It's not the Liberal Party's fault, just the fault of some members. They've spread vilifying propaganda, a message from a non-existent Islamic group in support of Labor - complete with the Labor Logo - across the western Sydney electorate of Lindsay. Amongst others, the husband of the current sitting Liberal member Jackie Kelly have been exposed, literally, in photos.
Once Labor produced the proof, the Liberals disowned the dirty trick and its five perpetrators. One of these is allegedly NSW Liberal Party executive member Jeff Egan, who has been named in Labor's complaint to the Australian Electoral Commission. Egan has denied the allegations.
Let me translate for you the psychological message that the Liberals have been spreading to save a marginal seat. "Be afraid of the Muslims. They support terrorism. Labor supports the Muslim supporters of terrorism. To protect yourself, vote Liberal."
Labor's Penny Wong has called for the PM to 'fess up everything he or his party knows. This might not be a bad idea, given that as Labor knew where to go to get the photos of the scaremongers, they may know a few other things as well. For a PM to be caught out lying on such a matter one the very eve of an election just might cost a few votes.
Phor Whom the Bell Tolls
Fiona (or should that be Phiona?): The phlocks could well phly, my dear, they really could; along with phillets of phallen phalanxes of phundraisers, and more importantly, donors.
For a really bizarre sideshow of the campaign, see here, where an article headed 'Liberal race hate scam exposed on poll eve' is pheatured in one column, and next to it a cascade of genuine presumably paid phor Liberal scare campaign ads, phalling like the glorious leaves of autumn.
I think Monty Python is somehow behind it. No other explanation comes close.
Yeah right Alan
John Roskam works for a right wing think tank propped up by the coal industry and big polluters.
Hewett is full of herself, Gittins has read the policies and got a lot of things right.
Margo was one of the best.
Campaign Overboard
Alan Curran has given us his longest and best-reasoned post ever. On the basis of it, I venture to predict a substantial Labor win, if not a total landslide. When Howard can't hold the Alan Currans of the world, he has well and truly had it.
Another prediction: a purge is coming in the Liberal Party in NSW and possibly wider afield. The throatcutting will start on November 25 and continue for no more than two weeks. (The party always operates on the Shakespearean principle of 'twere best done quickly.)
Fiona: Fingers, toes, eyes etc. crossed, Ian MacD, I will agree with your first prediction. As to the latter - if it happens I expect to see whole phlocks of pigs winging their way across the skies at the same time.
Ohh Ian
Should I rejoin the party after all these years?
Fiona: A matter entirely for you, Malcolm. Though I must admit that I toyed with the notion a few months ago when Petro Georgiou, my MP, was under threat from a young right-wing Turk.
Yes, by all means Malcolm
Meeting of minds
Did I Neglect to Mention Your Other Duties?
Malcolm: I'm sorry, did I neglect to mention it? One of your duties as Member would include chairing the Rules and Rorts Committee, and presiding over the endorsement nem con of a motion from the Interim Executive for abolition of quora, duly declared redundant, moribund and anathema.
If legal advice were required, you would be duty bound to seek it from the Party's Legal Officer. Being duly advised, you would return to the Committee and give it a report re same.
The whole process could take place while you were standing under the shower, provided you did not violate the Party's rules against membership of Wets.
Was s/he a Turk?
Talking turkey
Craig, I intended the expression in the sense in which it is commonly used:
but I would also be quite happy to substitute "young turkey".
A Right Pair Of Galahs
As usual Howard knows nought. Has he ever known anything about his own party?
Kelly is quite revolting and today she attempted to laugh off this awful leaflet as a "joke". Some joke - exploiting the deaths in Bali for cheap political gain.
Then she had the temerity to say her husband "hates unions". Why? As if anyone in the Lindsay electorate sitting in their McMansions would ever have risen above poverty wages if unions hadn't fought tooth and nail. The Bernie Banton story is a clear illustration. He and thousands like him would be dead and forgotten if the union hadn't fought for their rights.
Serfchoices and scare campaigns
Thirteen or more reports about serfchoices have proved that people are being sacked without cause and without redress, that they are on average $100 a week worse off, have lost penalty and weekend rates, have been forced to sign unfair contracts and so on and so forth.
The truth is not a scare campaign.
In South Australia a report done by employers, employees, unions, chamber of commerce and all interested parties with the IRC showed that in this state alone 350,000 workers are worse off.
If you think that is just some tedious scare campaign come and talk to the workers.
The stuff in Kelly's seat is just revolting but then the bio of Howard shows what a huge role she played in the whole Tampa thing in 2001, how some in the coalition were sending out letters claiming the Taliban would move in next door and take over the country if we elected the ALP and blah, blah and blah.
Then we have Bernie Banton about to die finally being awarded further compensation and we get to the anti-union crap. I would prefer Greg Combet, the ACTU and the AMWU by my side that bloody Jackie Kelly and her brainless cohorts if I was in Bernie's position.
Ian MacDougall wrote:
Ian MacDougall: "Given that Keating did nothing but support the Indonesian dictator Suharto claims and activities in East Timor in the preceding years, and that Howard, however weakly, acted to bring Indonesia's time there to an end, I find that totally pathetic. The man is not fit to speak Howard's name, let alone say anything against him."
I agree Keating's and Labor's response to Indonesia was immoral. However, Howard was in power for three years before going into East Timor and only did that after a lot of pressure from Clinton and critics in Australia.
Then there's Shock and Awe and refugees in detention centres for up to five years, which make Howard more immoral.
Sorry mate, not this time
Opinion? You want my opinion? Oh. Alright.
No, I doubt if the fake pamphlets would have made the least difference to the outcome. At very worst, the could have only made a difference in that one electorate. And then, probably not by much, unless it was a paper thin margin. I mean, it's not like they're down to counting chads and disputing donkey votes already, hey?
They wouldn't have made as significant a difference as that poor tradesperson in the television ad who's hurt to the core by the Work Choices reforms by not having been asked personally by John Howard if it was okay. "Sorry mate, not this time." (Slowly shakes head and looks away in disgust.)
Oh, that's right. He was a fake, too, wasn't he?
Me too
"Again I say: what is done by his party is a reflection of what he is!"
That's a bit harsh on Rudd. He cannot be held responsible for the likes of Joe McDonald, Bob Collins or Brian Burke.
History repeats - I remember 1975.
G'day Richard.
Your thread and the typical Howard method of dishonesty in those "How to vote" cards reminds me of the Whitlam era.
Even though Labor had been voted in twice (1972-74), the disgraceful Liberal/CIA involvement in the Senate, doctored by breaches of Convention by, Bjelke Peterson (National premier of Queensland) and Tom Lewis (I believe)-(Liberal premier of N.S.W.).
They conspired to appoint non-Labor replacements for the retirement of one Labor Senator and the death of another - to give them the power in the Senate to block supply.
The media, led by Sir Frank Packer, crucified Gough, his Wife and Bob Hawke with lies similar but more "robust" than the recent Jackie Kelly contempt for truth and the rule of law.
Subsequently, Sir Frank Packer settled out of court with Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke for reported sums of $1 million and half a million respectively.
But, as the fascists say, the end justified the means to them. They won the election by a land-slide.
So, will Kelly and her husband be prosecuted for their illegal act? Not should Howard win, he never ever punishes his robots, just promotes them or increases their incomes.
If Kevin Rudd's Australian Labor Party wins the election on Saturday, one of their first duties should be to pass the Accountability Bill and prosecute these people for their breaches of the Electoral Laws.
Article 14 of Alison Broinowski's A Fascist Australia comes to mind:
14. Fraudulent Elections.
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
We will have to wait until Saturday evening to see if the public polls, consistent for almost a year, were justified, or - some unforeseen circumstance occurs to make the result other than all predictions.
NE OUBLIE.
Quadruple-Speak!
I've heard of double-speak and even triple-speak, but, at the Press Club, I've just heard quadruple-speak for the first time.
Mr John Winston Howard, who is not responsible for anything or, in the event of blunders, has never been told anything, and certainly believes that he personally has never ever done anything wrong, tried to turn the Jackie Kelly situation into an electoral advantage using the very best of lawyer-speak.
Not for our John the idea that the buck stops with him! No way! If it's good, it's my doing - if it's bad, then others are to blame is his ethos!
Again I say: what is done by his party is a reflection of what he is!
Bring on Saturday!
Nobody has a monopoly on fanaticism
Jenny, after you've read Waleed Aly's People Like Us: How arrogance is dividing Islam and the West, you might like to read, On Identity, by Amin Maalouf.
Why should we care really
Read Maalouf Eliot and am aware of the views of Waleed Aly, Craig.
Freedom and the protection of human rights requires vigilance. We know how easy it is for any government, given a majority, to strip that away. Minorities do not always remain minorities so I prefer those that at least share our values.
I would be just as concerned that the future generations of my family not be governed by the Brethren as by a Council of Mullahs. Should we try and ensure as far as we are able to prevent such a situation?
Do we in fact have any responsibility for future generations at all?
The climate change experts seem to think we have. And so do I. And not just in relation to what sort of weather we beqeath them.
Don't need a bex Peter Woodforde, or anything else. And you men need not worry. It is not you who would get the 200 lashes anyway.
And I suppose if you saw a Muslim woman sweltering in Dubbo in 40 plus degrees clad in black habit from head to foot, while her husband lounges in cool white cottons you'd think nothing of it. Easy to ignore if you are not the victim. Spare me the jokes PW and whatever else you call yourself.
FOUNDATION GARMENT
jh: And you men need not worry. It is not you who would get the 200 lashes anyway
This country was founded on men, if you can call the Irish, Scots, London pickpockers and Tolpuddles men, being given tons of lashes followed by buckets of dirty brine from the Bulimba etc. And occasionally the noose to take the sting out of Moreton Bay.
So let's restore these measures for the sake of gender equality, fairness and the like, for all bored or drunken gentlefolk intent on hounding the mullahs and their RC Laborite sympathisers out of Lindsaytown.
But we need regulation - government appointed inspectors with thermometers to rush about the country checking the core temperature of any woman seen wearing traditional Middle-Eastern clobber. After all, they might be espoused tools of Islamofascist loungers in in cool white cottons.
The bastards! Give them a million lashes. And give Mum a garbag full of Jannette's throw outs. And get that thing of her head! She looks like k'n RC.
Rev Dr Jihad Jacques Woodforde, OAM and whatever else he might happen to call 'im se'f, just to irritate the gabbas.
How aware?
Jenny, if you are aware of what Waleed Aly and Maalouf have written in the texts recommended to you, then you'd also be aware of the way in which we can act maturely, responsibly and in the interests of future generations.
And, as it's certainly not to act in the way you've been hinting at, I'm uncertain of how aware of their essential messages you really are.
Head and sand stuff
Craig, it is mature to recognise those forces that in the long term could threaten freedom and human rights in this country and to act responsibly to ensure as far as possible such forces are contained. Thus acting in the interests of those future generations. I do not believe in putting my head in the sand.
I recommend you go and live in a Muslim country for a year, and I don't mean in a nice suburban house mixing it with the ex pats and the diplomatic corps and their ilk. Get down with the locals, live with them, live their way of life, live their religion, abide by their sharia as I have done. Then we might be able to discuss some of the issues from a shared understanding.
Peter Woodforde. I won't bother. You clearly prefer to play the fool. So I will leave you to amuse yourself.
I recommend
Now I recommend you cut the inferences that anyone not lined up with you to enact a new anti-Muslim equivalent to the White Australia Policy has their head in the sand?
I also recommend you don't keep up the pretence that I need to pass some kind of test of your making before I can express a view on the subject.
I recommend you stop for a second and consider how on this of all threads you've decided to focus on what divides, tar a billion people with one brush, and call for their exclusion from our communities.
Do you realise, Jenny, that you are effectively calling for some form of global "apartness" (i.e. Aparthied) where they can't be part of our democracies because you reckon they only want to breed a tyrannical majority and make us all live as Muslims under some savage version of sharia?
Imagination running wild Craig
That is rubbish Craig. Your imagination and your pen has run away with you, as it is sometimes prone to do.
And by the way, millions upon millions of Muslims in fact live under sharia. Sharia is what it is. There is no such thing as a savage version. I suggest you read it and study it. You have made reading suggestions for me in order to shape my opinion. I have the right to suggest some reading matter for you. And or a spell living under Sharia law.
If you believe that a Muslim majority in any country would not seek to have its values and its beliefs and its laws imposed in that country then you are rather naive. It might take time, but it would happen. Fact of life. Like it or lump it. Trouble is it won't be us that has to lump it.
Yes, your imagination is running wild Jenny
Jenny, you chose to write on this thread of all threads, one about low and criminal people from the Liberal Party who've spread vilifying propaganda, something that further vilifies 1 billion people across the planet.
I don't have to imagine anything about that; it is there in black and write. It is there in what you wrote.
You started off saying: "My respect for Islam has declined dramatically in recent years."
In other words your respect for a faith shared by a billion people diminished because of what a small number have done, yes? You're comfortable stereotyping the whole billion people. They're all the same, eh?
Then you had set up the equivalent of a "Yellow Peril" argument:
Those Muslims, they're all terrorists are they, Jenny? Every child of a Muslim family is destined to undertake spectacular and cruel acts of Islamist inspired terrorism, eh? All those Muslims seeking a life in Western democracies are really on a mission to impose Islamic law and particular variants of sharia on our great grandchildren are they?
Then you call for limits on the immigration of Muslims to our country. It's specifically Muslims you'd exclude. It's very clear that you fear that those who want to settle here will outbreed, and then you also assume that this fast growing Muslim population are hell bent on undoing the separation of Church and State.
"This is not racism. It is realism," you say.
No, it's not realism, Jenny. It's your speculation about the long-term future, it's your imagination running wild, and it's certainly based on stereotyping.
Running Wild
Craig: "Those Muslims, they're all terrorists are they, Jenny? Every child of a Muslim family is destined to undertake spectacular and cruel acts of Islamist inspired terrorism, eh?"
Your words, not mine. You wild interpretation and imagination, not mine.
In other words your respect for a faith shared by a billion people diminished because of what a small number have done, yes?
No, not for that reason, which was obvious I would suggest, Again your interpretation of what I wrote. Your imagination.
Facts: Sharia law does not recognise separation of religion and state. Islamic states do not tolerate other faiths. Sharia law is the law of Islam.
Are you really suggesting a predominantly Islamic west in the future would not seek to impose Islamic law?
If so then your head really is in the sand.
And there I will leave you to it. I have better things to do than deal with your wild assumptions and interpretations.
As for this thread. It is to a certain extent about attitudes to Islam. Stop trying to tell me where I should or should not comment.
Have a nice day Craig.
SELF AMUSEMENT FOR THE EQUINE CRICKETING TRIBES
JH [Rev Dr Jihad Jacques] Peter Woodforde. I won't bother.
As well one mightn't. Honest old horse, one wasn't playing you for a fool.
So leave one to amuse one's fellow Saracens, Mullahs, Emirs, Sheiks and Waziri lay-abouts in cool white cotton, some of them not even First Class players.
That’s cricket for you today at head in the sand, ostrich infested sub-Saharan Pallamallawa.
Rev Dr Jihad Jacques Woodforde, OAM, silly mid-on
Fed up
Margo, after the affairs in Lindsay this week I have decided I can no longer support any political party in Australia. I have decided that on Saturday I shall not vote for any party. So if Turnbull loses by one vote, you can tell him it is my fault.
From a personal point of view it does not matter which party is in office, they can in no way affect the lifestyle of me, my children or grandchildren.
It very much looks like Rudd will win on Saturday, though I do not think it will be a landslide. However, a win is a win, and I hope that Labor keeps its promises to the people who vote for them. I shall watch with interest the next threeyears and have my say when I think fit.
If Labor wins I believe that three years down the track the public education system will still be in the parlous state it is in now, and the promised technical schools will not have been built for the following reasons. There is not the manpower to build them or the teachers to staff them. The promised computers for every child will still be a promise, except for a few schools that will be targeted for photo shoot. The public health system will still have huge waiting lists, and the proposed dental program will still be way in the future. Our troops will still be in Iraq, unless the US pulls out.
If, as predicted, the Greens hold the balance of power, the Senate will be bogged down in squabbling and point scoring. In the meantime unemployment will have risen together with inflation and interest rates. This will of course be blamed on the previous government, which is par for the course.
You all know my opinions of the unions and the power that they can wield, so I can only hope that they will do the right thing by Rudd’s "working families", but I will not be holding my breath.
I have watched with amusement the past few weeks on WD, as the hatred of Howard has clouded the judgment of some of you. I also believe that my own judgment was affected by my personal experiences with the unions.
The one thing that is puzzling me at the moment is the polls that are being published. One of them has got to be wrong, or maybe both of them.
Out of your depth
NICE WORK IF THE GETTING DROWNDED IS THERE
Kindly and courteous Lifeguard Crown Prince Akkimoto, War Criminal, wading in up to the Caracas then you seemed to dry up and stumbled to a conclusion
Geez, Akkimoto. Is that the best analysis that the New Giardia can muster? Maybe you should get back to German New Guinea for a bit of ripping off the Commonwealth of Australia.
But all that aside, you seem a nastier little bugger than me, really. And patently insincere toward the late Marquis of Kirribilli. One hates that. Think how Mrs Mad Marchioness feels. Or will feel, should she be sold for leathery pig food.
Don't worry, droopy drawers'll cadge a few votes tomorrow, and tonnes of postals and nursing home "specials". Just wait and see. It works in all the fascist countries. Ask Jenny H.
Dr Woodforde, OAM, drawing stacks of Hilter moustachios and monocles on the Member for Bunnelong, using the Malcolm Douglas patent Bunnings ripper avec giant Texta .
Margo on Difference of Opinion
Maybe it’s my own personal and political bias, but I thought Margo was terrific on Difference of Opinion last night – despite being talked over several times. She certainly sounded a lot more intelligent than the Liberal advocate next to her. Gittins was impressive, too, I thought.
Margo's impassioned plea for a restoration of accountability for Government through the Senate was the perfect note to end on.
I thought Margo's line on Howard's sorry-but-not-sorry position on interest rates was beautiful. I liked the comparison with Howard's line on reconciliation, where this time he made a clear promise that he was indisputably responsible for and that he knew he couldn't keep. Whatever it takes, as Graham Richardson says. I agree with Margo that it was a defining moment in the election because Howard's special flair for weasel words was on show for all to see, on an issue that matters to most of the electorate. I don't think Howard had a clue how duplicitous and just plain weaselly he appeared at that moment.
As one of the tabloids put it: Not as sorry as we are.
I also thought Margo's comments on housing affordability were nuanced and insightful. It’s politically a very difficult issue and while both parties have given lip service to reducing housing prices neither wants to be the bunny that really does it. As Howard once remarked, no-one complains about the value of their house rising. Australians are up to their eyeballs in debt partly because they’ve borrowed shiploads of money against the rising value of their houses, so to deliberately send those values down would be political suicide.
Every new assistance offer, like the first home-buyer’s grant, just seems to add to housing values.
And as Margo joked, which party is going to offer to raise interest rates?
Meanwhile, housing affordability gets worse and worse.
Anyway Margo, great to see you in action.
Difference of opinion
David Curry, it seems as though as long as you agree with Margo it will be posted. However my post regarding her woeful performance was put in the trash can.
David R: no, it was published. It was just a long time ago.
To My Old Mate.
G'day Alan,
Like Richard, I like you, for your tenacity and your determination to democratically put your own opinion forward.
This is not patronising - it is a genuine old world respect for an adversary who has a difference in opinions.
What was it Voltaire said: "I may not agree with you but, I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Something like that.
When this election is over, my Wife and I would like to meet you and have a few drinks. If Richard could come to the party it would be great.
Cheers mate,
Rosie and Ernie Graham.
Richard: I wouldn't miss it for the world
Ernie and Alan and pseudo Pete
Ernie and Alan having a few drinks together. Now that is an achievement for WD moderation.
Now Peter with all the pseudos. You presume too good sir. I would not know what is is like to live in a fascist country, nor do I ever want to, notwithstanding the sentiments expressed by yourself and others about Oz under little Johnnie. I find analogies of any leader of this country with Hitler, or Mussolini or any other fascist (or communist dictator for that matter) to be quite ridiculous to be frank.
But I do know what it is like to live in a Muslim one, and be required as a woman to abide by their religious restrictions and laws. Thanks but no thanks.
Ernie, it seems after Saturday you will be able to relax though tonight they are saying it is still a bit iffy. But I think your man will get over the line.
Cheers to you and your good wife.
Drinkies
Stronger at the conclusion
The person I was watching the show with commented that Margo concluded very strongly and convincingly on that point about the need to restore effective checks and balances, particularly through our Senate.
I agreed wholeheartedly and noted how Margo had disclosed her own preference for the Greens whilst emphasising that any non-LibLab vote goes toward that restoration of effective checks and balances within our system.
Difference indeed
Alan, this accolade was received by the Webdiary editors a few minutes ago - published anonymously because I haven't had the time to get back to the author:
That said, you have my complete respect for your earlier ("Fed Up") comment.
Non passaran
While I could not possibly encourage you to do what I am going to do, Alan Curran, as it would be a breach of the Electoral Act so to do, I'm voting for me. I'm going to write my name in and, for the first time in my life submit an informal vote.
Vote all of the bastards out.
Keating's moral superiority (?)
Following Margo's link, one finds Liberal campaign ads literally falling over one another in competition with Keating's dubious stance of moral superiority over Howard. For that it what it is: a diatribe arguing that Keating should never have been displaced as Prime Minister in 1996 by the same Howard.
Given that Keating did nothing but support the Indonesian dictator Suharto claims and activities in East Timor in the preceding years, and that Howard, however weakly, acted to bring Indonesia's time there to an end, I find that totally pathetic. The man is not fit to speak Howard's name, let alone say anything against him.
Keating hit the target for me.
Sure, Keating's claim to moral superiority is a little rich. That said, let's be honest, when did someone in politics last say something as pithy and pointed as "WASP-divined jihad". I miss him.
Keating has captured something for me, though. For some years my European and American Liberal friends ask me why we mistreat our aboriginies, why the Queen is still the boss, why we are paranoid about refugees, and how come we are in Iraq with Bush. I can't come up with a good explanation, and I'm pretty ashamed of that.
That's why I'm not voting for Howard
Memo: J. Howard, A. Downer, A. Abbott et al
It's not the economy, stupid
No Bleating for Keating
David: The best one can say for "WASP-divined jihad" is that it's an awkward turn of phrase that can mean anything.
I would not care if Keating woke up one morning with the wit of an Oscar Wilde; it would not come within Krakatoa's bang of a compensation for his collusion with Suharto, his silence on the mass slaughter perpetrated by his good mate's thugs in East Timor, or for that matter his encouragement of all of us to believe on his Chamberlainic return from Jakarta that the scrap of paper he was waving meant peace in our time.
To the red herring juggler
Eliot, when you've got a spare hand how about an opinion? Have undisciplned Liberal goons stuffed the election? Did an after-lunch convo in the stalls of the pub pissoir nearest to Liberal HQ get taken too seriously? Did someone in Ruddock's Dirty Tricks Unit in George St decide to try and use the wartime atmosphere to try and get promoted to ASIO? Don't laugh at the last one, it worked for Paul O'Sullivan after he "organised" Doug Wood's rescue.
Also I'm interested in your thoughts regarding what would've happened in the Lindsay ballot had a pre-election race-war broken out? Or Bennelong?
One more... should the Liberal candidate who's hubbie was sprung muck-raking "do the decent thing" and withdraw from the contest?
Scare Mongering and Dirty Tricks. "Me too..."
I dunno. They seem to be taking a lot of notice of Labor's and the ACTU's scare-mongering about WorkChoices, and dirty tricks like television adverts featuring "real people" who are actually actors reading prepared scripts.
It always makes me laugh when Rudd talks about the Liberals' "negative campaigning".
For over a year, now, we've heard nothing except Greg Combet and Rudd speaking nonsense about how wages are "falling" and how high "inflation" has become.
Then there's the hysterical rubbish about climate change.
I realise that that sort of scaremongering and negative campaigning is just business as usual in politics. But pretending only the Libs are doing it is a bit rich, don't you think?
Especially since all Rudd will do about WorkChoices is change its name.
And all that will happen with climate change is he'll sign the dead duck Kyoto protocol, then send Peter Garrett off on a junket to Bali to do exactly the same thing as Malcolm Turnbull would have done.
Really, this has been the most absurd election in forty years...
An Accident Waiting To Happen
Howard has been a Kelly Hugger since her election but only out of necessity to hold onto that seat. She is quite possibly the most ineffectual minister that has ever been in the Howard government and she was always an accident waiting to happen, albeit at the very last minute.
I think Sheik Hillaly has good reason to sue the publishers for libel over this leaflet and I hope he does for everyone's sake. Only then will we see who was actually behind this "chaser prank". Either way, I doubt anyone will be laughing in the near future including Jackie Kelly and her husband.
Distribution of this rubbish is a good indicator though that the Libs are after every single vote and things aren't looking good in Lindsay (or elsewhere). Although sensible people would dismiss this there are enough nutters out there to vote a certain way if told to by a piece of paper.
Despite Malcolm B.Duncan and others' cautious views on a result on Saturday, I still see a train wreck ahead. My prediction of the Epping Club as host venue for the Howard tear fest was wrong – stay clear of the Westin Hotel late evening on Saturday, there may be bodies being flung from tall windows.
Keating loses the election by opening mouth.
Keating, darling of the po-mo leftist middle classes, doesn't know how much he is still on the nose with the working classes. He had a way with words, agreed, and was clever and cultivated enough to warrant a musical but doesn't have the sense to shut up and stay out of it. He sold the Accord in all its phases to working people on the basis of an 'historic compromise': wage restraint would be rewarded by the 'social wage' (ie increased government funding in education, health, social welfare) and the development of a pool of Federal money for capital development which was meant to be directed towards investment in manufacturing and 'value added' industries. The latter would provide skilled work. Ah, a rosy future! Educated workers occupying skilled jobs.
We're still waiting Paul. What we got instead was wage restraint. Nothing else. Keating and Hawke proved totally incapable of bringing Australian capital into the bargain. Intimidated and outclassed every inch of the way. The development capital got spent on racehorses, yachts and expensive paintings. Bondie wasn't atypical - he was an immigrant pommie who lacked sufficient Australian 'old school' connections to get away with it.
As for Howard's morality, agreed. But how is Keating's track record? I remember the 'Redfern' speech. Where's the treaty?
Dirty tricks don't really work
Richard: I don't think the average sensible voter takes too much notice of that sort of scaremongering and dirty tricks. Most are used to that sort of thing at election time.
I think the image of Islam and the Muslim faith is done far more harm in the eyes of the average person by such issues as the judgement against that rape victim in Saudi Arabia this past week. 200 lashes and a gaol term. The usual sort of stuff we expect where Islamic law prevails.
As one who lived in a Muslim country and studied Islam for a year (Lahore Pakistan - and God help that country now) I once had some respect for that religion. And I say some, because I saw much in that country carried out in the name of Islam that I abhorred. And Pakistan in those days was much more liberal than it is now. The conservatives and radicals have a far greater influence there these days.
My respect for Islam has declined dramatically in recent years. As Islamic conservatism becomes more entrenched basic human rights, especially for women decline accordingly. Judgements like the above are just appalling.
Acts of Islamist inspired terrorism are spectacular and cruel. Far worse however would be a future living under Islamic law. And as the Islamic population in any country becomes predominant, that becomes more likely. Already some Christian European nations have 10% Muslim population.
In the long term it is that which we should think about. The fact that western nations are democracies in fact makes it possible in the long term for Islamic parties to take control, and once that happens laws can be changed. It won't affect you or me but future generations may well confront this issue. Should we care about them? I think we should. Should we limit Islamic immigration? Probably, and that will draw some flak. But those who cry foul, cry intolerance and racism at this, will probably never have to live under Islamic law. Their great grandkids might. It is easy to be self righteous if one is not the one to be affected.
This is not racism. It is realism. If we want to protect our way of life, our freedoms, our justice system, and basic human rights for our future generations, then we have to make sure that the State and religion remain separate. And where Islam is concerned that just must might not be possible. Look at the battle Turkey is having on that front right now. To think that it can never happen in the West is totally naive.
But since it won't affect me, I guess I can just sit back and let the future take care of itself. Why should I care if my great great grandaughter gets herself raped, and is given 200 lashes and sent to gaol and her perpetrators are given a light smack on the hand?
Should I care if a mentally disabled distant relative is hung in 2200 from the back of a truck by a crane for a similar crime against her chastity?
Well. I do care. But it would seem those who argue for open slather where immigration is concerned could not give a toss.
Limits
Jenny Hume asks if we should limit Islamic immigration and answers yes. That would be in contravention of section 116 of the Australian Constitution.
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
It is quite clear what the spirit of section 116 is saying. That the state is religiously blind. That Australia is not a "Christian" country or any other sort of country in any other sort of religious tradition.
This hasn't stopped some governments from skirting around the edge of section 116 nonetheless. The previous government gave the Exclusive Brethren schools special dispensation from computer literacy skills for its students. I consider this to be a soft form of child abuse as well as a violation of section 116. This was done because the EBs have been such good (or evil - depending on your point of view) agents of influence for the government.
Jenny Hume suggests that to save our democracy we have to demolish everything it means and set our government up as "faith accessors". But we have already done something worthwhile to defend our democracy by kicking out of power in terms the Liberal Opposition (get used to that term) will not forget in a very long time. The previous government had cosied up to the Exclusive Brethren theocrats who believe that God's laws are more important than the laws of man. Imagine if the iman of a mosque had come out and said that Allah's laws are more important than than the laws passed by man.
Jenny also forgets about the groups known as the Army of God in America who have killed to save unborn lives and the Lord's Resistance Army. Not true Christians, I hear from many? Numerous also are Muslims who are not "true Muslims" defined by others we are expected to accept as true by self affirmation. It's the old "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy of an argument.
Myself, I don't have a god having read the autobiographies of a few and deciding these entities were a bad influence on humanity and so I decided to look elsewhere for good friends. Gods may not be able to move mountains but you should see what they can do to skyscrapers.
Islam is not a race: repeat not a race
Peter Kelly: "Jenny Hume suggests that to save our democracy we have to demolish everything it means and set our government up as "faith accessors"."
No Peter Kelly. I suggested no such thing and the expression faith accessors you quote is not mine. Nor did I say we should limit Islamic immigration. I posed the question and said probably. That is not the same as saying yes we must. I am well aware of what our Constitution and our democracy dictates in terms of what we can do and cannot do. Mind you, constitutions can be amended by referendum. Remember that as the religious mix changes over the centuries, as it surely will under current immigration policies. Our democracy may well seal its own fate in the future.
I was merely reflecting on what is happening in the world today and pointing out that the Western democracies will not be immune to the problems created as Islamic populations grow in their midst., and may ultimately come to dominate. Many African countries face this now. And civil mayhem is often the outcome.
It is a fact that Islamic regimes impose Islamic law, and as the Muslim population becomes predominant in any country there is pressure from within for it to be imposed in that country. (Even secular Islamic regimes are under pressure, as in Turkey.) What makes people think this can never happen in Australia in the future?
Any idea that Australia will somehow not face the civil strife that many countries now face as secular and Christian populations square off against growing Islamic populations is rather naive. The seeds of it are already there in Cronulla, and in the opposition to that Islamic school in Sydney. People are not blind, they know that Islam is an exclusive religion and they don't like what they see and don't want it in their midst.
You know, it is very easy for men to allege 'racism' whenever anyone tries to point out that Islam is not a particularly nice religion, particularly in the way it rules the lives of women. It is women who suffer the most under it. I suggest a few of you go and live under the veil for a year as I did. Then think about what life might be like for your great granddaughters under a predominantly Islamic state. Will never happen? How do you know? Under liberal immigration policies it is more likely than not.
But let us not worry. It will take a long time so we won't be affected. Let us just put our heads in the sand, lest we be seen as racist, or whatever. By the way, when will people learn that Islam in not a race? It is a religion. Speaking out against an intolerant religion is not racism. I repeat. Islam is not a race. It is a religion.
But let us all be very tolerant. Let us not worry about the fact that it is one of the most intolerant religions on the face of the earth, that its laws are in our eyes cruel and unjust, particularly toward women. Let us blind ourselves to those facts. Let us just forget how Christian populations are persecuted under Islamic regimes. Let us forget about those Christians in African gaols whose only crime is their faith. Easy for us. Can't happen here or at least not for a long time.
And no Peter. I have not forgotten. I have the same views about certain Christian sects. Exactly the same. But the difference is that Islam is not a mere sect of some larger faith. It is a major world religion with hundreds of millions of followers, with its own major sects, each of them as intolerant as each other.
I would agree that intolerance is a root from which civil strife will most certainly sprout. So is it wise to invite large numbers of adherents of an intolerant faith to live in our midst? That is the question. Most on WD would probably say yes; not I sugggest because they really believe that to be true, but simply because it is the politically correct thing to say. And WDiarists do not exactly strike me as being representative of the population as a whole.
What was it? 2000 or so objections lodged against the DA for that Islamic school, and 600 or so in favour? Objections have to be based on planning grounds do I hear? Pull the other one.
I wonder how Rudd reads the message being sent there and what his policy on immigration is?. As I recall he was light on policy all round. Who knows, he might one day soon have his own Tampa election.
Jenny Hume forgets that
Jenny Hume forgets that Indonesia is 99% Islamic and can not be called an Islamic country with Islamic laws. Malaysia is also Islamic although there is a lower percentage owing to the more diverse nature of that country. These are mostly secular although they have many other unpleasant characteristics. When was the last time an adulteress was convicted and beheaded in Indonesia?
I do not believe as Jenny does, the simplistic notion that Islam equals all thing evil although Islam, like Christianity has many unpleasant aspects to them. Jenny also uses the terms Christian and Secular as though they are the same thing. They most certainly do not. In fact Christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming all the way into the secular way. Just look at the was Bruno and Galileo. There is nothing in Islam of a horrific nature that is not also found in the bible. In fact life under the Taliban is exactly as is described as desirable and ordained by the god of the ancient Israelites, the prophets and the priests in the old testament. Islamic Life under the Talban today is exactly like life under the ancient Israelites.
But why stop at having problems with Islam? I have basic problems with all the monotheist Abrahamic religions of the middle east. The whole bible is a catalog of human rights abuses done by, or on the command of, God and it was usually a glorious day for God when the blood flowed freely. Whether it was the smashing of babies against the wall in God's glorious name or Moses losing his temper when the army did NOT kill every man, woman and child of the enemy or of Joshua happily slaying everything that breatheth in the land of Caanan, including farm animals as commanded by an ever loving god.
Jenny says that Islam as a whole is extremely dangerous whereas Christianity is only dangerous in parts but still forgets about our near Asian neighbours when she does. Almost like a true Muslim does..... once again repeating the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.
Forgetting nothing Peter
Peter, Kathy and Craig: I see the discussion here has moved on considerably and taken several turns while I was out of town, so I have been left behind. And given the pending arrival of Master Three and Master One I will have to leave you all to it.
Craig, I am not going to attempt a point by point reply with you. I sense a meme type exchange that you had with C Parsons will develop and I am not going to go there (even if I did have the time and inclination which I don't), so we will just have to agree to differ.
Now Peter: Jenny says that Islam as a whole is extremely dangerous whereas Christianity is only dangerous in parts but still forgets about our near Asian neighbours when she does. Almost like a true Muslim does..... once again repeating the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.
I can see nowhere that I have written such. So I post that back to you.
But what I will say is that having spent four years of my life studying the Indonesian language Bahasa, as well as Javanese and Minangkabau, together with Asian Civilization and History for three concurrent years, plus an additional postgrad year studying Islam specifically and Arabic, I have more than a passing knowledge of the history and process of Islamisation, particularly of the Indonesian archipelago. I have not as you say forgotten our near Asian neighbour.
It was a slow and complicated process with Islam to some extent being indigenised as one of my lecturers used to say. The process slowed considerably beyond the main islands of Java and Sumatra and even today there is a strong undercurrent of the pre-existing animist beliefs and practices. There is also still a minority Buddhist and Hindu population, notably on Bali.
But as you say the population is now predominantly Muslim. And no, even though that country now hosts one of the most radical groups, there is currently no mass movement toward the imposition of sharia law. And I emphasize mass movement, because at the local level there is some movement in that direction. I believe that process will continue, and not just in Indonesia. It is naive to believe that Western countries will be immune in the future as Muslim populations overtake existing Christian and atheist.
I find it interesting that on previous threads so much condemnation of Christianity was sprouted, so much argument put in favour of atheism a la Dawkins. Yet here we have the spread into western society of a religion which has a terrible track record in terms of human rights, but if one dares to make judgements about it, or suggest that it can pose a threat in the future to liberal western societies, one is jumped on and accused of demonising its millions of followers world wide, etc etc.
A bit of a problem in terms of consistency for some on the left methinks. I think NIck Cohen summed it all up quite well.
Ancient History, Peter.
"There is nothing in Islam of a horrific nature that is not also found in the bible. In fact life under the Taliban is exactly as is described as desirable and ordained by the God of the ancient Israelites, the prophets and the priests in the old testament. Islamic Life under the Taliban today is exactly like life under the ancient Israelites."
Ancient history, Peter. I think you really have to move on from the past. The old testament has long been superseded by Christ and the new testament anyway.
You are right when you intimate that Islam is stuck in the past, though. This is the real problem.
Moses, Joshua, et al, all ancient history and no longer relevant. Christianity, though not perfect, has moved on, and has mostly learned from past mistakes. And hopefully continues to learn, and acknowledge past failings and transgressions.
What is relevant is the fact that, generally, Islam has not moved out of the Dark Ages. As a result we are seeing many heinous crimes being perpertrated by supposed followers of Islam, in the belief that they are doing Allah's bidding! We are seeing many people oppressed and persecuted by Muslim nations simply because they are Christians or atheists.
This is happening in the 21st century right now.
It's not ancient history Peter!