<< DARREN MCGAVIN ~ MAIN ~ MANCHESTER ERUPTS >>
MICHELLE ALARMED
The Age’s Michelle Grattan is still struggling to cope with Australian treasurer Peter Costello’s views on Muslim non-integration:
Assuming the multiculturalism speech gave an insight into the “true” Costello, it’s more than a little alarming.
Costello responds:
Today Mr Costello expressed surprise anyone would find his comments controversial or provocative.
"Is it provocative to say that citizens should be loyal to Australia, that they should abide by the rule of law, that they should respect the rights and liberties of others?” Mr Costello said on ABC television.
"Is that now provocative in Australia? Gee, things have got pretty bad if that’s provocative."
It’s chiefly provocative to jumpy Fairfax and ABC types who’d prefer that these issues never be raised. Labor premiers Alan Carpenter and Morris Iemma support Costello; so do 74% of SMH readers.
If Grattan is at all representative of the remnants of Western civilization, we are utterly screwed.
Actually, we won’t be. Screwing is an unwelcome diversion in the Caliphate.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 02 25 at 11:26 PM • permalinkLiberal moderates?
Lefties do more damage to the English language than Lebs to a Cronulla beach party…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 25 at 11:36 PM • permalinkMichelle Grattan!!
Swimming against the tide a bit here but, in some circumstances, some Muslim mores are strangely attractive. Case in point, any Muslim female who looks like Michelle Grattan should be required to be heavily veiled and clothed from head to toe in thick black robes. Sharia law goes have some upsides!!!...goes have some upsides...
Hmmmm! I thought it was a variation of “goes belly up”. ;-P
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 25 at 11:59 PM • permalinkAren’t there are younger generation of journalists that are more in tune with that 75% of Fairfax readers?
Paul Sheehan will be flattered to be referred to as the “younger generation.”
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 02 26 at 12:01 AM • permalinkCassidy was exposing himself (after a fashion) on INSIDERS today - when interviewing Costello, Baz could not bring to mind anyone who would not agree to all the requirements of the citizenship pledge, like agreeing that they would follow the rule of law in Australia.
Costello had to remind him of the imam and his followers, currently on terrorism charges and remanded pending trial. That imam was quite clear about there being two laws in Australia - the law made by the parliament and the law inherent in Sharia.
Marr went right off about Howard and his fear campaigns - the sight of Marr, and the thought that people like him might be listened to under ALP government, is really scary. In fact, just the thought of an ALP government at the moment is scary on its own.#2 Nothing will save Iemma after the killing of that policewoman forced to work alone in a copshop serving a crime-infested area.
Costello was at his best on Insiders this morning, not giving an inch to Cassidy. David Marr demonstrated just how pathetic the Left is; no counter-point like Bolta or Ack-Ackerman and yet all he could do was bleat on about the kiddies overboard, Cornelia Rau, blah, blah. Who said the Left’s not interested in teaching ancient history? Anyway, could a Howard-hater please explain the moral difference between throwing kids overboard and scuttling the boat from under them?Headline “So this is the real Costello” Actual story: “So this is the real Michelle Grattan”
Posted by Susan Norton on 2006 02 26 at 12:42 AM • permalinkCassidy and Co were left floundering for sustainable rhetoric after Costello told him as simply as he could how it is - he was very impressive. The rest of the show had the very tired old snigger snigger nudge nudge verbage that is the call sign of the luvvies, Marr’s use-by-date expired a long time ago.
“Insiders” indeed.
Hmmm.
I live in New Jersey, USA. Can we borrow Costello for a couple months? I think he’s just the right sort to pound some sense into some people.
Posted by memomachine on 2006 02 26 at 01:02 AM • permalinkThe day following Costello’s speech, The Age carried a front-page headline like this (I don’t have the paper in front of me, so I can’t give the exact words)
COSTELLO LAUNCHES SAVAGE ATTACK ON “MUSHY, MISGUIDED MULTICULTURALISM”On Saturday, it made the front-page headlines in The Age again:
AS COSTELLO IGNITES ISLAMIC FURY, MELBOURNE’S ELITE FETE HOWARD’S SUCCESSOR
There’s also a photo of a smiling Peter and Tanya Costello strolling by the Yarra, with the symbols of big business behind them (ie, skyscrapers).
There was also an article in the same edition by Michelle Grattan and Jewel Topsfield. The headline:
FEARS OF NEW WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY
The authors went out of their way to interview spent force Pauline Hanson, and they cited unnamed people in the Liberal party who were supposedly ‘shocked’ by Costello’s statements.
All good reasons not to buy The Age, in my book! By contrast, The Herald Sun’s approach was much more balanced; it did not give Costello’s remarks undue prominence (the articles were around page 5) and the headlines were much less inflammatory.
That’s right. Costello is not a politician, his comments did not have a calculated political intent, he does not wish to provoke further divisions within Australian society for electoral purposes, and this was certainly not a timely diversion from a certain corruption inquiry.
I’m with the 74%. I think during the Tampa affair it was 77%. The joys of spin.
I note the term ‘dog-whistling’ is now in vogue again to attack Howard/Costello.
x
The beauty of the term is that a Leftie reporter can think up any vile thing he wants (like ‘Muslim babies should be roasted on spits’) and then touch his finger to the side of his nose and write,
"This is clearly what Howard/Costello was dog-whistling to the enthusiastic supporters."
Normally a reporter has to verify that a politician said something. These days a reporter can say a politician THINKS (dog-whistles) something, and there is no verification required or possible.
Now I think of it, why have Beazley/Latham/Bracks/etc never been reported as dog-whistling anything?
whistleI would be much more impressed with Costello if he backed his rhetoric with action.
If Michelle is appalled, then it means just one thing. All that time Costello has been a Howard apprentice and has finally learned that drawing a line in the sand and offending the commentariat is sure to make you a successful leader.
rog, you seem to have misunderstood me. I am simply suggesting that when a politician opens their mouth you should interpret what they are saying in a political context. They may not mean exactly what they are saying, and you may need to fill in some of the gaps yourself. I am sure you would agree if we were discussing a Greens or ALP figure.
CB, show me where anything I said was adhominem. The only personal attack I can see is yours.
Very surprised at tone of Gratten’s piece. Although a “very valued” part of the Spencer Street Soviet’s left-dribbling team, her experience usually makes her scribblings worth at least an on-line glance (would never pay for the crap, though).
(American readers may go and make themselves a cup of coffee while we debate the vacuum that is Australian journalism).
As for David Marr on ABC’s “Insiders” - another beautiful performance from the unwitting leading the “Re-elect John Howard” campaign. I’m taking up a collection to sponsor him being given a permant public platform (minus 49% management etc fees).
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 02 26 at 04:24 AM • permalink"unwitting leading” OR “unwitting leader”. Take your pick.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 02 26 at 04:25 AM • permalinkJudeoscope.ca has some interesting commentary on peter Costello’s unixceptional remarks which really, really show the depths of muslim contempt for Western Civilisation, to wit:
‘Calling on Muslim to embrace western values, or in this case Australian values, is merely coded speech calling on us to leave our faith.’
COMMENT: SO he thinks that islam and Western Civilisation are fundamentally immiscible. Good. So do I. It is like trying to mix haute cuisine with dogshit. The inferior culture merely poisons the superior.‘For believing Muslims our set of values are based on the Quran and the noble example of the prophet Muhammad.’
COMMENT: repression, no freedom of thought, speech or religion, blind obedience, murder, rape, theft, despoilation, women as chattel property, and 53 year old men humping 9 year old girls. Yes, for the evil and perverted, mohammed had it all. Lucky that he though paedophilia was’noble’, eh?If we look deeply into the sickness of what passes for “western values” one can see why we choose Allah over human made systems of morality and conduct.
COMMENT: This is literally true. he says it, I believe him to be sincere. He and his ilk deliberately choose blind obedience to a pre-mediaeval, fundamentally evil cult over the logic of humanity and morality. The NSADP did the same. We have seen this before.Allah unambigously says in the Holy Quran:
COMMENT: I like to think of it as the ‘absorbent koran’ myself.“O you who believe, obey Allaah and obey His Messenger, and the people in authority among you. And if you dispute over anything, refer it to Allaah and His Messenger if you really believe in Allaah and the Last Day, that is best in terms of consequences.” (4:59)
COMMENT: Translation: blind obedience in life is demanded. We’ll sort oft the morality of it on judgement day.
“And he who does not rule by what Allaah sent down, it is they who are the disbelievers.” (5:44)
COMMENT: See above.“And he who does not rule by what Allaah sent down, it is they who are the wrongdoers.” (5:45)
COMMENT: See above.“And he who does not rule by what Allaah sent down, it is they who are the rebellious.” (5:47)”
COMMENT: and once more!There is no room to negotiate with this variety of evil cultists. They will not permit this. They offer us the choice of conversion or death, because mohammed the paedophile says so.
It always strikes me as grotesque and bizarre that people like our purple-helmeted dirt road cowboy simply refuse to listen to what these people are actually saying, in all sincerity, about us.
It also strikes me what an extraordinary and monumental task it must have been for South East Asian islam to actually turn islam from the almost pure, satanic evil that it is, in to an actual religion. Of course, to do this, they have had the inestimable advantage of the powerful cultural drive to pansyncretic behaviour built in to their previously Buddhist and Hindu civilisations. But the scale of their achievement is remarkable.
MarkL
CanberraCase of integration? In today’s Sunday Telegraph colour supplement (Sunday Life) is an article about “Crazy John” Ilhan, a Moslem (Turkish born). The article, by Libbi Gorr (Elle McFeast) is an attempt to show what a good citizen a Moslem-Australian can be.
Whilst I don’t belittle “Crazy John” his business success, his (and his wife’s) knowledge of religion is amazingly simplistic. His wife Patricia (now a convert/revert) states what she learnt about Islam “...that Mohammed is the main prophet of God, rather than Jesus” (page 15)
Jesus is not viewed by His followers as the ‘preferred prophet of God’. Her understanding of her own faith (she was Catholic) is laughably flawed. Yet she says of her husband “His religion, his spirituality, is who he is.”
Obviously DBO would prefer all politicains say nothing at all or keep mouthimg the sugar coated platitudes and porky pies about Islam.
And what about these guys-should they only mouthe taquiya? I prefer the honest truth from the Montreal Muslims News.Calling on Muslim (sic) to embrace western values, or in this case Australian values, is merely coded speech calling on us to leave our faith. For believing Muslims our set of values are based on the Quran and the noble example of the prophet Muhammad. If we look deeply into the sickness of what passes for “western values” one can see why we choose Allah over human made systems of morality and conduct.
Allah unambigously says in the Holy Quran:
“O you who believe, obey Allaah and obey His Messenger, and the people in authority among you. And if you dispute over anything, refer it to Allaah and His Messenger if you really believe in Allaah and the Last Day, that is best in terms of consequences.” (4:59)
“And he who does not rule by what Allaah sent down, it is they who are the disbelievers.” (5:44)
“And he who does not rule by what Allaah sent down, it is they who are the wrongdoers.” (5:45)
“And he who does not rule by what Allaah sent down, it is they who are the rebellious.” (5:47)”
It was only a matter of time until MMN would make its Salafi creed unmistakably clear by overtly expressing such utter contempt for Western civilization and Muslims who strike a balance between religious imperatives and Western values. The fact that the site is hosted by Montreal Muslim Council President Salam Elmenyawi is all the more worrying, when one considers how Mr. Elmenyawi has become in the eye of the media the go-to Muslim for statements supposedly representative of Montreal’s Muslim community.
Come on SBS- pick up on this story along with those “alarming” views.#28 you should interpret what they are saying in a political context
My interpretation of your post at #22 is that you are already convinced (probably on ideological grounds) that the government has dirty hands in the AWB bribery business and that therefore anything else it does must, by definition, be an attempt to divert attention from its (presumed) guilt in that matter.
In other words, it seems to me that you have certain prejudices that are interfering with your capacity to see that more is going on at present than an investigation into who knew what about what the AWB was doing. Maybe the word “Cronulla” rings no bells for you. Maybe you’re too busy thinking about “Tampa” and what you think that episode illustrated about ordinary Australians.
My own view is that Tampa’s aftermath illustrated that ordinary Australians detest queue jumpers. They especially detest queue jumpers who use standover tactics and put their own children’s lives at risk to try to force us to give them what they want. That was just a declaration of war on a very small scale. Most of us don’t care whether children were actually thrown into the water or whether the children were “merely” forced into the oceanic depths because the boat was deliberately sunk. Anyone who would deliberately sink a boat carrying small children is dung and I don’t want that person living in my community.
Since WWII there have always been complaints here about migrants doing one thing or another that felt strange to us. Yada, yada, yada. But I do not recall, in all my years, ever seeing people take to the streets in the way they did at Cronulla. Cronulla illustrated that a large enough segment of the population has finally become so pissed off by all the small skirmishes they’ve had to endure on their home turf (related to behaviour demonstrating opposition to our values) that they are prepared to do more than just whinge. To do more than whinge about it is a big deal. When that happens our social cohesion is seriously frayed.
The trouble at Cronulla occurred not because Australians refuse to accept migrants of any particular race but because some immigrants refuse to accept our culture and want to change it, if necessary by force, to a culture that will destroy all the freedoms we’ve earned by our own sacrifices and by the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents all the way back to the Magna Carta and beyond that to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, our Lord.
That is a very deliberate reference. We have what we have because of what Jesus did and because of the work of those who have believed in him over the last 2,000 years. No doubt there are more than a few readers of this blog who will feel uneasy with the idea that we owe most of what we have to Jesus and his followers. But if it’s not attributed to the culture of Christianity there’s nothing left but race. Is anyone really going to stand up and say we have what we have because of our race? I don’t think so.
No. It’s culture. Now, because of our formerly Christian culture, we have the freedom to choose not to believe that Jesus is Lord and to behave as though we don’t believe Jesus is Lord. Some of our ancestors, thank God, took Jesus seriously when he said that his kingdom is not of this world. That is the fundamental reason why separation of church and state is good and I’m truly happy about it. I don’t want to be going to church with people who go because they think they’ll have trouble in the world if they don’t.
But “good” Muslims don’t believe in the separation of church and state. That’s why they’ll never fit in. That is what most Australians realise, in however fuzzy a fashion. That is what Peter Costello and John Howard recognise and that is why they’ve said what they’ve said now. It’s nothing to do with the AWB. It’s to do with preserving the polity. And if you can’t see it the problem is within you.
Actually, Janice #44 there is a lot I don’t agree with here:
"The trouble at Cronulla occurred not because Australians refuse to accept migrants of any particular race but because some immigrants refuse to accept our culture and want to change it, if necessary by force, to a culture that will destroy all the freedoms we’ve earned by our own sacrifices and by the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents all the way back to the Magna Carta and beyond that to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, our Lord. “
The lebanese louts that have been gang bashing innocent people on the streets, and harassing bikini clad skips on the beach are actually going well beyond behaviour their parent’s would condone. They are using their religion as an excuse for incredibiliy disfunctional behaviour. And AFAIK, well before the magna carta quite a few european elites were sending their kids off to be educated by islamic schools, so poor was the quality of western education in the dark ages (mind you, it wasn’t called the west then, I suppose). It was also well after Jesus bought it at Golgotha.
And please, go easy on the bible bashing. it scares the atheists.
#34 Excellent
What I want to add my letter to the editor of the West Australian newspaper, that ‘probably’ won’t get printed <eye roll>
Islam is a Set of Beliefs Not A Race
Ameer Ali (in Fears of return to White Australia Policy Feb 25th) is trying to confuse the distinction between ‘race’ and a ‘set of beliefs’. While the amount of skin melatonin is something one is born with, religious belief is not.
Islam is a set of beliefs that are learnt and can be unlearnt, and is not connected to the colour of skin. Like Christians, Muslims come from every race on earth. A large proportion of Muslims are white. Attempting to equate a religious belief system with race is a tactic geared to induce fear and guilt, and consequently stifle criticism of an ideology that badly needs it.10 more years! if howard/costello win again in 2007 it is because they are listening to the 74%, & saying they hear us. not dog-whistling, but speaking loud & clear for everyone to hear that they reckon we have a good way of life here, & that they would like to preserve it. we welcome immigrants. hell, most of us are immigrants or children of immigrants. we like new foods, new music, the buzz of victoria street, balaclava & sydney road. what we don’t like is someone telling us it’s compulsory to accept - note accept, not just tolerate - the excesses of a particular ideology. that’s not racism - it’s saying to newcomers that if you come to someone’s house to escape the shithole you lived in, don’t go crapping on the dining room floor
Look at the percentages in the polls, Mr. In A Burnous. (#46)
The PM and Treasurer have once again tapped the the public sentiment and said what the vast majority (even SMH readers) believe.
But of course in your eyes, 75%+ of the population are all just filthy racists who will follow anyone who promises to pay the mortgage on the McMansion, and were fooled into voting the Liberal party into power in the Reps and the Senate through abject fear of the ALP policies.
Thank you Lord, for Iron Mark and the gumnut fairies in the Greens.
10 more years.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 02 26 at 09:03 AM • permalinkWhoops, #45 referenced.
Perview is my fiend.Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 02 26 at 09:04 AM • permalinkEntropy: the Islam and the culture of the West that existed during the early Middle Ages by no means resembles the one we have today. The comparison really isn’t valid. The fact that once it was Muslims who were the intellectual lights in their early days doesn’t change the fact that 21st century Islam seems to have devolved into a static, decayed cult.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 26 at 10:38 AM • permalinkMy goodness, whatever would the rest of us do without the shining intellect that is DBO.
I just cleaned coffee off my desk and keyboard, PW. LOL!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 26 at 11:13 AM • permalinkI bet Costello has something to do with that cartoon.
Posted by Peter Boston on 2006 02 26 at 11:50 AM • permalinkAh, “dog-whistling”... just like the “code-words” the Democrats accused the Republicans of speaking in during their last three electoral debacles.
I don’t understand why they keep losing. You’d think “You’re all a bunch of lying, racists murdering bastards! Vote for me, dammit!” would be an irresistable vote-getting pitch.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 26 at 12:01 PM • permalinkHmmm.
Frankly I think the Islamic contributions are vastly overrated. What a lot of people aren’t also considering is that the Islamic world retained much of the knowledge generated by the Greeks and Romans when it was lost to the West. Additionally a lot of knowledge generated by India, China and the East also made it’s way to the Islamic world, where it was then appropriated and repackaged as Islamic triumphs.
Additionally you need to consider that a lot of jews, christians and other religions also adopted Islamic names in order to fit in. So you need to look in depth into the biography of any particular individual in the Islamic world to make the proper determination that this person was in fact a muslim. Then there’s the whole other issue of misappropriation where a muslim patron takes the credit for inventions and discoveries generated by jews, christians and others during this period.
Though the actual implementation varied the dhimmi laws did prevent non-muslims from bearing witness against muslims in a court. So there wouldn’t be any means for a non-muslim to contest any mis-appropriation.
Quite frankly I’m a little less than convinced that the Islamic world actually produced anything of note at all.
Posted by memomachine on 2006 02 26 at 12:05 PM • permalinkThe phrase “dog whistling” is, itself, dog whistling. What they mean is “these guys are actually bigots and racists, and even though you can’t tell that from the actual words, believe me, that’s the secret message.”
and just like true dog whistling, informed Left voters understand all that immediately.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 02 26 at 12:07 PM • permalink55, the recent Kerry version of that meme is “He’s the dumbest president in history, and he sure fooled us about Iraq! Therefore you should vote for us!” Or, um, words to that effect.
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 26 at 04:17 PM • permalinkCostello memo has spread to the UK.
BBCMuslims must accept that freedom of speech is central to Britishness and should be preserved even if it offends people, says Sir Trevor Phillips.
The chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) said we should “allow people to offend each other”.And he suggested that Muslims who wanted a system of Islamic Shariah law should leave the UK.
Nic said:
“You know, I’d almost like to see us have Sharia law so as to see Marr squirm with indignation when he and his mates can no longer dance around the rainbow may-pole.”What a good idea for Big Brother? A reality TV show with Sharia Rules. The show needs some new ideas.
The imam could be the director. Put the compere - what’s her name? in a burka. The contestants could be eliminated by stoning.
Toss in Michelle Gratten and David Marr as intruders/infidels.
"though they’ll go down a treat with Howard’s battlers (and won a tick from Pauline Hanson).” Really that’s not journalism its CONDECENSION 101. Pauline Hanson left the scene years ago and many voters know her only from a celebrity dance contest. “Howard’s battlers” are in fact the ordinary, aspirational voters. What are they aspirational for? Peace, security, a chance to grow their wealth, good schools etc. In SMH term’s this makes them objects of ridicule.
Allan,
Please tone down your unprecedented shrillness and leave the decision-making to we public intellectuals.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 02 26 at 08:18 PM • permalinkI think that Costello is skating on really thin ice here. There should be no difference between citizens who were born in Australia and those who became citizens by naturalisation. By doing what Costello is proposing you create a ‘second category’ type of citizens. Where the Australian born if he or she goes out of this ‘compact’ stays a citizens, while the other is stripped of his citizenship and basically loses rights enshrined by law.
The naturalised citizen would have less rights than those who were born here and would have the threat of citizenship loss that the the native born does not have. This is not right in an advanced democratic country.
Imagine the situation of someone who migrated with his parents when he was two. How fair would be to strip him of citizenship and deport him to a country he would not recognise and not even speak the language? (and may have a family here). How unfair when someone who did or said the saime thing but was born here could keep his citizenship and stay in Australia?
By all means make the acquisition of citizenship harder. I always thought that obtaining it in Australia was perhaps a bit too easy. Maybe raise the years of residenece, require a basic knowledge of English and Australian society.
Hey entrophy, (46) why do you call our bikini clad women “skips”? Do you have something against bikini clad women? And why do you refer to the education of European children in the Middle Ages? That’s what fracking 700 years ago? In that case, why not complain about the Moors who invaded Europe in the 6th century? Hey why not complain about the bloody Black Death which killed which originated from the East while you are at it?
Posted by Wylie Wilde on 2006 02 26 at 09:33 PM • permalinkGuido — I don’t know which continent you’re posting from, but here in the States they can definitely strip a naturalized citizen of his or her citizenship for certain offenses.
Naturalization is a contract, in this case to live by the laws and standards of country whose citizenship he or she desires. Contracts can be voided.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 26 at 10:42 PM • permalinkGuido, speaking as a naturalised aussie, Costello can feel free to strip the citizenship off anyone who won’t honour their pledge to this country.
Regarding someone who was raised most of their life here and then got stripped of their citizenship? Care Factor GAF (Give A Fark). If they have no respect for this country, why should they be treated with respect?
Those born here, well, if they have dual nationality, then deport them. If they have aussie only, either throw them in jail, or give them a one-way ticket to whevever the hell they want so long as it’s out of here.
I see no reason to continue wasting taxpayers money on people who want to destroy the country that is supporting them.
(And I was naturalised at 3 weeks old. So there.)
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 02 26 at 10:49 PM • permalink#63 Guido, you are completely missing the point. You said:
By doing what Costello is proposing you create a ‘second category’ type of citizens
how? that has totally nothing to do with Costello’s comments. How do you get that from Costello saying:
"There is one law we are all expected to abide by”
In fact, he was saying exactly the opposite of what you claim he said.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 02 26 at 10:55 PM • permalinkYes naturalisation is a ‘contract’.
This is the words that someone who wants to become a citizen has to say:
As an Australian citizen,
I affirm my loyalty to Australia and its people,
Whose democratic beliefs I share,
Whose rights and liberties I respect,
And whose laws I uphold and obey.I have absolutely no problems there. However my issue is that if we start stripping people from their citizenship we are then creating another class of citizens. Because one can’t have it’s citizenship stripped and the other one can.
My argument that if you become a citizen (and As I said it should be much ‘harder’ to obtain it) you have the same rights and obligations as someone who was born here and has descendants who came in Australia generations ago.
If a person lies on their application form (ie that they have been convicted for a criminal offence etc.and don’t tell the authorities) then that is a different matter, because the ‘contract’ was done in bad faith by the applicant. And it is void.
The other issue (which I’ll raise, but I haven’t yet explored) is whare you would draw the line? Costello makes the example of some radical muslim cleric that believes that sharia law is more important than Australian law. So that’s quite clear.
But what about naturalised Australians who may brake the law because because it would go against their conscience, or want to change the way Australia is governed. I think we are getting into a grey area there.
BTW - I am from Melbourne, Australia. (migrated from Italy 1974, naturalised Australian in 1977).
Guido — As for the children, you would think the parents would think of that first, wouldn’t you? The consequences for their families are their responsibility first, contrary to Hillary…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 27 at 12:51 AM • permalinkAll Mr Howard’s handpicked Muslim advisers are picking on each other and scrapping like -er-they do in the Middle East. I reckon ,lock them all together in a room and count the bodies later.
Guido, if people refuse to live by Australian laws ,better they bugger off where they can live how they want and not get up our noses. We have enough home grown law breakers, we do not have to import them.
Becoming an Australian does not give anyone licence to become a pain.An interesting report via Yahoo:
Health Minister Tony Abbott has warned against ostracising or “shouting down” hardline Muslims, saying it would be a mistake to dismiss those advocating sharia law as “un-Australian”.
In contrast to federal treasurer Peter Costello’s attack on “mushy, misguided multiculturalism”, Mr Abbott praises multiculturalism, seeing it as a long-term antidote to the fighting shown in December’s Sydney riots.
In The Age newspaper, Mr Costello said people wanting to live under sharia law should go where it was practised.
But in an article titled A Conservative Case for Multiculturalism in the March issue of Quadrant, Mr Abbott says: “It can be a shock to find calls for sharia law in Australian places of worship”.
“Still, it would be a big mistake to dismiss this as ‘un-Australian’ rather than to begin the kind of engagement that eventually made Christianity less bloody.”
Multiculturalism has been of great benefit to Australia, Mr Abbott said.
He may well have been quoted out of context. I’ll wait until I’ve read his article in full.
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2006 02 27 at 03:18 AM • permalinkLionel
I had a good look at the Abbott article.
First, he’s not afraid to lay it on the line:
“The problem with the far-too-frequent claims that Australia is a racist county is not so much that they are largely false but that they are so reliably self-serving. It might suit the diverse political purposes of a few Howard-hating commentators and a few self-appointed migrant leaders to pretend otherwise but it does little if anything to build a more cohesive unit.”
There’s faith in the healing power of Aussieness:
“Multiculturalism in practice has often meant trying to avoid judgements about other cultures, preferring that their objectionable features, if any, should be massaged away under the benign influence of the Australian way of life.”
His next step is a big one:
“ ... talking to the more hard-line Muslims, rather than ostracising them or shouting them down, could be one of the greatest services Australia can render to the wider world. Why shouldn’t the Muslim version of the Enlightenment and an Islamic doctrine of the separation of church and state be fostered in Australia? Especially as the task is so urgent.”
A big ask for the land of the B-B-Q but no nation outside the US is better equipped for the task.
He ends his piece with a good swipe at NSW’s recent example of ‘affirmative action policing’.
The Abbott-Costello good cop/bad cop routine may be deliberate and a nice clue to how we should play this card - tough but smart.
A Muslim cannot be allegiant to a democratic nation state. For a Muslim to say that man’s law is above Shari’a, Allah’s law, is apostasy.
Apostasy is considered worse than murder according to the Shari’a.
Posted by von Schlichtningen on 2006 02 27 at 07:29 AM • permalinkEntropy 46
And please, go easy on the bible bashing. it scares the atheists.
Whu-hunh? Oh now what?
Janice 44
We have what we have because of what Jesus did and because of the work of those who have believed in him over the last 2,000 years. No doubt there are more than a few readers of this blog who will feel uneasy with the idea that we owe most of what we have to Jesus and his followers.
I don’t see the problem. Christianity has been pretty much a net gain for civilization, whether or not JC is the invisible magical vice president of the universe. Personally, I bet on “not.”
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 27 at 05:21 PM • permalink#76 Nice pick up Hamish - early entry for quote of the year. Even better cos he might be serious.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 02 27 at 09:46 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
"Liberal moderates were appalled”, says Michelle in the piece.
Appalled that Costello made that speech. Michelle of ocurse doesn’t source this statement.
Another example of why the Spencer street Soviet is going bust. Nothing they write is ever true.