<< KID REGRETS JOINING DRAMA CLASS ~ MAIN ~ HOOK, LANE AND SINKER >>
INOFFENSIVE COMMENTS OFFEND
New Zealand conservative Don Brash supports “an acceptance of democracy and the rule of law, religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes”.
As a result, he’s now accused of racism.
UPDATE. The Volokh Conspiracy:
Brash’s critics’ remarks are far more anti-Muslim than anything he said. The critics imply that Muslims inherently reject “democracy and the rule of law, religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes.” That is a far more severe indictment of Islam than anything in Brash’s speech.
Brash, who is the shadow prime minister, refused to specify who he was talking about, but Muslim group leaders had no doubt it was their people.
There’s nothing like an honest-to-goodness victim, y’know?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 29 at 02:21 PM • permalinkHow many times are muslims going to be allowed to call themselves a race!, they arent a race there a goddamned religion!!!, one things for sure they know a political lever when they see one, our weaknesses and muddled thinking are there greatest assets,the phrase never give a sucker an even break comes to mind.
Sigh…yet another example of how any kind of meaningful debate has become impossible in nzed.
Toe the multiculti/feminist/pc line or be labelled a racist/male chauvinist pig/ageing reactionary.
Not that most young Kiwis could spel thos wurds..the lefty skoolteechers have seen to that.Posted by Crusader rabbit on 2006 07 29 at 02:46 PM • permalinkHe said the speech had an element of racism and an anti-Muslim tone.
Y’know, I’ve had a bellyful of what Muslims of the unassimilable variety in democratic societies “think” and what they “fear”. The free society ultimately boils down to the citizenry signing on to some basic rules that everyone can agree to, and people who refuse to even partially assimilate - and insist, instead, on forming completely independent cells containing elements that are ultimately inimicable to the society at large - need to look around for someplace more suitable to their world view. To permit the tyranny of a minority through sheer complacency and misguided, PC pusillanimity is madness.
Well, it is just a bland pejorative.
The lefties love to throw around slurs and accusations, but they are pretty quick to claim the “moral high ground”. Multiculturalism is how the lefties try to make sense out of the world, which is probably why it doesn’t make any sense.
“To permit the tyranny of a minority through sheer complacency and misguided, PC pusillanimity is madness.”
Amen to that!Posted by Crusader rabbit on 2006 07 29 at 03:28 PM • permalinkIt’s not the claim of racisim that’s the problem, it’s the rest of the population who gives it credence. After all, every defense attorny tells all and sundry of his client’s innocence. He doesn’t necessarly expect the judge or jury to believe him, he’s just doing his job.
It’s up to the Kiwi’s to laugh these clowns into silence.#8, to laugh clowns into silence, it’s necessary for one’s voice to be heard. The Kiwi media is relentlessly leftist and almost no other viewpoint is aired.
It’s time to lay the myth of the “moderate muslim” to rest—muslims use the moderate tag to continue their relentless assault on free speech in the West.
Islam is the enemy. Period.Posted by Crusader rabbit on 2006 07 29 at 03:51 PM • permalink#9 The Kiwi media is relentlessly leftist and almost no other viewpoint is aired.
It’s time to lay the myth of the “moderate muslim” to rest—muslims use the moderate tag to continue their relentless assault on free speech in the West.
Islam is the enemy. Period.No argument there, but things will have to get a lot worse than it is now for people to figure that out. Muslims aren’t quite that stupid.
What’s your solution?#10: end all muslim immigration. End dual citizenship. Deport imams who preach hatred, if they’re not Australian citizens, jail them if they are.
End ANY accommodation with islam, such as the wearing of identifying clothing to school, female-only sessions at public swimming pools, halal meals for muslim prisoners….
And that’s the moderate end of the spectrum. You don’t want to hear the rest.Posted by Crusader rabbit on 2006 07 29 at 04:16 PM • permalinkDon Brash, leader of the conservative opposition National Party, defined the values as “an acceptance of democracy and the rule of law, religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes”....
....Brash, who is the shadow prime minister, refused to specify who he was talking about, but Muslim group leaders had no doubt it was their people.
Wow so even New Zealand Muslim ‘leaders’ believe that they oppose freedom, equality and the rule of law.
Isn’t that auto-islamophobia or something?
“an acceptance of democracy and the rule of law, religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes”.
Yes, whenever anyone starts talking about these values, how is it that Muslims automatically assume it’s an attack aimed at them? Are they admitting that, alone among the earth’s people, they are the only ones who don’t believe in these things?
Are they admitting that, alone among the earth’s people, they are the only ones who don’t believe in these things?
Looks that way, don’t it?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 07 29 at 05:54 PM • permalink#13 RebeccaH exactly what I was thinking.
It’s about time they are challenged publicly about that every time they open their whining mouths to speak.
PS. Of course, when using ‘they, their’ in the above paragraph, I’m not referring to any race specifically and have no thought of any religion, hey it could be the British!
Little by little (at least those that aren’t using force of arms, bomb belts, IED’s missiles, etc.) these islamists are using the freedoms found, to extinguish those freedoms found.
And the most of the civilized world just watches and comments.
I have no idea as to where one or many will find, the intestinal fortitude to literally fight for their lives, but it must be found.
How the SMH spun the reaction of the Race Relations Commissioner:
New Zealand’s Race Relations Commissioner Joris De Bres ducked for cover, refusing to intervene and saying he would leave the debate on Brash’s speech up to the public.
“Ducked for cover’? What does a cop do when a bank customer makes a lawful withdrawal from his account? In the world the SMH occupies he ducks for cover.
It sounds like someone needs a stone wall toppled on him. Maybe at the next multicultural festival.
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 07 29 at 06:17 PM • permalinkDon Brash’s phrase, “an acceptance of democracy and the rule of law, religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes” is no more than an exhortation to observe the laws of New Zealand. Anyone who is a naturalized citizen of New Zealand has already sworn an oath to do just that:
I (your name) swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand, Her heirs and successors according to the law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand and fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen. So help me God.
geoff, the weasel will leave the debate on Brash’s speech “up to the public” because he knows damn well there will be almost NO public debate.
Just more spin from the media and perhaps one or two letters to the editor.
He won’t dare criticise the muslim because the function of the Race Relations Commissioner is to lecture and hector white Kiwis while giving a free pass to whatever racist comments Maoris and muslims care to make.Posted by Crusader rabbit on 2006 07 29 at 07:32 PM • permalinkIf the cap fits…?
In today’s news a survey finds Australians fear Muslims.
...most people say the religion treats women as inferior and encourages violence.
...
Melbourne Islamic cleric Sheik Fehmi Naji El-Imam expressed anger at the poll results, which showed widespread fear of the religion.
“It is not fair at all,” said the sheik, who is general secretary of the Board of Imams of Victoria. “They don’t know what they are talking about - they should know Muslims first before they pass opinions.”
Waaaah! ‘Snot fair! Everybody hates me!
Reminded me of a recently released book which posits that the opinions of crowds are generally correct:
While our culture generally trusts experts and distrusts the wisdom of the masses, New Yorker business columnist Surowiecki argues that “under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.”
The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations.
Posted by walterplinge on 2006 07 29 at 08:03 PM • permalink“They don’t know what they are talking about - they should know Muslims first before they pass opinions.”
Yep. Sums it up in a line. No opinions allowed until you know Muslims first.
And no answering questions put in a survey of public opinion conducted by McNair Gallup Poll commissioned by a newspaper either.
“They don’t know what they are talking about - they should know Muslims first before they pass opinions.”
When mainline Muslim groups say it’s anti-Muslim to make a general criticism of people who don’t believe in democracy, the rule of law, religious freedom, and gender equality then that serves as a form of introducing themselves and their beliefs to the public at large. If mainline Muslim groups choose see themselves in that criticism that’s something for the rest of society to base an opinion on.
ah yes, in response to the Herald -sun article,
Melbourne Islamic cleric Sheik Fehmi Naji El-Imam expressed anger at the poll results, which showed widespread fear of the religion.
I think the term ‘islamaphobia’ sums it up nicely.
“It is not fair at all,” the sheik, who is general secretary of the Board of Imams of Victoria, said.I’m sure the little children in Beslen thought the same. If you think it’s not fair, feel free to leave and take your family with you, you are not wanted in this country anyway.
“They don’t know what they are talking about - they should know Muslims first before they pass opinions.”really?, which muslims would they be?, these ones perhaps:
Muslim cleric Abdul Nacer Ben Brika, in Melbourne:
“This is a big problem. There are two laws—there is an Australian law and there is an Islamic law.”Sheik Mohammad Omran, based in Melbourne:
“We believe we have more rights than you because we choose Australia to be our country and you didn’t.”American Sheik Khalid Yasin, then based in Sydney:
“There’s no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend.”Khaled Cheikho, now on terrorism charges in Sydney:
“Sharia law is gonna prevail through this land, it’s gonna be ruled by it, you tell Howard this.”Sheik Faiz Mohamad, of Sydney’s Global Islamic Youth Centre:
“A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world. Why? No one to blame but herself”.
“...Strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts,slit skirts, translucent blouses, miniskirts, tight jeans.”
“...What is the consequence? Catastrophic devastation, sexual harassment, perversion, promiscuity.”Keysar Trad, of the Islamic Friendship Association:
“The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country and . . . the descendants of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us.”Abdul Jalil Ahmad, advocate of Sharia law in WA:
“We are a minority here, we cannot do anything against the law.”The Mufti of Australia, Sheik Taj el-din el-Hilali:
He called the September 11 attacks “God’s work against oppressors” and blamed “Australian society” for pack rapes by gangs of Muslim Lebanese youths. He also praised terrorist organisations Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad for their on-going program of suicide attacks against innocent civilians.Usman Badar, president of the University of NSW Muslim Students Association:
“Western values are not worthy of human subscription”.Kurt Kennedy, president of ‘Best Party of Allah in Australia’:
“Allah willing, Australia will become a country full of people who believe in Allah and follow the example of the Prophet (piss be upon him).”Here’s an analogy that might fit ... it’s a bit like wanting to play for the top school sporting team ... you try your hardest to get in, and if you make it, better yourself to stay in the side ... and you abide by the rules of the game ... respect the referee’s decisons ... you feel pride in your team and school. Many immigrants to Australia do just that. Then you get the misfits at school who just make the bottom team, and they cause trouble at training, if they bother to turn up at all, and they want the rules changed because it is all too hard for them ... they have no pride in their team nor school.
There is one identifiable group of people in Australia who fit into the bottom team ... and it is their choice, not the choice of the selectors, spectators or other players ... sport is an easy thing for Australians to relate to ... it’s character and nation building.
Damn those Kiwis ... I want to see a Bledisloe Cup win in my lifetime.
#29, riiight. I can tell you put a lot of thought into that response.
Or did the cat walk on the keyboard?Posted by Crusader rabbit on 2006 07 29 at 11:13 PM • permalinkand by the way, islam isn’t a religion—it’s a totalitarian ideology.
Posted by Crusader rabbit on 2006 07 29 at 11:16 PM • permalinkCrusader Rabbit — No. 29 is a perfect leftoid response. It manages to sound sensitive yet self-righeous, while still remaining content-free. Almost as good as “peace is patriotic.”
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 07 29 at 11:21 PM • permalinkrichard mac, exactly.
I’ve been thinking about the idiot “ban religion” comment though. What if we use “any religion that advocates the death of unbelievers/other religions” as a benchmark?
Can’t ban the Jewish faith.
Or Christianity. Buddhism, Hinduism likewise.
Only leaves the one, eh?
He may be on to something there…..Posted by Crusader rabbit on 2006 07 29 at 11:42 PM • permalinkoh, p.s. don’t forget the Pakistani islamite rapist called the scaff. or Scarfs as the could be referred to…
8 out of the 9 gang rape cases were foreign and islamic. The paki’s think it gives them free reign to jump on women and even call themselves Lebs…
The father, a doctor, should go to jail for purgery.
To all Muslims, both at home and abroad:
Just keep pushing. Keep up the pressure. Don’t let anyone dissuade you from demanding - demanding - special privileges taken on the backs of the rights of others. Keep throwing trantrums every time you don’t get your way, or worse, detect a whiff of disrespect. Show us you mean business. Take no prisoners. Don’t pull your punches, make sure that people understand your superiority. It isn’t necessary any longer to walk on eggshells, be plain spoken about your goals. The craven cowards in the West won’t do anything.
#29. Freedom of Religion is not the issue. It’s Freedom FROM Religion.
I am happy to by a catholic, I am not happy to have to kowtow and pander to muslim sensibilities when mine are not respected.
#40. Word on that, salty :)
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 07 29 at 11:57 PM • permalink#41 the post I originally replied to had “Deport imams who preach hatred” which seems to be a reduction in religious freedom to me.
Preaching violence I understand, but hatred seems to be stepping into the bounds of thought crimes. “Hate crimes” are a very left concept, or at least I thought they were.
Also, my son has dual citizenship, why should he be forced to choose when he has the best (and the worst I guess) of both. Plus I don’t want to make a decision for him either way - when he’s older he can renounce one if he wants, but I can’t see why he should have to. Sure if the two countries declare war on each other then things would be a little, shall we say, awkward - but that’s not a likely occurance anyway.
Yes religions shouldn’t be allowed to push their crap onto people of other religions/no religion. But I can’t see how wearing a cross or a crescent moon or a kipah does that.
#43 I typed “imams who preach hatred” out of laziness. For sure, I wouldn’t like to see such a thing as thought crimes, ok?
Your son should be forced to choose because dual citizenship is a hedged bet.If Australia is good enough to provide a home, to live and work in, then Australia deserves wholehearted (although not uncritical) commitment.Posted by Crusader rabbit on 2006 07 30 at 01:39 AM • permalinkWhat’s wrong with hedging? I do that all the time :)
Dual citenship is more about economics and laziness anyway - being able to work/live in another country without jumping through visa hoops for example. Plus you get the fast line at airports in two countries…
And even if my son should be forced to choose (and Australia mightn’t be the one he would pick) surely he should be able to make that choice rather than me choosing before him before he’s old enough to sign his name.
sam, we all make choices for our kids, all the time.
In any case, if a parent does’nt have dual citizenship, the child, when old enough is free to go live in another country and become a citizen of that country.
Of course most people don’t abuse dual citizenship. But there’s a group which does and I don’t see why the taxpayer should fund them.
(I’d settle for NO benefits payable overseas, though. :o)Posted by Crusader rabbit on 2006 07 30 at 01:55 AM • permalink1.618 I think you have your wires crossed.
Pakistani rapists see Tim’s DIVERSITY CRUSHED and
Scaf LGF CULTURAL DIFFERENCES and this at comment 3 in LOVE SOWN
I’m with sam on this one. I don’t have a problem with dual citizenship at all and I think it’s a mistake to make an issue of it.
Afterall, the concept of dual citizenship is not the issue here. The issue is paying due respect to the country or countries of which you claim citizenship.
Besides. Some of my best friends are dual citizens.
Dual passports should be abolished in Australia, either you are an Australian or you are not. The current conflict in the middle east confirms the insanity of both dual passports and multiculturalism: As you all know, it was reported last week that a Sydney man was KIA whilst fighting in the IDF, you can bet you bottom dollar there are ‘Australians’ fighting for hisbollocks, so we now have an intolerable situation of ‘Australians’ fighting against ‘Australians’. Isn’t multiculturalism a wonderful thing?.
Sam, I know where you’re coming from on the dual nationality and short queues at customs - works for me. I flew into Newark from London and had no wait at all in customs.
I even got a rather jolly fellow asking me if I had anything to declare, and I told him: “I declare I am an idiot!”
He took it very well, and I didn’t get into trouble. Of course, it was 1999, and the so-called War on Terror hadn’t happened.
As for imams preaching “hate” and thought crimes, I guess a better way of phrasing that would be imams preaching their usual brand of vilification and abuse. Does that sound better?
Mind you, the more they do so, the more it is getting to be reported, as people are (slowly but surely) waking up to the furphy they’ve been sold on pc.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 07 30 at 06:33 AM • permalinkBut I can’t see how wearing a cross or a crescent moon or a kipah does that.
Well, Sam, it does when you’re raping a woman or girl from another faith because she isn’t wearing one, or a large wool sack over her head, and then demanding to be honored because at least you didn’t kill her.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 07 30 at 11:59 AM • permalinkWell, isn’t it the case that orthodox Muslims do reject “democracy and the rule of law [other than Sharia], religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes” ? Isn’t that the problem?
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 07 30 at 04:46 PM • permalinkNo one is saying wearing a symbol should be illegal. You’re responding to an argument no one has made. We don’t dislike ranty imams calling for death to unbelievers because of what they are wearing, but what they are saying.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 07 30 at 05:58 PM • permalinkThese kids are clearly tomorrow’s terrorists. Better to bomb them now rather than wait for them to grow up to bomb them. Ain’t that right blogmire? Huh? Can’t hear you.
Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 07 30 at 07:23 PM • permalinkRight, I can’t hear you because this comment is on the wrong thread.
Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 07 30 at 07:26 PM • permalinkSam — You are now fully qualified in being willfully obtuse and can henceforth be ignored.
Miranda — You’re only one advocating killing them now. Tragically, you are too thoroughly enmired in your own self-righteousness to even consider the sad likelihood that your reflexive apologism for the people who are turning their own children into pitbulls only makes it more likely that someone will have to kill them someday.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 07 30 at 07:55 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
“Pancha Narayanan, president of the Federation of Ethnic Councils, said a comment by Brash that immigrants should have a good command of English, or quickly learn the language, was a sign that he would prefer them to come from English-speaking countries.”
No, jerkwad, he wants you clowns to spikka da English. Stupid federated ethnic bastard.