The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on July 24th, 2017 at 08:17 am
Abdul Benbrika has lived in Australia for 16 years, but still seems not to have completely assimilated:
A Melbourne radical Islamic teacher last night described Osama bin Laden as “a great man” and declared he would be betraying his religion if he told students not to train in terrorist camps.
Abdul Nacer Benbrika, also known as Abu Bakr, said: “My religion doesn’t tolerate other religion … Jihad is a part of my religion.”
He said the problem was that there were two laws – Australian law and Islamic law.
- He is described as an Algerian/Australian, presumably a dual passport holder.
Isn’t it time we:
1. stamped all over this kind of ‘free speech’ so as not to go any further down the same path as Britain, Holland, etc.; and
2. stopped this bullshit about dual citizenship.
Either you are an Aussie or you aren’t. Stop this idea of live here, get the dole, have an Aussie passport but remain a citizen of, and spend your time trying to make our country as big a shithole as, the one you left.
Cuckoo – “Why is it these guys are always “also known as” something else: abu this, ben that… “
Because, like the criminals they really are, they adopt several aliases.
Aren’t the comments made by Benbrika legally treason? I thought Australia had laws against incitement to terrorism. This person should be deported as an example to others of his persuasion.
- Kim Beasley was on Sally Loane’s show this morning trying to make a case that he would handle this terrorism thing better than Howard.
He said that the money used for participation in Iraq had cost us funds better used to fight the terror at home. Are we seeing a lean towards bipartisanship here, vague as it is? The message for the ALP is still the same – your party has been hijacked and you have lost touch with the electorate. Go ask them what they really think.At least there’s some recognition creeping into the debate that we might, just might have a problem.
The London bombings have certainly taken the gloss off being in charge in Sydney. Pollies suddenly want to spend more time with their families, and cash out their super.
Do we have to wait until there is a bombing here for the media to wise up some more and start to call things by their real names?
Those of us who have lived long enough to remember will hold many in the the media as complicit in selling Australia out via leftoid multiculturalism and political correctness/partisanship over several decades. They did not do it alone. Politicians actually pull the levers, but media have great influence via what they report, how they spin it, and what they leave out.
Since many in the media are more obsessed with local politics and how they can assist the ALP, I am forced to the conclusion that only a local terror attack will focus their minds. For the most part their take on all the overseas action has been to use it to make Bush, Blair, and Howard look bad.
I would not mind Kim being involved in the battle as part of a war cabinet – but without the baggage of the ALP and the left media. Kim quoting Kipling or Lincoln would be much more convincing than any quote by Bob Carr.
Actually, Arab naming conventions are rather complicated, involving “son ofs” and “of this tribe” and so on. Most of them go by titles or nicknames—“abu” means “father,” “bin” means “son of”—and so on.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 08 04 at 10:57 PM • permalink
- Two Arab mothers are sitting in a cafe shop in Baghdad, chatting; over
>a pint of warm goat’s milk. The older of the mothers pulls her bag out
>and starts flipping through pictures and they start reminiscing.
>
>“This is my oldest son Mohammed. He’s 24 years old.”
>
>“Yes, I remember him as a baby” says the other mother cheerfully.
>
>“He’s a martyr now though” mum confides “a suicide bomber.”
>
>“Oh, so sad dear” says the other.
>
>“And this is my second son Khalid. He’s 21.”
>
>“Oh, I remember him,” says the other happily, “he had such curly hair
>when he was born.”
>
>“He’s a martyr too” says mum quietly. “a car bomber.”
>
>“Oh gracious me”, says the other.
>
>“And this is my third son. My baby. My beautiful Ahmed.” He’s 18”, she
>whispers.
>
>“Yes” says the friend enthusiastically, “I remember when he first
>started school.” He’s a martyr also,” says mum, with tears in her eyes.
>
>After a pause and a deep sigh, the second Muslim mother looks
>wistfully at the photographs and says…
>
>“They blow up so fast, don’t they?”
I would not mind Kim being involved in the battle as part of a war cabinet – but without the baggage of the ALP and the left media. Kim quoting Kipling or Lincoln would be much more convincing than any quote by Bob Carr.
Why wouldn’t Carr be a good choice for a war cabinet (assuming he was still in politics)? Whatever you think of Carr re unions, trains, etc., I thought he was rock-solid on counter-terrorism. (But then I’m from SA so maybe I’ve missed things.)
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 08 04 at 11:15 PM • permalink
Unfortunately it’s not just the Sand Goblins who feel they’re exempt from out statutes; I’m surprised they haven’t been recruiting among this rich and diverse source of people with an inflated feeling of persecution and sense of injustice.
that’s a bit harsh; let’s say you marry a Spanish chick, live in Spain; you’d get a Spanish passport BUT I bet you’d keep your Australian citizenship as well.
I’m a dual citizen, married to an Aussie; but you couldn’t pry my European passport from my cold, dead hands.
One reason is, that although Australia is supposed to be part of the Commonwealth and my wife is good British heritage, going back 3-4 generations, we couldn’t, on her account, move to and work and live in Britain.
With my EU citizenship we can do that.
So dual citizenship is a bit of a perk.
BTW, with all the FTA with the USA, can we freely move and work there? I don’t think so.Posted by Honkie Hammer on 2005 08 04 at 11:56 PM • permalink
Would like to go ten rounds of Bakersfield Chimp with this clown.
C’mon Bracks…show us you’ve got a pair or are you to gutless to stand up to non-Christian ‘extremists’.
Let’s hear from the pro- multi-culti’s over this one.
Posted by Jay Santos on 2005 08 04 at 11:57 PM • permalink
BTW- Norwegian Aboriginal activist Michael Mansell and a few other fruitcups were over playing footsie with the Libyans as far back as the 1980’s; certainly Islam has had some success with American Negroes, and have started recruiting British West Indians. Perhaps the devastation of The Block in Redfern is due to pre-detonating pipe bombs rather than drunken laziness, maybe we should be alert and alarmed.
#7, I think to charge someone under the religious vilification laws, a member of the public must make a formal complaint.
In the case of the pastors:
the Equal Opportunity Commission to urge[d] Muslims to complain, and one EOC employee, May Helou, even asked three converts from the Islamic Council of Victoria—of which she was an official—to drop in on the pastors’ seminar.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 08 05 at 12:31 AM • permalink
When Benbrika became a citizen he swore:
[I]From this time forward, under God,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose Democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect,
and whose laws I will uphold and obey. [/I]According to DIMIA:
“With citizenship, there are also certain responsibilities expected of all Australians. You will, for example, be required to:
1. Obey the laws and fulfill your duties as an Australian citizen;
2. Enrol on the Electoral Register and vote at Federal and State/Territory elections and referenda;
3. Serve on a jury, if called on;
4. Defend Australia, should the need arise. [/B] These privileges and responsibilities are subject to the same rights and exemptions as Australian-born citizens.”So, it would appear that Benbrika did not make his citizenship pledge in good faith, and should be regarded has never having become a citizen.
Posted by pog-ma-thon on 2005 08 05 at 12:31 AM • permalink
It would seem hopefully that for some the eureka moment has come about what societies are entitled to ask of its new citizens as well as its indigenous ones.
“BRITAIN’s race relations chief last night called for the abandonment of the policy pursued by successive governments since the 1960s of building a “multicultural society”.
Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said that multiculturalism was out of date and no longer useful, not least because it encouraged “separateness” between communities. As British-born Muslims burnt the Union Jack on the streets of London yesterday, he said that there was an urgent need to “assert a core of Britishness” across society.In an interview with The Times, he said that multiculturalism — one of the founding principles of his own organisation — “means the wrong things”. He added: “We are now in a different world from the Sixties and Seventies.
“What we should be talking about is how we reach an integrated society, one in which people are equal under the law, where there are some common values.”
He said that young Muslims were being indoctrinated by extremists who told them that they would never be part of this society because of their colour or religion. “
But David Gulpilil could be excused for his attitude to the “Australian” law. It is maybe a little late to require newcomers to understand that Australian law and values are the ones they as citizens have a duty to accept and obey, if we allow Aboriginal men the right to “marry” 13 year old girls and impregnate them, and we do in South Australia at least, because it is traditional law, what message are we sending.
We have a lot of rethinking to do. But we still have the added burden of having to fight the inner city left as well. Those that Bob Catley says are “ambivalent about Australia’s identity but secure within its institutional citadels”.
Absolutely pog
- Some people have three citizenships.
One from dad’s side, one from mum’s side, plus Australian.If your dad was born in UK, (or mum, if your were born after 1.1.83) has UK citizenhip automatically.Anyone with a parent born in Ireland is automatically Irish.
If you can trace your male line back to Italy, you’ve got Italian citizenship.
&c, &c, &c.
Posted by pog-ma-thon on 2005 08 05 at 12:40 AM • permalink
John Howard is calling a meeting with the Premiers re changes to terrorism measures. What will be Kruddy and the Bomber’s response this time?
“To reassert the fundamental values of Australia”
He mentioned identification so first journo question, will we lose our civil liberties. Help us! Howard’s response, the right to be alive.
If only we didn’t have to win the fight against the “Left totemic issues” at the same time.
Regarding dual nationalities, I like having both aussie and septic passports. Means I can join the fast line either side of the pacific.
And as for any complaints against this mongrel? I’ve had a chat to HREOC and asked them about making a complaint. The lady handballed me to the website and suggested I can apply to the Commission for a determination as to whether action is warranted.
I think it is. We have an apparent religious community leader on national television calmly telling us that jihad is fine, and he’s not going to tell those in his (spiritual) care that they have to obey the laws of the county they are living in. If that’s not incitement and hate speech, I don’t know what is.
And as for ABC giving plenty of air time to this person? Well, they should be called to account, also.
I haven’t read the racial and religious intolerance act all the way through for a while. Might as well refresh myself.
The worst that can happen is that a complaint can get declined, isn’t it?
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 08 05 at 12:48 AM • permalink
for those who may be interested.
RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE ACT 2001
7. Racial vilification unlawful
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the race of another person or class of
persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for,
or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), conduct-
(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions
over a period of time; and
(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.Note: “engage in conduct” includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or
transmit statements or other material.8. Religious vilification unlawful
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of
another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred
against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other
person or class of persons.
Note: “engage in conduct” includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or
transmit statements or other material.(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), conduct-
(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions
over a period of time; and
(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.9. Motive and dominant ground irrelevant
(1) In determining whether a person has contravened section 7 or 8, the
person’s motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant.(2) In determining whether a person has contravened section 7 or 8, it is
irrelevant whether or not the race or religious belief or activity of another
person or class of persons is the only or dominant ground for the conduct, so
long as it is a substantial ground.11. Exceptions-public conduct
A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the
person’s conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith-
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made
or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for-
(i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or
(ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or(c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or
matter of public interest.12. Exceptions-private conduct
(1) A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that
the person engaged in the conduct in circumstances that may reasonably be
taken to indicate that the parties to the conduct desire it to be heard or
seen only by themselves.(2) Sub-section (1) does not apply in relation to conduct in any circumstances
in which the parties to the conduct ought reasonably to expect that it may be
heard or seen by someone else.19. Who may complain?
(1) The following may complain to the Commission-(a) a person who claims that another person has contravened a provision of
Part 2 in relation to that person;
(b) if that person is unable to complain because of impairment-(i) a person authorised by that person to act on his or her behalf; or
(ii) if that person is unable to authorise another person, any other person
on his or her behalf;
- While not wanting to get too personal, I acknowledge the views of the ones here who have dual citizenship. Fair enough – if that is the system in force at the time there is no reason you shouldn’t take advantage of it.
But (that word again) I think citizenship should go a bit deeper than what perks are available – after all thats what has helped create the problems we have – and I think dual citizenship is a luxury we can’t afford.
Without trying to offend anyone, you should be committed to just one country – whether by adoption or birth – and no other.
My US citizenship is an accident of birth. On Mum’s side we go back to the First Fleet (bloody Irish criminals!) and Cornish miners in the 1860s. On Dad’s side are settlers from England.
Hell, there used to be a rumour of aboriginal blood, but it turns out that my grandfather was a bit of a lair and got an aboriginal woman pregnant when he was up in the Territory. The only reason anybody found out about it was because the woman wrote to tell him the boy had died. Gotta love family history!
I guess if push came to shove I’d have to stick with the Aussie citizenship. I have lived here all of my life bar a few months, after all. It’s just great for travelling.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 08 05 at 02:28 AM • permalink
Yes, ‘Drake. You missed the fact that he just resigned.
Ahem, ‘Strop, I wrote, “Why wouldn’t Carr be a good choice for a war cabinet (assuming he was still in politics)?” I do actually read the SMH, you know. (Like everyone on this site does apparently, judging by the number of references to articles by SMH/Age journos.)
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 08 05 at 04:54 AM • permalink
rhhardin is right, these characters arent just a bunch of misguided goons to be mocked, they are the real thing and will gladly cut your throat without a blink.
They want war and war they will make, Iran is building its nuclear weapons and AQ is massaging the public into a state of cringing fear. The US’ hands are tied by the chattering of the PC public. If Islam is not met with hard force now the future is bleak, they will fight to the bitter end to impose their beliefs on you.
- Loinel Mandrake:
Ahem to you too.
Since you are looking for things to be offended about, you are painting yourself into troll colours. All of you do it, despite trying to remain here as some sort of competition perhaps?
My preference for Kim over Bob needs no apology, and is a device you selected for your attempted contretemps.
Kim is a much more logical choice for war cabinet, as a former, and very competent Minister For Defence.
I served in that department for 17 years and was there during his tenure as Minister.
Can I not express an opinion about that without a troll like yourself having a go? You have contributed little to this site except for nuisance posts of the sort above.
- Blogstrop,
1) What do you mean by “trying to remain here as some sort of competition”? Do you own this site? Does it have a sign on the main page saying “Begone, all ye scurvy knaves who disagree with Blogstrop”?
2) Of course you can express an opinion about whatever you want. But I can express an opinion on your opinion, can’t I? People here are allowed to comment politely on other people’s posts, I believe?
3) I’m a troll? A “troll” here is someone who either insults people or who rants about bu$hitler etc. Point to one instance of me doing either!
4) Incidentally, you’re not the only one who served in Defence.
5) I apologise to the others here for wasting space and bandwidth, but I don’t like being accused of trollery.Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 08 05 at 05:57 AM • permalink
Would you two have your domestic elsewhere?
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 08 05 at 06:22 AM • permalink
According to Antony Loewenstein, “Throughout the Muslim world, progressive politics is rearing its head.”!!! Tim is lying!
Posted by James Waterton on 2005 08 05 at 09:02 AM • permalink
If by “progressive” Loewenstein means that some Muslims are following patterns set by the Sandinistas or Stalin’s pre-WWII purges, he may have a point.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 05 at 09:18 AM • permalink
I suspect the Islamists’ reality-based universe shares many characteristics with that of the progressives, too.
Anyway, I’m with pog-ma-thon here. I don’t see the harm in having multiple citizenships, but I really wish Western governments became MUCH more aggressive about nullifying naturalizations when the person is found to advocate the overthrow of the democratic system of the country.
Australians have to write their government representative and demand that ‘Abdul Nacer Benbrika, also known as Abu Bakr’ and his students be deported to their shitholes of origin. People like them are pollution in the purest sense of the word, contaminating and degrading the living conditions of humanity wherever they spread.
In your letters be sure to use terms like, ‘if we can save just one life it will be worth it.. Zero tolerance.. it’s for the children’.. etc. Get the laws changed so that the authorities can flush these turds as soon as they expose themselves.
Concerning Arab names: Arab students at my university were notorious for taking out car loans and bank loans under one of their names, renting apartments under another of their names, and enrolling in the university under still another. At times, when evaluating their records for graduation, I had a hard time matching paperwork because they couldn’t keep straight which name they were using. And at that time, the INS rarely bothered to check on them.
The excuse? One student bragged that Muslims could legally duck paying back their loans because it was against their religion to pay interest. And because they used so many names, it was next to impossible to track them down.
After all, we’re just a bunch of dirty kuffirs, right?
The only trouble I’ve seen Lionel cause is disagreeing (sometimes wrongly, but generally politely and reasonably) with something that’s been said, and I’d like to think we can handle disagreement … since we’re not a bunch of bobbleheads like the lefties.
Getting back to the actual topic of this thread: This guy needs to go, and yesterday.
#25, pog, IANAL, but just wondering where this this might fit in:
AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 1948 – SECT 21
Deprivation of citizenship
(1)
Where:(a)
a person who is an Australian citizen by virtue of a certificate of Australian citizenship:
(i)
has been convicted of an offence against section 50 in relation to the application for the certificate of Australian citizenship; or
(ii)
has, at any time after furnishing the application for the certificate of Australian citizenship (including a time after the grant of the certificate), been convicted of an offence against a law in force in a foreign country or against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory for which the person has been sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 12 months, being an offence committed at any time before the grant of the certificate (including a time before the furnishing of the application); or
(iii)
in respect of a person who was granted the certificate of Australian citizenship as a result of an application for the certificate made after the commencement of this subparagraph—obtained the certificate as a result of migration-related fraud; and
(b)
the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to continue to be an Australian citizen;
the Minister may, in the Minister’s discretion, by order, deprive the person of his or her Australian citizenship, and the person shall, upon the making of the order, cease to be an Australian citizen.Needless to say there are a few footnotes, but it could be a start.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 08 05 at 07:15 PM • permalink
On Nicky’s and my blog, I argue that multiculti is actually multi-culty a dangerous, brainwashing cult.
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 06 at 12:12 AM • permalink
- How about we start trying to reclaim the language. That is what the left use to control the debate, after all (eg. ‘unfair dismissal’ rather than ‘fair dismissal’ makes it hard to rationally debate the details).
In this case, ‘multicultural’ allows too much separateness, but to go to ‘assimilation’ could be a bit boring.Howabout ‘multi-integration’?As for our mate abu baku, how about confinement in the torpedo bay of a collins class sub? (sorry blogstop, but whenever I think of bomber beasley as defence minister, I think of the expensive disaster that is collins class).
Kim Beasley as Defence Minister left Australia with a defence force that was virtually incapable of deployed operations, thanks to his inability and unwillingness to prepare for any threat unless and until it arrived in territorial waters.
Posted by Young and Free on 2005 08 06 at 03:46 AM • permalink
And I might add that Kim Beasley as Opposition Leader has opened up and continues to leave open the crack of hope that Australian government policy (particularly under a Beasley-led ALP government) can be dictated by terrorists. His response following the London bombings – that Australian troops should be withdrawn from Iraq – is reprehensible. Hence only 22% of opinion poll respondents regard Beasley as better than Howard on national security.
Do we want this blowhard in a “war cabinet”? My arse!
Posted by Young and Free on 2005 08 06 at 03:50 AM • permalink
Yes, and then there is the whole ‘Defense of Australia’ stchick that sounds awfully good until you realise that no -one in their right mind would try and invade australia. it would be too easy to cut of the lines of supply. What Kimbo’s ‘Defense of Australia’/isolationist policy was really about was distracting the right while winding down the defense force as the left wanted.
- Australia’s Defence posture from the mid 80’s was based on Paul Dibb’s White Paper which saw no credible threats.
The credible threats have now landed and are being funded by a mixture of social security, car rebirthing and Saudi money – paid for by the West, which does not take oil, but pays for it.
Can you imagine a situation where, say, Australia had the majority of the world’s iron ore, and used it in the way oil has been used by the Middle East since the early 70’s?
(b) the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to continue to be an Australian citizen;
the Minister may, in the Minister’s discretion, by order, deprive the person of his or her Australian citizenship, and the person shall, upon the making of the order, cease to be an Australian citizen.Reckon this bit is appropriate. Do we petition the Minister?
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Members:
Login | Register | Member List
Rported in :
The Age