Hizb ut-Tahrir are a global Islamic organisation full of hardline religious nutters hell bent on establishing a ‘trans-national Islamic state’. In short, Hizb ut-Tahrir would like nothing more then for the entire world to come under Sharia law.

The only thing stopping them? Democracy and the majority non-muslim populations currently living in the west.

Ironically the democracy system that Hizb ut-Tahrir fight is what also allows them to preach their religious nonsense. With democracy though comes political correctness and whilst the democratic system should work to shut radical groups like this down, instead it fosters them.

Governmental criticism is something we hold very dear in Australia and often actively engage in. There’s a massive difference however in criticising the current government of the day and attempting to undermine the entire political system that governs a country.

Yesterday Hizb ut-Tahrir flew in some British members of the group and held a anti-democracy conference in Sydney’s west (no surprises on that choice of location).

Burhan Hanif, leader of the British arm of Hizb ut-Tahrir declared democracy to be haram (forbidden).

We must adhere to Islam and Islam alone, we should not be conned or succumb to the disingenuous and flawed narrative that the only way to engage politically is through the secular democratic process. It is prohibited and haram.”

(Hanif) said democracy was incompatible with Islam because the Koran insisted Allah was the sole lawmaker, and Muslim political involvement could not be based on “secular and erroneous concepts such as democracy and freedom”.


Like I said earlier, criticism of a government is one thing, criticism of an entire system of government is another.

According to their draft constitution, under a Hizb ut-Tahrir Sharia ruled nation, here’s what Australians would have to endure.

Defense

Conscription would be introduced for every male muslim aged fifteen years or older ‘in readiness for jihad‘.

One can assume this would mean mass casualties of Australians against Israel and the US as the Sharia government deploys everything we have to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

Democracy

Democracy is obviously out. Muslim Australians would vote for a Caliph as head of state, non-muslims would have no say in the matter.

This Caliph would apparently differ from a president or prime minister in that we’d be seeking his or her (her, hahahah) opinion on policy rather then being governed by them.

Economy

The Australian dollar would be replaced by gold and silver coins. The Sharia state would run ‘utilities, public transport, health care, energy resources such as oil, and unused farm land‘.

“Government” retaining ownership of these services might be a good thing however remember all these utilities, in particular health care would get the Islamic treatment and be different from what we know today.

Non-muslims

Non-muslim Australians would be banned from working in any form of government or government run organisation. In effect they’d be stripped of any say in how the country was run.

Non-muslim Australians would only be able to criticise the government over what they believed to be ‘unjust acts’ carried out on them or the mis-application of Islam applied to them by the government.

Obviously if your objection was Islam itself your protests would most likely fall on deaf ears.

Personal Freedoms

Apostasy (leaving Islam), adultery, alcohol, and certain economic practices (gambling and interest based mortgages etc.) are out.

Apostasy in particular is punishable by death, ie. once you’re in, you’re in. There’s no escape.

Capital punishment would also make a return, along with stonings, hangings and beheading people (apostasy’s punishment).

Oh and we’d all have to learn Islam too as it’d become the official sole language of the state. None of this communicating in English nonsense.


Whilst definitely extreme and not something that’s going to happen overnight, it’s somewhat discomforting that here in Australia we freely allow a platform for this type of movement to exist.

As I keep mentioning, it’s one thing to criticise a government and another to entirely call for an established political system’s upheaval and transition.

I strongly believe in personal freedoms but just as I’m not allowed to engage in personal freedoms that would drastically alter the quality of life of others, why so are groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir allowed to work towards their goals?

Make no mistake, I’m not about to convert to Islam any time soon and living under Sharia law as a non-muslim would have a massive detrimental effect on my quality of life. As it would nearly all non-muslim Australians.

Julia Gillard has recently publicly declared herself an atheist and whilst you don’t need to be an atheist to oppose the political views of Hizb ut-Tahrir, it’d be great to see her do something about them. I mean at the very least deny visa applications for those wanting to travel to Australia who are hell bent on destroying our system of government.

That one should be a no-brainer.

As for the 500 people who attended the Hizb ut-Tahrir convention, shame on you. How dare you try change my country for the worse.

If you want to live under Sharia law then move to Saudi Arabia, leave my Australia the hell alone.

Unless chaperoned it’s generally frowned upon for a female to be in the company of any unrelated male friends or acquaintances. This particular example as you can appreciate presents great difficulty in environments where unrelated males and females are bound to mix.

Take for example the workplace. Despite making up 70% of all university enrolments, women in Saudi Arabia constitute just 5% of the workforce. However with such high enrolment numbers this will no doubt increase over time.

Clerics running the country are thus presented with the dilemma of enforcing Sharia law in an increasingly liberal environment. Well a dilemma until now.

Recently, two Saudi Arabian Islamic clerics issued a fatwa declaring a solution to the problem.

Instead of selling out your religious beliefs and running the risk of irking the local religious police, those working with unrelated females can now rest easy. The solution to sex segregation is to simply establish ‘maternal relations‘ between yourself and any unrelated females you come into contact with.

This is achieved by drinking the breastmilk of any unrelated female you regularly come into contact with.

This consumption thus forms a maternal bond between the drinker and uh… supplier which allows the two people to come into contact with each other freely.

Now I know what you’re thinking, ‘hello sexual repression much?! And at least one cleric agrees with you. Cleric Abi Ishaq Al Huwain openly called on the women of Saudi Arabia ‘to allow the men to suckle the milk directly from their breast‘.

Take away the lactation part and aren’t we just talking basic foreplay here?

Hows that going to work?

‘Hi there, we’ve just hired a new floor manager. Could all lactating female staff who work in sector 7G please report to HR.’

‘Ok ladies, flop them out. Bob, start drinking’.

‘…what?’

‘Sorry mate, company policy. You’re going to be working directly with these women so we need to establish maternal relations.’

‘what on earth for?’

‘well you see under Sharia law unrelated males and females coming into contact with each other is deemed to much of a temptation. By making you suck on the nipples of these women, we hope to prevent any sexual temptation occuring’.

‘…so I get to see a whole bunch of naked breasts, suck on them… and this is supposed to sexually repress any urges I might have towards these women I’m going to regularly be in contact with?’

‘…right.’

‘…’

‘…PRAISE ALLAH!’

Thankfully it seems not everyone has jumped off the deep end. Sheikh Al Obeikan, an adviser to the royal court and consultant to the Ministry of Justice, adopted a much more realistic position and suggested the milk not be taken directly from the breast.

Now obviously this removes the physical contact between the drinker and supplier but again how’s it supposed to work?

What, you apply for a job and the boss opens up a fridge containing breast milk samples of all the women who work for the company that you then have to drink?

And that’s just in the workplace. Acquaintance wise I can’t think of anything more awkward then a cultural requirement that I drink the breast milk of any female friends I might have.

For its intended purpose of ensuring the safeguarding of Islamic law, is sucking on the nipples of your female friends and co-workers really the best way to go about it?

I’ve been part of more then my fair share of sexual tension experiences in the workplace. Despite thinking long and hard about it, I can’t think of one situation where throwing some nipples into my mouth would have helped the situation.

And even though it does nothing for me, surely there’s at least one guy in Saudi Arabia who’d get off drinking the breast milk of his female colleagues or friends.

Although I seriously doubt this fatwa will ever come to fruition it’s interesting that it’s been brought up as a viable solution to the religious sex segregation issue present in Saudi Arabia. In what is arguably one of the most sexually repressed countries in the world it’s amusing that their solution to stopping mixing of the unrelated sexes is so grounded in potential eroticism.

Not surprising I guess when you live in a country run by old men who’ve spent most of their lives repressing any sexual urges that ever crossed their mind. What you can’t get out of your system will eventually consume you.

Case in point, stupid fatwas like this.

Here in Australia, commit the illegal act of female genital mutilation (also known as female circumcision), and we’ll not only excuse you – we’ll discuss modifying our laws to try and offer you a government sanctioned legal option.

Female genital mutilation is a practice routinely associated with Islamic cultures despite the practice having no religious significance.

Typically the procedure involves cutting and/or the removal or mutilation of the clitoral area of a woman’s vagina. This ranges from cutting out the clitoris to the extreme act of cutting out anything exterior and sewing up the area leaving only a small hole for urine and menstrual blood to pass through.

Needless to say this practice is banned in Australia however recently an idea to combat illegal ‘backyard’ procedures was set to be floated by the The Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians in June.

The idea is that female genital mutilation is going to occur in Australia anyway due to rampant immigration from regions where it is widely practiced.

To counter this a ‘ritual nick’ could be offered in a clinical setting to satisfy the cultural requirements of those wanting to engage in the practice.

RANZCOG secretary Gino Pecoraro said the policy would be discussed at next month’s Women’s Health Committee meeting.

“We will need to start to think about [its introduction] but we would have to speak to community leaders from Australia,” Dr Pecoraro said.

“If a nick could meet the cultural needs of a particular woman, then it might save her from going through what can really be drastic surgery.


What gets me is that we already have a method for saving
women from going through this ‘drastic surgery’. It’s called the law.

The motivation behind the proposed discussion of the alternative procedure is that

with the rise in Somali and Sudanese numbers in Australia, doctors are seeing more cases of young girls, and women, needing surgery after illegal operations.


This of course begs the obvious question of why the bloody hell haven’t these girls been placed into state custody and their parents arrested for child abuse?

Female mutilation is illegal in Australia and due to the age of the girls involved, parental permission must be sanctioned in order for the procedure to take place. This is regardless of whether it’s done via a backyard operation or clinical environment.

If parents bring their daughter to an Australian clinic or hospital post botched mutilation procedure then why don’t we have policy in place to deal with the situation legally?

As far as I’m aware nobody in Australia to date has been put up on charges for conducting female genital mutilation yet doctors are seeing more cases of it?

Something doesn’t add up.

Instead of bowing to hazardous unnecessary procedures why don’t we try enforcing our existing laws for a change. Sanctioning female genital mutilation is going to get us nowhere.

Proponents of the practice would argue that by allowing doctors to perform a relatively harmless nick lives would be saved. However we all know what happens once you leave the door to this sort of practice slightly ajar.

Does anybody really think that people would be running around completely disfiguring baby girl’s clitoral areas if all that was required to appease their cultural practice was a mere nip of the area?

Offer ritual nicks and it won’t be long before people are demanding government sanctioned legal ‘proper’ mutilation procedures on the grounds of cultural tolerance.

I acknowledge there’s also the potential issue of a crackdown leading to the eventual death of a child because the parents were fearful of legal repercussions of seeking medical attention. In answer to this I say roll out the murder charges.

One or two people being locked away for killing their daughter and the negative publicity this generates should be enough to largely curb the practice.

Part of the problem now is you can rock up to a hospital and despite having clearly performed the practice here in Australia, hide behind cultural sensitivity and have the Australian health system fix your mistakes.

This needs to change.

Present to a hospital with a gunshot wound and the police are called. Present with a female baby or child with severe clitoral trauma and it’s high time some hard hitting questions were asked of the parents.

The Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians’ proposed discussion on the issue appears to have been prompted by a recent American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement.

The policy statement was released in April and stated that

some physicians should be able to prick or nick a girl’s clitoral skin in order to “satisfy cultural requirements.” The group likened the nick to an ear piercing.


Following criticism from US advocacy groups and survivors of female genital cutting, the policy statement was rescinded on May 27th;

On Thursday the AAP stated the group will not condone doctors to provide any kind of “clitoral nick.”


Shortly after this announcement, the Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians’ also clarified their position on the matter;

The college for Australia’s obstetricians and gynaecologists says it does not support the “ritual nicking” of young Muslim girls and anyone suspected of performing such genital mutilation should be reported to authorities.

Dr Ted Weaver, president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG), said media reports suggesting the college would review its policy were the result of a misquote.

He said the issue was likely to be discussed at a meeting next month, triggered by recent announcements made by the American Academy of Pediatrics, but a policy shift was not on the agenda.

“The college does not support – does not – support female genital mutilation, full-stop,” Dr Weaver said.


Although I find it hard to misinterpret the quote provided from Mr. Pecoraro above, ‘‘, I’m nonetheless glad to hear that a policy change is off the table.

As far as I’m concerned the only discussion that needs to be held on this topic is why aren’t people being arrested for child abuse?

Of course the answer’s quite simple. With most of the proponents for female genital mutilation in Australia coming from minority cultures in the third world, it’s a PR disaster for any government to uphold the law.

Regardless, cultural tolerance only goes so far. If you want to come to Australia and bring with you cultural practices that have already been established as illegal here, then you deserve wholly any legal repercussions. If this means splitting up families then too bad.

Female genital mutilation is child abuse. Period.

How about we stop ‘discussing‘ the matter and enforcing our laws for a change.

Then, less then 24 hours later over in the UK

a cross-dressing robber wearing a burqa and hijab tricked jewelers into opening their door, only for an armed gang to raid the store.

The man, dressed in traditional Islamic women’s clothes, rang the doorbell at the Capri Jewellers in Bury, in the northern English county of Lancashire on Wednesday afternoon.

But as soon as he was buzzed in, a further three men – including one with a shotgun – stormed the store.

The group stole a large amount of jewelry, including bangles, rings and lockets, before escaping in a waiting car.


In the shadow of a 24 hour burqa clad crime spree, South Australian Senator Cory Bernadi has labelled the burqa as un-Australian and called for its ban.

I for one wholeheartedly agree with him.

On the entry ‘Ban the Burqa’ Senator Bernadi wrote yesterday on his personal blog;

In my mind, the burqa has no place in Australian society. I would go as far as to say it is un-Australian.

To me, the burqa represents the repressive domination of men over women which has no place in our society and compromises some of the most important aspects of human communication.


Despite the recent crimes involving the use of a burqa it’s refreshing to see a public figure willing to enter discussion on the matter from a rational cultural viewpoint.

Religion is left at the door and Bernadi seems to share similar views as I do on non-religious reasons the burqa should be banned.

Put simply, the burqa separates and distances the wearer from the normal interactions with broader society.

Equality of women is one of the key values in our secular society and any culture that believes only women should be covered in such a repressive manner is not consistent with the Australian culture and values.


This is usually when people start to chime in with ‘oh but the burqa is actually massively empowering for women, it’s their choice and such a strong one at that!’

Take for example ‘Assisting Shift in Multicultural Australia’ director Janine Evans’ retort to Senator Bernadi’s comments;

To say it doesn’t fit with our way of life and culture shuts the door to (Muslim) women becoming active members of society.

Sorry but the only thing shutting the door on muslim women becoming active members of Australian society are the burqas they are wearing themselves. If what you wear stops me from communicating properly with you then I have no time for you.

By completely veiling yourself you’re also sending out a strong cultural message that you are clearly not interested in being a integrated part of Australian society.

Keysar Trad from the Islamic Friendship Association puts up an equally flimsy argument;

Wearing the burqa actually encouraged women to integrate into Australian society, whereas a ban would only force them indoors where they’d “miss out on the vitamin D”.

It’s tantamount to denying them the right to drive, the right to enjoy all the services of society as well as equal opportunity


Firstly how are women dressed from head to toe in cloth getting any vitamin D anyway? And secondly a ban wouldn’t force them indoors, their religion would.

As for equal opportunity, one only needs to look at the recent case in Italy where Amel Marmouri was fined for wearing a burqa in public.

In response to the fine Marmouri’s husband Ben Salah Braim stated

We knew about the law and I know that (the law) is not against my religion but now Amel will have to stay indoors. I can’t have other men looking at her.If the law says she can’t wear one then she will have to stay inside night and day. There is nothing I can do.


Is he talking about another human being or a pet dog?! Clearly Salah Braim sees his wife as nothing more then property to be dictated to.

It’s no secret that the burqa is widely seen as a tool of female oppression, given that it’s religious requirement is not mentioned anywhere explicitly in the Quran. Salah Braim’s comments above clearly shatter the illusion that these women have any choice in the matter.

Every time I see a woman in a burqa I know that she’s in it because her husband believes as a male I’m unable to control any urges and at the very sight of her unclothed flesh of course want nothing else then to rape his wife.

How utterly insulting.

For me face to face interaction is a pretty important part of day to day communication. Whether I’m living in Australia, Taiwan or anywhere else in the world it doesn’t matter. Facial expression is a core component of subconscious communication and if I can avoid it, I’d rather not engage in people so self righteous they choose to exclude themselves from this cultural practice.

It’s on these grounds I’d love to see the burqa banned. Sadly I fear that if there’s a continued rise in burqa crime however, that these valid communication and cultural concerns will take a back seat to fear mongering and bigotry as primary reasons to ban the burqa.

Some might argue that it’s already too late.

If you’re walking down the street in one nobody has any idea who you are. Even if the police stop you and they’re unlucky enough to be male they have to wait for a female officer to rock up to carry out any identity checks.

On the religious front this is innocent enough. However when people use the burqa for criminal activity, such action highlights the fact that if you cannot be spot identified there’s a good chance you’ll get away with it.

Would banning the burqa however actually stop people committing crimes whilst wearing one?

The main fear about not being able to publicly spot identify someone is that in the event of a crime, witnesses and CCTV aren’t able to reveal much.

Case in point the ‘burqa bandit’ photo I used above. This man (or woman) robbed a North Carolina bank in the US at gunpoint. If you witnessed the robbery what would you tell police?

The burqa bandit was never apprehended and the police still don’t even know if it was a male or female under the veil.

More recently in Miranda, Sydney, two men stalked a third man who’d just withdrawn a large amount of cash from an ATM.

Police say the 35-year-old was delivering cash to jewellery retailers at a shopping centre in Miranda at about 5:00pm when two men started following him.

He became suspicious and drove off after they told him his tyre was going flat.


The man then drove 10km to another shopping centre, got out of the car and was then robbed at gunpoint by “by a man wearing a burka and sunglasses over the eye opening, who pointed a pistol at him.”

I’m assuming the victim knew it was a man because the robber spoke. Otherwise there’d be no way of telling.

Naturally the police are looking for the two men who first approached the victim. Until they’ve been questioned there’s no way of knowing if the two encounters with the victim are related, despite the strong gut feeling they obviously were.

Like the North Carolina burqa bandit case, don’t expect any CCTV footage of the Sydney robbery or any police portraits of the robber. If you’ve seen one black burqa you’ve seen them all, there’s no unique identifiable characteristics… which is kind of the point.

Now the irrational part of me would love to cry out about how this Sydney burqa robbery is proof that we in Australia need to get on the burqa ban bandwagon.

Surely if we banned the public wearing of one that’d solve any and all future potential crime problems we might have involving the wearing of a burqa right?

How well has this worked for other instruments that have been banned due to their use in crime? Guns are quite strictly regulated but we still read about people being shot every second day. Carrying around knives and machetes is also illegal but that doesn’t stop people getting stabbed either.

Would banning the burqa to stop potential burqa crime have any real effect?

Think about it. You’re a criminal and at most you know you’re going to spend less then ten minutes out in the open wearing a burqa whilst you commit your crime. Do you really think a burqa ban is going to stop you?

Typically whatever crime you’re about to carry out, whether it be robbery, assault, rape or whatever whilst wearing a burqa is going to be more serious then then the illegal act of wearing the burqa itself.

Criminal activity, such as the Miranda burqa robbery, only strengthen people’s fears of the unknown under the burqa. If crime featuring the burqa rises it won’t take long for a widespread paranoid culture against burqa wearers to develop. This then leads to a massive public push to ban the burqa but for the totally wrong reasons.

I fear two or three burqa crimes is all it would take to get some serious debate and discussion in Australia over banning the burqa outright. Whilst I support a burqa ban (but struggle with the personal freedom conundrum) I only do so for what I believe to be neutral and practical reasons.

Preventing crime isn’t one of them. The last thing we need is fear and prejudice on our streets because people are overly paranoid that every burqa person is a potential walking crime scene waiting to happen.

As a country we’re better then that.

FRANCE’S top administrative body has advised the government against slapping a complete ban on the full Islamic veil but says outlawing the burqa in some places was justified for security reasons.


Last week Belgium became the first European country to ban the burqa;

“We’re the first country to spring the locks that have made a good number of women slaves, and we hope to be followed by France, Switzerland, Italy, and the Netherlands; countries that think,” said Liberal Deputy Denis Ducarme.

In the lower house of the federal parliament yesterday, 136 deputies supported a nationwide ban on clothes or veils that do not allow the wearer to be fully identified, including the full-face niqab and burqa.


And Italy has seemingly had a burqa ban since 1975;

ITALIAN police have fined a woman 500 euros ($A712) for wearing a full Islamic veil.

While there is no specific legislation on the burqa, covering the face in public – even with a motorcycle helmet – has been banned in Italy since 1975.


It’s worth noting that in each of these cases the main reason cited for the banning the burqa are related to security and identification. Critics of burqa bans will almost inadvertently revert to protesting against the infringement of their religious  beliefs.

After all, prove an action has religious significance and all of a sudden the religious vilification defense overshadows anything else.

Personally I don’t see the burqa as a religious artifact. From my understanding the Quran urges Islamic followers to dress modestly, it mentions nothing about running around covered from head to toe and completely obliterating any sense of personal identity in public.

However this is largely put down to interpretation and translation differences. Still it’s enough for Muslims who endorse the burqa to cry religious vilification and label anyone who supports a burqa ban as attacking Islam and religious freedom.

What about the arguments for a burqa ban that have nothing to do with religion though? I’m strongly opposed to the wearing of the burqa in public and it’s got nothing to do with religion.

Here’s 5 reasons I believe the burqa should not only be banned in Europe but in any country that isn’t ruled by Islamic fundamentalist crazies.

1. Eye Contact

One of the strongest tenants of personal intracommunication between humans is eye contact. The Burqa by nature obscures this.

When I’m talking to someone primarily I’m looking into their eyes and secondarily I’m reading their face. This isn’t something that happens consciously, it’s a subconscious element to human interaction.

Mind you it’s not limited to humans either, my pet cats were able to tell what mood I was in off my facial expressions alone. If they were doing something they shouldn’t be often a frown and ‘angry eyes’ was all it took for them to have second thoughts.

The absence of these secondary forms of communication (the primary being speech) are definitely noticeable when absent. Try have a conversation with someone who completely covers their face, for me it’s extremely frustrating. I want to read their reactions to what I’m saying and gauge how the conversation is going.

There’s a lot more to communication then simply hearing a voice. Talking to an emotionless brick wall is largely unsatisfying and downright frustrating at times. If you’re wearing a burqa (or any other type of face covering clothing) I don’t want to talk to you.

In my personal life this is fine enough but it’s caused me problems in previous jobs where I’ve had to interact with burqa clad women. The frustration was even more compounded here as often English wasn’t a strong point. This in itself wasn’t a negative but often I had no way of gauging if I was being understood or not.

If you’re explaining something to someone and they don’t understand you can usually tell by their facial expression. Here I found myself dealing with a blank slate. Directly asking if they understood often led to silence or a slow ‘not-quite-sure’ nod. In these situations I just had to hope for the best.

2. Burqas make me feel like a predator

The whole concept of being modest in Islam appears to be to remove all physical temptation, from men.

If Islam attracts guys who can’t keep it in their pants then fair enough, but what about the rest of us?

Every time I see a burqa I’m subconsciously reminded that the reason she’s dressed like that is so that I don’t instantly turn into a slobbering uncontrollable animal and try to mate with her.

I mean that’s what it comes down to doesn’t it?

How about taking back the notion of self control and placing the burden of responsibility where it belongs, on the potential offender – not the potential victim.

3. I can’t hear you

This one probably again relates to my interactions with women wearing burqas. Not all women who wear a burqa are softly spoken but a hell of a lot of them are.

I’d have trouble understanding these women without a burqa, wearing one just makes me want to go bang my head against a wall.

Not because the women are softly spoken but because there’s no viable solution. Some random guy asking a woman to remove a burqa is punishable by beheading, or I won’t get into virgin heaven… or something.

‘mfphhhfphhhmmm’.

‘Hi there , sorry I can’t hear you. Can you speak up?’

‘MFPHHFPHHMMM!’

‘Hmm, yeah this isn’t really working. I’ll be right back.’

At this point I’d go and disappear for a half hour or so until they’d hopefully gone. Admittedly this didn’t happen often but when it did, after the first few games of me asking them to speak louder and getting nowhere, I really didn’t know what to do.

In any other circumstance I’d just ask them to remove whatever was making them difficult to hear. But it’s the almighty burqa and we can’t ask that.

4. Body Odor

For anyone who thought Indians smelt bad, wait until you’re in the vicinity of a burqa clad women in summer. I’ve read that deodorant and Islam might come into opposition due to the alcohol content of some deodorants but by and large I believe it’s just laziness.

I mean if you’re going to run around invisible all day who cares what people think about your smell or looks.

For the rest of the us this is a nightmare. Australian summers aren’t cold and dressing head to toe in black cannot by any stretch of the imagination be comfortable. Hell even if you wore deodorant, five minutes outside and you’d still be wading through your very own swimming pool.

Sorry but I don’t want to smell your body odor because you choose to wear climatalogically inappropriate clothing.

5. woman’s rights

Now this is a tricky one. There’s plenty of women out there who will go on about how it’s a personal choice and they like wearing a burqa.

To this I say fair enough. You were born into this culture and have had it repeatedly re-enforced throughout your life. Nothing is going to change that. In most middle eastern and African countries were the burqa is prevalent often it’s not even a choice, the laws of the land forbid you from not wearing a burqa in public.

Now it’s certainly not up to me to tell women what they can and can’t wear but I believe the choice to wear or not wear one is important. Of course this contradicts my support for banning the burqa but I’m struggling with that.

I believe the choice to wear a burqa or not is important for future generations. The problem with the west is with immigration we’re getting immigrants from hardline Muslim countries where there is no choice.

This generation of women are mostly a lost cause, it’s become a way of life for them. I see the next generation of immigrant female children as being hard pressed to burqa up, infact I just don’t see it happening as a majority at all. Not if they’ve grown up in western society.

I guess what it comes down to is if we can wait that long. My own prejudices against communicating with someone who masks their identity aren’t going to change anytime soon. I’ll forever see restricting the basic tenants of communication as a sign of disrespect, dishonesty and just being downright rude.


On one hand I’d love to see the burqa banned but the issue of personal freedoms is quite a strong argument. Then again, it’s not like we don’t already ban some forms of clothing, or lack thereof. Try walking down the street in some budgie smugglers, or wearing a motorcycle helmet into a bank, or wearing shorts and a tshirt into a club and see what happens.

If as a society we’ve already content to have the above examples of clothing restrictions in place, is it really that much of a big step to legislate it?


I’m not exactly certain of what happens if an Australian of Asian background who is Muslim applies, but I’m pretty sure the entire universe explodes.

Far be it from me to tell Pauline Hanson who and who she can’t sell her house to but it does raise some interesting questions about Hanson’s recent decision to relocate to the UK.

Aside from the irony of famously complaining about immigrants and then becoming on yourself, for someone who claims that she believes Muslims are incompatible with the Australian way of live, is moving to the UK that smart a move?

The Muslim population of Britain according to their 2001 census was 1,536,015, or 3% of the population. The British newspaper ‘The Times’ put the British Muslim population at 2.9 million as of January 2009.

Plus it’s no state secret that Britain has been heavily Islamicised over the past decade. Britain even set up its own muslim friendly Sharia court system.

Comparatively the Australian Muslim population sat at 340,392 or 1.3% of the population in 2006 according to our own census.

This of course doesn’t take into account that 99.99% of Muslims living in Australia live in the western suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney. Pauline Hanson however lives up in Coleyville in Queensland.

I’m sure the one muslim who lives up in Queensland is absolutely outraged they won’t be able to purchase Pauine Hanson’s house.

Statistically Pauline Hanson’s got more chance of moving into a house in the UK that has had Muslims live in it then selling her Queensland home to a Muslim in Australia.

Unfortunately we won’t know for a while as due to the negative backlash over her comments, Hanson has removed her property from the market.

Her LJ Hooker real estate agent, Keith Edwards, said he’d received an onslaught of emails and calls following the controversial comments.

“Some of (the emails) have been pretty upsetting… I got the abusive and threatening phone calls last night (Wednesday night), I didn’t sleep.

I got swags of abusive emails, with non-returnable addresses, just cowards.”


I’m not sure if this is code for death threats and crazy jihads ala South Park but I wouldn’t at all be surprised if it was.

As for Hanson’s comments themselves, I somewhat agree with her. Whilst my scope isn’t as broad as to cover all Muslims, I firmly believe there should be no place in Australia for crazy nutjobs Muslim extremists.

I’d like to pretend I wouldn’t but I know that if I was selling a house and a self styled cleric rocked up with his Burqa clad wife complaining about my pork sausages in the fridge after an inspection, I’d be feeling slightly uneasy.

An interesting comment from Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner  Neroli Holmes was thrown in at the end of the news.com.au article;

Ms Hanson’s latest stance against Muslims and foreign investors puts her at risk of breaching the state’s discrimination laws.


Yeah, I’d love to see the government try that one on. The real estate industry has been discriminating against people for years. Try renting some property as a pet owner or as a single mum with kids some time.

…welcome to the Australian real estate industry boys.

On the other, you have crazies like the people over at Revolution Muslim.

Last week’s South Park episode was a 200th blockbuster that featured a mish mash of some of the more prominent storylines that have appeared on the show. One such storyline was the depiction of Muhammad in a visual form.

South Park first depicted Muhammad in visual form back in 2001 in the episode Super Best Friends.

Muhammad being the guy to the left of Jesus.

I watched the 200th episode of South Park when it came out last week and like most of the rest of the world had a giggle and then got on with life.

Unfortunately if you’re a religious nutjob things aren’t as simple.

Revolution Muslim appear to be your stereotypical band of Islamic nutjobs headed by website creator Yousef al-Khattab who interestingly lives in New York and runs a bicycle taxi.

Naturally Revolution Muslim is hell bent on the destruction of the west. The website’s mission statement (google cached) proclaims

Revolution Muslim’s purpose is to invite people to proper Islam (Aqeedah (creed) + Shariah (path)) and command the good (justice and peace), while forbidding the falsehood (lies and deceptions) of society.

Our mission is to one day see the Muslims united under one Khalifah and under the commands of Allah (SWT).

We focus on educating Muslims and Non-Muslims alike about the actuality of the religion and thereby work to preserve traditional Islamic values for Muslims across the globe.

We pray that we may witness the dismantlement of western, secular dominance across the world as we hold it to be pagan and idolatrous in the majority of its presumptions.

We seek a resurrection of the just example set forth by centuries of Islamic rule throughout the ages and we hold it to be self evident for the objective soul and mind that Allah is One and that Muhammad ibn Abdullah is His Prophet and that the religion offers the solution to all of the world’s ills and afflictions.


Sounds wonderful and everything but no thanks.

Recently an article featured on Revolution Muslim threatening the creators of South Park, Mat Stone and Trey Parker with assassination. The article opens with a post mortem photo of Theo Van Gogh, a dutch film maker assassinated in 2004 after releasing ‘Submission’. Submission is a film critical of the treatment of women in Islam.

The article states;

The episode went beyond just showing him, but it outright insulted him, salaa Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam, by showing him in a bear suit and making fun of our beloved Nabi, salaa Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam.

We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them. Maybe they have not listened to this lecture before:


Following these threats (which let’s call a spade a spade, they are) is an embedded Youtube video of shiek Ahmad Jibril calling on people to chop the head off the author of a cartoon depicting Muhammad.

In an article posted a few days later on the 18th April further threatens

Here are the authors boasting of their insults and celebrating their complete disregard for what anyone considers sacred: Are you afraid that you would be bombed, she asks?

Perhaps they are not, perhaps they should be, only time will tell.


Reader commentary on the article isn’t much better (link working at time of publication).

I wish i could slit their throats with a rusty knife,so it be more painful….May curse them and may Allah give me the strength to do that honour.

How dare they insult our prohphets,they won’t get away this time Inshallah.

There’s no doubt our Mujjahid Brother’s from among the state itself will rise & kill them – InshahAllah… There should & will never be any forgiveness for them ever or for that matter with all the enemies of Allah. The will all suffer the wrath of Allah through the Hands of his Lions – Ameen.

These kaafirs are the filthiest people. May Allah never guide them until they taste the fire of hell. Inshallah. American society has gone against the fitrah in which Allah created Man.
By the way here is a good chance for somebody to imitate the blind companion of the messenger of Allah (pbuh) whol killed his wife who used to insult the prophet(pbuh).

Our Shaykhs, may Allah reward and Protect them have given us from Qur’an and Sunnah the best actions to take and finish off the like of these two kafirs.

So the options we have to deal with these two kafirs and anyone who follow them in their blasphemous actions are:

1. Killing and annihilating them either by gunning them down, bombing them, or striking their necks with swords or knives

2. Crucifying them, i.e. nailing them on a tree or a pole, and let them die a slow excruciating death

3. Cutting off from opposite sides their hands and feet with axes, swords or guns, and let them wander off until death comes to them.

4. Exiling them from the land

May Allah Azza wa Jall destroy and punish them in this world and in the everlasting painful punishment in the Fire of Hell.


Thankfully there is some level headedness amongst the rabble. Two out of the seven readers who’ve commented actually urge restraint from violence against Matt and Trey.

One comment however did seem to miss an important point;

All in all it was a stupid cartoon – but I was also offended by this, and not just the depiction, but the content – inferring that all Muslims are crazy violent terrorists. This is a good example of how we have been marginalized.


Are shows like South Park who set out to prove a point marginalizing Muslims or are websites like Revolution Muslim who openly threaten criticisers of the religion with violence doing so?

If you’re thin skinned enough to take a ‘stupid cartoon‘ seriously and offer up a congregation of Islamic nutjobs only willing to unsheathe their rusty blades in revenge, other then being ‘crazy violent terrorists‘, how else are the rest of the world supposed to take you?

‘People who can be reasoned with’ wasn’t among the first impressions I got whilst reading Revolution Muslim.


Footnote: Currently Revolution Muslim is offline and returning a ’500 Internal Sever Error’ code. I’m not sure if the site has been pulled or if it’s struggling due to bandwidth problems. I’ve provided Google cache links where possible, all of which were working at the time of publication.

Gad Amr is also Muslim.

Usually the stories in the media regarding Muslims take on a sharply negative tone. The religion itself seems to carry an abundance of nutjobs self styled clerics who every few months seem to feel the need to remind Australia just how outspoken they can be.

In the face of extreme provocation, it is refreshing to see that not all Muslims give in to the violent sociopath stereotype.

The following is a report from the ABC’s Media Watch program. The two main players in the video are Simon Fuller, a (now ex) Channel Nine camera man and Gad Amr, father of Omar Amr.

Omar Amr is up for charges in relation to riots that occured at a Bob Jane Tmart store in Oakleigh after an Easternats. For those of you not familiar with Easternats thing a crowd of bogans standing around cheering cars doing doughnuts (yes it’s as exciting as it sounds).


Now I’m not in any way suggesting that the disgraceful behaviour of Simon Fuller in anyway absolves Omar Amr of his alleged involvement in the Easternat riots. Omar does look like your typical meathead who’d get involved in riots at a bogan car event and if found guilty he’ll get what he deserves.

Instead I want to draw attention to how his father, Gad Amr, handled himself. In the face of such direct provocation it’s nothing short of admirable that Gad kept a cool head and maintained overly polite requests that Simon Fuller and co. leave him and his son alone.

Personally I hate it when we hear about some crime and the only shots the media get are of criminals hiding behind clothes but in this case they clearly got the shots they were after. What seems to follow is then inexplicable vindictiveness on Fuller’s behalf.

Gad Amr seems completely wise to this and even stops his son Omar from engaging Fuller knowing full well they are only there for a reaction. When this fails out comes Fuller with the terrorist remark and even then, despite the Muslim stereotype Gad goes off to find police rather then directly confront Fuller.

This shows an incredible amount of self restraint and willpower. I’m a big believer of earning respect and in my eyes Gad Amr has definitely earned it. This, ladies and gentlemen is how you handle yourself with dignity.

Take note Muslims of Australia it’s people like Amr that we should be hearing more about. Instead of putting up crazy fundamentalist posterboys, why not take some time to promote people like Gad Amr.

With Islamic crazies in Somalia recently banning music, movies, musical ringtones and bras (seriously wtf?), it’s easy to see how tipped the scales are in terms of irrational, violent and violent Islam vs. the calm, rational and very sensible image portrayed by people like Gad Amr.

There clearly are decent muslims out there, so how about letting your voices heard every once in a while?

Obviously not happy that they’d be stuck in limbo for the next three to six months some Afghan and Sri Lankan asylum seekers, currently being detained in Sydney, have begun a hunger strike.

The catch?

These clowns have already had their asylum applications refused.

The asylum visa suspension handed down applies to all new asylum applications and this includes new appeals. As I mentioned in my earlier article the end result is that all new arrivals are stuck in limbo and housed at the taxpayer’s expense.

Additionally with the news of this hunger strike it’s now also clear that any Afghan and Sri Lankan asylum seekers who were waiting to lodge appeals are also now stuck in limbo too, again at the taxpayer’s expense.

Whilst I can’t even begin to imagine why the hell we moved asylum seekers to the Australian mainland after their claims were initially rejected, the question now is just what are the government going to do.

Filled with a sense of self importance the striking asylum seekers have announced that they are

refusing to eat until their appeals are set in motion (and) are also demanding to meet with Immigration Minister Chris Evans.


Right because y’know, that’s how you get your way in a foreign country. Let me tell you now if I tried to pull this crap in Taiwan I’d be on the national news as a laughing stock before being promptly deported.

As if trying to bully the Australian government into submission wasn’t enough the news article also states that many of the group are “mentally unstable“.

Oh yes please. If it’s one thing Australia doesn’t have enough of it’s mentally unstable people!

Soltan Ahmad Azizi married his wife Marzieh Rahimi in Afghanistan back in 1995. In 2005 they came to Australia as refugees. In 2007 Azizi strangled Rahimi with her veil in front of their two children because he thought she had “become too Australian” and asked for a divorce.

After murdering his wife Azizi called up police, informed them he’d murdered his wife and told them “I’m ready for the handcuffs“.

Azizi claimed the couple’s marriage was “a happy one“.

Up until now Australia’s police on asylum seekers has been seemingly dictated to us by those seeking asylum. With the news of this latest hunger strike it seems that trend is set to continue.

I for one can’t wait to see how Kevin ‘pass the lube’ Rudd handles this one.

Operating on the slippery slope between free speech and hate speech whilst I don’t agree with everything Wilders has ever said I do appreciate the man for speaking his mind.

These days it’s not easy to criticize a religion and rise above the insta-defense calls of racism despite no religion on earth being an actual race.

Last week an appeals court in Amsterdam ordered Wilders to stand trial for making “anti-Islamic” statements. Should Wilders be found guilty it appears that being able to criticize a religion (as opposed to it’s followers) will become a jailable offence.

I can criticize politicians, I can criticize a movie and I can criticize a product I don’t like;

But god forbid I criticize a religion.

Wilders shot to international fame after the release of his 2008 film Fitna. Rallying against the Islamification of the Netherlands and greater Europe Wilders accused the Islamic religion of inciting violence and hate through its very doctrine.

Ironically following the release of the film the death threats started to roll in. Fitna was released on Liveleak and shortly after the movie was uploaded it had to be taken down whilst Liveleak upgraded the security at their offices.

This was done following a series of death threats and calls of violence towards the staff at Liveleak.

Wilder’s himself has endured, amongst other things a tirade of death threats and threats of violence made against him. In 2004 two terrorists were captured after an hour long siege and were accused of planning to murder Wilder. In 2007 a woman was sentenced to a year in prison after writing over 100 threatening emails to Wilders.

Due to the nature and frequency of the threats Wilders is under constant security watch and is permitted to see his wife on average once a week. His accommodation is also routinely changed nightly.

All this because Wilder openly criticized a religion.

The irony of being physically threatened and then being charged for claiming that a religion encourages this very sort of behaviour in its followers appears to be lost on the Dutch legal system.

As someone who values being able to openly criticize anything I find it disturbing that in a democracy a person is able to be charged under hate speech towards individuals without having actually done so.

Wilders has always gone after religion itself rather then it’s followers and for this I respect him. It’s not an easy route to take and certainly commands a deep understanding of the subject matter being criticized.

I’m not exactly sure how long a case like this goes for but it’s definitely one to follow. Should the prosecution succeed I imagine it won’t be long before advocates of Islam (and other religion) start to get ideas in other countries.

I hear a lot of talk these days about people complaining about the loss of civil liberty in western societies. Post 9/11 there has been a massive shift towards curtailing civil liberties in the name of national security. Be it no-fly lists, xray machines that outline your genitals, racial profiling or the fact that my bicycle lock is classified as a weapon at the airport, as a global population it feels like there’s less and less we can’t do.

One of the main problems with complaining about your loss of rights though is that by the time you do so it’s usually too late. Cases like the Wilder one are where it all starts.

The case will quietly proceed and in five years time someone will say something that is now illegal and the general public will be asking why they can’t say anything bad about religion anymore.

Should the case succeed you can be guaranteed there will be wider implications firstly in European parliament and then eventually the rest of the world. Wilder’s current credibility falls on the fact that he’s just gone after the religion, a conviction like this is brought about solely with the intention of discrediting him.

Should it succeed I feel we’ll have lost the openness that is needed on both sides of the religious debate. When people have to look over their shoulder or worry about whether or not their criticism of a religion (not its followers) constitutes hate speech then the public sphere of healthy debate is all the poorer.

Great for followers of religion, not so great for the rest of us.

Indians complain about getting bashed every second day, Jewish societies claim Kyle Sandilands concentration camp comments were the worst thing to happen to Jewish people since the holocaust and there’s always the Aboriginals who just complain about everything given any opportunity.

Just over a week ago now, the latest whinge came from ‘leading Muslim spokesperson’ Keysar Trad. I can’t help but wonder if ‘leading Muslim spokesperson’ is the new politically correct term for sheik but in any case, Trad believes Australia should observe the two most important Muslim public holidays.

Initially my reaction was to dismiss Trad’s remarks as yet another attempt to inroad Muslim culture into mainstream Australian society. After some thought I figured well fair enough. Australia isn’t really a Christian nation so why not entertain the idea of different religious holidays?

Not knowing what the two most important Muslim public holidays were (the news.com.au article conveniently leaves them out), I hit up Wikipedia.

Seriously, instead of the stereotypical dismissive ‘go live in some country that celebrates Muslim holidays this is Australia’, has anyone actually bothered to look at their religious holidays?

I still have no idea which are the main public holidays in Islam but I’m going to assume Wikipedia lists them in order of importance.

Ashura

Ashura is commemorated by Shi’a Muslims on the ninth and tenth day of Muharram on the Islamic Calendar. Ashura is an Arabic word meaning “ten”, and according to Sunni schools of thought it is a day of optional fasting. Jews in the city of Madina fasted only one day, (on Yom Kippur the 10th of Tishrei) so the Prophet Muhammad would fast too.

For Shi’a Muslims this is a day of mourning.


An optional day of fasting that is also a day of mourning.

No offense guys but a public holiday isn’t something I want to waste sitting around not eating and being sad over. Sure most people don’t celebrate the religious side of Christmas and Easter etc. but Islam doesn’t exactly have the best track record for not taking itself seriously.

I don’t particularly want to be that guy who’s running around all happy stuffing my face with pork hotdogs getting greasy looks from all the fasting mourners out there. Suburban effigies and flag burning anyone?

With Easter there’s chocolate and Christmas has it’s presents. Exactly what are we supposed to be sharing or celebrating in a non-religious way during Ashura?

Laylat al-Qadr

Laylat al-Qadr is Arabic for “The Night of Power”. It falls on one of the last ten days of Ramadan on an odd numbered day. It is considered the holiest night of the year, since it is the night in which the Qur’an was first revealed. It is also considered better than a thousand months [Qur'an 97:1-3].

It is said that if a person performs voluntary worship on this night, that worship is equal to a thousand months or approximately 80 years.


Whilst a nighttime public holiday might sound like a novel idea, most people already have the night off so why the need for a daytime holiday? I appreciate if you’re working in a carpark or stocking shelves at Woolies but cmon really, there’s enough people who work overnight that we need to declare a holiday over it?

What the are us non religious types supposed to do? Typically we’d have a family lunch or dinner but Laylat al-Qadr falls during Ramadan, which is a month of no food between dawn and dusk.

Again with the suburban effigies and flag burning.

It seems every Islamic public holiday involves lots of praying and not eating food. Sorry guys but as far as spending my public holiday goes, sitting around being thankful for all the food I’m not eating just doesn’t cut it.

No offense, but take out the religious symbolism and Islam has some pretty crappy public holidays. They just don’t translate well into a secular setting.

Trad’s comments came after the New South Wales government passed laws prohibiting employers to demand that employees work on Australian public holidays. Presumably this is because some Muslims wanted to trade in their holidays for their much more significant Islamic holy days (or nights).

In theory this sounds all good and fair but the reality? What are you going to do, rock up on Christmas day to work and twiddle your thumbs because the rest of the country is off enjoying themselves?


Whatever we decide as a nation it should be uniform across the country. People are still free to take time off to celebrate their religious holidays but at a loss of holiday entitlement (annual leave).

Meanwhile if you want to entertain the idea that the nation should observe your religious holiday at least offer us some activity we can participate in without feeling like we’ve trampled on the meaning of the day.

Christmas and Easter can be safely celebrated without all the religious nonsense by sharing a good meal together and catching up. With fasting and prayer the centre point of Islamic holidays, I simply don’t see what muslims in Australia expect the rest of us will be doing with our newfound spare time on these days.

Anyone?

Presumably muslims are getting finance from independent third party operators in what must be a pretty controlled niche industry. Think about it, you offer loans to muslims who can’t go anywhere else but still need to finance essentials like a car or house. You don’t need to be muslim yourself to offer the loans, you just need to make sure the loan is halal by complying with the no-interest rule.

Where else are they going to go?

It has already been noted that the Islamic finance industry is booming in Asia and Latrobe University already offer an Islamic Banking and Finance degree, pre-empting Islamic finance as a future growth industry in Australia.

If we as a country want to exploit tap into this ludicrous market (religious people tend to have limited options when it comes loans), then logically the first step would be to test home grown products on Australian muslims.

Enter the National Bank of Australia.

This morning the National Bank of Australia (NAB) has announced plans to bring muslim-friendly loans into into mainstream finance by offering national muslim-friendly loans. From discrimination to public perception to actually turning over a profit there’s a seemingly large minefield in a national company announcing such an initiative.

On the surface though, the NAB seem to be doing it right.

The whole premise behind a muslim-friendly loan is that no interest is allowed to be charged on repayments. To get around this the bank simply purchase what it is you were after and then sell it back to you with a profit margin.

ie. I want a $1000 bicycle and go approach the bank. After some prayers and the sacrifice of a kitten the bank approves my loan and goes out and buys the bicycle for me. They then sell it back to me at say $1200. I still make repayments but the loan counts as being muslim approved because I’m not paying interest on the loan itself.

In the case of home loans, companies seem to get around the interest rates by charging ‘rent’ with the renter eventually acquiring a 100% financial stake in the property.

I know, talk about your religious technicalities.

As the Daily Telegraph points out, these type of loans have “the advantage of making the loan immune from future interest rate rises.” What isn’t disclosed though is the percentage increase on the cost of the item.

What could really make these loans appealing is if the increase in the selling price the banks put on the item they are reselling back to you is less then the variable interest rate on loans, or might be less in the near future.

For example say a bank offers you a $1000 loan at 5% variable interest and the interest rate has jumped twice in the last 6 months, if the muslim loan profit increase was at 5% or even less you could easily come out on top and as a bonus protect yourself from unstable interest rate rises.

Currently we’re starting to see this already happen in our financial sector with the Commonwealth bank deciding to “selfishly” start bumping up interest rates because you know, the recession is over. The bank were so slow to drop the rates but even at the slightest whiff of bounce back up they go.

In these cases a muslim style loan makes sense for the consumer, again providing the profit margin percentage is appealing. Given no facts and figures have been released other then the first round of loans will be $1000 or so capped to fifteen million of initial investment in the scheme I’m assuming the NAB is poised to take advantage and screw consumers.

If the model is sustainable on a small scale trial I guess it won’t be long before we see national fully fledged Australian bank backed muslim friendly mortgages.

Realistically all the NAB has to do is charge slightly less then the private operators who offer muslim loans do and they’ll be guaranteed a market share of the muslim loan industry. Given that anything more financially attractive then the standard ‘we charge you interest’ model would make the bulk of their currently loan models redundant (why pay more when you don’t have to?), there is no incentive to make muslim loans more appealing.

What is most likely going to happen is that these loans are heavily marketed to predominantly muslim areas but are offered to all members of the community. Naturally if you’re not bound by silly religious laws you’re not going to sign up to a loan that will cost you more then a normal interest loan, so that leaves only the ‘we have no other choice’ muslims left to be screwed over.

This way the banks appear to be offering non-discriminatory loans, are able to legally screw over a certain demographic who have no other choice due to silly religious laws and the ludicrous Sharia Advisory Board is kept afloat providing clerics to bless wads of loan money (or hard drives given finance is mostly all electronic these days).

Sounds like it’s win-win all round, well… except for muslim wallets.

These people need to be slapped across the face.

What happens when one day you have a job and the next you don’t?

Well naturally it’s not your fault. With the Labor government in power and the economy weathering a storm there’s never been a better time to cry discrimination and drag the unions in if you get fired.

Patricia Pitfield has worked at Myer for 30 years and was recently suspended without pay after she failed a HR safety check. At 61 years of age Patricia was unable to do a squat or walk up stairs without holding onto the railing due to a non-job related back problem and knee surgery.

I’ve worked for Myer myself at one stage and I distinctly remember the OH&S training involving a test on the safe way to pick up a box, even a small one from the ground. It involves doing a full squat and then lifting with your knees.

Now it didn’t matter where we were working, everyone had to do this test one by one infront of the OH&S guy. Myer (and every other large company) have a company wide OH&S standard and if you can’t meet that then sorry but you’re out a job.

It’s not discrimination it’s the fact that you can’t lift things safely and what if there was a fire and some steps without a railing… what is some other poor person going to have to carry you?

Whether you’ve worked at a company for 30 years or 3 days is irrelevant, everyone on site should be able to meet the OH&S checks whilst they work for the company. Otherwise they are compromising the safety of their employees and leaving themselves open to lawsuits. And yes, a frivolous discrimination claim is easier to defend yourself from then a massive insurance claim because you let unfit people work when they shouldn’t be.

I expect we’ll see more of this cash grab type behaviour over the next 12 months or so as more and more people are fired and it’s not just Australian’s getting in on the act.

Hasanali Khoja from the UK initially applied for a job as a catering manager in 2005. During the interview he raised his concerns about handling pork due to his religion, Islam. He was assured during the interview that this wouldn’t be a problem as it was a supervising role and he wouldn’t be handling anything.

Hasanali got the job and then shortly afterwards was demoted because “he was found to lack the required level of computer skills”. So basically he lied about how much of a computer ace he was during his initial interview and got caught out.

In good grace instead of firing him the company offered him a non-supervisory role and still manged to respect his porkophobia. In 2007 he was then transferred to another kitchen and advised “he had to prepare, cook and serve all food products”, you know just like everybody else working there.

Being treated like everybody else wasn’t good enough to Hasanali decided to take six months stress leave because the evil bacon was taunting him. At the end of his six months sick leave he then rolled out the discrimination claims.

Khoja told the tribunal in Watford, north of London, that he refused to handle pork products even if protective clothing and implements were provided.

“The reason for this refusal is because of the fact it is well known that if you are cooking bacon or sausages, which I was asked to do, I was exposed to splash and contact with pork which I object to,” he said.

“Gloves and tongs would not make any difference.”


Really? If an employer requires you to cook at a site where pork is served and you’re worried about being splashed in fat one of three things is going to happen;

1. Your employer can bend over backwards and remove pork from the menu discriminating against and potentially losing the business of clients who like pork.

2. Your employer respects your wishes and pays you the same for doing less work, discriminating against your colleagues.

3. Your employer fires you because you are a whiny employee unable to do your job.

Now each of those scenarios has a level of discrimination of some degree but option 3. easily makes the most sense and is the least discriminatory.

If I decide I don’t like beef and refuse to come into work because someone might spill there beef lunch on me in the cafeteria downstairs my workplace aren’t going to ban beef, nor are they going to bulldoze the entire ground floor and rebuild it in such a way that I don’t have to walk through the cafeteria to get to work.

No, they’re going to rightfully fire me for being a stupid pain in the arse and hire someone else out of the thousands of newly unemployed who aren’t precious tinkerbells.

Whether you can’t meet OH&S or pig fat is the stuff your nightmares are made of, if you cannot meet your job requirements and get fired it’s not automatically discrimination.

Instead of selfishly putting the lives of others at risk, or expecting other people to do more work because of your beliefs accept the fact that the job isn’t for you and go find work elsewhere.

I don’t want to have to deal with a cripple in the case of an emergency and I certainly don’t go applying for jobs in halal factories and then complain that it’s discrimination because halal is against my beliefs.

In response to this several countries have boycotted the conference, the most notable being the US who announced today they will not be attending.

So what led the US to pull out of what is supposed to be a constructive look at how to combat racism in the modern age?

The original Durban conference was held back in 2001 and quickly degenerated into a soap box for Islamic nations to whinge about whether or not Zionism was racist and the general rhetoric you hear coming out of the middle east on the issue.

The Arab position was stated by the Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa: “Israel’s racist actions against the Palestinian people have to be dealt with in an international conference that aims to eradicate racism. Arab countries are not expecting the Durban conference to be a venue for dealing with the Arab- Israeli peace process, but they certainly expect that the Israeli racist practices against the Palestinian people will not be overlooked.”

The Arab delegates were not insistent upon language that specifically equated Zionism with racism. It had been suggested that they were trying to revive United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (issued 1975, annulled 1991) which stated that “Zionism is a form of racism.”. Their position was that they were, rather, trying to underline that the actions being committed by Israel against Palestinians were racist.


Thus a world forum on racism quickly became a one issue fiasco and ultimately the US and Israel walked out. The Islamic world’s push to have Zionism and Israel’s actions classed as racist failed but the damage had already been done.

The BBC don’t quote a source but they paint Australia’s opinion of the conclusion of the conference in a negative light.

For Australia, “far too much of the time at the conference was consumed by bitter divisive exchanges on issues which have done nothing to advance the cause of combating racism”.


Fast forward  eight years to 2009 and it would appear nothing much has changed. The middle east is still a bitter shit fight and once again Islamic states are pushing for Israel’s actions and Zionism to be classed as racist.

With the only attendance of a head of state being Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the political hijacking of the Durban conference seems inevitable.

To date Canada, the US, Israel, Sweden and Italy have announced they will be boycotting the conference. Australia is currently considering a boycott, foreign minister Stephen Smith has stated that

If we form the view that the text is going to lead to nothing more than an anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic harangue and an anti-Jewish propaganda exercise, Australia will not be in attendance.


Out of context, it is easy to see the boycotts as the west simply turning it’s back on the plight of Arab’s in the middle east. I am not blindly pro Israel just as I am not blindly pro-Arab on the issue, I believe both sides have a lot to answer for. I can’t help but ask how do Islamic states expect anyone to take them seriously when any attempt at reconciliation appear to be grossly one sided with little to no compromise on their behalf?

On the issue of Israel they have called for disbandment of the Jewish state and on the issue of religious blasphemy have urged the UN to pass a mandate they can then use to pressure other countries to instate blasphemy, particularly against Islam as being illegal.

There is no compromise or open discussion in both proposals, only demands.

The Durban conference is shaping up to be a closed rabble of Islamic states arguing amongst themselves and no doubt coming to a conclusion the rest of the world will largely ignore. Sadly it would appear that the ultimate goal of actually discussing and constructing action plans to combat global racism (because you know, the middle east isn’t the only place racism happens), will once again be overshadowed.

If the Arab states want the world to come to the negotiating table they need to stop treating the rest of the world like an Islamic woman in a burqa. Demands with no room for compromise are not negotiations and will never be taken seriously on the world stage.

I sincerely hope Australia announces a boycott in the next 24 hours, I can’t stand the thought of my country taking part in such a lopsided farce.

Update 3:10pm

Stephen Smith has made an announcement stating that Australia won’t be going.

Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith said the Geneva meeting reaffirms the 2001 outcomes, singling out Israel and the Middle East.

“Regrettably, we cannot be confident that the review conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views,” Mr Smith said.

“Of additional concern are the suggestions of some delegations in the Durban process to limit the universal right to free speech.”


National pride: 1

Islamic extremists: 0

During a custody battle, El Labban stormed Pierce’s house with police and caught her having tea with a male friend. He accused her of adultery and now she’s lost her kids, is serving a three month jail sentence and faces instant deportation upon release; if not sooner.

Even Amnesty International have been reported to have “demanded the immediate release” of Pearce. Yeah because, you know Arab countries have a looooooooong history of stopping what they’re doing and listening to AI.

FidotheDog goes quotes Pierce;

“At the time, this man who I had met four times in my life – but was supposed to be having an affair with – was standing on the balcony upstairs having a cigarette and I was down in the kitchen making a cup of tea.”

Miss Pearce, who finally received her divorce decree absolute last month, said she and the man were arrested, placed in handcuffs and interrogated by police.

Nearly four months later, she claims she was told by police that they had gathered evidence – including used condoms, a man’s underpants and a man’s jacket.

Miss Pearce was ordered to give a DNA sample but she claims the man alleged to have been involved was never contacted and has been free to travel back and forth to Dubai ever since.

She said her husband took possession of the family home and she and her sons were forced to stay in a shelter before seeking refuge with a friend.

If this man proposes to you, run as fast as you can in the opposite direction

It is well documented that muslim law is one sided misogynistic rubbish, so why would you move to a country (“Hey I thought Dubai was the ‘modern’ Arab state?” barenakedislam writes) and live there for six years and then leave complain when it all turns to shit over a cup of tea?

You have got to commend Pierce for risking so much in her choice of lifestyle but from the beginning it was just that, a risk.

Sure I think the United Arab Emirates laws are complete nonsense and the fact that having a cup of tea with a male is classed as adultery is ludicrous but the fact of the matter is she lived there. As heart breaking as it must be to lose your kids to such a callous insecure man, I can only hope that when she’s deported she learns from her mistakes and others do too.

Take note Australia, this is how minorities are treated in muslim countries. There is no cultural tolerance, minority interest groups or bleeding hearts, you either fit in or lose your kids, wind up in jail and get deported. Perhaps that’s something to think about the next time someone gets on their soapbox and demands cultural tolerance over here.

I compiled the footage below from stills taken from the AP originals, the content doesn’t show much carnage beyond the odd limb in a few frames and should be safe for work;

The animation will repeat itself after 7 seconds.


The original home video footage can be seen here;


The story behind the image isn’t nearly as dramatic. The defense ministry believes the bomber belonged to the Tamil Tigers and ironically happened at a function at a mosque marking the birthday of Muhammed. Guy on a bike rides in behind the event and kaboom, 10 people were left dead.

I wonder if the Quran has any instructions on what to do if you’re the target of suicide bombings.

I guess we’ll just chalk this one up on the list as another life wasted and more innocents killed. Life will go on as normal after the initial shock and we can only ask the question when was the last time suicide bombings achieved anything?

Not suprisingly there are those that have come out in full support of the bomber. Sibernews threatens;

As long as there remain 10 Tamil Tigers, ready to strap on explosives or plant IEDs, the end of war will not bring peace.

It would mean treating the Tamil population of Sri Lanka – as well as critics of the war – as full-ranking citizens of their own country, rather than intruders there on sufferance.

Until then, expect more suicide bombings.


Randomly blowing people up in the streets will never get you what you want. I also fail to see how blowing people up will aid the “ending (of) the arrests and abductions of Tamils in the south, and the routine harassment of Tamil citizens at checkpoints in the capital.” Sorry mate, but if the sandal fits a terrorist is a terrorist. Perhaps if the Tigers weren’t using the Tamil population as human shields there wouldn’t be so much of an issue.

Despite strongly disagreeing with Sibernews, I do have to admit they do raise one interesting point. They quote army chief Sarath Fonseka as saying:

“This country belongs to the Sinhalese. Minorities can live in this country with us. But they must not try to, under the pretext of being a minority, demand undue things.”


If this quote is genuine (I found at least one other source so I can only assume that it is), then the Sri Lankan government certainly has some waking up to do. In the west part of being in the majority is putting up with the ridiculous demands of minority groups.

In Australia we have the Aboriginals, immigrants, refugees and working families that get pandered to. Despite this, Australia still is pretty rational when it comes to towing the line with minority demands, although all it takes is one parent in the minority to complain and all of a sudden councils are banning school crossing attendants from high-fiving kids. And if you really want to see some eye openers just Google ‘UK political correctness’.

I think the Sri Lankan government has some rethinking to do if they think eradicating the Tamil Tigers is going to squash minorities for good. Sure the militia elements might be gone, but by the fact alone that Tamil’s still live in Sri Lanka the minority itself still exists.

It is also important to note that it is equally as non-constructive for those in favour of the war to jump to wild conclusions. In an entry by minbarweb.com no better then Sibernews we go from “16 chemical resistant costumes, and 17 gas masks” being found in a Tamil Tiger camp to “the LTTE has been acting as the unofficial Research and Development(R&D) department of the global terrorist network.” That’s quite the unfounded jump there if I do say so myself.

At times the entry barely makes sense;

Unless for the commitment of the Sri Lankan soldiers the so-called “rebel group” in terms of the above hypocrites, would have been still continuing on its dangerous industry of aiding the global terrorism while taking the whole world for ride with its propaganda ploys.


Sorry what?

Reuters reports that “Sri Lanka’s military has encircled the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in a mere 37 sq km (15 sq miles) on the island nation’s northeastern coast and is fighting to finish a separatist war that has raged off and on since 1983.” so it sounds like this long standoff is almost over. Hopefully then the people of Sri Lanka can get on with their lives and put rubbish like this behind them.

Is anyone surprised?

No not really. Dr. Abdullah is the second moderate muslim in as many months who has been linked to extremist behaviour.

Dr. Abdullah supports jihad against the British navy

At the centre of the declaration is a call for muslims to see “foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.”

The declaration states that“the closure of the crossings, or the prevention of the entry of weapons through them, should be regarded as high treason in the Islamic Nation, and clear support for the Zionist enemy.”

Given that Britain is one of the countries committing high treason against the Islamic Nation if the declaration is to be taken seriously, one can only wonder where Dr. Abdullah’s allegiance lies when he signs such a declaration.

The partially government funded Muslim Council of Britain states it’s objectives on it’s website as;


• To promote co-operation, consensus and unity on Muslim affairs in the UK

• To encourage and strengthen all existing efforts being made for the benefit of the Muslim community

• To work for a more enlightened appreciation of Islam and Muslims in wider society

• To establish a position for the Muslim community within British society that is fair and based on due rights

• To work for the eradication of disadvantages and forms of discrimination faced by Muslims

• To foster better community relations and work for the good of society as a whole

• To promote inter and extra faith dialogues in the promotion of tolerance and mutual respect in a diverse society.

Given that supporting jihad against your own countries navy would appear to be at odds with these aims, it isn’t surprising that there have been calls for Dr. Abdullah’s resignation. What I find myself asking is how did someone who supports this kind of extremism get to such a prominent position in a council with polar opposite views in the first place?

Again I turn to the Council’s website;

Every two years, the General Assembly, comprising delegates from all affiliated organisations, meets to elect members of the Central Working Committee (CWC); the decision making and oversight body of the MCB. Twenty-five delegates are elected as ‘national representatives’ and each zone elects one ‘zonal representative’. There are thus 37 elected members on the CWC.

he CWC elects three office-bearers and four auxiliaries for a two year-term. The office-bearers, those charged with leading the organization, are the Secretary General, the Deputy Secretary General and the Treasurer.

The obvious question here is that if a two stage voting process comprising of delegates from affiliated organisations of the council, and then a central working committee voting again to elect office bearers have failed to weed out extremists in the upper ranks what hope do non-muslims have in distinguishing extremist muslims from moderates in society?

David T. from Harry’s Place goes one step further;


The “moderate Muslim Brotherhood” thesis holds that, if only we “make nice” with the fluffier sort of Islamist, they’ll “make nice” with us. The actions of Abdullah, Sawalha and Ghannoushi show that the moment they’re in front of an Islamist audience, the talk immediately turns to jihad. If Britain disagrees – well, then we are fair game for them. There is no way to ride this tiger.


Not only are we facing an uphill battle in identifying extremists in society, but incidents like this utterly blur the line so of mutual tolerance and cast an unfortunate shadow on all islamic moderates. Following on from that, if Dr. Abdullah was elected by his peers, what are the chances they too potentially foster extremist views?

Instead of publicly condemning the actions of it’s deputy secretary-general and expelling a radical from within its ranks, the council has chosen stereotypical silence;


A spokesman for the MCB, which says it speaks for about 400 mosques and Muslim organisations, declined to comment. Abdullah did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.


It appears flag burning, public condemnation and street protests are only used when the west does something Islam doesn’t like. Even if we are to give Dr. Abdullah the benefit of the doubt in that he might not have read every obligation contained in the declaration he signed he himself has chosen not to clear his name. Probably until he’s had time to either resign himself or come up with a plausible excuse as to how his signature found it’s way onto the document.

I wonder at what point the government steps in and declares treason. Here we have a partially government funded organization’s deputy secretary-general signing documents in support of waging jihad against the navy of the country supporting it. Why is this tolerated in the UK?

Squashed asks the same question;


A UK leader advocating attacks on his own country’s navy if it tries to stop arms smuggling seems like a criminal (or near-criminal) incitation to violence


Whether it’s classified as treason or inciting violence I wholeheartedly agree that it definitely constitutes some kind of criminal action beyond ‘resign please, but only if you feel like it’.

If anyone tried to pull this sort of stuff in Australia there would be outrage. Sadly it appears that no matter how much time passes, how many bridges are mended and foundations of co-operation strengthened, radicals in the highest ranks of involved organisations are all too willing to throw their support behind the very type of extremist beliefs the foundations they are apart of are actively working against.

With all the bushfire news, this horrific story seems to have quietly slipped under the radar here in Australia. Muzzammil Hassan arrived in the US from Pakistan back in 1979. He worked as a banker and at some point married  Aasiya Z. Hassan. After 9/11 Assiya overheard a report she didn’t like that contained negative comments about muslims. After discussing the issue together Muzzammil quit his banking job and spent three years developing a television network that would be broadcast in English, the idea being that “there should be a Muslim media so that Muslim children growing up in America grow up with the self confidence and high self esteem about their identity both as Americans and as Muslims” (Voice of America).

Reception of the network was mixed and it seems to have had difficulty taking off. Daniel Pipes blog features a timeline suggesting that prior to February 2009, Bridges TV was last in the news after Muzzammil Hassan took a trip to Saudi Arabia in late 2006 hoping to raise 5 million in investment money.

On February 6th 2009, divorce papers were served to Muzzammil and Aasiya was granted an order of protection, which is our equivalent of a restraining order. FoxNews reports that Orchard Park Police Chief Andrew Benz stated that “he was served with divorce papers that day at the [television studio], he came back to the residence and was pounding on
doors and broke one window … He left the premises that night.”

At 6:20pm on February 12th, Muzzammil turned himself in at Orchard Park Police Department, announcing that his wife was dead. Police officers found the decapitated body of Aasiya at the Bridges Tv station shortly thereafter. Muzzammil has since been charged with second degree murder.”

Mr. and Mrs. Hassan, the not so happy couple


Seriously, what the hell went wrong here?

We have a man who’s been living in western society for thirty years, who is the CEO of a television network designed to fight muslim stereotypes in the western world, and then he goes and beheads his wife after she files for divorce. Can you get any more stereotypically muslim then the image of beheading your wife for wanting a divorce? All that’s missing from this story is a suicide bomber thrown in somewhere for a bit of drama.

Forget about some uneducated immigrant with pre-conceived baggage from his homeland and one sided views of the world, this is an educated banker who was actively working to crush these stereotypical views and “bridge” the gap between muslims and the western world. WHAT HAPPENED!?!? How do you go from what he was to hacking off his wife’s head and then just turning yourself in to the local police station?

At this point there are a lot of questions and the primary motivating factor for the murder would appear to be the divorce. From an update on Daniel Pipes blog, Aaisiya’s divorce attorney Elizabeth DiPirro is quoted as stating “the grounds for divorce were “cruel and inhuman treatment,” referring to multiple prior incidents of abuse. The couple had “physical confrontations off and on” during their entire eight-year marriage and these recently had escalated to death threats.”

These claims of domestic violence are further confirmed by Asma Firfirey, Aasiya’s sister. She claims “the last time her sister had been in South Africa was in May last year, and that on her arrival, she had been assaulted so badly that they had to pay R30,000 in medical fees.”

To be fair to Islam and muslims, I couldn’t find any information on beheading being a punishment for divorce in Islam so I can only assume it isn’t. One of the common acceptable citations for divorce in Islam I found was if the wife has received ill treatment” which seems to fit in well if previous accounts of the Hassan’s domestic violence history are to be believed. What’s not acceptable is firstly the murdering of his wife and secondly the manner in which he did so, given his position and what he apparently stood for he simply should have known better.

Sadly it seems this one act will easily overshadow the potential good work the television station had worked towards since it’s conception. “Muslim CEO” and “beheading his wife for divorce” are just too striking an image to gloss over and forget about. It’s not so much the fact that they were muslim as the fact that in the modern age, the act of beheading is almost synonymous with negative portrayals of Islam. Every so often news trickles in from the middle east of beheadings of females for various “honor kills” and then there were the infamous soldier beheading videos plastered over the internet during the height of the Iraq/Afghan wars. It just seems like such an inexplicable action for someone in such a position in the community that Muzzammil was in.

Back in Australia Islam and women’s rights was in the spotlight after Samir Abu Hamza suggested rape was impossible in marriage and that it was ok to go around beating your wife with a toothbrush if she didn’t put out. Whilst beheading is an extreme jump from those remarks and admittedly thus far a rare occurrence in the west, I only hope that I never live to see the day any person is beheaded for religious reasons or otherwise on Australian soil.

What an absolute shocking end and waste of human life, my condolences go out to her family and I hope they lock up Mr. Hassan for a long time and the charges are upgraded from second degree murder, one would think the act of beheading your wife would warrant so.