Friday, February 26, 2010
* From: Herald Sun
* February 26, 2010 12:00AM
WE didn't need the Rudd Government to tell us this week that, ahem, our own Muslim community is now a growing terrorist threat.
What we needed was to hear what the Government planned to do about it.
And the answers in its new White Paper on counter-terrorism?
Have your say at Andrew's blog
Virtually zilch. Not even a word on whether it would be wise to cut immigration from Muslim nations, now running at about 28,000 a year.
Nor was there anything about ending the mad multiculturalism that rewards most those who integrate least.
Rather the reverse. The Government promised more of the stuff that's clearly not doing the job - more of that "multiculturalism and respect for cultural diversity to maintain a society that is resilient to the hate-based and divisive narratives that fuel terrorism".
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Hey, guys. If multiculturalism has made us so "resilient to the hate-based and divisive narratives" of jihadism, why does your White Paper admit that "numerous terrorist attacks" have had to be "thwarted" in Australia since 2001, and that we now have 20 people jailed on terrorism charges, 38 people charged after anti-terrorism operations (presumably all, or mostly, Muslims, too) and 40 more denied passports?
That's sure a lot of strife from just 340,000 Australian Muslims, as measured by the last census.
We've actually got more Buddhists here, but when did you last hear of any plotting to blow us up?
Like I said, the threat from our own home-grown or imported jihadists was already perfectly clear.
We could figure that out just from this month's news that another five Muslims in Sydney had been jailed for plotting terrorism and gathering 12 firearms, 28,000 rounds of ammunition and four boxes of material for high explosives.
But even more of a wake-up were the comments from so many leaders of our Muslim community.
Uthman Badar, from the Australian arm of the extremist Hizb ut-Tahrir, cried persecution, and claimed poor Muslims were being prosecuted merely for their ideas: "The anti-terror laws were designed to silence Muslims through fear and intimidation."
Samir Dandan, from the Lebanese Muslim Association, also fed the poor-us-against-them division, saying Muslims believed they were punished harder than the rest of us, while Keysar Trad, of them Islamic Friendship Association, blamed the "anger" of Muslims on our own alleged violence against Islamic countries.
Even more worryingly, 10 imams and 20 Muslim "community leaders" met in Lakemba, at Australia's biggest mosque, to sign a statement demanding police show them proof that the five jailed men had criminal intentions.
Never mind that the police evidence had been enough to convince an Australian jury: "Until we see the real evidence, we believe that the reason for the arrests and convictions
is that these young men expressed or hold opinions that contradict Australia's foreign policy towards majority Muslim countries."
Meanwhile, outside the mosque, The Australian reported, "a group of young men pumped their fists in the air and accused ASIO of being dogs".
This is the scenario, repeated so often over the past decade, that every Australian could see for themselves - of Muslims planning or waging jihad, only to be defended or excused by "community leaders".
And this is the reality that the Government's White Paper now concedes in the frankest language I've heard in public.
"A ... shift apparent since 2004 has been the increase in the terrorist threat from people born or raised in Australia, who have become influenced by the violent jihadist message," it warns. "A number of Australians are known to subscribe to this message, some of whom might be prepared to engage in violence. Many of these individuals were born in Australia and they come from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds."
AND then this warning, so pregnant with implications: "The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as the size and make-up of local Muslim populations, including their ethnic and/or migrant origins, their geographical distribution and the success or otherwise of their integration into their host society."
Let me decode that. The Government admits the size of this growing terrorism threat depends on the size of our Muslim population.
Isn't that then the debate we must have?
Yes, I know most Muslims here, my friends included, are peace-loving Australians, and I do not mean to offend them or expose them to unmerited suspicion. I also admire those Muslims I know who have stood against the extremists. But I do mean to have a frank conversation.
After all, this report also points out terrorism isn't necessarily related to poverty, and that our wanna-be terrorists are often not the Muslims we accepted as immigrants, but their born-here children. What's more, they come from a "wide range of ethnic groups".
That means we can't keep out tomorrow's terrorists just by bringing in only nice, hard-working Muslims from countries we trust. What of their later children, newly radicalised in mosques, universities or prisons?
Surely one way to minimise the danger, then, is to cut Muslim immigration, or at least freeze it until the jihadist wind blows out.
Should we really be bringing in more than 28,000 people a year from Muslim lands such as Pakistan, the Middle East, North Africa, Bangladesh, Somalia, Afghanistan and Indonesia?
But on this issue the Government says nothing. Nor will it discuss dismantling multiculturalism, which at one stage had taxpayers funding the pro-bin Laden Islamic Youth Movement of Australia.
But why is multiculturalism sacred, when even this White Paper says one "pathway to violent extremism" is through "identity politics"?
After all, multiculturalism subsidises identity politics with your money while making Australia seem too weak or even shameful to deserve the first loyalty of a confused young man.
So what did the Government, badly needing a distraction from its insulation debacle, propose instead?
Only easy, uncontroversial tinkering with controls at our borders, rather than anything to deal with the people who've got through already.
THERE will be better border checks, for instance, and our spy agencies will help try to stop the flood of boat people unleashed by the Government's rash softening of our laws.
I don't mean to single this Government out as unusually weak on the threat within. In some ways the Howard government was even worse.
Example? The White Paper warns that a "small number" of Muslims here support foreign terrorist groups that might use Australia as "a suitable or convenient location for an attack on their enemies".
It adds: "This includes groups with a long history of engaging in terrorist acts and a current capability to commit them, such as Lebanese Hizballah's External Security Organisation."
So Hezbollah (our spelling) has an active terrorist wing and could strike here? Then why did John Howard as prime minister pick for his Muslim Community Reference Group at least five Muslim leaders who defended Hezbollah, including Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilali, then the Mufti of Australia, and Sheik Fehmi Naji el-Imam, who succeeded him?
I am not saying these men would ever support Hezbollah terrorist attacks here, but how many of their followers could be trusted to draw the line? Answer: no one knows, but our experts fear. So until we get more reassurance, we'll need more action than this paper proposes.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
This article is from Before It's News
Political correctness has become a deadly censorship that must be stopped if America is to survive as a nation. It is our nations number one enemy and poses a greater threat than Osama Bin Laden and the Islamic Jihadists. It is political correctness that prevents us from clearly understanding and properly identifying this enemy. It keeps us from calling a spade a spade, and thus pandering to evil. Political correctness enables appeasement and passivity to a dangerous and dreadful degree as exemplified by the Jihadist attack killing 13 at Ft. Hood, Texas.
In order to break free from this prison of political correctness in which we have locked ourselves, we must first see it for what it is. We hear about it constantly, but I believe a clouded understanding of it keeps us bowing to its demands, and thus enshrouded in fear.
Political correctness has been defined in many different ways. One of the most accurate was expressed by President Bush (the elder) when he wrote on a blog after the Ft. Hood attack, The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain expressions, even certain gestures, off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.
Political correctness has ultimately created a state of fear preventing the expression of truth. People do not communicate what they really think or believe for fear of offending others. This is the essence of this cowardly phenomenon that is, at its core, a lie.
It is also completely backwards if looked at in a rational sense. If I allow poltical correctness to be a factor in my interactions with others, then what I am actually communicating to them is that I dont think they have the strength and confidence of character to appreciate and respect another persons opinions, beliefs and convictions, if they happen to think or believe differently. In other words, political correctness is an insult to another persons inherent self confidence and self worth – it is a veiled condescension. The person attempting to be politically correct is basically saying, I think youre too fragile to deal with something different, and therefore I will put on kid gloves and cater to your weakness.
Summarily, the manner or posture of political correctness should be offensive to those it is meant to protect.
What is the consequence of such absurdity? A severely weakened citizenry. A nation of timid souls and sheepish people. We are relegated to keeping quiet and passive in the face of injustice and evil. Guy Rodgers, Executive Director of American Congress for Truth, may have said it best:
…a culture of political correctness actively fostered in academia, government, the media, and in the military and law enforcement, has created a climate of fear in this country that has not only compromised our safety and security, but compromised our cherished ideals of a free press and free speech. It has also produced an unwillingness, and even an inability, to accurately define our enemy. This has left us highly vulnerable to the creeping advance of cultural Jihad and the infiltration of government, media, academia, and the entertainment industry by committed Islamists whose ultimate objective is the downfall of our constitutional form of government and the imposition of Islamic shariah law.
Thus is the state of our current prison sentence. We must break free or America will fall. Doing so will require bold speech and action in the face of persecution. The unvarnished truth must be championed and touted by every God-fearing, red-blooded American, every day and in every way.
May God help us speak the truth in love, for it is the only thing that will set us free…
Friday, February 19, 2010
Reporter: Jamie Doran and Clover Films
Over six months an Afghani journalist, Najibullah Quraishi, has risked his life to document the practice of Bacha Bazi (boy play), where young men are forced into prostitution serving the needs of rich and powerful men.
The filmmaker follows those who make a living procuring young boys, and those who abuse them. The result is a deeply disturbing portrait of a society that publicly promotes a strict moral code while effectively condoning systematic child abuse.
Imagine being nine or ten years old. You are orphaned and living on the streets of a city in Afghanistan. You are approached by a man you do not know. He will clothe, feed and "protect" you. All you must do is learn to dance.
At first you will practice your routine with another young man. After weeks of training you will make your debut dancing before a crowd of men. Many are former warlords who helped the Karzai Government make its way to power. Others might be powerful businessmen.
Before you dance you will be given clothes and make up to make you look feminine. After the dancing, the men are excited and they bid for your company. If you please a warlord or businessman they will pay highly for your favours. Ultimately you will be traded, violated and abused by a large number of men.
This is the world of the Bacha Bereesh, which means "beardless boys". These children are groomed to become sex slaves. It is not a new practice. In Afghanistan the Warlords often kept young boys as their sexual partners. But in modern Afghanistan the practice has evolved into a lucrative and expanding business. In a country ravaged by war orphaned boys are being openly targeted by paedophiles. Some families are so poor that they are willing to sell their sons into slavery. Official reports now suggest thousands of children are at risk.
For the first time on television this practice is finally exposed. A locally born reporter has taken a camera and gone inside the world of the dancing boys. He goes with the "protector" as this man buys children. The reporter is told how the boys are trained and he is told how the "protector" will rent them out and take his "cut".
The documentary finds evidence that this practice is not confined to any one area of Afghanistan. Although it is popular in the north it is now spreading across the country.
The investigation also shows what happens when the boys mature or fall out of favour with the men who desire them. Some are abandoned, others are killed. Asked what impact this life has on the boys, one local says: "They are just boys, they will forget about it."
It is an investigation that has a special resonance for anyone watching in Australia. The people committing the abuse on these children are powerful figures in Afghan society. They are given license to commit these criminal acts by the very governments that are supposed to be our allies in the war on terror and the lethal contest against the Taliban.
"The Warlord's Tune" is produced and scripted by award winning documentary maker Jamie Doran.
It goes to air on Four Corners on Monday 22nd February at 8.30pm on ABC1. It is repeated on Tuesday 23rd at 11.35pm. Also available online.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
- Reporter: David Eccleston
- Broadcast Date: February 16, 2010
Reverse racism. What is it, are you a victim of it?
Have you been sacked or refused a job because you're an Anglo Saxon Australian?
While other countries are busy branding Australians as racial bigots - the truth might be far more frightening.
For example, what does the law say about an employer who hires only Indian or Chinese workers?
This year over 35,000 people who came to Australia on temporary 457 Visas will be granted permanent skilled visas to stay in the country.
For years as a nation we've been battling, and rightly so, to stop the mistreatment of minorities, but some are now saying we've gone too far.
Craig Whitney was working at a meatworks in Ipswich - he says his employers started stripping shifts from white workers in favour of cheap foreign labourers less likely to complain that they're paid less to work more.
"It felt like a crime to be White Caucasian, they definitely wanted to get rid of me," Craig said.
"It was planned all along, to get rid of the Aussies because, I believe, the Australians were too expensive to hire and if they get the cheaper labour in they cut costs."
"One to two days of work were all us Aussies were on, where the Chinese or foreigners were on forty hours a week guaranteed."
Craig wants it known he's not racist. In fact, he and his Thai wife Rattiya now run a Thai restaurant in Brisbane.
Andrew Ferguson is from the 120,000 member strong Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. His CFMEU says that because new migrants speak little English, and they've come from third world countries, they have no idea about award rates and penalties. In other words, they won't complain when they're being shafted - most are not union members.
"There is workers now complaining about wage cuts, not having work, and a threat to living standards. We can see it is only going to get worse in future years," Andrew said.
"Without a doubt there is reverse racism. There is employers that get gangs of workers from a particular language group, use them as cheap labour, exploit them and undermine labour standards."
Mr Ferguson points says its not just taking place in factories. He says it's taking place at the carwash, the supermarket and the takeaway.
Darrin Hodges represents the Australian Protectionist Party which claims the Australian way of life is under threat. The party is campaigning for a 'one in one out' immigration policy. And to protect the jobs of Australian workers.
"Reverse racism can be called positive discrimination or affirmative action and it's basically the idea that there's a sense of political disenfranchisement for the majority... who, even though they're like a majority, politically they're like a minority," Darrin said.
"If it's racist for the protectionist party to advocate on behalf of their identity, then groups like the Lebanese Muslim Association must also be racist, they're advocating on behalf of Lebanese Muslims."
"It would not be a problem if the same standards were applied to a business that wanted to employ solely white Australians."
National race discrimination Commissioner Graeme Innes maintains the union movement and Mr Hodges are compromised by self serving interests. He's calling for a new multicultural policy to stamp out entrenched workplace racism and celebrate diversity.
Innes says we should get a start on making new arrivals feel welcome, valued and safe.
"Newly arriving immigrants in Australia have not been welcomed and celebrated over many, many years," Graeme said.
"People in minorities in Australia, where the persistent pockets of racism occur, are not getting a fair go."
"Indian students are not getting a fair go. The 20 per cent of people who experience race hate talk are not getting a fair go and that's why I say racism is un-Australian."
So, are the views of Darrin Hodges racist?
"No.I don't hate anyone. I'm simply here as part of the protectionist party to advocate on behalf of the majority of Australians and the majority of Australians are people like me, in appearance... So if that's racist them maybe I'm racist," Darrin said.
"We need to dispense with this idea of multiculturalism. We need to go back to the idea of assimilation where we encourage people to become a part of the general Australian society instead of saying to them, look there's an ethnic enclave that's populated by your group, you go and live there and you can be outside of the Australian mainstream society."
read more here today tonight
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
- Barry Cohen
- From: The Australian
- February 02, 2010 12:00AM
NOW that Kevin Rudd has informed us that he favours a "big Australia" with a population reaching 35 million by 2050, will he also tell us what happens then? Do we continue to pursue policies that will further double our population by 2100, causing us to cease immigration altogether and then apply the Chinese solution: one child per family? And if the population is to increase to 35 million, what's the rush to get there so quickly?
Thanks to the ABC, Kerry O'Brien and The 7.30 Report, which devoted most of last week to showcasing the question of population growth, it appears that at last we are going to have the public debate some of us have been seeking for years.
I once asked in question time whether the prime minister was aware that immigration levels were causing concern because of the pressure they exert on "education, health and social services, housing and land prices and the consequent diminution in the quality of life that overcrowded cities have on our environment". I asked for a white paper on immigration to evaluate the costs and benefits of continued large-scale immigration. That was on June 10, 1970, and John Gorton's answer indicated he was none too pleased with my question. Neither was Labor's immigration spokesman Fred Daly. Having written and spoken about the issue for 40 years, I'm delighted a serious debate is about to begin.
My view then was that Australia couldn't have an immigration policy without first having a population policy. It hasn't changed.
The then minister for immigration, Phil Lynch, understood what I was on about. He set up an inquiry under Wilfred Borrie, but when Borrie eventually reported in 1978, no mention was made of population numbers.
What surprises me is that Rudd has decided to support a massive increase without the matter being debated in public, the parliament, the party or the press. I am not alone in my concern.
What advocates of big Australia haven't yet done is spelt out clearly the benefits from such a huge population increase. In the early 1990s our annual growth rate, including immigration as well as births and deaths, dropped below 1 per cent. It is now, thanks to more babies and more people living longer, almost 2 per cent.
With a population of 22 million, the deterioration in the quality of life in our cities is already obvious. Daily our media highlights the inadequacy of our schools, hospitals and transport system, housing and water shortages, and spiralling land prices. You don't need to be an urban planner, demographer or sociologist to see the problems.
If the 35 million predicted by 2050 is correct, with Sydney and Melbourne rising to seven million each, we are courting disaster. Double the population and life in the cities will be intolerable.
No, no, say the big Australians, we can take millions more. We can but who will benefit? It is up to the big Australians to show how this will improve the quality of life for present and future generations of Australians.
In the immediate post-war period, Australia, having just fought a war of survival with the Japanese, recognised that we could not occupy or defend a vast island continent with six million people. It may seem xenophobic today but fear of being swamped by the yellow peril before, during and after World War II was real enough. Most of these fears have now abated and, thankfully, with the end of the White Australia policy, most Australians recognise that our security is no longer dependent on increased population. If it is, what numbers will be necessary to repel the three billion who live to our near north? .
The other reason given at the time was that a larger population would provide our manufacturers with the economies of scale. That may have had some validity then, but Australia's economy now depends more on mining, tourism and agriculture as well as financial and educational services rather than manufacturing.
The Prime Minister might also care to explain why the government is telling us we must reduce our carbon footprint while suggesting we should double the number of feet. We appear to be on two different planets. Some suggest that not to share our country with millions more immigrants is selfish and that we have the responsibility to help other countries to lighten their population load.
Excuse me? What about helping them with population control?
Why has it taken so long for this debate to take place? One reason is that the ethnic lobby brands anyone who questions immigration as racist. That won't work with the type of people who are now entering the debate. People of the calibre of Dick Smith, Bob Carr and, if I may say so, yours truly can't be so labelled.
More and more Australians are speaking out on this issue and they will not be silenced out of fear of being blackguarded by those afraid to seriously debate the issue.
The pundits suggest the federal election will be fought on the economy, climate change, health care and education. To that we can add population and immigration. It's the big sleeper. Rudd and Tony Abbott take note. It will be a debate not about who comes to this country but how many.
Barry Cohen was a minister in the Hawke government.
Monday, February 1, 2010
There are essentially two models for the current encounter between Islam and the West. The Clash of Civilizations, the first model is held by a narrow slice of the population in First World countries, and an even smaller slice within the political and academic world. This model holds that we are experiencing a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. A clash of civilizations resulting from the desire of Muslims to create a global civilization based on their religion and culture, by displacing all competing civilizations, primarily (but not limited to) Western Civilization. ---
-- the Assimilationist Model remains very hard to shake. Its optimism and humanism makes it seem morally indefensible to its followers. But its fatal flaw, like that of all utopian delusions, is that it is completely unreal.
The core meaning of utopia is a place that cannot exist. The Assimilationist Model too posits a mythical place brought to life by the ideological will and intellectual laziness of a civilization at war, but refusing to acknowledge it. The rate of global Muslim violence has been steadily increasing, and while the proponents of the Assimilationist Model will always defend it by finding new sources to blame for growing Muslim outrage, almost as quickly as Osama bin Laden's videotaped ghost does (US Troops in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Global Warming, Western Culture, the WTO), this sort of intellectual sloppiness cannot even begin to explain why Muslim violence is not limited to the West, why it is not limited to developed countries, why in fact its only distinctive characteristic is the Muslim violence itself.
The Clash of Civilizations remains the only rational explanation and prescription for action. But it is also a difficult one, both practically and morally for many people to accept. But understanding the other side, requires understanding the flaws of the Assimilationist Model. For it is by understanding the nature of another's delusion, that we can begin to show them the truth.