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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

Be Alert: Christmas Terror Warning Is No Stunt

THE STILTED press conference given by Prime Minister Tony Abbott after a briefing from Australia’s intelligence agencies yesterday should be viewed with the utmost seriousness; the chance of a terrorist attack over Christmas may be remote, but the heightened activity among suspicious groups Abbott alluded to is no idle stunt. Coming in the wake of last week’s Sydney siege, a little vigilance is a small price to pay for an otherwise festive Christmas.

If there is one thing among many that the siege in Martin Place in Sydney last week showed, it’s that you can plan until you’re blue in the face: sometimes, things just happen.

In the same vein, I would hasten to add that the very best kind of terrorist attack is the one that doesn’t happen at all; quietly thwarted by those charged with keeping our country safe, there are plenty of known instances of Australia’s intelligence agencies foiling the handiwork of evil people in our midst who would wreak death and carnage on innocents.

It is also safe to assert that there are also plenty of such plots that are foiled without the public ever knowing of them.

The slightly surreal, generalised nature of the media conference given yesterday by Prime Minister Tony Abbott — reiterating Australia’s terror threat level as “high,” and detailing in vague terms a warning he had been briefed about of increased “chatter” between suspected terrorist groups under surveillance — elicited an immediate and predictable response, with social media briefly exploding with sarcastic comments that Abbott’s message was some kind of smokescreen: a ruse, a distraction, or simply a tactic to frighten people.

Just as quickly, the partisan barbs ceased.

The odd, stilted manner in which the Prime Minister spoke is understandable; the consensus that quickly emerged from observers and analysts alike was that far from any stunt, Abbott and his National Security Committee of Cabinet had been told something: and the competing imperatives of maintaining official secrecy, and appraising the public with adequate information to ensure the heightened need for caution was conveyed, meant this was not one of Abbott’s most fluent performances.

There seems to be some confusion about the nature of the threat yesterday’s briefing related to; some commentators (and their sources) have spoken of the potential for copycat attacks similar to the one that occurred in Sydney last week, whilst others have been resolute that so-called “lone ranger” attacks were not the concern of the brief, and that it instead pertained to threats posed by groups on a wider scale.

Either way, we are not talking about something that would be in any way desirable were it to come to pass.

I am very mindful that it is Christmas Eve; like millions of Australians, I’m spending today out and about, collecting the array of fine ingredients that I will tomorrow transform into a festive feast for family and friends that might otherwise befit a king. I’m self-trained to chef level, and cooking on this type of scale gives me a lot of pleasure: but it also necessitates my passage through a succession of popular and crowded public places.

And later, a trip to the local bottle shop for a bottle of nice red wine will precede my return to this column to talk about at least one more of the (unseasonal number of) political issues on foot at present: it’s been a busy time in politics and I suspect there won’t be a lot of down-time for those of us with our fingers on the pulse of what is going on over the Christmas period.

Mine is just one story among 24 million others in this country, and I relate it simply to illustrate how we, as Australians, would ordinarily go about our business at this time of year: and go about it we should, but with careful attention paid to anything or anyone that doesn’t really seem quite right.

Nobody wants to frighten Australians. Yet nobody wants to ignore or whitewash the risks to them, either.

Sydney’s Daily Telegraph best sums up the situation — and the modest demand it places on ordinary men and women — in its Editorial this morning, noting that whilst this will (understandably) be a tense Christmas, it can also be a completely safe one.

I hope and believe this is the case.

But I do urge readers, their families and their friends, as they go about their business today and over the next little while, to pay attention to anything untoward, to be alert, and to report anything that could be construed as sinister.

As last week’s events in Sydney showed, the public places we all go to for our own innocuous personal reasons are exactly the kind of places in which things can just happen.

If one atrocity could be thwarted by the vigilance and quick thinking of the Australian public, the work of our security services would be made that little bit easier — and that little bit more effective as well.

 

I will be back later today; barring anything unforeseen during the day there are at least two issues we should be talking further about in this column, and one of them will come in for some closer scrutiny before Christmas is upon us. In truth, I suspect there won’t be a shortage of material to canvass over the silly season, so stick with us during the break.

 

A Word On The Boston Bombings

The Red And The Blue wishes to minute its  sympathy and condolences to the families of those killed, and to those injured, in the disgusting and cowardly attack on runners in the Boston marathon; it is to be hoped the FBI and other federal authorities in the US locate — and punish — the perpetrators.

I simply want to say that any terrorist attack is an outrage, and especially when innocent civilians are wantonly maimed or killed.

But to target a civilian sporting event — and one traditionally involving heavy participation by families and children — is particularly appalling.

At the time of writing, the identity of the individuals/group/country that might be responsible is unknown; indeed, local Police and other authorities will continue their pursuit of the culprit/s, and we will no doubt know who they are soon enough.

But this short post is unconcerned with the filth who committed this heinous attack; we pray for the victims and their families and hope — God willing — that the truth of the matter is uncovered in due course, and that some sense is able to be made of today’s tragic events for everybody involved and affected.

Ten Years On: September 11, 2011 Approaches

It’s been ten years since the worst terrorist atrocity in history was perpetuated, against the United States and on US soil, on 11 September 2001. Do you remember where you were? And what does it mean today?

I remember it well; it was back in my single-boy days, and I’d been watching late-night television on Channel 7 whilst having a few beers on the evening of 11 September 2001.

Having fallen asleep in front of the TV, I woke on Wednesday September 12 at about 6am AEST (or about 3pm on September 11, New York time) to see images of Boeing 767s and 757s being flown into buildings in and near New York on the still-running TV set. “America Under Attack!” the news ticker said.

I thought I was dreaming, but I wasn’t; thought I was drunk, but instantly realised that was impossible. This was real: and had it taken me 15 minutes longer to fall asleep the previous night I wouldn’t have slept at all — I would have seen the start of it and watched the footage all night.

I got angry; very angry, very quickly.

What had transpired was an absolute affront to everything that was decent, civilised, and that was right.

I thought — as did many people in those first few days — that it had been an act by another country against the United States — possibly Iraq — and in absolute fury, remember a conversation with “a friend” in which I urged that representations be made for a colossal retaliatory nuclear strike to be undertaken against the culprit nation the instant it had been conclusively identified.

I quickly calmed down (nobody sane really wants nukes used, and there’s enough of a threat of it from fruit cakes like Kim Jong-Il without anyone rational adding to that).

Yet for a time, many people thought World War III might have begun; a prospect — with tens of thousands of multi-megaton nuclear warheads in the world with which to fight it — that was and is too terrible to contemplate.

People were nonetheless jumpy, even here in Australia; I can remember going to a football finals match at the MCG a few days after the US attacks to watch Carlton play; it felt like a footy crowd and everyone was into the game, but there was an odd mood around the ground, as if people were wondering “we’re assembled here, 80,000 of us, are we a target?”

And the media outlet I worked for at the time (in advertising) quarantined its reception area every morning whilst staff donned masks and gloves to open the day’s mail: lest some half-bake had sent anthrax powder in material posted to the organisation.

As we know, it was eventually established that Al-Qaeda operatives under the direction of Osama bin Laden, trained in terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, who were the perpetrators — and as I remarked wryly at the time to another “friend” there’s no point trying to nuke a chicken coop.

But thus was born the War On Terror; Afghanistan was invaded and swiftly overrun by US forces; its disgusting Taliban regime overthrown for the time being, but never completely vanquished.

An intelligence dossier prepared by the Labour government of Tony Blair — arguing conclusive evidence that weapons of mass destruction were stockpiled in Iraq by Saddam Hussein — quickly led to the invasion and conquest of that country by US and allied forces.

It was later shown that Blair’s dossier was, to put it politely, predicated on falsehoods.

The USA and its “Coalition of the Willing” had acted on it in good faith.

But a military action of that nature cannot be undone, and subsequently and consequently US efforts switched to the trial of Saddam for crimes against humanity, for which he was executed; and to the reconstruction of Iraq as a continuing nation-state and member of the international community.

In regard to Saddam, despite the means, I have only two words: good riddance.

And on reflection on more recent developments, the fact US Special Forces blew Osama bin Laden’s head off — and his brain into chunks on the ground, reportedly — is something I approve of wholeheartedly. Again, good riddance.

In the years since, there have been other terrorist outrages that have been perpetrated (for instance, the Bali bombings and the London Underground bombings) as well as others that have been foiled (such as the episode in which Air France planes worldwide were grounded, lest they be exploded mid-flight over oceans).

Tony Blair is gone, as is George W. Bush; our own John Howard — proclaimed by Bush as a “Man of Steel” is also now an element of political history.

And history is likely to judge all three men very differently.

Bush — a figure of national ridicule before he was ever elected as President, and yet paradoxically an overwhelmingly popular Governor of Texas — left office amid recession in America, a time of corporate meltdowns and business failures, and of diminishing US prestige outside the Western world.

Yet as time goes on, Bush is likely to be viewed more favourably; his actions in response to what we all know as “9/11” define and will define his presidency; and as the contemporary memory of his failures or otherwise as a domestic President fade, I believe his standing will increase as the leader who answered an existential threat to his country — and delivered.

I don’t believe history will treat Tony Blair so well; the domestic legacy in Britain of his government is already being discredited, that process ably assisted by its continuation under his successor — and Chancellor of the Exchequer — Gordon Brown, before their government finally fell to the Conservative Party last year.

In foreign policy, Blair will be forever stained by what has come to be known as “the dossier;” indeed, who can forget watching Blair’s press conferences on foreign policy in 2002, most sentences of which commenced with the word “Saddam.”

There has been and will be accusation and counter-accusation, but those who opposed a war in Iraq need to look in the direction of one Anthony Charles Lynton Blair — and not at George Walker Bush, however inconvenient, painful and heretical that change of perspective might be for some.

And John Howard was bound, let us not forget, by various defence treaties and alliances.

There are many on the Left who actually think Australia is a superpower; a country whose voice — if words alone were used — makes other countries around the globe quiver in their boots.

We live in a great country; a free, fair and relatively prosperous one; I believe it to be the best place on Earth in which to live and I love it.

But there is a world elsewhere, populated by friend and foe alike, and whether convenient or acceptable or desirable for some, we are dependent on stronger friends for our security.

Standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the US, Canada, the UK and so forth is not only what we had to do; it is also what we should have done. If the fateful day ever arrives and Australia needs help, Australia will need her friends.

And how has 9/11 changed our world?

Our airports and our aviation industry are supposedly far more secure, and here in Australia our major airports at least certainly are.

But go to any one of a number of regional airports — Mildura, for example, where you can walk off a plane, across the tarmac and around to the front of the terminal building without going through the terminal — and you just wonder.

I did just that in Mildura in late 2009, because half the passengers from my flight headed off that way, and being the frightened flyer I am I wanted the quickest walk to a post-flight cigarette I could take.

But if we could walk out that way unimpeded, who could just walk in?

It’s a scenario just as relevant in other Australian airports and, I dare say, around the world.

Passports are more secure, using biometric technology, which isn’t a bad thing at all, but does it help?

And have our intelligence services and those of our Allies improved to the extent that a repeat of the Blair-induced Iraq debacle can never be repeated?

I’ve been looking with great interest at the progress of construction on the old World Trade Center site in recent weeks. Forgive me the brief use of US English, but it seems appropriate.

There’s a magnificent precinct being constructed in Manhattan to replace the buildings lost in 9/11; the architectural impressions of the buildings are stunning, and the project is being done respectfully in memory of that terrible event which transpired ten years ago.

Yet I gather New York will never be the same; and it’s understandable. That legendarily-reputed fine town is next on our travel list, and I can’t wait to go.

I’m told New Yorkers have resumed their usual way of life (read: “Our town is the center of the universe!”) but that under the surface, real angst and apprehension remains that one day — maybe even on 11 September this year, in a few days’ time — the whole thing could happen again.

But what transpired in New York on September 11, 2001 — at the cost of some 3,000 lives and the traumatisation of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others — has fundamentally changed the way we live.

Even here in Australia, and even now.

And probably for as long as our free Western society exists.

I’d love to hear what readers think: what their memories are, where they were, what they were doing, and what their thoughts on the whole chain of events 9/11 unleashed might be.

But above all, shut your eyes, and think about the world. How do you feel about it now, compared to the way you felt about it ten years ago?

In your own mind, with all the noise shut out, how do you feel about the world?

About 9/11?

Or, if it applies to your headspace, does it make no difference at all?

I thought it right to talk about this a few days prior to the actual anniversary so people can think about it a little.

And in closing, I would like to say, Lest We Forget, the thousands of civilians and emergency service workers who lost their lives in buildings and on planes in New York, and in Washington, and in Pennsylvania that day, is a tragedy we should all remember.

And remember that it’s a warning, too: as thoroughly and genuinely good as most people are, there are evil specimens in the ranks of humankind, and likely capable of far worse than what transpired on that faultlessly beautiful Autumn day in New York ten years ago.

What do you think?