Muslim Political Party The Last Thing Australia Needs

IN A POKE in the eye to decency — and hot on the heels of the disgusting terrorist attack in Paris on Friday — news that Muslims have set up a political party in Australia is the last thing we need; parties predicated on any religion are abhorrent, but the idea of a Muslim bloc in Australian legislatures is an outrage. Signs of Islam’s utter incompatibility with liberal democracy are everywhere. This enterprise must be defeated at all costs.

I must apologise for my silence; some of the undertakings that have placed great demands on my time in the past few months are winding down after reaching something of a crescendo point recently, and as ever, the things that take precedence are those that pay the bills: hence my silence in this column at a terrible time in world events, although I have remained vocal — where possible — on Twitter throughout.

In any case, whilst there are still a couple of known time-intensive jobs headed my way in the next fortnight, readers should see a little more of me from now on.

At the outset, I have to say that what the world witnessed in Paris on Friday night (Melbourne time) was obscene, and for the second time this year the French have borne the despicable burden of showing the rest of the Western world exactly why Islam is utterly incompatible with liberal democratic society, and it is to be hoped that this time — finally — the cacophony of Chardonnay drunks, bullshit squirters and “compassion” babblers is once and for all drowned out by an avalanche of hard-nosed common sense, and the realisation that continuing down the bleating path of trendy socialists who think they’re agents of social Nirvana will lead only to disaster: and an awful lot of bloodshed and lost lives.

Regular readers will recall my piece when Islamic terrorists attacked the offices of French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo in Rheims in January; then, as now, I publish the same image, identically captioned and which is every bit as relevant today, and which has taken on far more sinister meaning in view of the recent events in Paris.

SAGE ADVICE…the culture of violent, radical Islam has no place in free societies.

We will return, e’er briefly, to Paris and the fallout from Friday’s events shortly, and whilst I am painfully aware I’ve missed a lot of the early discussion, there are some points I nonetheless wish to make this morning: unlike the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the Paris attack isn’t going to disappear from daily discussion very quickly, and I do want to place a couple of pieces of coverage before readers for their consideration.

But before we do that, the news yesterday that Australia is to have its first Muslim-based party in time to contest next year’s federal election is about as appropriate and as welcome as the proverbial hole in the head; not content with timing the announcement of its arrival to coincide with the brutal slaughter of 130 innocent people in France, the “policy” unveiled to accompany the launch is to never support military action in a Muslim-majority country: or in other words, if the atrocities like Charlie Hebdo and Friday’s Paris massacre continue, and hypothetically are traced to state backing in the Middle East, this party would seek to ensure that no reprisals are ever meted out.

I don’t believe any political party based on religion is appropriate and, as one mischief-maker on Twitter suggested yesterday, that goes for the Christian Democrats as well (which in truth, is really an anti-abortion party in any case, and thus not necessarily the same thing despite its name).

But Rise Up! Australia, for example, with its hardline fundamentalist Christian ideas and the noxious, offensive outbursts of its founder Danny Nalliah — from whom the assertion that the devastating bushfires in Victoria in 2009 was God’s punishment for relatively liberal abortion laws in this state pretty much sums up what is wrong with both Nalliah and his odious party — is, on one level, every bit as bad as any mooted party of Islam. There are, of course, other non-Muslim religious fringe parties I could have equally cited by way of illustration.

But one thing all of them lacks, compared to a Muslim party, is a background theological code of murdering people in its name, and the idea a party underpinned by a religion — or totalitarian ideology, depending on your view — of subjugating women, raping and murdering women and children, slaughtering “infidels” (quite simply, non-Muslims) and bolstered by the newly announced policy of shielding Muslim states from military attack has no place in Australia, and is less welcome than even the repulsive Nalliah and his God-forsaken band of fanatics masquerading as candidates for elective office.

The proposed party (or at least, its central pledge to interfere in the management of external affairs) could well be unconstitutional.

And like any half-arsed, power-crazed electoral venture, the Australian Muslim Party promises only to contest Senate seats and upper house berths at state elections across the country: the same approach of any party that boasts little broad support, and which seeks to accrue disproportionate clout in order to wield disproportionate influence.

I have always said — and do so again, even after what happened in Paris — that what makes dealing with the issue of Islam and the Muslim community in Australia so difficult is that the majority of Muslims do, in fact, simply want to be left alone to live in peace, and don’t actually want to hurt anyone.

Yet by the same token, where Muslim immigration exists, so too does the risk of terrorist atrocities: and the end destination of this lies in the kind of outrage played out on the streets of Paris on Friday night.

Muslim reform activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali (to whom much attention should be paid, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike) published an excellent op-ed piece in The Australian yesterday, in which she bluntly acknowledged that fundamentalist jihadis have been at war with the West “for years,” and that the West must militarily destroy Islamic State and its so-called caliphate, whatever it takes.

She is also on record as describing Sharia law to be “as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism,” and that “Violence is inherent in Islam – it’s a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder (sic).”

But even were Islamic State to be wiped out of its solidifying stronghold in Iraq and Syria, the problem of Islamic fanatics would go unresolved; the only surprise about what went on in Paris last week is that it didn’t occur in the Netherlands or Belgium first, for Muslim numbers in European countries have ballooned to the point that tension between those communities and the rest of the population is a constant. Boilovers — or worse, the profane and gratuitous violence perpetrated in the name of “religion” that occurred in Paris — are an incessant and wholly undesirable prospect.

It is not accurate and not good enough for Muslim leaders to simply eschew responsibility whenever their flock offend against the majority non-Muslim populations in countries where they have been made welcome; in my view, it is idiot-simple (and wrong) to blame Islamic terror now on former US President George W. Bush, or on the United States generally.

Certainly, the flawed military action in Iraq from 2003 onwards was based on false assumptions, and if a finger must be pointed anywhere it should be pointed in the direction of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose government was responsible for preparing the defective dossier of intelligence upon which the 2003 strikes were based.

Yet acts of Islamic terror were growing in number and force well before the US led Western forces back into Iraq in 2003; and in any case, deposed tyrant Saddam Hussein had spent years after the first Gulf War claiming he had complied with disarmament obligations imposed on him by the United Nations whenever a Western voice was listening, whilst simultaneously telling his regional neighbours that he retained biological and chemical warfare capability and wouldn’t hesitate to use it if provoked.

This game of brinkmanship was, of course, ultimately exposed as bluster. But whilst the effects of US action may have exacerbated the progressive emergence of Islamic terrorism, it is unfathomable and bereft of credibility to claim it was singularly responsible for it.

And as I mentioned earlier, even if you excise the problem (whoever you believe caused it) from the Middle East, it would simply germinate and fester in Europe and, increasingly, in other Western countries.

One of the big take-outs from events in Paris for me is the admission by French authorities that screening of immigrants to weed out potential terrorists and jihadis had been a failure: and no matter how much chest-thumping or how many claims to tough border control regimes are made in Canberra, or London, or across continental Europe or even in the United States, it defies belief that screening procedures in any Western country are imbued with sufficient rigour or efficacy to stop the importation of militant Islamic terror at the border.

And something that ought to horrify and alarm fair-minded Australians — even the bleating left-wing imbeciles who would simply run up a white flag in the name of “tolerance” when their beloved, unseeing diversity programs are concerned — is that fact that the most senior Muslim in this country, Grand Mufti Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, not only failed to condemn the atrocities in Paris, but added insult to injury by claiming, in short, that the attacks were the fault of the West and, by implication, that our own government was complicit in them.

I’m not going to dissect everything the Grand Mufti had to say, but in terms of his shopping list of things that were responsible for the slaughter in Paris, rather than Muslim communities taking responsibility for the actions of their members:

  • “Racism” is a cowardly cop-out — this problem here is not race, but religion, and a theological construct that codifies and practices specific acts of violence against “infidels” and anyone else who dares defy the “sacred” book of Qur’an (and yes, I am well aware the Christian bible also spells out some pretty barbaric edicts, but the difference is that Islam continues to practice literal interpretations of its holy book, whereas Christianity doesn’t);
  • The Grand Mufti can hardly complain about “Islamophobia” when the litany of barbaric acts carried out against civilian populations in the name of “Allah Akbar” is growing: of course people are frightened, antagonised, and increasingly hostile to this so-called religion of violent slaughter and destruction;
  • Blaming the “curtailing of freedoms through securitisation” is hardly an astute pronouncement from a senior Muslim, when across the world radicalised Islamofascists have destroyed parts of cities, exploded commercial airliners, slaughtered innocents going about their business, beheaded private citizens in Western countries at random and for no particular reason other than religious hatred, and make little effort to hide their disinclination to integrate into the communities that have offered them a chance at a better life;
  • And just what “duplicitous foreign policies” the Grand Mufti is referring to is unclear, but in any case, the bottom line appears very simply to be that Islam — with values and laws and expansionist objectives that are utterly incompatible with Western democracy — refuses to play any genuinely meaningful role in western countries it is welcomed into, and that even when accommodated, it can’t be trusted not to bite the hand that feeds it.

These observations will be dismissed by the Left as the rantings of a bigot, a hate monger, or whatever other abuse it is flinging around the place this week, and I strenuously reject any such claim.

I don’t think anyone these days seriously looks at Jewish holocaust survivors, or Greeks or Italians, or people from Asia and India who have found new lives in Australia, and tries to make the claim with any credibility that they don’t want to be part of the Australian community. There will always be fringe wackos around who will try. But Australia’s immigration record is one to be proud of, and the tolerant society it has helped to create is rightly the envy of the rest of the world.

(I would add that the greatest moral hypocrites of our time at the ALP and the Communist Party Greens have amply demonstrated their hatred for Israel, but of course to them, that’s “different:” the hard cold fact is that Israel only responds aggressively when provoked, and surrounded by lawless thugs sworn to wipe it off the face of the Earth, it is no surprise such provocations are frequent. But to the compassion blurters of the Left, radical Islamic aggression = good whilst justified Israeli responses = bad. Such a position is baseless, unjustifiable, and tantamount to an endorsement of outright savagery in and of itself. But I digress).

Even so, the one group that simply refuses to become part of Australian life is the Muslim community: it wants Halal food served everywhere. It wants men and women segregated at swimming pools, sports facilities and other areas. It agitates for the introduction of Sharia law. It refuses to surrender known troublemakers in its ranks to law enforcement agencies. It apologises for terrorist atrocities and seeks to transfer blame for the acts of Islamic jihadists to the very societies that feel the full force of the obscenities they commit. How many Muslims are interested in serving in the Australian military and fighting for their (adopted) country? How many Muslims want to leave the country to fight in jihadi wars against Western interests (as much, admittedly, as against each other among warring Islamic factions)?

These people are happy to take with one hand what they are given by western democracies. It is highly debatable whether anything given back with the other is worth anything at all. Indeed, it seems all countries like Australia get in return for their “compassion” is a kick in the head.

Europe is a powderkeg; with immigration from Muslim countries in places like Belgium and the Netherlands (and France) many years ahead of Australia and involving exponentially more resettled people, the ignition point between the relentless advance of Islam and the fed-up, resentful and defiant incumbent populations has arguably been reached. Very soon, all hell may very well break loose. If and when it does, blaming Uncle Sam will be a facile fallacy indeed.

As night follows day — with the same defective controls on its borders and in screening out potential terrorists in particular, no matter how loudly Coalition politicians might protest — what is going on in Europe is what Australia has to look forward to if things are allowed to continue, unchecked, with the Muslim community insulated from reproach for the actions of its members and the Left cheering it along under the auspices of “social justice,” “humanitarian compassion,” and whatever other fatuous bullshit it churns out to justify undermining the integrity of Australian society.

It is not heartless to insist on the defence of our national way of life; it is not “racist” or prejudicial on religious grounds to point the finger at one group when the weight of evidence of its culpability — and complete incompatibility with Western values — is overwhelming.

I acknowledge how heavy-handed this might seem, especially given I am sincere in also acknowledging that the vast majority of Muslim people don’t want to hurt anyone.

But the first obligation of any government is to its own people — not to others elsewhere in the world, irrespective of the nobility and authenticity of the desire to help others.

Serious consideration must be given to a moratorium on Muslim immigration until or unless failsafe methods of excluding potential terrorists can be devised and implemented. If such an undertaking proves impossible to achieve, then Muslim immigration must end.

There’s nothing bigoted in this. France has shown us twice this year the dangers of unfettered open borders for people who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a decent and tolerant society. The same Left that preaches the need for understanding and acceptance remains mute in the wake of last week’s outrages against civilised decency, and just as unwilling as the Grand Mufti to acknowledge exactly who was at fault for killing and maiming hundreds. That, on its own, speaks volumes.

And it brings me back to the point at hand.

Perhaps a political party for Muslims is legal; perhaps it isn’t, but this is scarcely the point.

Enough acts of barbaric violence mark the course of Muslim settlement in free democratic societies to suggest to any reasonable person that not only is there a serious problem emanating from this particular group, but that the problem is growing — and quickly.

If there are constitutional grounds on which to disqualify and dissolve any Muslim political party, they should be seized upon and used: such a divisive, confrontational and downright inappropriate initiative must be responded to resolutely and with the full force of any law that might neutralise it deployed to that end.

A little foresight is all it takes to see the catastrophic end destination of a political party forged in a religion that claims to be a force of peace when so much of its recent history has left a trail of destruction, rape, murder and other barbarities.

And if forward thinking is beyond the capacity of those well placed to avert such an outcome, then a look instead in the rear view mirror will suffice: the most recent images that receptacle displays are of murdered and wounded civilians in Paris; plenty of comparable episodes are visible the further into the past one chooses to delve.

At the bottom line, Islam is utterly incompatible with the nature and spirit of liberal democracy. It is a poor joke of the most insidious variety that Australian Muslims now seek to attempt to use democracy as a vehicle for the advancement of their aims. Too much indulgence has been afforded to a group in Australian society that will never respond in like kind, and whose brethren elsewhere in the world trade only in slaughter and misery and destruction.

Enough is enough. If Australia, like the rest of the West, is to learn anything at all from the events last week in Paris, it must draw a line in the sand against the excesses of Islam. The time to do so now.



Syrian Refugee Crisis: How We Should Respond

THE TIDAL WAVE of people fleeing the barbarism of ISIS in Syria is a global challenge, requiring a response on a global scale; competition to “out-compassion” each other in Australia is tasteless, pointless, and is a breathtaking hypocrisy from those who opened the asylum seeker floodgates and oversaw hundreds of deaths. This country is already the most generous refugee resettler in the world. Generosity, not pointless excess, is what is needed now.

I’m sure this is not the last time we will talk about the Syrian refugee crisis; this issue might only now have ripened to the point our government — and others with the capacity to help — is obliged to urgently fashion some kind of response, but the problem is going to take a long time to be fixed: if it ever can be.

The hope for mature and rational public discussion on this to some extent seems pointless, for already there appears to be a bidding war between political interests in Canberra to “out-compassion” each other; I’m not going to buy into that today, because even though restraint and responsibility are in short supply in certain quarters in normal circumstances, the tsunami of people fleeing Syria right now constitutes extraordinary circumstances indeed.

I want to share today’s article by one of my favourite columnists, Miranda Devine from the Daily Telegraph in Sydney; not for the first time, Miranda has made many of the points I would have made, and her words this morning serve aptly as a starting point for our discussion now.

I was listening to a debate on the Syria crisis in the car last night on 3AW on my way home; listeners seemed divided over how many refugees Australia should put its hand up to resettle, with targets nominated by callers ranging from 10,000 to 50,000.

My immediate thought was that there can’t be an open-ended obligation attached to this: per head of capita (and whether the chardonnay-swilling bleeding hearts from the Left care to acknowledge it or not), Australia already resettles the most refugees each year of any Western country; we have spent $13 billion on the asylum seeker/boat/people smuggler nightmare restarted in 2008 by the Rudd government and the Communist Party Greens; and it must be remembered that despite the vast majority of arrivals by sea having now been processed under the Abbott government’s stricter policies on boat arrivals (with many found to be refugees, and allowed to stay in Australia), the obligation Australia was exposed to between 2008 and 2013 has not as yet been fully discharged either.

It is with that last point in mind that I think the rush to devise and finalise “a quota” now stinks of expediency and political posturing; why not take an initial 10,000 Syrian refugees now — above the existing refugee quota for the current year in the first instance — and then reassess the situation?

The humanitarian crisis in Syria will not be over this week, or next month, or even next year; there is no need to charge at it like bulls at the proverbial gate. A gradated response allows flexibility to respond as the situation develops, and decent folk will have no objection, I’m sure, to additional tranches of 10,000 Syrians seeking asylum being taken in by our government in staggered intakes if need be.

It’s not about hedging bets, or trying to minimise the impost, or cruelty, or any of the other irresponsible bullshit the Left will accuse the Abbott government of however it responds — for them, no conservative government can be permitted to be seen as having exuded warmth, or compassion, or generosity. It doesn’t fit within their diatribes. And in this case, they would be better off saying nothing if their standard anti-Liberal Party rhetoric is the best they can do.

Unlike some — and I know this will be controversial — I have no problem with an emphasis on Christian refugees shaping of any contribution Australia makes.

The reason is fairly straightforward, and Miranda covers off on it today: bluntly, Christians in Syria are being persecuted; they are a minority in both Syria and the Middle East generally that ISIS has made a target; they form the overwhelming bulk of the body of displaced persons; and in terms of commonality with those we offer new lives and fresh starts to, it seems a no-brainer that Christian Syrians already share more in common with our way of life than the warring Muslim factions determined to drive them away.

There is also the matter of the Muslim countries around Syria, who notoriously refuse to take refugees; there are stable, first-world countries in that region: if there are displaced Muslims requiring asylum there is no reason Saudi Arabia, or Qatar, or the UAE and others can’t resettle them.

One could also say the same of Islamic countries closer to Australia that any refugees must pass near or through to get to Australia: Indonesia. Malaysia. These are not bad places. They offer a better way of life to Syrian Muslims than the battle zone their motherland has become. And they must help.

But if Australia is to take more than any initially-agreed quota, why can’t we be a little more creative than simply bringing people in, dumping them on the outskirts of Sydney and Melbourne, and paying them welfare?

For one thing, Australia’s regional centres have experienced population drift to the major coastal centres for decades; a higher number of resettlements could be justified on the basis those people were allocated to various country towns and required to remain for an initial period, much like British immigrants who arrived under the “£10 Pom” scheme did after the second world war until the early 1970s.

For another, the government has a huge regional development plan that when initiated will call for dozens of infrastructure and nation-building projects to be undertaken and completed — dams, roads, agriculture, and so forth — and whilst I would never advocate using immigrant labour at a discount to legislated rates of pay, the point is that some of these people could be offered employment working on some of those projects.

In some cases, these will take years to build. It’s another way those who come here might be able to help build a true bond with their new country — in much the way European immigrants built the Snowy Mountains Scheme, for example.

But what we don’t need is do-gooders and other bullshit artists merely prescribing some ridiculous and arbitrary intake figure, well above the country’s capacity to pay for it, that is all about making the statement but which is inevitably a political football that ends up buried in the mud at the end of the paddock.

It rankles me that some of these cretinous armchair oracles claim that as a “rich” country, we have endless capacity to help “the displaced citizens of the world:” we’re not, and we don’t.

Australia’s wealth is largely buried beneath the ground — it’s the same base of resources the same do-gooder idiots want to wind back and then terminate the use of — and beyond that, whilst we have a reasonably robust service economy, the same people want to stifle its development by curtailing free trade agreements that would allow us to build service exports. It’s a disingenuous do-gooder argument at best.

I don’t dispute — nay, I heartily agree — that Australia must play its part in resettling the human tidal wave of displaced people that is emanating from the Middle East.

But it has to be paid for, too; and just as Australia’s “wealth” is a subjective concept in some quarters — convenient for arguments such as this, but something to be derided and subverted depending on the circumstances — so too is the capacity of government to provide a factor that must be considered.

Already, through external forces, budget sabotage and utter mismanagement by the ALP — compounded by that party’s refusal to allow the continuing government to redress the damage — Australia is borrowing a billion dollars per week just to enable the existing functions of government to go on.

Just as Australia should make an effort to help resettle some of those fleeing from Syria, that effort most certainly shouldn’t obligate us to the tune of another ten to fifteen billion dollars; on one level, we can’t afford it. But on another, and to the extent we take some of these people in, the effort should be reasonable, modest, and — not unimportantly — calibrated within a justifiable amount of money.

I’m going to leave it there for now; my understanding is that federal Cabinet is meeting as I publish this to determine the government’s response, and I think it prudent to wait until we see that before going too much further.

Encouragingly, deputy Labor leader Tanya Plibersek was making broadly supportive-sounding noises on Melbourne radio this morning in the context of a rumoured one-off intake of 13,500 Syrians seeking resettlement: this column will acknowledge any constructive work on the part of the ALP in the course of this issue developing.

It is to be hoped the tentative utterances of reason from Plibersek prove representative of the wider ALP response. I have no faith the grub who is her so-called “leader” will do anything other than play grimy, petty politics with what is literally a life and death matter for so many: after all, he couldn’t even get the gender right of the dead child carried off a beach in the photo that has, rightly or wrongly, come to represent in people’s minds the terrible nature of this crisis.

And finally, a personal word.

Many years ago I dated a Syrian girl for a few months; it (obviously) never went anywhere — partly, it has to be said, because I wasn’t Syrian — but I got a first-hand look at Syrian people at that time. They are good people, if a little insular (or perhaps just wary) in our world; very generous, very decent, and they take very seriously their part in what has become their world as they make their way in Australian society.

Whilst I don’t like the idea of Muslim asylum seekers being included in the resettlement quota — on the entirely reasonable grounds I have outlined — I am very keen to see a solution that includes however many Syrian Orthodox people it is agreed we should take being made welcome here.

Just as we have much to offer them, they have much to offer us. And provided both sides of that equation are observed, I see no reason why an initial 10,000 of them can’t be offered asylum as soon as logistical considerations — and the bona fides of the people concerned — can be sorted out.

We will revisit this issue over the coming days and weeks, as appropriate.



Endeavour Hills: Would-Be Cop Killer No “Martyr”

AN 18-YEAR-OLD terror suspect — who on Tuesday took two knives to a Melbourne Police station and hospitalised two officers with serious injuries, only to be shot dead for his trouble — is not a hero nor, as one senior Islamic State figure described him, a martyr; this was a criminal thug posing a clear danger to Police and being dealt with accordingly. Enforcement of the law transcends the wounded sensitivities of apologists for illegal acts.

A report in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph today — that Muslim terror suspect Numan Haider, who was shot and killed by Police after what can only be described as the attempted murder of two Police officers, has been hailed as the “first martyr” on Australian soil — is disturbing for many reasons, and emblematic of much that is wrong with attitudes in some quarters of Australian society to the real and growing risk brainwashed thugs pose in everyday Australian life.

It goes without saying that Haider is not “a martyr,” nor a hero of any kind; his actions were those of a criminal thug operating from a position of complete contempt for the lives of others and for Australian law, and whilst the death of any young person is a tragedy, the nature of the wounds he inflicted on the Police officers now recovering in hospital suggests the use of force against him was proportionate, reasonable, and warranted in the circumstances as they stood.

The fact that anyone — of any race or religion — would seek to uphold the death of an attempted murderer as any kind of victory or clarion call based on any set of formalised principles is indicative of the indecency and perversion of those principles; yet Abdul Salam Mahmoud has done precisely that, and it is to be hoped this dangerous “leader” of Islamic State is ignored by the impressionable and/or disaffected young Muslims his hateful creed is targeted to.

Mahmoud — who (surprise, surprise) also goes by a number of other names — claims not to belong to any militant Islamic group. Yet he has travelled to (and remains in) Syria, where he claims to be undertaking “humanitarian” work in an Islamic State-controlled city, and along with his rally call to others to emulate the deeds of Haider is believed to be working to mobilise violent reprisals in the wake of the opening US bombing sorties against Islamic State targets in the Middle East.

First things first: there are those in Australia who argue it is a violation of international law and human rights to advocate that someone like Mahmoud should be permanently denied re-entry to Australia; yet sovereign governments (including ours very recently) are within their rights to enact legislation designed to protect their people, and stripping someone like Mahmoud of his passport and/or his Australian citizenship (if he holds it) is the very least, literally, the Australian government can do.

For one thing, his utterances on the Haider matter, and on Islamic State actions more widely, show that he is more than capable of operating contrary to Australian interests, even from the confines of his Syrian bolt hole; for another, if he were to be left “stateless” as a result of rescinding the means for him to re-enter and/or subsequently remain in Australia, then it’s apparent that where he is, right now, is a destination of choice: not one of coercion.

And there are enough lawless types in Australian jails — and on Australian streets, courtesy of Courts that release dangerous offenders who should never be released — without adding to the problem by knowingly allowing those bent on destroying the Australian way of life to return here once they have left.

So let’s not entertain any delusions that the kid killed on Tuesday was “a martyr;” and let’s not allow the favoured mythology of the Left that he was “the real victim” in the piece to take root and fester.

I have been reading Piers Akerman’s piece — also in the Tele this morning — and he makes the case that Australia’s “publicly funded media” (read: the ABC and SBS) have portrayed violent Muslim bullies as victims on every occasion to date on which radicalised Muslim thugs have either engaged in violent rioting or other outrages in Australia, or whenever international terrorist atrocities linked directly to the likes of Al-Qaeda, such as the September 11 attacks and the Bali bombings, are committed.

Readers know that I ripped into the ABC over its #QandA programme this week; in that article I included a link to another from Miranda Devine, who pointed out that the entire debate on #QandA had been shanghaied and then dominated by two overbearing Muslim women, who exploited the platform gifted to them by the ABC with the unmistakable objective to either hoodwink viewers into believing that Muslims had no case to answer in relation to the escalation of domestic terrorism activity, or — if that failed — to plead victimisation and misunderstanding as absolving factors.

I don’t know how many times I can say that the proportion of the Muslim population in Australia that constitutes a problem is a small minority; it’s a case made by even those commentators in the mainstream who the Left and the apologists for this kind of outrage brand as the least tolerant people in Australia for calling a spade a spade: Piers Akerman is one of those, and — as usual — he nonetheless reiterates the same point in the article I have linked to this morning.

But minority or not, what happened in Endeavour Hills on Tuesday in the mortgage belt on Melbourne’s south-eastern outskirts cannot be considered in isolation from the points made by Piers, Miranda and so many others like them.

Piers in particular makes the point today that just as the Islamic Council of Victoria has refused to condemn Haider, political leaders have been reticent to state that Islam (or, at the minimum, elements within it) constitute a problem, and I would simply say that if the peak body of the Muslim community in this state refuses to condemn the attempted murder (or, if we’re dishing out any benefit of doubt, aggravated assault and grievous bodily harm) of two people by one of its members, then there is a very real problem here indeed.

This country is regularly (and rightly) described as a “nation of immigrants” and, to be sure, the tide of newcomers from all parts of the world continues; this is the best country in the world and it has made many, many people of different backgrounds welcome, but with the welcome mat comes obligations that simply aren’t being met by some of those who should stand to lose the most from failing to do so.

There is nothing to explain away when it comes to those who seek to thumb their nose at Australian law; there is no tolerance or sympathy due to those who would foment violence and terror in our society.

It is unfortunate that the majority of Muslims who want to do the right thing are unfairly tarnished by the deeds of those in their midst who refuse to do so, but if their communities harbour murderers and terrorists, then those unsavoury characters must be rooted out and dealt with — and without fear, favour or remorse.

Just like any other criminal miscreant, in any other branch of Australian society, would be.

Other groups who have come to this country have found little trouble in observing our laws and ways of life, and in times past those in immigrant communities who have fallen foul of the law have been punished by it: and their communities, far from seeking to excuse themselves from any connection to the wrongdoings of their members, have supported and co-operated with Australian authorities to the hilt.

If the Islamic Council of Victoria chooses not to condemn the 18-year-old Haiden, then that is its own choice.

But it cannot then subsequently complain with any credibility that its members are being targeted, and harassed, and vilified; it can’t have it both ways.  It is this very double standard that fuels resentment in the wider community, and fuels the notion that “minorities” like the Muslim community receive special and differential treatment to the majority. “Tolerance” and wilful blindness are not the same thing. The chardonnay drunks and compassion babblers of the Left are culpable in this regard.

And whilst it doesn’t make it right of course, when even the peak bodies in Australia’s Muslim communities refuse to stand in complete lockstep with Australian authorities when their members break the law, there is no moral high ground for them to occupy in the denunciation of the alleged misdeeds of others.

I’m sorry if that offends anyone but it’s that simple.

There is every indication that the rise of Islamic terrorism — which in reality is merely a pretext for vicious animals to rape and torture and kill whoever they like, using “Islam” as the pretext for doing so, and has nothing to do with the moderate Muslim community — will become a permanent and worsening feature of Western societies such as ours unless it is stamped out now, and stamped out quickly.

There is a disgusting irony in Mahmoud’s call to arms in retaliation for US bombing raids on Islamic State positions in Syria based on an exhortation about “how many more (Muslim) sisters should we wait to be abused, how many more lands do we want to see bombed, how many more children do you want to hear cry” when Islamic State, in establishing the territorial foothold it now occupies in the Middle East, raped the women and children, tortured the victims and killed anyone who stood in the way of their doing so.

It makes any pretence to legitimacy of the propaganda flowing out of insurgent Muslim mouthpieces in Syria and Iraq, and intended to fire up Islamic fervour to do the same thing in countries like Australia, ring very hollow indeed.

Was the would-be cop killer a victim? I’d argue any 18-year-old knows the difference between right and wrong. He is said to have been from a good, middle class Afghani family. None of the media coverage of the Endeavour Hills incident suggests he was otherwise mentally impaired. If he was motivated to try to kill a couple of policemen as a result of attempts to radicalise Muslim youths, I would contend he was capable of making his own choice.

The last thing this kid was is a victim.

Those who would hold him up as a martyr — or seek to emulate and expand on this “first strike” against the West in Australia — should be rounded up and either jailed or thrown out of the country; and steps taken to ensure that those cheering this enterprise on from the distant sidelines of the Middle East never set foot on Australian soil again: irrespective of whose feelings get hurt in doing so.

Faced with a heightened threat of terrorist atrocities on Australian soil, the rule of law takes precedence over the finger-shakers and outrage merchants of the Left who would leave the perpetrators well alone because “minorities” deserve “tolerance.”

And far from the denialist position of downplaying the actions of Haiden, the Islamic community taking the lead — rather than being prodded into mild and reluctant statements of reprimand of its own — would do more good than harm.


Muslim Terror Arrests: Round Them Up, Throw Them Out

WHEN TERRORIST REPRISAL is threatened against law enforcement agencies for doing their job, Australia has an urgent problem to deal with; dozens of arrests in Sydney and Brisbane yesterday are likely to be the tip of the iceberg, with retribution threatened against Police, the military and ASIO and reports of a foiled plot to infiltrate Parliament House. No tolerance should be shown to lawless, vicious thugs plying their wares in this country.

Sometimes in this column, it seems I’m playing a broken record: making the same arguments once again, in this case after yet another chilling reminder that the menace of ISIS/Islamic State/Al-Qaeda is not confined to the Middle Eastern war zone it seeks to establish a terrorist Islamic state upon, but rather threatens the free world.

And in talking about terrorists, jihadists, mujahideen or whatever they want to call themselves, it’s a mark of the impact those on the hard Left in Australia have had that any disclaimer at all needs to be attached to a discussion of “radical Islam,” “Muslim terrorists” or similar: as one writer opined in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph this morning, the perpetrators of this growing outrage — especially those “home-grown” adherents seeking to join the “fight” — actively seek to be recognised as the warriors of Islam, and in acknowledging this elementary truth no slight should be inferred by the vast majority of Australian Muslims who simply want to live in peace.

Yesterday’s anti-terrorism operation, the largest in Australian history, poses more problems than it solves, but Australians can at the very minimum be reassured that those agencies charged with their protection — ASIO, the various Police forces across the country, and the military — are possessed of sufficient mettle to discharge the obligation that becomes them.

It’s a valid point; already, military personnel have been advised to be vigilant on the basis of a heightened threat of attack by terrorist groups that extends to their families; ASIO is said to be targeted, too, over its thwarting of a plot to penetrate Parliament House in Canberra (to achieve God only knows what, but it’s not too hard to guess). We’ll come back to that in a bit.

But calm and sober voices can be heard amid the seething reactions of those who would strike at Australia, Australians and the symbols of our way of life, and amid the entirely justifiable outrage of ordinary Australians who did not ask for the “Islamic State” to have any place in this country, and who are affronted by the determination of those who now seek to see to it that it does.

Voices like Tim Priest‘s in the Tele, who makes the compelling case that defects in governance on Australia’s part, as well as those elements of the Muslim community who cannot and/or will not live by Australian laws and standards, are equally to blame for the rise of the so-called “home-grown” Islamic terrorist.

Or that of a favourite of this column, Piers Akerman, who eloquently argues the case that our all-things-to-all-people, risk-averse, “offend nobody” politicians commit a grave injustice against law-abiding Australians — including the vast bulk of the Muslim community — by shying away from any mention of the Islamic and/or Muslim colours of those seeking to commit their obscene outrages on Australian soil; Piers is also one of the many opinion writers today who acknowledge that Police have been assisted by law-abiding individuals from the Muslim community, and his views can hardly be decried as bigoted or discriminatory.

Yet calm and sober discussion of what promises — literally — to wreak untold carnage and mayhem in Australia is entirely compatible with ruthless, relentless and determined action to identify and round up those who would participate in such things, root them out of Australian society, and to the extent allowable under Australian law, throw them out of the country.

And in spite of what some of the chardonnay drunks, compassion babblers and self-styled do-gooders with their bleeding-hearted bullshit might protest, those who participate in the planning of terrorist atrocities on Australian soil are every inch committing a crime as those who, unhindered and/or undetected, actually go ahead and do it. So no nonsense in comments today from anyone at the Communist Party Greens, thanks.

Those of us who know people who suffered the misfortune to be caught up in the London bombings, or the September 11 attacks in the US, or the Bali bombings know too well that terrorist outrages are no trifling matter to score political points from, nor a vehicle to assert some purported moral superiority that doesn’t exist: those who seek to do so should be ashamed, and the misty-eyed sentiment that “it could never happen here” echoes perfectly similar sentiments in other free countries whose innocence of such crimes has long-since been violated.

Two of the insidiously barbaric plots foiled by yesterday’s raids and arrests are horrific: one murderous storyline was apparently set to feature terrorist snipers picking off the security detail on the ministerial wing of Parliament House, allowing straightforward access to the Prime Minister’s courtyard and, as one report rather euphemistically described the consequent vantage point from which to keep shooting, “a line of sight into the Prime Minister’s office.”

Another involved Islamic State terrorists randomly snatching and abducting a tourist from Sydney’s Martin Place, beheading the victim on camera, and then sending the footage to what we’ll call the Islamic State press office in Syria for broadcast and propaganda purposes.

This kind of thing — or anything like it — has no place in Australia.

In a way, Australians had a foretaste of this two years ago, as Muslims rioted through Sydney on the flimsy pretext of being “offended” about a nonsense film made in America by an Egyptian Coptic Christian — in breach of parole conditions applied to him at the time — which saw these undesirable Muslim miscreants call for (among other things) beheadings to occur in Australia in accordance with a strict interpretation of Sharia law.

It was unacceptable then, and it is unacceptable now.

I have been criticised in the past for advocating the deportation of these specimens of human filth from our shores wherever possible, and to reiterate — again — the degraded human state to which I refer has nothing to do with their religion, but everything to do with the fact these are bad people who simply do not belong in this country: irrespective of what religious beliefs they hold.

But the problem with throwing them in jail stems from the very characteristic that makes Islamic State such a dangerous presence in Australia in the first place; these networks are comprised of people who are first-class networkers, recruiters and brainwashers, and their recruitment practices tend to focus on angry, disaffected and marginalised people who believe the world — and the country — have grievously wronged them.

How many martyrs and wounded souls are potentially available to such groups within prison populations?

Yesterday’s raids, arrests and associated counter-terrorist operations are merely the first step in what is likely to be an incessant process of finding those who plot against Australia; and those charged with undertaking them — in intelligence gathering, operations and initiation — are to be congratulated rather than criticised or condemned.

Sadly, however, Australia is proving to be a fertile hiring ground for the terrorist machines wreaking havoc in other parts of the world, and the prospect of similar violence and atrocities being carried out on our shores is not hypothetical at all: it is real, imminent and deadly, as the plots thwarted yesterday chillingly demonstrate.

Lock these barbarians away by all means, and get them off the streets, but I reiterate the position on this issue I have held throughout: if they travel abroad to participate in terrorist activities, their Australian passports should be cancelled; those of them holding another citizenship in addition to that of Australia, their Australian citizenship should be rescinded and those affected thrown out of the country.

Let’s be honest: anyone caught planning or executing their savage outrages in this country don’t belong here; and the simple legislative change to citizenship arrangements would merely see those caught in its web either marooned in or deported to countries they profess to want to set up their own state in anyway.

Frankly, our government should do everything in its power to help them get there; and if they find the going a bit too rough once they arrive — like the so-called “Cream Puff Brigade” we looked at a week or two ago — then really, that’s too bad.


Terror And Reality: Those Who “Hail War With The West” Are Not “Aussies”

WITH THE elevation of Australia’s official terror threat from “medium” to “high” — meaning a terrorist attack on Australian soil is considered likely — has come greater media coverage of locally-based Muslims bent on “jihad” against the West; from threats against military personnel and plots to carry out terror strikes in this country, to travelling to fight “jihad” in the name of ISIS, those who do so have no right to call themselves Australians.

Until very recently, with the advent and apparent entrenchment of ISIS and Al-Qaeda in a rapidly expanding tract of “Islamic Caliphate” territory in the Middle East, this column has mostly avoided talking about issues primarily based on Islam; such matters have become an incendiary sore point in Australia, with those who (rightly) point to problems of spiralling religious violence in other Western countries potentially becoming replicated in Australia slapped down — and armed with a pile of legislation designed to outlaw their grievances — by an army of chardonnay-swilling, politically correct trendies determined to ram “diversity” down the throats of whoever dares as much as question it, let alone voice any opposition to it.

I have steered clear of such things because in many respects they are arguments you can’t win; there are Muslim people who simply want to be left alone and to live in peace (in Australia and elsewhere) and there are those who want to kill infidels, wage “jihad,” and rape and murder and pillage — all in the name of Allah, of course; it’s religion and faith that is used to justify such slaughter.

Those who defend the rights of the Muslims in the first category to live in Australia are shot down by those determined to round up and deport all Muslims in order to ensure the complete removal of those in the second category from Australian shores, and the paradoxical truth of the matter is that the arguments of both carry some merit.

But those Muslims who live in Australia and who have become “radicalised,” to use the current jargon — and who want to either mount terrorist attacks in Australia, or skip the country to fight alongside “brethren” in the Middle East in a “jihad” against the Western world — have no right to call themselves Australian, and as far as I am concerned should not be welcome in this country under any circumstances.

The official escalation this week of Australia’s terror threat to “high” for the first time ever — and taking it to the second-highest level on the four-tiered scale adopted a decade ago — comes as the issue of radical Islam and the threat it poses globally is arguably the most prominent it has been since Muslim terrorists flew hijacked aircraft into various landmarks in the USA on 11 September 2001, killing thousands.

What is now clearly two rival complements of radical fundamental Muslims — Islamic State and Al-Qaeda (the latter initially thought to have spawned the former) — are busily laying waste to a rapidly growing tract of the Middle East, and the obscenity of the crimes being committed against humanity in the process are too revolting to countenance.

In the three and a half years I have been publishing this forum, I have posted articles devoted to Islam just four times, and it speaks volumes that one of these — an angry piece penned in the wake of Muslim riots in Sydney two years ago — remains, to this day, the most widely read article ever published here (although a pre-election expose last year about Communist Party Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young comes a very close second).

And it says much, too, that of the other three, two of them have been in the past ten days, both dealing with ISIS: those who didn’t see these can access them here and here.*

But I read yesterday, among other things on the subject, an article in the Weekend Australian that demands comment for the simple reason that anyone who “hails war with the West” might well possess Australian residency or citizenship — although those things can be changed — but they have no moral or social right whatsoever to categorise themselves as “Australian.”

To put it bluntly, these are not the kind of people this country either needs or wants, and they should be deported. But more on that later.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the fundamentalist terror advocates that have at least partly underpinned the Commonwealth’s heightened state of terror alert is the fact their activities are so open; these people are either extremely careless or extremely cavalier, conducting their campaigns of recruitment and propaganda in full view of anyone who cares to look.

The Australian‘s story features “Australian Islamic State fighter” Abu Khaled, who it seems maintains an easily accessible propaganda presence on Twitter and Facebook; Khaled — said to be a “former Melbourne man” of Fijian and Cambodian ancestry, neither of which are typical of Islam — is apparently also the “star” of a soon to be released propaganda video from Islamic State.

I’m not going to drone on about every detail carried in these reports (although a selection may be accessed here, here, here and here for those wishing to read further). Suffice to say, however, Australia — thanks to immigration policies that are either inadequately rigorous and/or too easily circumvented when it comes to rooting out religiously motivated troublemakers — now finds itself at risk from the local adherents of these murderous groups who hate everything about liberal democracy, freedom and the rule of law, and anything that doesn’t fit with their extremely strict conservative interpretation of the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an.

For once, one will say something favourable about the Fairfax press; it’s obsession with the hobby horses of the Left (such as “tolerance” and “inclusion”) has seen it publish today a piece focused on Ibrahim Abu Mohammad, the Grand Mufti of Australia, who not for the first time presents as the reasonable voice of the moderate Muslim community (which — as I have repeatedly noted in this column — is actually most of the Muslim community).

But Muslim voices such as Dr Ibrahim’s are all too infrequently heard: it may be that comparatively little attention is paid to them, it may be because of prejudice, or it may be that they simply don’t speak up to the degree they ought to. But what seems indisputable is that those who seek to act in the name of Islam to perpetuate mass killings and other outrages pay no heed to responsible leaders in their communities like Dr Ibrahim whatsoever.

I am not a bigot or a redneck, and I disagree with those whose “answer” to the threat posed by violent religious jihadists is to throw every Muslim out of Australia; to do so (were it even possible) would be to respond to a local threat posed by the comparative few in a fashion utilising the polar opposite extreme to tar the many — wrongly — with the same brush.

By the same token, however, I am on the record in my view that nobody should be permitted to come to Australia and seek to change the place to what they think it should be, and in this sense the Muslim community does have to be singled out. The fact bacon is not sold in some mainstream food establishments for example, or that some multinationals sell halal meat only to avoid giving offence, is a nonsense that has no place in this country at all.

And the suggestion that arises periodically from some sections of the Muslim community that Australia should adopt Sharia law is an insult to more than 20 million Australians who are not of the Islamic faith, and frankly, those who advance the calls for it to be introduced have no place in Australia either.

Australia is a very welcoming country, perhaps the most welcoming in the world; as a nation of immigrants, one of our strengths is that we reflect the very best of many cultures alongside the primary roots of British settlement and, for those to whom it is important, Aboriginal custom.

Yet if one group wishing to come here wants Australia to adopt their laws in place of ours — in this case, Sharia — then they shouldn’t come here at all; they should stay where they are instead, however horrible they think their lot is, or go somewhere else that might be more sympathetic to their demands to overthrow the system — literally.

But with a welcoming and tolerant country also comes responsibilities.

On one level, I don’t really care if all of these so-called “jihadists” want to go off somewhere secluded and blow each other to kingdom come. In a macabre sense, if they want to do this to each other in a place nobody else has to be affected by it, they’d be doing the rest of the world a favour.

But on another, I think it is a moral and human outrage that in choosing to do so they are content — nay, happy — to rape and torture and kill civilians, innocents, women, children, the helpless and the unsuspecting.

And it is particularly disgusting that these atrocities are done in the name of “God,” “religion,” or any other justification based on exploiting and perverting a developed system of theological values.

The reason I have posted links to a broad sweep of what has been published on Islamic terrorism in Australia in the past couple of days (and there is plenty more; I’ve merely used the first few articles I encountered on my daily sweep of the news portals yesterday) is because nobody can seriously argue that there is no problem posed by violent, radicalised Islamic groups in this country, or by the gullible and dislocated individuals they are recruiting to their ranks.

I have said previously that any permanent Australian resident or citizen who travels to the Middle East to take part in the fighting going on in the name of Al-Qaeda and Islamic State should have their passports and citizenship revoked, and permanently denied re-entry to Australia.

If it leaves them stateless and consequently stranded in the middle of a war zone then frankly, so be it: life is full of choices, and choices come with consequences.

Australia cannot — despite the fervour and zeal of the Left — tolerate and diversify and compassion itself to the point that it becomes a haven for the murderous, the lunatic and the despotic.

Especially when the target of such people and the groups to which they belong is the way of life we enjoy in this country, and everything it stands for.

And I note that the problems that are now starting to really become apparent in Australia — even to those who, for whatever reason, have chosen to avert their eyes in denial — are not unique to this country; all over the Western world, in the USA, the UK and Europe (and even in places like Russia), organisations based on this radical brand of Islam are growing in strength and prominence, with everything they find disagreeable in their crosshairs.

Clearly, it is not possible to speak for those in other Western countries, although the sentiment probably holds good irrespective of whether we’re talking about Australia, the UK, or somewhere like the Netherlands, which is notorious for rising levels of Islamic violence and social trouble.

The escalation of Australia’s terror threat level is not something done on a whim, or for purely political reasons; indeed, the decision to do so stems from ASIO, not the Abbott government, and Bill Shorten must be given his due for publicly falling into lockstep with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in response (even if some of his less-principled colleagues see it as an opportunity for political point scoring).

And there’s no diplomatic way of saying this, so let’s call a spade a spade: the reason for the change in terror alert, very simply, is due to a threat posed by violent Islamic fundamentalists.

If any of the people involved in these terrorist cells — like Khaled who, of course, is long gone — possess the citizenship by birth or ancestry of any other country, then as far as I am concerned their Australian citizenships must be rescinded.

If they are off fighting overseas, then they will never return; if they continue to dwell on Australian shores, their tenure should be summarily and abruptly terminated, and they should be deported along with their vicious ideas and violent intentions.

There are too many compassion babbling voices peddling bleeding-hearted bullshit about being tolerant of diversity: this isn’t an issue of racial or religious diversity, per se. It is an issue of terrorism, of murder and brutality, of rape and torture and slaughter. Whatever the basis for such monstrosity can and should also form the basis upon which this country rids itself of the threat.

I’m happy for Muslim folk who go about their business peacefully to call Australia home for as long as they are prepared to join our way of life, and provided they do not expect to turn the place into a Sharia society: there is a place for that, and it isn’t here.

But those who revel in death and destruction — indeed, those who “hail war against the West” — have neither the right nor the entitlement to call themselves Australian. They do not belong here and they are not welcome. And by whatever means possible, now Australia faces a heightened risk of terrorist indecency being carried out on home soil, it warrants the removal of those who would perpetrate such horrors from our midst.


*The fourth was a piece opposing the establishment of a dedicated Muslim enclave in Sydney a couple of years ago; all I will say on the subject today — and no, I don’t want a debate on it now — is that most Muslim nations would look very poorly indeed (to put it extremely mildly) at a bunch of white Australians setting up closed enclaves in their own countries, and there’s no more justification for them to do it here as for us to do it there. Enough said.

ISIS: Those Opposing Military Strikes Should Ponder This

WITH CALLS GROWING for military action against the so-called Islamic State — and warnings, including from Foreign minister Julie Bishop, that jihadists bent on setting up a terrorist state may already be too entrenched to wipe out — the usual anti-war bleatings are emanating from the usual orifices of the Left. Today we see a picture somewhat less ideal than the fantasy world in which the “compassion” babblers and chardonnay drunks dwell.

Readers know I make very few bones about the true value of the ABC’s QandA programme: with a panel of six (including the host, journalist Tony Jones) that is invariably stacked 4-2 or (mostly) 5-1 with left-wing participants, QandA is not a serious forum for quality discussion of politics and current events: it is merely a weekly opportunity to get a good look at what the Left is talking about among itself.

So it was last night, and it will equally surprise very few people that once my Twitter feed (and the enraged responses to my tweets) began to stream, I was as focused on that side of the discussion as I was on the programme itself.

The reason I begin with this background explanation is that inevitably, the discussion on QandA turned to events in the Middle East and the so-called Islamic State, which — as we discussed last week — is nothing more than an extremely violent claque aiming to set up an expansionist terrorist state, and which is prepared to rape, torture and kill whoever and whatever might stand in its path. I posted a tweet noting (in effect) that all of QandA‘s Lefties were now pouring out their reasons why ISIS should not face military strikes from the West: and that their position was despicable.

Almost predictably, a “Dr Kwanda Ngo” (not his/her real name, I’m sure) — who may have found the reference to “sub-human filth” in the tweet that I posted last week’s article in — responded.

Reality is “no story book or action film,” Kwanda informed me. It was simplistic and easier to “view people as dehumanised monsters.” I pointed out that the atrocities being committed were being carried out by those who are no better than barbarians, and that only monsters rape kids and behead people.

According to “Kwanda,” action against ISIS was a self-fulfilling prophesy: it would merely drive people toward the insurgents, to which I noted that what is going on in the Middle East was bound to happen anyway (my thinking being that the radicalisation of insurgent Muslims over the past decade or two was always going to confront the world with this type of development at some juncture). “Now that is utterly false,” came the reply.

Yes, this is but one conversation on the #qanda thread on Twitter but I could have picked from countless dozens of others: this “Dr Kwanda” was perfectly representative of the outpouring of Leftist twaddle that floods Twitter every Monday night, Australian Eastern Standard Time, between 9.30pm and 10.30pm.

So it’s with a certain grim determination that I post this morning; I don’t pretend we’ll get to the nub of everything to do with ISIS in one sitting or anything approaching it.

But there are two things I want to bring to the attention of readers today, and for those righteously (and bombastically) opposed to the notion of Australia contributing military resources and manpower to a broad Western coalition to act against ISIS — or to such a coalition striking the Islamic State at all — I would hope that these snapshots might shock a little reason and rational logic into them.

I have been reading a couple of articles this morning — you can access them here and here — that focus on a 17-year-old girl who was forced into sexual servitude by ISIS forces. Even those of a similar ideological outlook to myself (and therefore not deluded by the “romanticism” of ISIS, or the morally degenerate state of Western society, or any other such mindless drivel) will find themselves shuddering in disgust to read them.

We talked about some of the atrocities of ISIS, very broadly, in the discussion last week; this is the first time we’ve looked at a specific example of what that murderous, despotic movement is doing, and I fear it won’t be the last. But it is one reason among so very many that justify action being taken to blast the so-called “Islamic State” off the face of the planet.

This issue — covered independently by separate British media outlets — is sickening enough in that it involves young teenage girls; like any father with a daughter, or in fact any decent human being at all, the entire notion of the vicious enslavement of the source for the stories (and the rest of the 40 girls imprisoned with her) I find absolutely sickening.

An exacerbating factor is that the girls seem to range in age from 13 to 17: not even legal. Not even old enough to call most of them “young women.” I can’t really publish what I think of men who find it acceptable to have sex with children; such language is unprintable, and would make the occasional expletive that finds its way into this column look positively virtuous by comparison.

An additional exacerbating factor is that when they’re not being raped for the pleasure of the ISIS thugs holding them captive, they are being beaten brainless by them: some, according to the girl who was brave enough to speak to the Western press, are so badly traumatised that they can no longer speak.

And perhaps worst of all — in the psychological sense, at any rate — these girls are apparently being encouraged, coerced, and goaded into speaking to their own families and to Western media outlets. Why? So the world knows about the treatment being meted out by ISIS to its “enemies.” So the families of the girls know, in infinitesimal detail, precisely what is being done to their daughters. Because the ISIS thugs consider their victims so worthless that the global humiliation of forcing them to publicise their own sexual suffering is preferable to killing them.

Indeed, according to these reports (and there is no reason to question them), requests by the girls to be shot dead or beaten until they die are refused: they are more valuable alive as sex targets, and as reverse propaganda agents of the cruellest variety imaginable.

No, “Dr Kwanda,” reality is no story book or action film — and neither is this.

All of this is made even worse again when an additional aspect of ISIS’ enslavement of these girls — the fact they belong to the tiny, ancient religious minority of Yazidis — is considered; it scarcely requires observing that barbarians purporting to act in the name of “religion” would target such a group, but taken in sum the plight these girls find themselves in is such that death is probably preferable: and they have said as much themselves.

All of this relates back to the chardonnay-swilling compassion babblers who sit around passing the vacuous moral misjudgements of the Left on anyone who disagrees with them, and who will argue — London to a brick — that not only should Australia take no part in any military strike, but that there should be no military strike against ISIS at all.

Pointed fingers aimed at Messrs John Howard, George W. Bush and Tony Blair are waggled in support of their position; stern admonishments that “we didn’t learn our lesson in Iraq last time” and that “this is all George Bush’s fault” accompany the gesture.

And the sordid details of exactly what the sub-human filth that is ISIS is actually doing to its victims are an inconvenience to the diatribe of “compassion” these finger-shaking fools engage in, and would lecture from an assumed position of moral superiority over the Right that is non-existent.

Those who claim their anti-war bleating is informed by their “social conscience” or similarly vapid gobbledygook should hang their heads in shame.

Perversely, these would be the first people to defend the right of those who survive the ISIS brutality to hop on a boat, head for Australia, and be fawned over with “compassion” and unconditional welfare money — if, perchance, they managed to survive a perilous voyage by sea in the first place.

And it is perverse because the West has the power to go into the Middle East, wipe out much of the ISIS terror group and any infrastructure it has established, and free these people in their own country.

Even those who eventually manage to make it out if ISIS is permitted to remain in place, when more time has passed and countless more people have been slaughtered at its hand, will do so leaving behind a death toll that could be drastically reduced by the act of the West in confronting the insidious menace of the Islamic State whilst the opportunity exists to now do so.

I haven’t talked about beheadings, or outright torture, or some of the other atrocities of this contemptible gang of brutes: I’m sure we will do so in time.

But for anyone who thinks those with the ability to confront this menace and defeat it should do nothing of the kind, they should read about the 17-year-old who had to tell her parents what the filth of ISIS physically did to her.

If that doesn’t get through to them I don’t know what will.


AND ANOTHER THING: As debate rages in Australia about what to do about “radicalised” young Muslims travelling to the area infected with the scourge of ISIS, another interesting piece from the British media overnight casts an interesting light on what happens when self-styled heroes travel into battle — only to find that they are, to use the vernacular, as weak as piss compared to the “brethren” they seek to “fight alongside.”

Dubbed the “Cream Puff Brigade,” the Daily Express tells the tale of a group of British and European Islamic jihadis who asked their ISIS “brethren” for permission to go home because they were disillusioned with the jihadi war and were “sick of the brutality of their fanatical leaders.”

In response, their “brethren” dubbed them “traitors who deserved death” and took their weapons, locked them in a torture camp, and are said to be “mistreated on a daily basis.”

Not that I have a shred of sympathy for them; they are as guilty of bastardry as those they now seek to flee from.

I just have to wonder whether the “radicalised” Australian Muslims, who return to this country after “fighting alongside their brethren” in the ISIS-affected area, fit the same category as their European counterparts described in the article I have linked here.

My position on those who travel to fight the Islamic State’s battles remains unchanged: if they possess the citizenship of any other country when they depart Australia, they should be stripped of their Australian citizenship and/or right to residency here — and permanently denied re-entry to the country.

I suppose there is a savage irony in this; having journeyed to fight with ISIS and be heroes, the discovery they are nothing of the kind must indeed grate on these men.

Returning to Australia to behave in a “radicalised” fashion won’t make them heroes either: and having willingly ventured into the lion’s den in the first place, nobody ought to be perturbed if they find themselves unable to get back out when the going gets too rough for even these “heroes” to handle.



ISIS Terrorists: Sub-Human Filth Can Rot In Hell

ISIS, ISIL, ISLAMIC STATE, Al-Qaeda — call them what you like — are filthy, sub-human barbarians: uncivilised terrorists utterly devoid of morals, whose only agenda is to rape, torture and kill anyone in their path who cannot be subjugated and enslaved. The free world is united in its outrage at the catastrophe in the Middle East; Australia’s Greens, however, worry the terrorists might suffer wounded feelings. They can rot in hell, too.

It takes a certain chutzpah for members of Parliament to claim their own country’s armed forces could be viewed as terrorists as they deploy to deal with a “movement” whose weapons are the rape of women and children, torture, and gruesome murder, at the same time as they contend these evil creatures might be affronted by depictions of them as terrorists in their own country’s channels of public communication.

But the Communist Party Greens have done it: in deploying to the Middle East to assist a concerted international effort to deal with the scourge that is ISIS, Australia’s own soldiers are the bad guys, whilst some kind of concern should be spared for the feelings of those committing unspeakable atrocities on a rapidly ballooning scale.

“Often our forces could be seen by Iraqi civilians as terrorists,” Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilton told the Senate earlier this week, adding — somewhat confusedly — that “dehumanising and demonising our enemies is an effective tool for leading a nation to war, but this kind of propaganda won’t bring peace.”

Well, here’s a bulletin for the Tasmanian Senator, whose words in years past would have been sufficient to see him imprisoned for treason, sedition, and any number of other offences: the West is at war with ISIS — in the name of human decency, the rule of law, for the safety of the peoples whose welfare is threatened, and for what is right.

Whish-Wilson has pleaded — to the point of begging — to find some other, less offensive term than “terrorists” to refer to the ISIS forces. One can only assume he’s concerned that calling them terrorists will hurt their feelings. One is all broken up about the wounded sensitivities of terrorists, and has no truck with whining about the rights of bloody murderers when women and kids are being raped and killed in the name of “religion.”

Driven by a brand of radical fundamentalist Islam determined to impose a Sharia dictatorship based on an extremely strict interpretation of the Koran on as wide an area and population as possible — with no stated limit in terms of these objectives — the forces behind ISIS (or whatever it calls itself this week) are pure evil; these filthy, sub-human barbarians have to date “executed” by beheading at least three Westerners for the explicit benefit and consumption of the watching Western media.

These murders have served as a gruesome and macabre backdrop to the rape of thousands of civilian women and children; the torture and enslavement of thousands more; and the murder of a countless number of their own people in the name of expanding “the Caliphate” as widely and as comprehensively as possible, transcending national and even continental boundaries, and ostensibly revelling in the violence with which these goals are pursued.

So horrific are the obscenities committed by ISIS that those who have witnessed them are returning from the coalface with deeply seated mental scars that will probably persist for a lifetime; I saw an article this morning by one such journalist from London’s Telegraph newspaper, and this eyewitness account makes for compelling, and sickening, reading.

The Greens, meanwhile — horrified by the prospect that the democratic, civilised world should intervene to try to end the indiscriminate brutality and slaughter — have already tried (and failed) to argue the case for the deployment of Australian troops to be made contingent on an authorising vote of Parliament; it’s a sign of the sickness that afflicts the Senate that the system which allows little bands of fruit cakes to be elected to it on a sliver of the national vote could be used to perpetuate the rape and slaughter that ISIS is ruthlessly and remorselessly engaging in.

Make no mistake, this proposal was really about exploiting the Senate to ensure the violence and carnage in the Middle East is allowed to continue freely; the Greens — given the opportunity — would do everything in their power to stop efforts to deal with ISIS that involved sending Australian troops. The continuation of that violence and carnage would be the direct result.

Not content with this failed endeavour, however, that frightful, pious, sanctimonious figure at the head of the Australian Greens, Christine Milne, weighed into the debate yesterday as The Australian is reporting; her contribution — distilled to its core — is essentially the contention that by sending troops to the Middle East, jihadists will be emboldened to kill more people, and to recruit others to their ranks to assist in this.

Just how ridiculous the Milne position is can be easily illustrated by posing the inverse question: by not sending troops, will jihadists stop recruiting people, stop raping and torturing and killing civilians, and stop trying to spread their insidious and contemptible brand of hardline Islamic terror across the world?

I didn’t think so. About the nicest thing that can be said about Christine Milne is that once again, she has shown herself to be appallingly naive.

Sanctimonious, pious, and appallingly naive: Christine Milne. (Picture: The Australian)

Piers Akerman — the columnist in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph whose opinions so frequently and eloquently mirror my own — has ripped into the Greens over this issue today; he makes the valid point that for a party that so often seeks the succour of UN treaties as a vehicle upon which to attempt to circumvent Australian law in the pursuit of their God-forsaken socialist utopia, the Greens now refuse to heed the views expressed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: the haughty moral indignation with which they brandish the unelected United Nations at the Australian public is disposable, it seems, when even the UN isn’t a convenient fit with their agenda.

Indeed, UN envoy Navi Pillay — a Greens’ favourite, as Piers observes, for her propensity to attack Western democratic governments — has likened the brutality of the ISIS forces to crimes against humanity.

But that little inconvenience doesn’t bother the Greens either.

To be clear, the hardening resolve of the West to respond militarily to the ISIS threat and the imminent actions to do so are not directed against the Muslims of the world, per se; hundreds of millions of Muslims seek only to be left alone to live in peace. No right-minded individual in the West has any quarrel with these people.

Yet the Islamic jihad that is rolling across the Middle East is by no means confined to a localised civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims, which was the ostensible pretext for this fight in the first place; initially focused on setting up an Islamic State in parts of Iraq, Libya and Syria, the ISIS fungus is creeping outwards on all fronts. Moderate, stable Muslim countries in the region are terrified.

Even Iran has made repeated gestures toward the United States to signal that it wishes to partner Uncle Sam in defeating the ISIS movement.

And just this week, Al-Qaeda (which is the real driver of this terrorist machine) set up shop in India, seeking to recruit and radicalise men to fight in its name, and to spread the “Caliphate” into South Asia — and, chillingly, beyond the recognised boundaries of the Muslim world.

In other words, ISIS is a global threat, not simply a regional one.

But of course, the Greens in Australia simply don’t get it.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott is absolutely correct to describe ISIS as a “death cult.” Appropriately (for once), opposition leader Bill Shorten offered Abbott Labor’s unqualified support on the ISIS challenge. US Vice-President Joe Biden vowed that the United States would pursue ISIS jihadists “to the gates of hell if necessary…for hell is where they reside.” British Prime Minister David Cameron spoke of the need for international solidarity to counter “the brutal and poisonous extremism of ISIS.” And Christine Milne and Senator Whish-Wilton have fretted about demonising “terrorists” because such language “implies a very one-sided view of the world.”

Those who would defame Australia’s fine military personnel — not least at a time when many of them will soon face the dangers of dealing with ISIS first hand — are unfit to serve in public office; the Greens are enemies of this country and its best interests. By their utterances on the question of ISIS, they have once again quite openly laid the proof of this out for all to see.

Human catastrophes of this kind tend to bring out the best in good people, whatever their ordinary flaws and differences; to this end Biden has it about right: ISIS should be hunted down as far as the gates of hell. Hell is where they belong, and where they will reside when all is done. It is the duty of decent men and women to rid the Middle East of the scourge that is ISIS — a malignant and despotic junta that threatens to engulf the entire region and, potentially, much of the world around it.

In his pursuit of ISIS to the gates of hell, however, Biden should be unsurprised upon arrival to find mounted on that portcullis a placard from the Australian Greens: after all, the Greens stand for nothing of value, and what they do stand for is reprehensible in its values, principles, and the indecent world that would result if their lunatic ideas were ever comprehensively implemented.

Who cares about hugging trees when there are offended terrorists to champion?

The regrettable truth is that this is nothing new for the Greens. They are mad, bad, and dangerous. They should be railroaded, steamrolled and ignored.

To his eternal credit, Abbott will have neither hesitation nor compunction in doing precisely that when it comes to tackling the menace of ISIS, and to saving as many of the innocent lives possible that are threatened by its evil spread.