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.

Sydney Siege: Muslim Leaders Right On Gunman’s Corpse

CALLS BY MUSLIM LEADERS to dump the body of Sydney siege perpetrator Man Haron Monis in the sea — or to “chuck him in the bloody shithouse” — are appropriate; leaders in Australia’s Muslim community are right to distance themselves from the gunman, and if actioned, their call has the dual advantages of playing well with the public and of ensuring this criminal can never be made a talisman for terror.

A very quick post from me this morning — again, to share some media coverage and briefly comment — although after today I have a couple of weeks off, and over the break we will obviously pick up our conversation in a little more depth.

But a very populist-sounding call by leaders of Australia’s Muslim community to dump the body of siege leader Man Haron Monis is right on the mark, notwithstanding any complexities that otherwise underpin it.

Both Murdoch and the Fairfax press are reporting this morning that Islamic leaders are distancing themselves from the killed siege orchestrator, stating that “no Muslim funeral home will accept him” and that his body should be chucked “in the bloody shithouse.”

I have no quarrel with this kind of sentiment, and I am not about to quibble for a moment about any concerns around “respect for the dead” or other such wasted sentiment when it comes to such an evil specimen as Man Haron Monis.

After all, this was no model of human virtue in life — as we touched upon earlier in the week — who, by his actions, deserves nothing but scorn and contempt in death.

The notion of burial at sea is nothing new, and has in the past been used, at least in part, to ensure any “martyrdom” of slain radical figures is minimised; the precedent of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is a case in point.

And with radicalised renegade Islamic factions growing — and the threat of this manifesting as terror attacks in Australia growing, as the past week’s events have shown — the last thing this country needs is for any fixed burial plot to be made into some kind of shrine or talisman for would-be emulators to make “pilgrimages” to, or utilise in similarly distasteful acts of objectification and worship.

The ramifications of the siege in Sydney will take some time to fully become clear, although it seems a no-brainer to point out that any show of decency or respect — from any quarter of the Muslim community — is likely to provoke outrage among the wider Australian public.

As it should.

Certainly, the calls to dump the body of this monster at sea (or in “the bloody shithouse,” wherever that is in this particular instance) could be construed as in part a populist response on the part of the Islamic community, which obviously and understandably wishes to dissociate itself from this beast, that should play well with the community at large.

It is, however, also right.

This is one idea from Australia’s Muslims that should be vigorously and enthusiastically enacted.

 

A Muslim Enclave In Australia? No. Bloody. Way!

IN A DISTURBING potential indication of things to come, the Murdoch press today carries a story about a Muslim housing estate being marketed in Riverstone, in Sydney’s north-west. This is not the Australian way, and such religion-based enterprises have no place in this country.

I have opined previously about the unacceptability of the creeping introduction of Islamic culture in Australia and its inappropriate nature viewed against some manifestations of its impact on mainstream Australian society.

And readers will recall, too, that this column is resolutely opposed to the introduction of Sharia law in Australia on any scale and in any way, shape or form.

With this in mind, I angrily read a piece in today’s edition of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, which details a commercial plan that can only be designed to establish a dedicated Muslim-only enclave.

The company responsible for the development, Qartaba Homes, claims to be offering “the real estate deal of a lifetime,” offering interest-free mortgages that are open to people of all faiths and religious backgrounds; the fact religion is even mentioned in the selling features of marketing propaganda is cause for at least one raised eyebrow.

The ruse is exposed, however, in its claim that such loans are “100% halal” and a “chance to escape Riba (interest)” because interest is a sin under Islamic law.

And an advertisement or flyer for the scheme apparently promises “100 per cent Halal housing to the growing Muslim community of Australia.”

I haven’t seen this flyer, but if anyone has access to a copy and wishes to scan it and post it as a link to a PDF in the comments section, I’m happy to approve its posting.

That said, however, the company’s claims that it can’t operate in a Muslim-only fashion — backed by quoted comment from a spokesman from the NSW minister for Fair Trading that there are no grounds to take action for discrimination over the Qartaba flyer — are no doubt technically correct, but disingenuous.

Certainly, it’s plausible that the scheme is being marketed in such a way as to avoid breaching any laws with its collateral; any business operator — Muslim or otherwise — need only take routine due diligence in their activities to ensure that.

But the reality, as anyone with any brains at all would clearly recognise, is very different.

Why would anyone from a non-Muslim background be remotely interested in living in what is clearly and obviously intended to be a religiously based, Sharia-observant, all Muslim community?

The idea of interest free mortgage loans might be appealing, but the fact it’s actually being specified that the proffered mortgages do not attract interest because “interest is a sin under Islamic law” in no way constitutes an acceptable business case in Australia.

This is the type of thing, clearly, that is exercising the minds of business leaders in the Muslim community now the fallout from the disgraceful Sydney riot in September seems to have settled.

And there is no place for it in this country.

Australia has always been a welcoming country to people from different backgrounds — and faiths — and has the benefit on the flipside of that of being able to boast one of the richest and most vibrant and diverse social fabrics in the world.

After all, Australia is — at its roots — an immigrant society.

What it isn’t, however, is an ordered system of engineered ethnic enclaves.

It is true that places like Springvale in Melbourne, Cabramatta in Sydney, and Darra in Brisbane have earned a reputation over the years as being “enclaves” for various immigrant communities at various times; indeed, I remember as a teenager that Darra, for example, was the epicentre of Brisbane’s Vietnamese community.

The difference — and it is significant — is that these suburbs, and others like them, were gateways; typically, they were places migrants first settled as they found their feet in a new country before moving on and out into the wider Australian community, where so many great things have been shared with those of us who were already here.

The proposed development at Riverstone, by contrast, appears to be a deliberate attempt to establish a bedrock Islamist community as a virtual island, on which Sharia law is the operative basis of society, and on which Muslims enjoy primacy.

The second difference, of course, is that it’s based on religion, and even in a free and tolerant country like ours is, anything that resembles religiously based segregation needs to be knocked on the head forthwith.

And all of this raises a bigger question: if Muslims are committed to becoming a part of mainstream society, why do they need to be establishing what virtually amounts to a walled community?

We have discussed, previously, things like fast food outlets only selling halal food to avoid offending Muslims — with the attendant disregard for the other 98% of the population that such practices imply — and gender-segregated sports facilities that “respect” Muslim patrons (in total disrespect of everyone else).

And Sharia law has no place — and I want to be emphatic about this — no place whatsoever in Australian society.

If Muslims wish to develop walled communities — irrespective of the attention paid to the finer details of the literature that accompanies them to ensure they do not breach anti-discrimination laws — and live in them under Sharia law, my strong recommendation would be for them to get out of Australia and go and live somewhere else, where such lifestyles are common and accepted practice.

The take-up of land under the scheme by Muslims may, indeed, be “not that overwhelming,” as the Tele article quotes Qartaba director Khurram Jawaid as claiming. But then again, given the subdivision application for the estate hasn’t even yet been lodged with the Blacktown City Council, that’s hardly a surprise.

I think the Liberal MP for the NSW state seat of Hawkesbury, Ray Williams, hits the nail on the head perfectly when he says that “(he) can only imagine the repercussions if a developer were to advertise a new Judeo-Christian housing estate; they would be hung, drawn and quartered.”

And Williams is also right when he points out that marketing a 100% halal Muslim community is hardly inclusive.

Clearly, Muslim members of the Australian community would (rightly) be outraged if a Christian development such as this were to be offered for sale in a manner that very obviously, if implicitly, excluded them — or at the very least made it clear that the offering was being made in such a way that they really weren’t welcome to participate.

And that being the case, why do those responsible for this particular Muslim-based project believe that precisely the same thing, in reverse, is appropriate to do themselves?