Why We Do, In Fact, Need To Talk About Islam

IN THE wake of TV identity Sonia Kruger being all but crucified for suggesting Muslim immigration be halted — and after the ABC’s latest, awful #QandA show, which quickly descended into a pack attack on Pauline Hanson — Australia, whatever the Left thinks, must openly grasp and deal with the issue of Islamic arrivals. Failure to do so will, now or in future, rip the country apart: as it will Western society generally if the challenge is not resolved.

If Australia, like the rest of the Western world, has a growing problem with Muslim immigration and the rise of radical Islamic terrorism — and I believe that it does — then it has several inter-related other problems, too, almost all of which are entirely of its own making.

That is not to say the scourge of Islamic terrorism is the fault of liberal democracy, or even the product of “invading their countries” (it isn’t), but just as there is a problem — and it is potentially an existential one, where the future of Western society is concerned — it isn’t good enough for the aggrieved to point the finger at “towel heads” from “stone age lands” following a “religion of slaughter” and some of the even less savoury insults that are being bandied around these days, nor to slap such idiot-simple and incendiary provocations down with the insistence that Islam is a subject only discussed by bigots.

Even so, the vast majority of Muslim people are decent people who don’t actually harbour any wish to visit death and terror on Western society; I believe that to be a factually correct statement, and it has been borne out from time to time in my dealings with some of these people as they have crossed my path: people who simply want to get on with their own lives, some of whom most people would not even recognise as Muslims — they’re not all called Mohammed, or wear the niqab — and who to all appearances are no different to anyone else.

On the other hand, it is also a factually correct statement that those countries which have experienced the highest levels of Muslim immigration in recent decades — Belgium, the Netherlands and, of course, France — also have the biggest problem with Islamic terrorism and religiously motivated violence against majority populations, and no amount of finger shaking or character destruction crusades by the Left can change that fact.

But the default position of major political parties these days is to play down any suggestion that a problem exists with this newest source of mass additions to the Australian population, with rhetoric about social cohesion and tolerance and acceptance being spouted in the absence of anything more substantial (or even pertinent); the default position of the media — to its shame — is, and especially where the mouthpieces of the Left are concerned, not to report on the religious affiliation of the perpetrators of terrorist attacks, lest this shatter the integrity of carefully constructed diatribes around inclusion, humanity and social justice; and the default position of the Muslim community itself (or more particularly, those charged with acting as its mouthpieces) appears to be to refuse to add its own voice of outrage to wider condemnations whenever any of its own are involved in committing unspeakable atrocity, followed by lengthy justifications that their own “condemnation” should be withheld on the basis it’s merely a trophy sought by bigots wishing to drive them out of their adopted country.

These realities are more or less uniform throughout the Western world, and whilst our discussion today is focused on Australia it could as easily relate to Britain, or France, or Belgium, or the USA.

But Australia has witnessed in recent times the rise, on its far Right, of political candidates and parties which seek to foment public unrest over the presence of an expanding Muslim community and/or advocate some pretty heavy duty measures with which to “deal” with it (such as the compulsory deportation of every Muslim in Australia) and this is no solution to what is, as I said at the outset, a problem, and one that isn’t going to be resolved in any constructive way by the series of default positions it attracts depending on where the response comes from.

Serial troublemaker Pauline Hanson — well versed in whipping up hysteria over “problems,” but never with the hint of a meaningful solution in sight — isn’t looking at leading a Senate team of perhaps three Senators merely through a protest vote against Malcolm Turnbull by so-called “Del-Cons:” she has been elected by those who, for whatever reason, are deeply concerned by an issue they know is not going to be addressed by either of the major parties: the ALP because it harvests the overwhelming majority of Muslim votes; the Coalition because it doesn’t want to rock the boat.

The Australian Liberty Alliance, which is perhaps even uglier in its approach to social issues than Hanson could ever dream of, performed an electoral belly flop, scoring less than 1% of the national vote.

But if you look at the Senate, and factor parties and candidates that might be characterised as “far Right,” almost 10% of voters cast a primary vote for these entities: the support base might be fractured, and spread across a competing and disparate number of recipients, but a far Right vote nearing 10% is a phenomenon it would be dangerously unwise to dismiss as a protest.

The end destination of such a movement is likely to be arrived at in France next year, when leader of the far Right Front National, Marine Le Pen, is expected to get as far as the runoff round in France’s presidential elections; this wouldn’t be the first time such a divisive contest had been joined, of course, for Le Pen’s father Jean-Marie made it to the final round against Jacques Chirac in 2002. The elder Le Pen was trounced by Chirac on that occasion. But Frances’s problems with its Muslim community have arguably grown far worse in the years since.

So let’s be clear: the capacity for some kind of popular uprising, should people take matters into their own hands if they feel the establishment parties will not, cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Whilst France’s problems stem largely from its botched management of settling immigrants from its former African colonies, the problem in Australia is almost the reverse: too much “tolerance” and “generosity,” but the wrong kind of each — the kind that is legislated by governments, and funded by a tax paying public that is prevented by law from having an opinion and/or roundly abused by Left wing champions of “diversity” and “understanding” whose ideas about free speech boil down to people being free to say whatever they like, so long as it’s the message that has been predetermined and approved for them by people who know “better.”

Whether you like it or not, Australia is a Christian country founded on the same Judeo-Christian and liberal capitalist principles that underpin almost all of the societies of the Western world.

It is true that Australia is a nation of immigrants, and indeed everyone that lives here (including, at least partially by blood, a goodly number of those identifying as “Aboriginal”) possesses at least some cultural heritage than can be traced to other parts of the world; readers know I identify as Scottish as much as Australian, and I’m proud of both traditions. Millions of our fellow Australians have their own unique stories in this regard.

But the very nature of immigration, and certainly since 1945, means that those coming to this country are joining it; the onus is not — irrespective of what any Left-wing imbecile likes to proclaim — on the rest of Australia to be modified and to adapt itself to fit the specific requirements of one particular group of newcomers.

The key to making immigration work (and the reason Australia has historically been so successful at it) is to get the new arrival communities fully involved in mainstream society; if you live in Melbourne (as I do) half the people you meet are from a Greek or Italian background; go to Sydney, there are Vietnamese people everywhere you look; in Brisbane, I see a greater Chinese presence these days, along with the residual (much smaller) Greek and Italian communities that were there when I was growing up. People from Eastern Europe have joined us over the past 20 years or so in great numbers, and Melbourne is of course the largest Jewish community outside Israel and excluding New York. These are general examples only, and they are intended to be, but the point is very simple: having these people with us works, and it works very well indeed.

Some of these nationalities have brought great cultural enrichment: think food, think music, think the arts. Apart from absolute rednecks, does anyone seriously think we’d be better off without them? Even the Asians Pauline Hanson so famously launched her political career claiming would swamp Australia seem to get along with everyone else just fine. Yes, there are concerns about the sale of Australian infrastructure to China, but not through any racism; rather, it’s because most of the buyers are state-controlled companies with links directly to a Communist regime. But are their people welcome here? I think they are, absolutely, although others may disagree.

Every time there seems to be a national intake of breath over one migrant community or another — think the Japanese, with their investments on the Gold Coast and in Cairns in the 1980s — it has always worked itself out.

But just as I’ve taken a rather circumlocutory route to come back to the issue of Muslim immigration, people from all of these countries of origin have, by and large, come here and made a go of it in their new country. The fish and chip shops once run by the Greeks (and famously, by Hanson) are now run by the Vietnamese. Indians and others of South Asian origins increasingly form the backbone of the local IT industry.

We could give other examples. But by and large, for the first time, we are confronted by something very different indeed.

If you go to your local supermarket now, you are as likely as not to buy “Halal compliant” goods. Go to the butcher, and there’s a good chance the meat you purchase will be Halal as well. It is no longer acceptable to celebrate Christmas in some schools, or to wish people a Merry Christmas: “Happy Holidays,” grotesquely, is now the approved nicety. Human rights bodies exist to uphold the rights of minorities — and let’s not kid ourselves, an awful lot of this nowadays means Muslim minorities — and anti-discrimination bodies and legislation exist to stop anyone making a serious attempt to lawfully outline legitimate grievances with these communities or groups. Many Muslims live in relatively closed communities, and most of their leaders don’t even speak English. People are unsettled by the sight of those walking around wearing the niqab. Mosques are closed shops for Islamic preachers to communicate to Muslim audiences. Community “leaders” gently sell the “compatibility” of Sharia law with Western law. There are gender-segregated sporting facilities in some parts of Sydney, and it’s well known that bacon is not sold in fast food outlets in areas with high (but not majority) levels of Muslim residents.

Now, of course, Australia has witnessed three recent examples of Muslim terror on its own soil — the slaying of two Police officers in Endeavour Hills in Melbourne, the murder of NSW Police civilian worker Curtis Cheng, and most insidiously, the Lindt siege in Sydney perpetrated by an individual who ought to have been thrown out of the country 20 years ago.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the do-gooder lunacy of the Left that infests every issue it concerns itself with has also infected the judicial system; jail is a last resort, they say; mitigating factors (such as marginalisation, oppression, blah blah blah) warrant leniency for doing the wrong thing, they say; and penalties and sentences seem to grow more divorced from community expectations with every year that passes.

But just as white, Anglo-Saxon Australians — and others — get away too often in the court of public opinion with a slap on the wrist for criminal misconduct, Muslim miscreants benefit to the same degree; there are those who use this point to suggest that White Australians don’t get deported for committing crimes, and that therefore neither should Muslims. But this country already has a bad enough (and worsening) problem with crime, committed by people who are Australian citizens by birth, without merely adding to its scope on the specious pretext of “compassion.”

There are those who suggest that Islamic terrorism is the West’s fault. “We invaded their countries,” they screech. But we hadn’t when New York was attacked by radical Islamists flying hijacked aeroplanes on 11 September 2001, and such a simplistic justification for future acts of terror by radical jihadis ignores the fact that just as they increasingly seem to want to inflict carnage upon Western society, they have been doing the same thing to each other for decades — if not for centuries.

The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, for instance, was a conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims; in many respects, the current quagmire that is Islamic State — whilst aspiring to a global Islamic caliphate — also involves a similar conflagration between disparate Muslim factions as a precursor to establishing internal supremacy.

The point is that the radical elements of Islam (as opposed to the moderate ones who really don’t want to go down this track at all) have been fighters by nature long before they came to our shores; of course, the scourge of radicalisation — fuelled by regimes such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Al Qaeda and its various proxies as galvanised by Osama bin Laden — has given such endeavours an “anti-infidel” flavour directed malignantly at the “decadence” of Christian Western society, and I contend (although it’s an argument for another time) that the “clash of civilisations” bin Laden sought to ignite would have found a spark irrespective of whether George Bush and Tony Blair led a Coalition of the Willing into Iraq in 2003 or not.

Now, we agonise over what to do with “radicalised” Muslim youth who want to go to the Middle East to fight for or against Islamic State; I actually think the best thing to do in this particular instance is to let them go, but make damn sure they never come back: fighting a civil war is not an Australian way of life, and those who wish to do so probably shouldn’t be here anyway.

But in terms of a broader discussion of Muslim immigration, the Muslim community and the way it is treated and conducts itself, these are fraught issues that are as good as forbidden to speak of in this country.

I’m no apologist for Pauline Hanson (quite the contrary, as past articles in this column will show) but the approach of the “social justice” Left was belligerently illustrated on the ABC’s ghastly #QandA programme on Monday night: Hanson was outnumbered and cornered, 5-1, by a stacked panel and a hostile audience that for three-quarters of the show focused solely on the issue of Islam with a lynch mob mentality and the determination to skewer Hanson in a wild pack attack. It was as unedifying as it was disgraceful.

Earlier that day, Nine network identity Sonia Kruger opined on national television that she thought Muslim immigration should be stopped altogether: there wasn’t to my mind a great deal of cogency in the remarks, which were slapped down the following day by Muslim TV personality (and host of Network 10’s The Project) Waleed Aly on the grounds Kruger was “scared.” I almost thought, for once, that I would agree with the insidious Aly, over whom my objection has nothing to do with the fact he’s Muslim but everything to do with the fact he’s a socialist gnome with a very big soapbox to spruik from. But even then, he lost me: Aly’s column twisted the issue to allow himself to talk about how “scared” he was — of his, and his (Muslim) friends,’ treatment by the majority community.

Part of the problem is that the Muslim community’s leaders seem to think they are presiding over some kind of closed shop; if members of their flock do wrong, unequivocal denunciations are rarely heard.

What the majority community does hear, though, is lunatic pronouncements that Western women are like “plates of uncovered meat” in explanation of sexual assaults they suffer — and similarly offensive rhetoric — that might hold sway in some of the places they come from, but which has no place in Australian society.

It looks at the UK, where British Labour now routinely gender segregates attendees at major televised election functions, or at France, where random acts of mass slaughter committed by Islamic terrorists are on the rise, and then it looks closer to home where so-called “lone wolf” attacks are dismissed as not examples of Islamic terrorism at all, but of dislocation resulting from the refusal of the majority population to accept Muslims into its midst.

And it hears the e’er gentle suggestions from the Islamic community that Islam is a “religion of peace,” often made in tandem with helpful ideas about how Sharia law can “co-exist” with Western common law: people see the thin edge of the wedge, and they don’t like it.

Having a proper, open, candid discussion about the place of the Muslim community in Australia is, ironically, potentially as much to the benefit of the Muslim community itself as to anyone else living here.

But through a labyrinth of politicians, social commentators, the finger-shaking Chardonnay drunks of the Left and a wall of legislative and regulatory prohibitions on daring to raise the matter at all, it’s only a matter of time before the current approach of stifling debate completely (and attempting to destroy those who attempt to start one) leads directly to vigilantes and other undesirables taking matters into their own hands — which, to be clear, is every bit as unacceptable as the grievances, legitimate or imagined, they purport to hold.

This is the wake-up call Hanson, and others like her, represent: they may not advocate lawless behaviour and vigilante conduct themselves, but the very fact of their growing support means that the core issue can no longer be ignored, wished away or countered by legislated silence and personalised malice.

As I said at the outset, I think most Muslims don’t want to hurt anyone; like every barrel, there’s a bit of shit in the bottom of that particular one where the couple of rotten apples have liquefied into a lubricious scum: and in this sense, the same is true of any mass grouping of people, be they Islamic, Christian or otherwise.

I think the real solution here is enhanced screening — of candidates for settlement in Australia — backed by an improved regime for weeding out undesirables before they arrive, and getting rid of those who quickly show they simply don’t belong here, which means most would get to stay, but some would never set foot here in the first place.

But a growing number of Australians, as inelegantly expressed by Kruger this week and as explosively needled by Hanson for years, are finding an awful lot to be apprehensive about where the presence of Muslim immigrants in this country are concerned, and looking at the countries of Western Europe — where the problem has been percolating for some years longer than it has been here — they see precedents they do not wish to see repeated in Australia under any circumstances.

Stop the abuse, stop the name-calling, make sure everyone is involved and grasp this issue in a proper national debate, for even if the Muslim community doesn’t destroy our society and way of life under its own steam, the reaction to it — if left unchecked, or not conducted on more reasonable grounds designed to find a solution — will almost certainly do so.

Wishing this out of existence and ignoring it just aren’t options. The longer it takes, the harder it will be to fix.


Yes, Labor Has Peaked; Its Momentum Has Stalled. But…

TWO WEEKS from polling day — in what ranks as the most insipid contest in years, if not ever — the unlikely but unmistakable march of the contemptible Bill Shorten toward The Lodge has been stopped in its tracks; what seemed a shock upset a week ago has been turned on its head by inadvisable pronouncements from Shorten on the economy and on asylum seekers. Yet just when the tide runs the Coalition’s way, along comes Malcolm Turnbull.

There are those who will say the result of this year’s election was never in any doubt; that Malcolm Turnbull — principally because he isn’t Tony Abbott — was always destined to gallop off to a thumping election win, carrying the Liberal and National Parties on his back.

Perhaps he will — and perhaps the government will survive its meeting with voters on 2 July almost unscathed — but I still believe this is a see-sawing contest, not because the polls say it is, but rather brutally because both sides appear to be held in such low esteem by the general public that whoever makes the fewest mistakes will win.

Until a week ago, unbelievably, it seemed the prize was there for the moronic Bill Shorten to take.

I apologise to readers for yet another leave of absence; perhaps it is time to say I will aim for two, three, four articles per week (as opposed to the five to seven that were a regular feature before my workload ramped up so drastically a year ago) and to stop apologising for being busy. But this morning, in restarting proceedings, I want to speak very broadly about where I think we are at.

Six days ago, I opined that thanks to his admissions on what a Labor government would do with the federal budget if it was elected next month — namely, to drop the pretence that Labor’s Senate obstruction over the past two years had been in any way responsible, and to admit the party would adopt in government tens of billions of dollars of Abbott government cuts it derided as “cruel” and “unfair” — Shorten had ensured the 2 July election would come to be seen as having been won or lost on that day; I am beginning to think that diagnosis was right on the money, and it looks as if Shorten’s attempt to dump the bad news at a time the country was heading into a long weekend and with three weeks in hand to recover will explode in his smarmy face.

Or does it?

The tone was set on Tuesday by Mark Kenny from The Age, in his article exploring the notion that Labor’s campaign had peaked; Kenny made no mention of Shorten’s budget proclamations, but he didn’t have to, for the only “game changing moment” that has occurred in this campaign to date was the hurried press conference on Thursday last in which Shorten and his Treasury spokesman, Chris Bowen, effectively admitted to millions of intending Labor voters that they had been duping them all along.

And of course, it has been all downhill for Labor from there.

Not content with peddling the ridiculous lie that a re-elected Turnbull government intended to privatise Medicare, this week Labor wheeled out ageing former Prime Minister Bob Hawke to bolster its scare campaign; that the ALP should place such faith in such a grotesquely crass smear is bad enough, but for Hawke to lower his colours to be dragged into it speaks volumes for both the desperation that must be seeping into the Labor bunker, and for the complete lack of credibility Labor’s predictable, formulaic and decade-old prophesies of doom in Australian healthcare under the Coalition have come to assume these days.

Labor rattles the tin of “Liberals to kill hospital beds and nursing jobs” with such monotonous regularity one could set a watch by it: and in any case, it’s a mark of just how pathetic Labor’s offering as a party of national government really is that whether credible or not, it really only ever builds its campaigns on two state issues — Health and Education.

Yes, it talks about other things too, but the mentality that if Labor simply talks about these two subjects it can win anything is so pervasive as to be almost literally tangible.

Meanwhile, Shorten — who has had inordinate trouble keeping his sheep within the fold when it comes to the fraught issue of boat arrivals and would-be economic migrants paying people smugglers to circumvent proper process — also announced this week that the 30,000 arrivals left over from the 50,000 who turned up during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government would, under a Labor government, be granted residency, work and welfare rights: overturning, once again, the successful policies of a Coalition government that stopped unending (and ever-increasing) streams of people chancing their luck to get to these shores by sea, with over 1,200 drowning in the process during the ALP’s last stint in office.

It’s a win for the socialists and compassion-babbling Chardonnay drunks at the Greens and the hard Left, but mainstream Australia will be unimpressed; it took Rudd on his word, in good faith, when he dismantled the Howard government’s Pacific Solution, with solemn assurances that no human tide would suddenly bear down on this country looking for the easy way in.

It won’t be quite so trusting now.

From Sideshow Alley, Shorten’s trusty mate in Melbourne, union hand puppet and Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, has treated the country to a spectacular demonstration of the ALP’s political judgement and strategic nous, choosing the middle of a federal election campaign to create the unwanted distraction of capitulating to a union Labor owed its 2014 state election win to — the hard-Left United Firefighters’ Union — by sacking the independent board of the (largely volunteer-comprised) Country Fire Authority in order to ram through a deeply reviled “enterprise” bargaining “agreement” that is, in all but name, a takeover of the CFA by the UFU and a blunt message to the volunteers to either submit to their new union masters or to fuck off.

In a gift that really doesn’t keep on giving for Shorten — or at least, not in a way that is of any use to anyone but the Liberal Party — the details of the so-called EBA have become public over the past few days, including details of stamp duty refunds on houses purchased by firefighters posted to other locations within Victoria (savings of up to $40,000 that the rest of the population doesn’t get) as well as thousands of dollars in extra pay-offs and perks, all at taxpayers’ expense, that can amount to nothing more on a reasonable assessment than a payment for services rendered.

It isn’t a case of the “benefits” of being a union member: rather, an illustration of how public finances are abused by unions, with the ALP deeply complicit in the rort, to gain control over sinecures that can be taken over for no other reason than they simply can’t resist once a government — a Labor government — adds its muscle to the endeavour.

Next time you see people at a polling booth masquerading as firefighters and ambulance drivers, you can get a fair idea of just how lucrative the abuse of their public positions for political gain really stands to be for their unions.

But it has added weight to the growing public acceptance of the line that Labor governs solely for the benefit of the unions; with less than 15% of the working population now choosing to belong to one union or another (and with the proportion likely to be down to single figures now, when public sector employees are excluded), this anachronistic approach to public office simply doesn’t fit with the contemporary outlook of the vast majority of people who live in modern Australia — an uncomfortable reality for a Labor Party that has grown increasingly beholden to violent and lawless outfits like the CFMEU.

Everywhere you look, Labor’s luck — and the cohesion of the past two-and-a-bit years that was founded on a series of “smart” answers, deceptive half-truths, and outright lies — is suddenly beginning to falter.

It was reflected in Shorten’s performance on the ABC’s ghastly #QandA programme on Monday night; the rent-a-crowd brought in by the ABC predictably clapped and cheered, in a characteristically partisan production that showcased the alleged merits of the Left’s latest hero in all his ugly glory.

But Shorten’s virtuoso performance was, in fact, terrible; his vocal delivery alternated between a dead flat drone and a ghoulish, wavering screech that sounded like a bizarre mixture of excessive excitement and a death rattle. His points were shallow, his attack lines predictable, and much of what he had to say was downright dishonest: like his repeated characterisation of negative gearing as “a subsidy” as he persists with a policy ostensibly designed to win support by kicking hell out of “rich” people, but which instead will hurt hundreds of thousands of mum-and-dad investors badly before it even gets to anyone who might be described as “rich” at all — and probably causing a recession along the way for good measure.

He didn’t do himself any favours, and those who can be bothered revisiting this excruciating piece of television can access the video file here.

Of course, there are other things Shorten and the ALP have been up to; after 18 months of opinion poll leads prior to the ascension of Malcolm Turnbull to the Prime Ministership, and the re-establishment of a winning position over the past few months, Labor suddenly can’t take a trick.

And the polls, whilst not lurching toward the government en masse, are picking up shards of it: Essential saw Labor move back into the lead last week with a 51-49 margin over the government, and Ipsos, for the Fairfax press, found the ALP maintaining the same buffer over the Coalition.

Yet two ReachTel polls showed 51-49 leads for the Coalition — the first in some time — whilst a Newspoll analysis of marginal seats published in The Australian today shows the Coalition would hold onto almost all of the disputed electorates it is defending in a fortnight’s time.

I don’t agree with analyses that show the Coalition nearing 52% of the vote on an aggregation of polling results — experience and gut instinct still suggest it’s nearer to 50-50, and that the government may not as yet have clawed its way back in front. But that is certainly the direction reputable measurements of electoral sentiment are now heading in, and if Turnbull isn’t in a genuinely winning position yet, it can only be a matter of time given the apparent determination of the ALP to surrender whatever credibility — and the winning position — it might have held.

But then, Malcolm reverts to being Malcolm.

Already saying virtually nothing about the disgusting lawless mess that is the union movement these days — the supposed pretext for holding a double dissolution in the first place — and ignoring key issues like negative gearing, genuine tax reform (as opposed to a revenue-yielding patchwork fix) or industrial reform, Turnbull continues to show he has a tin ear when it comes to issues that resonate with the voters he depends on for re-election: the Coalition’s bedrock and those swinging voters inclined to vote with it.

Just days after 102 gay people were murdered or maimed by a Muslim gunman in a vile atrocity in Orlando, Florida, Malcolm saw fit to stage a highly publicised dinner with key Muslims to celebrate the end of their month of fasting: and whilst tolerance and inclusion are well and good, the fact remains that both major parties are guilty of thumbing their noses at genuine voter concerns about Islamic violence — at home and abroad — and their resentment at simply being told they must accept that people like Turnbull know what is good for them.

To add insult to injury, an anti-gay cleric was invited to this gala extravaganza at Kirribilli House: a man whose views on homosexual people, Jews, adulterers and even Christmas border on barbaric.

Turnbull must have known the dinner would have received wide media coverage, and he must have known the attendees — hardly any of whom engender any public support or affection beyond the political Left and the Islamic community — would be closely scrutinised.

Yet when called out over the attendance of Sheik Shady Al-Suleiman — who thinks adulterers should be stoned to death and that God should “destroy the enemies of Islam” — the best Turnbull could do was to blame his staff.

Andrew Bolt, without a syllable of the extremism he is too often (and baselessly) accused of, nails his blistering critique of Turnbull in today’s metropolitan Murdoch publications.

And just as Shorten isn’t doing himself or his party any favours, the same could be said of Malcolm: a telling example is that even after the vicious onslaught against Labor’s economic management “credentials” by Finance minister Matthias Cormann, which arguably wrong-footed Shorten into his humiliating about-face on the budget last week, the subject has been allowed to drop; with the state of the national finances a very real (and increasingly urgent) consideration, the absence of any coherent attempt to prosecute this case once and for all that has marked the span of this government has simply resumed.

But more generally — in the most lacklustre, uninspiring and insipid election campaign in living memory, if not ever — there have been plenty of instances of Malcolm dropping the ball instead of putting it through the hoop for a slam-dunk.

His voice may be harder, more articulate and easier to listen to than the nasal blather of Shorten, but all too often Turnbull’s messages are just as empty and just as full of misdirected slogans as his opponent’s have always been.

The only real difference is that Malcolm is far more honest than little Billy Bullshit: which isn’t saying much, for when it comes to matters of real substance, Turnbull hasn’t actually been saying much at all.

What he has been saying and doing, however, has proven sufficient to get Shorten off the hook: and it may yet prove so once more.

We started this campaign suggesting it was Bill Shorten’s election to lose, and last Thursday, he may well have lost it.

But election campaigns by their nature remain fluid until the last vote is cast: and with the propensity to pander to left-wing fancies and parade “credentials” that will only enrage his own support base, Turnbull may yet hand Shorten the means with which to extract a victory from the jaws of defeat.

This Monday night, Turnbull gets his turn at a solo performance on #QandA: I will be in Brisbane, and a house guest, so I regrettably won’t get to watch it, at least not until I find time a day or two later to catch the archived version online.

But you’d have to say that virtually anything could happen.

The conventional wisdom (and I do agree with it, for these things are inherently changeable) suggests that Labor is cooked, and that Shorten will lose. The only question seems to be by how much; and if it comes to pass, I will have no sympathy for the lying bastard — and neither, for the record, should anyone else. If Shorten’s career ends in a fortnight’s time, the national polity will be greatly enriched by his departure.

In any contest between Shorten and Turnbull, it’s a lay-down misere in Turnbull’s favour; I might not have any truck with the moderate faction of my own party, and I don’t care for the socialist trifles it appears determined to at least flirt with on Turnbull’s watch. But I have no appetite for a stint in opposition to “disinfect” the party (as some on the conservative wing are desperate to engineer) and I do not resile from my position that any government led by Bill Shorten would, in terms of the national interest, be utterly cataclysmic.

But for all that, Malcolm is not home and dry yet: there is still a fortnight to go.

If he ends up somehow losing the election from here, the only person Malcolm will be able to blame is himself.

A deceptively steep hurdle awaits on Monday night. It will be interesting to see whether Malcolm is able to clear it.


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.



Parramatta: If You Want To “Kill Infidels,” You’re Not Welcome Here

IN THE FALLOUT from the execution-style murder of a Police IT worker by a 15-year-old Muslim youth, the ugly underside of religious hatred toward Australia by those who do not belong in this country has been writ large for all to see; this column does not sanction racism or religious persecution, but members of the Islamic community offering to “kill infidels” to avenge a religion-based murderer should either get out of Australia or be thrown out.

Like most Australians, I was sickened to learn of the execution-style shooting of NSW Police IT worker Curtis Cheng, who on the face of it was targeted for no other reason than his official involvement with a law enforcement agency in this country.

In the time I have been writing this column, I have posted on issues purely related to the Islamic community twice in almost 1,100 articles, and twice only: once when Muslim rioters went berserk in Sydney over an amateur film produced by an Egyptian Coptic Christian half a world away (violating parole conditions in the USA and eliciting international condemnation in the process) and once when Muslim “businessmen” sought to set up a walled Islamic community in Riverstone (also in Sydney, for those unaware).

The fact those articles remain the two most accessed posts in the history of The Red And The Blue — years after their publication — speaks volumes for what motivates a huge chunk of the population, and rather than initially being accessed from this site, the vast bulk of readers who clicked into them came from links that had been widely circulated in social media both in Australia and across the world.

Yet as much as I have sought to avoid issues that might inflame what I suspect may, in time, become a brutal conflict between the Muslim community and the Australian community at large, every so often something happens that is only possible to ignore by burying one’s head in the sand.

In other words, Australian Muslims cannot and must not expect decent people in this country to simply turn a blind eye to the outrages some in their midst perpetuate.

At the time of publication, the facts and circumstances surrounding the slaughter of an innocent going about his business remain unclear, and with investigations by Police and other law enforcement agencies in progress, I am hesitant to offer comment on what took place — although the established facts that Cheng was murdered by young Muslim Farhad Jabar, who subsequently opened fire on other Police and was himself shot dead on account of the clear risk he posed to Police and others nearby, are not in dispute — and I will aim to limit my references in relation to the incident itself to those facts.

Even so, the fallout emanating from sections of the Muslim community is deeply disturbing, with “supporters” of Jabar hitting social media to make a martyr of the young assassin, and making open threats (behind an assumed veil of social media anonymity) to kill Australians to “avenge” Jabar and to “fulfil Allah’s will.”

As far as I’m concerned, those who want to run around “killing infidels” and fulfilling any “law” in this country other than Australian law can get the hell out of here: and if they won’t go voluntarily, then the relevant Australian authorities must throw them out.

It is a fact that there are a good number of people in Islamic communities across Australia who simply want to live in peace, and not harm anyone; to suggest otherwise would be an irresponsible dishonesty that I encourage readers, in contemplating the increasing number of violent incidents involving Islamic aggression wrapped in anti-Australian, anti-Western rhetoric, not to succumb to.

But every time something like Friday’s shootings in Parramatta occurs — and the number of such incidents is beginning to increase, with recent examples of the Lindt cafe siege in Sydney and the attempted murder of two Police officers in Melbourne just a couple I could have cited — a pattern of denial, calls for tolerance, and anti-social belligerence rings out from other sections of those very same communities that is simply not possible to ignore.

A high-profile international example, of course, of what is becoming a growing international outrage transpired in France in January, when 12 staff from satire magazine Charlie Hebdo were gunned down in Rheims by three Islamic terrorists claiming to have acted “in the name of Allah:” and the same pattern was evident in that attack as well.

First, everyone connected with the Muslim community denies any involvement or knowledge of the atrocities that occurred and of those who committed them: and on this occasion, as The Australian is reporting, leaders of both the mainstream Muslim community and the radical Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir have disavowed any knowledge of either Jabar or of the action he intended to take prior to the event.

Second, the procession of prominent figures urging restraint — from reports Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull claimed that it was in fact Australians who were “inflammatory” toward Muslims rather than the other way around, to the usual treacherous, blind apologies for everyone and everything other than Australia and its interests from the ABC, the Fairfax press, and others of alleged standing in this country who seek at every available juncture to justify and explain away any atrocity committed against it.

(In case anyone thinks I’m picking on Malcolm, opposition “leader” Bill Shorten didn’t exactly cover himself in glory either, likening Islamic murderers and those who influence them to paedophiles — one of the “insults” against Allah that supposedly provided a trigger for the Muslim riots in Sydney three years ago).

And finally, the outrage of Muslims spews forth, the invective proclaiming (in infinitely varied forms of expression) that the criminal miscreant — who is Muslim — must be avenged, and that “infidels” opposed to Allah must die, replete with solemn undertakings to go ahead and enact just such a response.

Official investigations into Friday’s events will run their course, and it is to be hoped those charged with upholding the law — Australian law — will not shy from prosecuting anyone, irrespective of race or creed, found to have incited Jabar to kill or to have been in any way complicit in aiding and abetting his preparations to do so.

In the meantime, I want to draw readers’ attention to an article appearing in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph today, which shines a light on the third distasteful phase of the pattern to which I allude; for now — at least until there is more word from the investigations that are on foot — it is the repulsive mentality this showcases toward which I aim my remarks.

Very simply, Facebook pages and other social media instruments set up to glorify and eulogise bloody murderers are repugnant: there is no value in those who take innocent lives; and if you live in Australia, then nothing in the Qur’an can justify such bloodshed. (To my mind, it doesn’t justify it anywhere else, either).

Let’s be honest: this kid isn’t a hero, he isn’t a God, and he most certainly is not an individual to be celebrated: the fact that elements in the Muslim community seek to do so — be they “radicalised” or not — simply directs the contemptuous glare of reasonable individuals in the direction of their communities.

Yet one commenter on a Facebook tribute page set up in “honour” of Jabar described him as a “hero of the Islamic peoples (who) will be gratly missed (sic) whilst another claimed that in shooting and killing Cheng, Jabar had simply been “fulfilling Allah’s will.”

Another comment — apparently completely devoid of irony or context — stated of Jabar that “all he is guilty of was being Muslim” (sic).

Others railed against “the Police state of Australia” and declared “Inshallah…we will kill all the infidels.”

There is only one law in this country: Australian law.

Not Sharia law, or the “will of Allah,” or any other psuedo-sanctimonious bullshit: Australian law, and in coming to Australia in search of a better life and greater opportunities, those who arrive here are bound to respect, abide by and uphold Australian law as it applies.

It is a very sad fact that of all the people who have come to Australia — and remember, we all come from somewhere else originally, including the Aborigines, who arrived from Africa some 40,000 years ago — the only people who simply don’t seem to fit in here are Muslims: it is true that from time to time racial tensions have erupted around other ethnic groups, and irresponsible identities such as Pauline Hanson have apparently been more invested in inflaming those tensions by whipping up hysteria around the problems that existed rather than focusing on finding and helping to enact solutions to them.

Yet in the end — and in every case — those problems, one way or another, have been worked through.

Except this one.

If you look at those countries in Europe with the highest concentrations of Muslim residents — the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and increasingly Germany — each is fast becoming a powderkeg on account of the social and ideological incompatibility of Islamic doctrines with the concept of liberal democratic society that exists in the Western world.

The instances of violence, terrorism and other race and religion-related outrages perpetrated by members of Muslim communities here in Australia — irrespective of whether officially sanctioned by those communities, and irrespective of any atrocity “Allah” might command — have to date, thankfully, been isolated and directly affected just a handful of people, not that that in any way dishonours or diminishes the poor souls who have lost their lives as a result, or the loved ones who must live with the consequent loss.

But as I said earlier in this article, slowly — but surely — the incidents are also become more frequent and, I would add, bolder.

I must emphasise what I said at the outset: this latest instance of a deranged Islamic nutcase killing an innocent civilian must not be used to launch attacks on the Muslim community as a whole.

By the same token, however, the now-familiar pattern all over the Western world when something like this occurs — deny, deny and deny, followed by pleas for “tolerance” that provide cover for wild threats of murder and retribution from within the Muslim community over something its own member/s did — is something Muslim leaders must, must forever dispense with if they want the overwhelming majority of the Australian community to continue to show their people goodwill, understanding, the Australian welcome and (crucially) the benefit of the doubt when yet another of their number goes off slaughtering innocent people.

Left unchecked, Australia will find a very serious problem brewing in all of this: just as those countries in Europe are finding, as the numbers of Muslim residents in their midst reach the tipping point where injudicious expressions of “tolerance” have come very close indeed to igniting an all-out clash between the Muslim and non-Muslim contingents in those nations.

As a penultimate point, those Australian Muslims who find it outrageous that Australia is a party to efforts to smash the so-called Islamic State — a regime predicated on the rape and slaughter of anyone in its way, the pillaging and forced acquisition of lands, and the explicit objective to acquire nuclear weaponry with which to “attack the Great Satan” it sees in the USA — should be encouraged to leave Australia, and to never return.

Yet whichever way you cut it, what happened in Parramatta on Friday was a religiously motivated act of violence against a law-abiding, innocent citizen; it is unforgivable, and any suggestion to the contrary flies in the face of the values Australia stands for and the way of life, seemingly so attractive to Muslims prior to their arrival here, that some of them apparently want to destroy in the name of a God whose name carries no weight insofar as the laws of the land are concerned.

The idea that Jabar is in any way worthy of being “avenged” in light of what he did is offensive in the extreme; that he himself was killed is regrettable, but when confronted with an implacable and armed lunatic, the safety of Police is the greater concern.

To those who promise, in the names of Jabar and of Allah, to “kill infidels” — which means to slaughter yet more innocent Australians — our message is clear, and should be clearly and freely conveyed.

Not. Welcome. Here.

Fuck off, and go back to where you came from, if Australia is such a horrible place.

Rheims Massacre: Unbowed By Terror, West Must Stand Firm

WITH REPORTS flooding in that two of the suspected gunmen responsible for the slaughter of staff at French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo have now taken hostages to use as human shields, it is more important than ever that Western nations remain resolutely unbowed — and unchanged in their way of life — in the face of increasing atrocities committed in the name of Islam: a one-fingered salute is the only response such obscenities deserve.

I don’t intend to go to any great detail on this issue; the massacre of 12 staff on Wednesday at the headquarters of satire magazine Charlie Hebdo in Rheims in France was an unspeakable and unforgivable act of violence.

I simply want to make a few points, for as I write tonight there are fresh reports that two (of three) suspects being pursued by French Police in relation to Wednesday’s act of terror have now taken hostages to use as human shields; this issue has some way to run, and in posting this evening my intention is more to share some thoughts pending a more detailed response at some later stage.

But the attack — by three suspected Islamic fugitives, supposedly acting in the name of Allah — represents a more concerted and organised strike against a Western target than the so-called “lone wolf” attack in Sydney last month.

It also represents the point at which civilised Western societies can no longer ignore the barbaric threat of senseless violence imported into their communities under the auspices of “tolerance” and “compassion:” radical Islam, put bluntly, poses an existential threat to the Western way of life that must be erased from our midst.

The attack in Rheims was apparently made on a disturbing pretext: Charlie Hebdo is known worldwide for its parodies and satirical cartoons of Muslim fundamentalism (and a whole lot of other things besides) and the response, with guns and at the cost of a dozen lives, was a direct and contrived challenge to the right of free expression in free societies.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott — who first coined the phrase “death cult” to describe the barbarous junta that is Islamic State, presently laying waste to huge swathes of the Middle East to impose a strict interpretation of militant Islam — has again hit the nail on the head with his declaration that radical Islamic insurgents “hate” us, meaning the West: they hate our way of life, they hate our freedoms, they hate our secularity, and they hate our freedom of speech.

He has also emphasised the fact that Islamic State (and its adherents and followers, across the globe and embedded in Western societies) have declared themselves to be at war with the Western world: and this, in tandem with the very real and malicious hatred expressed toward us, means we cannot afford to concede anything in response.

He is absolutely right, and this mentality merits nothing more than a one-fingered salute in reply; as most readers know there has been an outpouring of rage in social media these past couple of days, but by far the best perspective I have seen is a simple one that conveys a message that few could quibble with.

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

It’s been reported that one of the first responses from the deeply traumatised survivors at Charlie Hebdo — whose colleagues were apparently murdered for the “crime” of publishing cartoons that mocked the Islamic religion — was a vow to keep publishing the cartoons in question. And so they should.

Abbott, along with outraged leaders across the free world, has rightly made the point that to do otherwise would be to accede to the threat of terrorism and to reward those who instigate its foul deeds with victory; it is critical that free societies do not fall into the trap of censoring expression under the threat of violent retribution.

And there is another consideration: if harmless japes of the kind published by Charlie Hebdo are discontinued in the face of evil actions by organised, savage Islamic thuggery, what — with an eye to the strictest possible interpretation of the Koran — might follow?

Before long, everything from girls in bikinis to certain TV programmes, to restrictions on just about anything women can do and to the rights all free people enjoy under the rule of law — and anything and everything in between — will come into play, as yet more violence demands yet more concessions and appeasement to avert them.

Of course, any kind of censorship made under the duress of this kind of lawless viciousness would merely be the tip of the iceberg: and of Charlie Hebdo, and countless other publishing and media outlets like it around the globe, encouragement and applause — not cowering submission — is the message ordinary and decent folk must convey, along with their condolences, their grief, and their justifiably unbridled fury at the horror that has been done in France.

I want to share with readers an article that appeared in today’s issue of the Herald Sun in Melbourne today, which is basically a wake-up call to the finger shakers, the compassion babblers, the tolerance brigade, and the bleeding heart bullshit artists who preach “tolerance” toward the kind of people who were responsible for Wednesday’s horror in Rheims: these people are usually the first (and loudest) in their “compassionate” responses to incidents such as that which befell Charlie Hebdo and its tragic staff, but they are also the loudest — and often the most persistent — in their apologies for (and defence of) minority communities that breed the hatreds that lead to precisely the kind of thing we are now seeing with greater frequency, and on a more and more widespread basis.

But it could just as easily have appeared in the pages of an equivalent publication in Paris, or London, or Berlin, or New York: Western countries across the world are increasingly being confronted by the murderous excesses of radical Islam. And in every instance, there are apologists who would sooner concern themselves with the rights of bloody murderers than with the lives of those who have been imperilled and/or slaughtered with neither pity nor compunction.

In recent times, we have witnessed a “lone wolf” attack on Police in Melbourne; the siege in Sydney prior to Christmas; the beheading of a soldier in London; and now the attack on innocent journalists and their colleagues in France.

These cannot be regarded as isolated incidents, and — whilst they might lack the obvious forethought of, say, the Al-Qaeda plot that hit the United States on 11 September 2001 — they must be viewed as part of a series of co-ordinated attacks against Western targets that will only become more widespread if met with nothing more substantial than abject capitulation.

I will continue to watch the fallout from Wednesday’s atrocity and the unbelievable sequel that appears to be playing out, at the time of writing, through a hostage siege situation; this column minutes its condolences and sympathies to the families who lost loved ones in Rheims on Wednesday, but also to their surviving colleagues — particularly those who were forced to endure watching their friends and workmates being blown apart before their very eyes, and who now must live with the abominable memory of that event.

But the time for a wake-up call is now.

And I think we are at the point where — when it comes to nations who enjoy common freedoms and liberties, and whence no succour to tyranny and oppression is given — if one is attacked, all of us are attacked, and feel the wound just as keenly wherever in the world it has been inflicted.

Anyone who quibbles at the citizens of their own countries being jailed on their return from fighting “for Allah” in the Middle East — and other, similar measures aimed at rooting out the less desirable elements from the Muslim communities who are otherwise perfectly welcome — should take heed at what has happened in France.

Clearly, the ugly spectre of radicalised, fundamentalist Islam has no place in the decent societies of the law-abiding and the free.

This sleeper issue is about to become the elephant in the room in Western polities; and just as it must be repelled in practice — forcibly, if need be — it is also going to require mainstream political forces to adopt harder and more effective strategies to deal with it, rather than a form of words that urges caution, and understanding, but offers little by way of action to redress it.

If they don’t, there are plenty of extremist, far-Right organisations that will leap at the opportunity to take their place, however distasteful such opportunism in the face of senseless slaughter might be.

Just look at France’s Front National party, founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen and now led by his daughter, Marine. As perverse as it sounds, this racist right-wing lynch mob has had its best week this week for soliciting memberships in years.

And that — with similar developments elsewhere in the West — is a whole other problem altogether.

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.