Piers Akerman On The Great Australian Blight

Lefties on parade

Like fellow-Aussie columnist Andrew Bolt, Sydney Daily Telegraph columnist Piers Akerman goes where the blinkered, the naive, and those afraid of reprisals, fail to tread.

Over the past few days he has written two hard-hitting articles regarding multiculturalism and Islamofascism.

To quote from the first:

'The war against terror in Australia will count for nothing ­unless it is accompanied by a war against the culture that permitted terrorism to gain a foothold in the country.

At a rally in Melbourne on Friday

That would be the invidious policy of multiculturalism promoted [during the 1970s] by the Whitlam government’s notorious minister for immigration Al Grassby....

Multiculturalism is a great example of elitist policy-­making that should be dumped.

Since the Leftist intelligentsia launched the French Revolution, Leftist elites have triggered top-down revolutions with results in Russia, China, South-East Asia and South and Central America.

Grassby and others within the Labor Party and the academia have promoted culturally undermining policies of moral equivalence of which multiculturalism is but one manifestation.... [M]ulticulturalism ... encourages division and repels ­integration....

Ditto

Many Muslims who came to this country have chosen to live in ghettos in which English is rarely used, in homes with satellite dishes channelling Arabic (the taxpayer-funded ABC runs Al Jazeera news broadcasts and the taxpayer-funded SBS provides ­Arabic programming).

Many are choosing not to become part of mainstream Australia, though the efforts of brave individuals such as prominent Lebanese community leader Jamal Rifi and his friend Mamdouh Elomar, whose son Mohamed is among the 60-odd Australians to have answered the jihadists’ call to arms, are to be applauded....'

Read the rest here

Another view: Note the Radical Women's presence!

To quote from the second:

'Thanks to the publicly funded ethnic lobby and its supporters at the ABC, SBS and Fairfax, Australians were denied the opportunity to examine and possibly root out the evil of Islamo-fascism when it first came to public attention during the so-called Cronulla riots of December 2005.

Then, when convoys of young Lebanese-Australian publicly demonstrated their hatred for Western culture, terrorising whole suburbs as they smashed windows, vandalised cars and shouted abuse at men and women dressed in regular street clothing, the public was advised: Move along, nothing to see here.

Radical Women on a previous occasion

But there was plenty to see. Just as there had been when some Australian Muslims cheered the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, and failed to condemn the Bali bombings. What was on show was undeniable evidence that within the Muslim community there were many, not just a handful, who were supporters of terrorism.

But the handful of commentators who dared point out the obvious were warned off with threats from various taxpayer-funded organisations and nanny state apparatchiks that publicising the blatant unvarnished facts about Cronulla might whip up unnecessary fear and create division in the community. Instead of highlighting the self-evident antagonism of many young men in the Muslim communities in Sydney and Melbourne, particularly, to the society in which they or in many cases, their parents, had sought and received sanctuary from attacks from other Muslim groups in their former homelands, the publicly funded media portrayed the violent bullies as victims....

And on another

The weakness shown by the authorities then has undoubtedly encouraged a generation to arrogantly believe in their own supremacy now. Whenever challenged, they and their lawyers would play the victimhood card.

Whether it was the increase in fanatical suicide bombings, the 9/11 attacks, or even the gang rapes carried out by young men who self-identified as Muslims even as they were committing the most heinous crimes, the kumbaya crowd has always insisted the perpetrators were the real victims.

Just as the Islamic Council of Victoria has refused to condemn 18-year-old Abdul Numan Haider, who was shot and killed at Endeavour Hills Police Station in Melbourne on Tuesday after he arrived for an interview with two knives and savagely wounded an Australian Federal Police officer and a Victorian policeman before he was shot dead. Political leaders have been too quick to say Islam is not the problem.

But elements of Islam are clearly part of the problem, as anyone familiar with the Koran must be aware.

Constant appeasement of the vocal radicals is not the answer, be it with the censorship of free speech by S18C of the Racial Discrimination Act or through biased programming like the ABC’s Q & A show.

Having failed to address the issue of Islamo-fascism when it started to emerge within the Australian Muslim community, politicians are still reluctant to confront reality. There is a division in Australian society between those who refuse to assimilate and those who welcome the freedoms offered by our pluralistic society....'

Read the rest here

Al Beeb's man in Sydney displays that huge IQ of his again

Meanwhile (as reported here), two Liberal politicians have expressed concern over last Monday's ABC Q&A program in which two Muslim panel members uttered the following sentiments regarding the previous Thursday's terror raids of a number of Muslim homes in Sydney and Brisbane:

Randa Abdel-Fattah:

"....The timing of the raids, you know, the fact that it is happening one week before - it happened one week before, conveniently, the most draconian legislation is about to be announced. We have the fact that we’re going sending troops into Iraq. The whole way that the raids were televised, it was almost like an NCIS episode, almost live feeds. The fact that police were providing, you know, footage to the media, the wall-to-wall coverage that we've seen in the media.... You cannot help but feel cynical about the timing of these raids, the fact that it is whipping people up into a frenzy of hysteria of war fever and the back-to-back coverage....Not only did it provide theatre, not only did it give a sense for Australians to get behind the raids and the wall-to-wall coverage in the media, but it reinforced this wider narrative of Muslims as criminals, as Muslims as the antagonists of Australian values and I'm very cynical about the Government's use of these raids to politicise the Muslim problem of terrorism.[indistinct]...."

Anne-Azza Aly:

".... All terrorism is theatre and all counter-terrorism is theatre. So, yes, it was a manufactured spectacle but that's what counter-terrorism is. That's what security is.... That’s what counter-terrorism is. That’s what terrorism is. It’s all about theatre. So I think we have to accept there is an element of theatre, because this is essentially about perception and it is about convincing people and changing people's minds to a particular world view, whether that world view is that of ISIS and the Islamic State or whether that world view is that of the Australian Government and democratic values and so on and so forth."

 Interesting article by Aussie Islam scholar (and Anglican minister) Mark Durie here

A Moral To The Picture

 A now-deceased British Conservative MP of my acquaintance, who was in equal measure a proud Jew and a proud Englishman, used to look aghast at the insistence, during the 1970s and subsequently, of the organised Jewish community to ingratiate itself with multicultural communities.

He believed that such attempts were not in the interests of Anglo-Jewry, since such attempts risked pitting the Jewish community against the British mainstream by committing the Jewish community to advocate for the particularist agendas of such minorities instead of identifying itself (as hitherto) with British society as a whole.

Convinced that the welfare and destiny of Anglo-Jewry was inextricably linked to the welfare and destiny of the British majority population, he was a supreme political realist who foresaw the evils that would stem from mass Islamic immigration, though of course he was condemned by the Left, and by most of his fellow members of the Board of Deputies, for saying so.

He was also condemned by other deputies for forthrightly opining that the Board's attempts to cosy up to other religious/ethnic minorities was misguided, a waste of time and effort.  At worst it would entail appeasement and smacked of an unwise retreat from Anglo-Jewry's traditional integrationist outlook; at best it would not make members of those other minorities love Jews or Jewish causes the more, he predicted: those minorities had concerns of their own to occupy them.

Knowing that for certain Jewish individuals and Jewish congregations and Jewish day schools in Australia today the concept of "social justice" seems to revolve almost exclusively around the issue of "asylum seekers" (a term the Left, including the ABC, uses for anyone who claims to be a refugee, economic migrant or not; advocating for them; performing acts of service for them; collecting food and clothing and money for them, including Muslims by the way), I thought of that British MP's warnings when I saw this photo of a group of demonstrators at yesterday's Israel-demonising rally in Sydney:

"Compassion Is A Jewish Imperative. It Must Not Be Diluted To ... Flow Over The Undeserving": Jews & The Great Australian "Asylum Seeker" Debate

By cartoonist Ron Tandberg of The Age newspaper

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) has been inviting Aussie Jews to comment on its draft changes to its position regarding of the nation's refugee and asylum policy, due to be discussed at the ECAJ's meeting next week.

"Asylum seeker" is, of course, a loaded term.  It implies that all those who come to Australia's shores seeking "asylum" are indeed bona fide refugees with reasonable fear of persecution or maltreatment if returned to their countries of origin.  It takes it as a given (as, evidently, does this cartoonist on Melbourne's The Age newspaper, which, incidentally, is like others in the Fairfax group no great friend.to Israel).

Under the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees (amended by the 1967 Protocol) the definition of a refugee is a person who 

"… owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence … is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."

And the expectation has been that asylum would be sought in the "first safe country" to which the would-be applicant for refugee status and consequent granting of settlement rights came.

Australia, with its generous welfare system, is facing similar challenges to another welfare state, Britain, where economic migrants claiming to be asylum seekers are trafficked into the country by ruthless "people smugglers" in the backs of lorries, and where hordes of young men, a great many of them from the more benighted, misogynistic parts of the Islamic world, wait in France (itself a "safe country") trying to sneak aboard such vehicles, or aboard the Eurostar train to London.

Although Jews arrived in Australia with the First Fleet in 1788, and although the organised Australian Jewish community began to put down its roots with the advent of the "free [i.e. non-convict] migration" during the 1820s, the Australian Jewish community today is composed largely of the progeny of twentieth-century immigrants and refugees, including a large contingent of Holocaust survivors and their descendants.

This remembrance of plights and flights past has led to the hearts of many in the community ruling their heads, as the widespread and self-righteous condemnation of the reasoned and reasonable views of Australian Jewish News publisher Robert Magid (the subject of two posts on by me this blog) shows.

Observes a Melbourne correspondent in the letters column of this week's  brand-new (23 August) issue of the Australian Jewish News, such Jews

"are unable, in spite of copious evidence, to philosophically accept the notion of an illegal immigrant"

while a Sydneysider writes of the

'kind-hearted folk who champion the rights of those rescued from leaky boats, many still in Indonesian territorial waters.... A fair number admit (!) to just wanting a better life ... and, meanwhile, those patiently waiting on refugee processing lists (just like my postwar family) are left to whistle Dixie.  One contributor [to the newspaper's columns] mentions the Torah's edicts about treatment of strangers, but conveniently omits the bit about the strangers being fellow Jews, not our cousins from countries where no one leaves school without an A+ in anti-Semitism.'

Over at News and Views from Jews Down Under, a commenter observed some days ago:

"As Jews we are commanded to not stand idle while our neighbour bleeds. But going to bat for people who make our society bleed, is a bit too much. Showing compassion for people on the basis of Jewish suffering to those who play the system is an affront to those who were refugees.

I have been a refugee, and my parents didn’t have money to buy food, much less pay a smuggler. That is not to say that the rich should not be given asylum, but it is morally wrong to give them preferrence over poor refugees who have waited for decades for resettlement.

The Jews in my DP camp in Germany didn’t know when or where they could go. They organised schools, a synagogue and a local police force. They did not burn down buildings because processing was too slow. My sister and I, as children, could walk around without fear of being raped by people who emerged from the camps, the ghettoes and the forests. The Jews the Brits put behind barbed wire on Cyprus didn’t rape or riot. When Jews were resettled they rebuilt their lives without asking for special help or privileges.

The economic invaders of our country are not nice people. The Hazara seem to be the best of the lot, but why don’t they seek asylum in Iran which champions Sunni “Palestinians” over co-religionists reject them. They could also go to Shi’i Azerbaijan. And as a member of the Northern Alliance which overthrew the Talibaan [sic], they are not helpless as were the European Jews. And why don’t the Tamils seek refuge in Tamil Nadu, the Indian state from which they and the funds for their revolt came?

Compassion is a Jewish imperative. It must not be diluted to let it flow over the undeserving. A Talmudic observation that to be kind to the cruel is to be cruel to the kind can be extended to this crop of pretend refugees."

I reckon no one could express the nub of the matter more eloquently than that.

Compare & Contrast ...

I've no idea who "Judith" is, but I do know that of all the commenters on the Australian Jewish leadership's disapproval of Geert Wilders and blanket statement supporting multiculturalism, hers is one of the most pertinent: 

'Geert Wilders came to express his concerns about what has happened in Europe…where the Islamification of countries such as Belgium, France, England, Holland, Sweden and Norway have led to a “state within a state” situation. This is not a myth. It is verifiably true. All one has to do is to travel to any of these places and witness “no-go zones”, where whole areas are too perilous to enter unless one is visibly Islamic, where a woman in Western dress dare not appear, where hate crimes against Jews and other non-Muslims have risen greatly, genital mutilation, honour killings too! Verifiable facts. He warns against tolerance for the intolerant.

Let us ask the right questions…are non-Muslims considered in Islam to be equal to Muslims, to be treated with exactly the same respect and honesty? Are Muslims who wish to convert to another religion, free to do so? Are women equal to men in Islam? Are homosexuals permitted to live? We are a tolerant, Judeo-Christian society where people are free to be themselves as long as they do not impinge on others rights or break the law of the land…which is based on Judeo-Christian ethics. The Koran does not teach Judeo-Christian ethics, it teaches that we should all be Muslims…the whole world is required to be a caliphate and there is no room for multiculturalism in the Koran, no matter what anyone says. The law which takes priority for a Muslim is Sharia law. It must be. Ask a Muslim what a Keffir is, what Jizya is, and finally what taquiya means. Ask a Muslim what the Koran says about Jews.'

Still prominent on the website of the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia, an affiliate of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, is this:

'NCJWA encourages its  members to join the 16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence, the international campaign that begins on 25 November and ends on 10 December, with events to raise awareness of the high levels of violence against women and girls in Australia and globally.

 The 16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence is an annual campaign that urges national governments and communities and the international community to do more to protect women and children. Beginning on November 25, the International Day Against Violence Against Women, the campaign encompasses significant dates such as International Women Human Rights Defenders Day on November 29, World AIDS Day on December 1, and the Anniversary of the Montreal Massacre on December 6, when 14 women engineering students were murdered by a male student. The campaign ends with Human Rights Day on December 10. In many countries the campaign includes White Ribbon Day on 25 November, founded by a small number of Canadian men in 1991 to commemorate the Montreal Massacre. White Ribbon Day aims to engage men in ending violence against women and challenging the attitudes and behaviours that underpin gender violence.

 For NCJWA the 16 days include Founder's Day, beautifully in accord with developing awareness of women's rights for equality, respect and protection from all forms of violence....'

The trouble is, the ECAJ itself recently issued the aforementioned noble yet naive statement extolling multiculturalism, and sometimes multiculturalism conflicts with the rights that the NCJWA (for one) seems eager to promote.

Contrast the exhortations against male-on-female violence on the NCJWA's website with the remarks of Melbourne-based cleric Samir Abu Hamza, who runs the Islamic Information and Services Network of Australasia in Melbourne, who believes it is permissible for men to beat their wives (who, he's declared, will go to Hell if disobedient to their husbands) and for men to force their wives to have sex.

As Melbourne columnist Andrew Bolt recently pointed out in a splendid piece (with videos where appropriate), Samir Abu Hamza is one of the invitees to an Islamic conference in Sydney next month at which other speakers (some, as Bolt explains, are known advocates of Jihad) are expected to include two gentlemen from overseas whose views on Jews are of the blood-curdling kind.

Of Al-Azhar Sheikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Sudais, imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Bolt notes:

 '[He is the highest-ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world. He has prayed to God to “terminate” the Jews and is a virulent anti-Semite to judge from his sermons:

[Jews are] the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs…

Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today, who are evil offspring, infidels, distorters of [others’] words, calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers... the scum of the human race ‘whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs...’ These are the Jews, an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption...'

Of the other proven antisemite he notes:

'Sheikh Yee, another invitee, claims Jews celebrated the September 11 attacks, which weren’t the work of Muslims, and Jews are the real extremists:

 The most extreme nation in this world is the Jews. So if they use ‘extremists,’ it doesn’t apply to Muslims. It applies to the Jews. They are the extremists of the world. That’s why they kill Palestinians every day.... [Jews] go to Hell.'

What do the Jewish community's all-cultures-are-created-equal brigade make of that?

The Silly Shameful Slurs On Robert Magid

Last week, Australian Jewish News publisher Robert Magid wrote a profoundly sensible and entirely reasonable op-ed in his newspaper concerning asylum seekers arriving in Australia.  He expressed concern at the illegal smuggling of bogus refugees who are actually economic migrants, pointed out that such activity is unfair to genuine refugees who patiently await asylum, noted that Jews escaping Nazism were glad of any place of refuge, not picking and choosing as these people do, advocated a limit upon immigrant numbers, and warned of the impact for Australian and Jewish security of the mass unvetted intake of Muslims.  He did so in a perfectly civilised fashion.


A storm of misplaced criticism, including accusations of hate speech and the issuing of an online petition in the guise of an open letter, has greeted Mr Magid's article, with (as Ha'aretz notes here) many of the great and good of the Australian Jewish community excoriating his views, along with the so-called Australian Jewish Democratic Society (not known as a particularly robust ally of Israel) and a number of assorted leftwing Jewish activists, the kind of people who are apt to cry foul when any fellow-Jew has the temerity to evince a conservative viewpoint regarding immigration and its consequences.

"You should be ashamed of yourself," such leftists cry.  And to those who point to what is happening in Eurabia, and urge Australia not to emulate what some realists are openly calling "the European tragedy," the inevitable response is: "You're an Islamophobe!"  Some particularly zealous lefties have even been known with malice aforethought and an exquisite contempt for freedom of speech to contact one's boss or employer alleging unconscionable views, as I've disclosed in previous blogposts.

Like other Australians, Jews have to deal with the world as it is, and not how we imagine it or wish it to be.  Look at the plight of Europe.  Look at the exponential rise in antisemitism there, and note what elements are fuelling it.  Is that – is this – what we want for our children and our children's children?  Of course we need to be compassionate, but compassion is due to our fellow-Australians and our progeny too.

Reports Ha'aretz:

'Asked to respond to the torrent of criticism, Magid told Haaretz he stood by his article. “It’s not a question of who’s more compassionate,” he said. “The Jews who had the gas chambers behind them would have gone to any country. I feel a hell of a lot more sympathy for people starving in Darfur. “These are the people who should have first priority not people who have the money and cunning to jump the queue."

He said he believed “most Australians including most Jews would agree with me but don’t have the guts to come out and say it."'

The Sydney Morning Herald adds (hat tip: reader Ian):

'Last night, Mr Magid said he stood by every word of his article. ''I think the majority of people agree with me but they are not willing to come out and say what I am prepared to say. It is a very cogent statement.'''

 An eminently respectable Jewish friend of mine observed recently:

"I know I should be in favour of providing refuge for our endless procession of boat people but the fact that most of them are Muslim causes me great concern. The new census figures put them up to about 400,000."

Quite so.

Here's a warning to Canada.  It stands as a warning to Australia too:

Sharia and the Lucky Country – a Sydney Copt from Egypt Speaks Out

In 1939, Dr Isaac Nachman Steinberg, representing the Geneva-based Freeland League for Jewish Territorial Colonisation, arrived in Australia to lobby policy-makers and opinion leaders on the possibility of establishing a large-scale Jewish autonomous settlement of refugees from Europe in the Kimberley region of Western Australia.  He received a great deal of support from people on both the left and the right of the political spectrum.  They  appreciated the argument that the north required populating and that the Jews’ need for refuge was Australia’s opportunity. The relevant state government, that of Western Australia, was sympathetic, but in 1944 the proposal was rejected by the federal government  – as a similar less ambitious one much earlier in the century had been – not owing to antisemitism, but because Australia's tradtional policy would tolerate no autonomous enclave in the country, no alternative weave in the woof of the national fabric.

Some seventy years on, following decades of a zestly-pursued and much-vaunted policy of multiculturalism, and the migration of significant numbers of Muslims to a country which, pre-war, had been almost homogeneously “British” in population and culture (the “White Australia” policy, which had its genesis in New South Wales in the 1880s as a result of fears over the “cheap labour” of Chinese immigrants, was enshrined in law when Australia became a federated nation in 1901 and only began to be abandoned in the 1960s) demands for sharia law are being heard.

At an anti-Israel demo in Melbourne

Former Prime Minister John Howard observed a few years ago when still in office that

“there is a small section of the Islamic population in Australia that, because of its remarks about jihad, remarks which indicate an extremist view, [present] a problem.

It is not a problem that we have ever faced with other immigrant communities who become easily absorbed by Australia's mainstream.

We want people when they come to Australia to adopt Australians' ways.

We don't ask them to forget the countries of their birth, we respect all religious points of view and people are entitled to practise them but there are certainly things that are not part of the Australian mainstream.

There is within some sections of the Islamic community an attitude towards women which is out of line with mainstream Australian society.

It needs to be dealt with by the broader community, including Islamic Australia. There is really not much point in pretending it doesn't exist."

However, a prominent barrister in the Australian state of Victoria, Peter Faris QC, has now argued that no such opt-out on the lines of that of Oklahoma, where voters recently endorsed a proposal to forbid state courts from considering or employing sharia and other foreign law codes, is possible in Victoria owing to the latter’s adoption of the Charter of Human Rights (hat tip: reader Shirlee).

‘In Victoria, the Charter of Human Rights actually permits the use of international laws and judgments in applying the charter,' explains Mr Faris.

'Section 14 of that charter provides for freedom of religion. The issue then arises, does this mean that Muslims are entitled to have Shariah law applied to them in the Victorian courts?

Obviously, Islam is a religion.  Less obvious, but more important is that, unlike Christianity, Islam is a complete religion governing every aspect of the believer's life, including law.

Shariah law is actually an integral part of the Islamic religious belief and, under the charter, must be protected and applied. Section 32(2) of the charter throws more light on the issue.

That subsection states: "International law and the judgments of domestic, foreign and international courts and tribunals relevant to a human right may be considered in interpreting a statutory provision."

It is important to understand that there are "courts and tribunals" applying Shariah law to the 1.6 billion Muslims in the Muslim world.

In addition to that, the Islamic world has its own Human Rights Covenants – Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, 1990, which is intended to "serve as a general guidance for member states in the field of human rights".  In the Cairo Declaration, it is made clear that all human rights derive from the Koran.

For example: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shariah" (Article 19(d)); "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this declaration are subject to the Islamic Shariah" (Article 24); and "The Islamic Shariah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration" (Article 25).

These human rights must be fully respected. Australian Muslims deserve no less.

Decisions on Islamic human rights must be relevant in deciding whether Shariah law is applicable in Victoria.

Quite obviously, those Islamic decisions powerfully state that Shariah law must be applied. The Victorian courts must consider these decisions under the charter, thus it makes it very likely that, at some stage in the future, Shariah law will be applied.

Further, there is precedent in Victoria through courts that are for the exclusive use of a minority group, in this instance Aborigines (known in Victoria as Kooris).

As a matter of principle, there is no difference between special courts that are racially defined (Koori courts) to those which are religiously defined (Shariah courts).

In fact, the Muslims have a much stronger case because their devoutly held beliefs actually include a legal system (Shariah).

It is this sort of process that the Oklahoma citizens voted against. In Victoria it is too late.

(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/charter-opens-door-to-sharia-law-recognition/story-e6frg8zx-1225964766903)

This has prompted an Egyptian-born Copt, now resident in Sydney, to make the following heartfelt and powerful response (I'm most grateful  to Ibby for giving me permission to reproduce his statement, and to Shirlee for bringing it to my attention):

Copts rallying in Washington earlier this year

“Whilst very happy to see Shariah is been raised in the public arena, I was extremely disturbed when I read the [Faris] article. It concerns me immensely that our government is seemingly oblivious to the venomous consequences of shariah.

For our governments irrespective of political affiliations to allow any form of Shariah law to creep into our legal system under any guise is a total dereliction of duty and betrayal of our constitution. I have written a few articles on shariah and have read the reports relating to the dire consequences and threats posed by shariah.

As you may be aware there are a number of countries that extensively exercise shariah to differing degrees under the pretext of a legal system. I find it difficult to fathom the actions of Victoria as Shariah in fact totally contradicts and ignores many elements of the charter of human rights.

I am disgusted Victoria has displayed a total lack of diligence, vigilance and allows shariah to challenge the fundamental principles our wonderful country is founded on. The Anzacs must be rolling in their graves, our traditions and values can never ever be compromised for any reason. The incompetence of the Victorian government will leave a legacy that will haunt future generations for decades. With a growing Islamic population demands will increase, allowing Muslims to bypass our legal system and allow a draconian barbaric Stone Age system to infiltrate our country.

I hold the view that there is no word that truly defines Islam.

To say it is a religion is a fallacy and an insult to the word “religion”. It is not a religion. The term “religion” has a generally accepted meaning. Most people consider religion as, “a faith system usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs in so far as it relates to the individuals spiritual and moral conduct”.

On that basis Islam is not a religion. Islam is an all encompassing ideology that includes religion as part of that Ideology. Islam has many tentacles; it is a totalitarian extremist system that includes military, social, legal, religious and political controls over every aspect of an individual private and public life. Religion is but one of the tentacles of Islam. Shariah is in fact the legal tentacle of Islam. As a result of the worldwide Islamic tsunami, the world is fast reaching a point where nations are losing their national identities, heritage, culture and foundations. Nations are increasingly been [being] referred to as Islamic and non-Islamic. Radical Islam is also a very loose term; fact is the text of Islam “Koran”, demands and imposes upon every Muslim a duty for “World wide domination, Islamisation and imposition of shariah law and installation of a caliph. The end result is the call for “Jihad”.

I would ask all our politicians the following:

How is it possible that Australia tolerates the introduction of any aspect of shariah law to run parallel in any form to any degree along with our laws?

How can Australia allow a system that fundamentally undermines our democratic system that guarantees freedom, liberty, and equality with in the confines of our laws?

What will Australia do when posed with the dilemma of a Muslim person refusing to be subjected or tried under shariah law?

How is it possible that Australia will allow for its citizens to be judged differently based on been Muslim or non-Muslim?

Does this not contradict the whole concept of our legal system one law for all citizens?

Why does the Australian Attorney General allow any legal system of any description to openly challenge the fundamental principals of our constitution and legal system?

What will the Attorney general propose to about the creeping shariah into the Victorian legal system? Who is guarding our laws and system??

Hopefully the slap in the face to the Victorian ALP in the last election will awaken those apathetic politicians.

More importantly, does this precedent pave the way for other religious denominations to demand the same rights?

It may be a very good idea for the Einsteins in our parliaments to look at Egypt and learn of the consequences of shariah and Islamisation. The Copts in Egypt have dwindled to 10% of the 80million population. The experiment of Islamisation has been performed and the results are dark and sinister. Egypt was 100% Christian, after the Arab Islamic invasion 1400 years ago the Copts have become the minority and are treated as second class citizens in their own home land. The Copts struggle daily for recognition and basic human rights such as construction of a church. It terrifies me that my homeland of Australia could one day suffer the same fate. (You may have heard about the attack on the Copts by the Egyptian security force 2 weeks ago. The security force ( an "army"), of 3000 men stormed a church, fired live ammunition, tear gas, rubber bullets, stole the church pews, stole the donation boxes, killed 4 people to date, arrested up to 1200 according to some reports all over an alleged "unauthorised use of a building and not build in accordance with building approvals.)

.... I would pray that our legal eagles, take up the concerns and force the A[ttorney] G[eneral] to address the same and protect our legal system.

Finally I consider that it is imperative that every Australian should be fully conversant and aware of the realms of shariah and its repressive abusive nature which is diametrically opposed to Australian civil liberties, with out this knowledge they will never be in a position to make an informed decision about shariah.'