do we assume that every Muslim must believe the same things about Islam?"

So what idiot does that ? A straw man perhaps ?

Go for it :)

Joe

Foxy,

You are arguing that religious belief will overcome all reason, that in essence Yassmin is an Islamic extremist, who in the face of overwhelming evidence will state blatant falsehoods as facts.

If Yassmin were a brain dead fanatic (like creationists) then I could swallow it, but she is no idiot.

Your theory lacks any plausibility.

That she uttered such a preposterous lie to make a political point and garner attention is the most plausible.

Sheesh, Joe. I use an all-inclusive "we" (meaning me too), and it's still not good enough.

It's not much of a straw man if I include myself.

I'll re-state what I said to, "... why do SO MANY assume that every Muslim must believe the same things about Islam?", if it makes you feel any better.

My point remains, either way. I think the fact that the doctrine of taqiyya is sometimes raised, to suggest that any deviance from the most sinister interpretation of Islam is an act, is evidence of that.

Thanks, AJ, apology accepted :)

In English 'we' is quite ambiguous: is it meant exclusively, just 'me and you'; or does I refer to 'all of us' ?

In Bahasa Indonesia, a beautiful language, there are two words for 'we' or 'us', ('kami' and 'kita': I forget which is which) one exclusive to just the speaker and the person spoken to; and the other meaning, a general 'we', everybody.

I can understand your complete confusion :)

I'd still dispute your straw-man: I'm sure that many Australians would be aware of something of the variety of sects and beliefs within Islam, not least between Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Ahmaddiyah and Ismailiyah. Not to mention the north African sect from the late nineteenth century that believed that the true Messiah was yet to be born, and would be born properly to a man, not a dirty woman, so they all wore huge baggy trousers. I'm not sure how they perceived the birth process.

Joe

There was no apology, Joe. Nor was there a straw man.

Some here are arguing that there is strong reason to suggest that Yassmin lied. I presented a case as to why we can't be so sure about that.

The comment you're picking on was a sidenote. I can retract it completely if you'd like. It makes no difference to my argument.

There was no straw man, unless you want to argue that no one here is suggesting that Yassmin lied. You gave it a good shot, though.

Hi AJ,

" ..... why do we assume that every Muslim must believe the same things about Islam?"

So what idiot does that ? A straw man perhaps ?

Sure seems like one to me :)

But you're forgiven, now we can move on. I hope.

Joe

Joe,

ttbn thinks like that for starters. Apart from that, I've already explained why it wasn't a straw man. Ironically, though, your focusing on a sidenote of mine while ignoring my argument is more of a straw man.

Another example of people thinking like that, Joe, is when quotation marks put around the word 'moderate', when referring to moderate Muslims, to imply that there is no such thing. You do that.

This from the left whinge ABC

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-03/linda-sarsour-hijabi-feminism/8583482

"Arguments over the veil and the purity culture surrounding it have long divided Muslim women.

But now, thanks to the shaming of girls murdered in a terrorist attack at an Ariana Grande concert as "whores", the split has spilled out into the open.

Self-styled "homegirls in hijabs" — like New York militant Linda Sarsour — and many of their progressive western backers afraid of being labelled racist or "Islamophobic" are staying silent or downplaying the anti-women Islamist ideology linked to the terror strike in Manchester.

Meanwhile, their reformist Muslim sisters are speaking out and asking why figures who hold such conservative views around modesty are held up by feminists and sections of the media as representative of Muslim women, and as role models and progressives, when they're not."

Typically the discussion carries on for some as though the 12+ pages before don't exist. That suits their convenience and spin.

To recapitulate and easily done by linking to an article that most would regard as evenly balanced and fair,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4260898/Muslim-Tanveer-Ahmed-hits-Yassmin-Abdel-Magied.html

"'It is embarrassing': Muslim psychiatrist slams Q&A star Yassmin Abdel-Magied for 'brushing off' Islam's abuse of women while she enjoys the 'freedoms and privileges' of the West

Former multicultural adviser Tanveer Ahmed slammed Yassmin Abdel-Magied

Dr Ahmed, a psychiatrist, said she had denied Islamic abuses of women and girls
Said Abdel-Magied had confused freedoms and privileges of the West for Islam

Argued engaging Muslims by their religion increased danger of Islamic laws

A Bangladeshi-born Muslim community leader has accused Islamic youth activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied of being in denial about how Islam is linked to the abuse of women.

Tanveer Ahmed - a psychiatrist, Sydney councillor and former multicultural adviser - criticised the founder of Youth Without Borders for telling the ABC's Q&A program Islam was 'the most feminist religion'."

- Those are only introductory dot points for a detailed article. There are other relevant details included such as this,

"Three days after that fiery exchange (on Q&A), she (Yassmin) sought advice on Facebook from Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Wassim Doureihi, a frontman for the Islamist political group which is campaigning for a pan-Islamic state based on sharia law."

It is preposterous to present Yassmin as some young woman who is an innocent abroad, who does not realise what she is saying. Quite apart from the ridiculous stereotyping of naive, defenceless, incompetent women, especially of tertiary educated, that image conjures up.

Dear Shadow Minister,

No. That is not what I am arguing at all.
What you are stating about Yasmin is your
argument, not mine.

What I am arguing I've stated quite clearly.
You may think my theories lack
plausability. I may think yours do.

We can argue all we like but neither of us really know
what Yassmin's genuine beliefs or motives are. We can
critique her interpretation of Islam, however we should
not try to prevent her from having that interpretation.

Unless we can create a fair-minded environment for
debate we prevent people like Yassmin Abdel Magied,
and those who critique her interpretation of Islam, from
holding the discussions our democracy needs.

AJP: To be a moderate Moslem without the quote marks one would have to have accepted that the Koran is evil hate speech instructing ts followers to kill and subjugate nonbelievers, and therefore one would have to have repudiated it along with the desert bandit that butchered non believers at the beginning. But such a moderate Moslem would not be a Moslem at all. Just as a moderate Christian would have to repudiate Jesus but remain a Christian. No such beastie.

Here, in its own words, is what the Koran says about non-believers:

http://freethoughtnation.com/what-does-th-koran-say-about-nonbelievers/

Either that Moslem woman had never read the Koran or she had and she was lying to a non-Moslem audience about it.

You can't talk about a single Muslim identity.
Islam embraces a huge range of nationalities,
cultures, and languages. The Muslim communities
are made up of people from all over the globe.
Each culture or nationality has a different
interpretation of Islam. And, the Quran is
subject to a vast plurality of interpretations.

Muslim scholars stress the fact that the texts
have historical context and must be understood in
accordance with them. They also stress that
Quranic interpretation is of fundamental importance.
It is the key to distinguishing Islam as practised
by the majority of its adherents and the extreme
strident strands of Islam as practised by such as
ISIS who rely on truncated interpretations of the
Quranic text. In contrast Sunnis, Shiites and
Muslims of all strips have historically appreciated
the diversity of interpretations among scholars.

The following link explains:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kabir-helminski/does-the-koran-really-adv_b_722114.html

EmperorJulian,

I'm aware of the reasoning behind putting quotation marks around the ‘moderate’ in “moderate Muslim”.

<<But such a moderate Moslem would not be a Moslem at all.>>

This is precisely what I was talking about. Denying that moderates are deserving of the label at all enables one to claim that all Muslims think the same way. Which is precisely what Joe was trying to deny anyone does, in order to conjure a straw man that wasn't there.

You've only strengthened my claim.

I'm well aware of what the Qur’an says about non-believers, too. Moderates have ways of getting around that. For example, the precise meaning of ‘infidel’ is debated in among Islamic scholars. Many argue that ‘infidel’ refers to a person who knows that Islam is the one true religion, but rejects it anyway; which would mean that none of us here are infidels.

SM,
I too read that article and it was not very well written and hard to follow. What I got from it is that there is a reformist group of muslim women in the US and another traditional group of women, that are called the 'hijabi honour brigade'.

It seems the later group has referred to the girls attending the Manchester concert as 'whores'. Even suggesting that the young girls were 'asking for it'--as were their parents who had no business letting them stay out late.

Or as one veil-wearing French woman declared on Twitter, girls as young as eight were targeted because they had been encouraged by Grande to dress "like whores" and dared to go out after dark in a sign of "decadence and deviance

Later in the article this group said that because the young girls attended a concert and were entertained by a singer in a seductive outfit, they were 'prostitutes and deserved to die'

These are Islamic women making these statements. No wonder most westerners believe they are incompatible in our society.

Foxy,

Neither Bernard Shaw nor Yassmin are being pilloried for their beliefs, they are being pilloried for their nonsensical statements that were farcical in the face of all the evidence, and their acting as apologists for oppressive regimes and gross human rights violations.

Yassmin in particular is well educated and travelled and cannot be unaware of the shoddy treatment of women under Islam, and the texts even in the Koran itself that devalue women, let alone every single major scholarly text on the issue.

So to claim that Islam is the most feminist religion, Yassmin had to be lying, and knowingly so.

Secondly, If Joe Bloggs was a committed white supremacist would you also support him thus:

"Unless we can create a fair-minded environment for debate we prevent people like Joe Bloggs, and those who critique his interpretation of race, from holding the discussions our democracy needs."

Banjo's post, along with the latest Moslem murder rampage in Britain, shows not why we should not only keep the mongrels out of the country but should send back to Mozzieland all those in it. The riots the Moslem Fifth Column caused at Cronulla followed from similar insults to non-Moslem women.

delete first occurrence of"not". Sorry.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Would I support the right of a white supremacist to speak?

As Senator George Brandis told us -

"Everyone has the right to be a bigot."
(Or words to that effect).

He was I assume, referring to free speech.

And in this country, free speech is one of our core values.

Would I support the supremacist's right to speak?

Yes.

The man's views would speak for themselves and
people could judge him accordingly.
Also, we have laws that govern hate speech.
They would be put in force if the man crossed the line.

cont'd ...

Dear Shadow Minister,

George Bernard Shaw and Yassmin certainly did make
nonsensical statements as far as we're concerned.
However those nonsensical statements are what they
believed to be true and to accuse them of lying is
simply not correct from their point of view.

We have as a perfect example people who deny the
effects of pollution on the environment despite
the evidence being presented. Are those people
liars?

It's a question of what people choose to believe.
I'm sure there are many other examples that we could
come up with but you get the drift.

Foxy: What actual evidence has been presented for AGW? The only scientists I can recall who actually research the drivers of climate change are Nir Shivav, Henrik Svensmark, E. Frits-Christenaen and as couple of others whose names have slipped my mind. A handful. The list published by IPCC and frequently brandished by the faithful - even the minority who are actual qualified scientists - work in fields other than examining the interaction of climate variation with drivers of which atmospheric CO2 is only a minor contributor.

A Christian who tells an audience of atheists that Jesus walked on water is peddling a warped view but not necessarily lying. One who tells atheists the Christian religion calls homosexuality a sin against God is lying. Yassmin Thingummy knowingly described Islam as feminist. It is not. Its well known texts say its not. The well known laws it adopts in Moslem-ruled countries (remember the Channel Nine kerfuffle with Islamic Lebanon?) say it's not. Yassmin Thing assessed her non-Moslem audience as being iggo about this and took a punt on lying to them. Yes, lying. Even Senator Lambie, who had clearly not studied Islam in any depth, knew enough about Islam to nail her.

Foxy,

Bernard Shaw's and Yasmin's statements were nonsensical to any rational person. If their beliefs completely clouded their ability to reason then they are complete morons.

Secondly, as you said, vis-a-vis the white supremacist, Their views would speak for themselves and people have judged them accordingly.

As a champion of free speech obviously you would support the amendments to 18c?

Finally, I am glad that you have equated Yasmin and Bernard Shaw with those that deny that mankind has had any effect on the climate.

Perhaps Foxy can advise the whys of this,

"Yassmin sought advice on Facebook from Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Wassim Doureihi, a frontman for the Islamist political group which is campaigning for a pan-Islamic state based on sharia law."
[see link given earlier]

This nasty fellow,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvjudQmPSWg