Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original

Old 6th Oct 2014, 09:39
  #14781 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Now stewing on the fact that due to this Gottverdammt Covid-19 curse I am not returning to Japan this year, or going anywhere for that matter! So just continuing the search for that bad bottle of Red!
Age: 66
Posts: 2,588
my view of Labor policies are that they would of been slightly better than the current Lib fiasco.
'Would of been...'

Would have or would've and no I'm not being pedantic. Just using correct English.

And I have changed my mind in one respect with you Ethel.
I am no longer of the opinion that you are a Labor staffer.

A greens one, more likely.

rh200; Well put.
Pinky the pilot is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 19:13
  #14782 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
This link arrived in my morning emails from a friend in Canberra.

Shorten trying to force multiculturalism and Islam down our throats

The article gives Bill Shorten a bit of a serve, but then has the letter below:

Recently, Dr Ghena Krayem, a Muslim academic agitator released her book titled, ”Islamic Family Law In Australia – To Recognise Or Not To Recognise”. This book promotes the concept of a dangerously divided pluralistic Australia. In other words it promotes the introduction of Sharia Law. Not only does it promote Sharia Law but, it has been given a green light by the Chief Justice of the Family Court in Australia, Justice Diana Bryant AO.

Diana Bryant’s support of this book caused a great deal of concern for a group of senior Australians who wrote to her in very courteous terms. They received a reply, treated with the greatest of courtesy, did their homework, and then wrote a second letter to Bryant laying out their qualified concerns.



23 August 2014
Ms Diana Bryant, AO,
Chief Justice,
Family Court of Australia,
305 William Street.,
MELBOURNE. VIC. 3000.

Dear Ms Bryant,
Many thanks for your courteous reply to our letter re the book launch “Islamic Family Law in Australia”.

We have purchased and reviewed the subject book, in a joint discussion at our meeting of 40 senior Australians, (5 Jewish persons included), and we would like to make the following submission in contradiction of Dr.Krayem’s representations.

Firstly, when foreign migrants (minorities) choose Australia (a non-Islamic country) to be their home, then surely along with this decision comes the understanding that they and all subsequent children, do inherit and must abide by the legal systems/cultures of their new host country?

Unfortunately, unless one has read the Quran, Hadiths, Sura’s, (also read and reviewed by our group), most Australians innocently, are unaware of the true underlying nature of this doctrine and how “Sharia” forms (along with Halal) the start of Islamic people’s desire to disassociate from these responsibilities and to request concessions for changes in line with their doctrine/faith, as no other race or religious peoples have sought to do! To consider “Pluralism” (surely another word for parallel?) as Dr. Krayem suggests, must surely create chaos and a logistical nightmare, if as suggested ‘minorities’ such as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism are allowed to run additional but disparate systems alongside Australian Law?

The important question here is, do any of these other ‘faiths’ require this concession or is it only Islam??

Dr. Krayem references a number of Academics and Philosophers to support her Sharia argument, however there are any number of reputable rebuttal scholars available, able to provide damning evidence to contradict her theories. We believe it is imperative that before any consideration could possibly be made, a must read is, “Reliance of the Traveller” a Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, and comprehensive guide to Sharia. Extremely informative for non-Muslims! Additional reference books that provide greater insight into Sharia and Islam, are by Australian Dr. Mark Durie.

On reviewing Dr. Krayem’s book, the following observations are made!

• This book only talks about the “rights of minorities”, although we cannot recall hearing any complaints in the last 50 years from other religious minorities who have settled in Australia! i.e. Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, all living within our existing State liberal legal system. Is this because these ‘faiths’ are just that?? They are purely religions, whereas Islam is a totalitarian doctrine, i.e. Legal, political and plus religion?

• Unfortunately globally it appears that the Western World is allowing this one doctrine to alter the rights and freedoms (speech to name just one) of the majority host peoples, in favour of this one minority in the name of “Multiculturalism”! How do the majority indigenous peoples get to defend the loss of these rights when well meaning policies are decided for them, generally without consultation to the general public??

• Using Canada and UK to support Dr. Krayem’s cause, Canada it appears less accommodating than UK, but UK now experiencing huge Muslim/Islamic problems, and an undercover video demonstrates Sharia Councils administering exactly the model that this book is espousing, it clearly shows definite discrimination against women and children as compared to men! (link provided in my first letter)

• This is contrary to Dr. Krayem’s argument that the “public accommodation” of Sharia Family Law once granted, then “human rights values will be upheld because liberal democratic states are subject to many rights-protecting mechanisms, that would make it legally impossible to establish illiberal rule. Protection coming from civic education to develop a strong human rights culture”, and would be forced by threat of exposure and public opinion!!

However, this is debatable! This is a very closed secretive society, with (NSW Minister The Hon. Pru Goward, and social workers) publicly acknowledging that abuses against muslim women are occurring now on a daily basis, sadly seldom appearing in the media (FGM, forced marriages), and almost never penalised!!

• Krayem espouses, not seeking ‘full sharia’ compliance, (acknowledges from Canada/UK’s experience that public as a whole, too frightened by this concept????), but selective, i.e. family law/financial transactions?

• Why, if Sharia is so integral to the Muslim people’s “identity and cultural uniqueness” are they seeking only the implementation of a small part of it???? Is it because their belief is to start simply, then easier to slowly demand more, once established in our society? (Maybe as their percentage of population grows) to introduce the remaining “frightening” parts? As is occurring now in Iraq/Syria where IS is declaring “full sharia” compliance, with horrifying barbaric consequences to both Muslim and non-muslim alike???

Surely to acquaint oneself with a true knowledge of Islam, and all that this Doctrine embodies, is a fundamental responsibility? Making the time in no doubt a very busy schedule, is important to achieve a greater understanding of the values in the Islamic belief system, and can only assist in preventing, well-meaning Australians ‘in positions of power’ from innocently accommodating a 14th century supremacist doctrine to the detriment of the majority’s rights and best interests!

Yours Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

cc. The Hon. Senator Brandis. The Hon. Warren Truss.
Breathlessly awaiting your reply, Ethel.
MTOW is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 19:28
  #14783 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Nothing like a bit of brainwashing
As yours has been washed, I lend you some credibility on this topic from an experience standpoint. But as your brain seems to have been washed, your recent postings are extremely suspect, as they can generally be discredited on their face by anyone with any sense of logic.

Also, does your defense of religious freedom extend to honor killings?
BenThere is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 20:39
  #14784 (permalink)  
7x7
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Two more interesting articles from the same website that MTOW linked in his post.

Men Bernardi Australian defence ? News

Moral equivalence Andrew Leigh ? News
7x7 is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 20:48
  #14785 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
Ben There
Also, does your defense of religious freedom extend to honor killings?
Do you have a problem with killing folks generally or just killing in defence of what you believe in?
John Hill is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 20:58
  #14786 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Do you have a problem with killing folks generally or just killing in defence of what you believe in?
A fair question. I have a huge problem with killing folks generally. And, as general killing seems to be the proclivity of a significant segment of the followers of Mohammed, I have a problem with that.

Also, general killing is a trait of socialism in the 20th century. Do you have a problem with general killing, John?

I would kill to defend my right to believe in what I choose, if that is your question.
BenThere is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 21:03
  #14787 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
I would kill to defend my right to believe in what I choose, if that is your question.
Obviously then if you were born into a culture that promotes honour killings you would be right there along with the other zealots.
John Hill is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 21:14
  #14788 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Nor exactly, John. I would kill to defend, not assert. I'd like to think that if I had been born into a culture that justified honor killing, I would have the cerebral cognizance to recognize the wrongness of it and reject it.

I always am grateful that I was born where I was, when I was. I can't imagine the stark emptiness of one who would cheer on a stoning, beheading, or the murder of a sister or daughter.

Lone Ranger, appreciate the defense, but I stand by defending my right to my beliefs (thoughts), even to the point of violence to defend. I have no problem with others' beliefs so long as they don't impact my beliefs, or my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
BenThere is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 21:32
  #14789 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
apart from the daily prayer practises they are believe it or not just like you or me
If you believe that, (as you obviously do), do yourself an enormous favour and watch the link below.

Video: Islam in Britanistan: Undercover Mosque | The Muslim Issue

If all you do, watch/listen to the few moments following 11min 25sec into the video. It's a pretty clear-cut opinion of a senior British Islamist cleric on the status of women. I wish there was some way I could sit Sarah Hanson-Young (and all the other feministas who champion Islam) down to watch and listen to the 60 seconds that follow 11:25 into that tape.
Andu is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 22:01
  #14790 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
On the link above, 36:15 to 41:30 is also interesting.
Andu is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 23:30
  #14791 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
BenThere, when you say you would kill to defend your right to believe in what you choose you are saying that your beliefs are more important to you than the lives of others.
John Hill is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 23:41
  #14792 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 808
BenThere, when you say you would kill to defend your right to believe in what you choose you are saying that your beliefs are more important to you than the lives of others.
How important the lives of others are, is just a belief as well! As such chnages across cultures and situation.
rh200 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2014, 06:53
  #14793 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 84
The R.C. into "Trade Unions being naughty" has announced that the commission will continue into next year.In part it stated the following..........
" the inquiry thus far has revealed evidence of criminal conduct which includes widespread instances of physical and verbal violence, cartel conduct, secondary boycotts, contempt of court and other institutional orders and the encouragement of others to commit these contempts. Some officials appear to regard their unions as having immunity not only from the norms and sanctions of the Australian legal system, but also from any social or community standard shared by other Australians".


Attorney General Brandis later went on to say .....
"it is very plain that the problem of criminality and the associations between certain unions and certain union officials is a much more widespread problem than appeared to be the case".
No doubt Ethel will be along later to pour scorn on this non event.
bosnich71 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2014, 09:30
  #14794 (permalink)  
7x7
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
The female (Lisa Zanetta?) who admitted to perjury under oath. How long will she wait before the police come knocking on her door?

Quite a while, I suspect, if the speed VicPol have displayed before moving on Julia Gillard's role in the slush fund and the disappeared Kalgoorlie miners' widows' and orphans' funds is anything to go by.

Ms Zanetta at least looks like she could pull the young and naÔve defence with a bit more credibility than JEG.

Not a lot though.
7x7 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2014, 12:33
  #14795 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,066
No doubt Ethel will be along later to pour scorn on this non event.
But of course Bos, this union RC is a mere bagatelle, what really matters and what the learned profession should be concentrating on now is the (disputed) fact that our Prime Minister punched a wall thirty years ago!
parabellum is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2014, 06:50
  #14796 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Re Ms Zanatta and the Royal Commission: this from the Kangaroo Court of Australia site:

Any evidence that you give at a Royal Commission hearing is inadmissible against you in evidence in a later civil or criminal case. The exception being if you perjure yourself at a Royal Commission. The penalty for that is up to 5 years jail or a fine of up to $20,000. (See pages 749 and 750 of the Transcript)

And from page 750: (Q is Jeremy Stoljar, barrister for the RC) (A is Lisa Zanatta)

Q. I said to you that the evidence you gave to this Commission on your oath a few minutes ago about coming into George Street and ringing from a phone booth at York Street was an absolute lie, wasnít it?

A. Correct.

Q. So you gave that evidence knowing it was false?

A. I did.

Q. And you did that to conceal the role that Mr Parker had played in causing you to obtain Lis-Con documents; thatís right, isnít it?

A. I did that to protect a number of people.

Q. One of whom was Mr Parker?

A. Yes.

Q. And who were the other people you were protecting?

A. Well, Cbus and the CEO.

Q. Mr Atkin?

A. Correct.

And on page 761:

Q. Youíre just evading the question now, arenít you? See, youíve engaged in a deliberate and prolonged cover-up, havenít you, Ms Zanatta; thatís right, isnít it?

A. I wouldnít call it a cover-up. It was about protecting people and it was an inappropriate release of personal details, but again, I say that it wasnít the type of data that I would normally operate with and use.

And on page 762:

Q. You had deliberately concocted your false story before you came here; thatís right, isnít it? Youíd gone through the records and youíd worked out a story; thatís right, isnít it?

A. Correct, but not in relation to this issue.

Q. No, but Iím talking about the delivery of documents on 29 July. You have come to this Commission with that plan in mind; correct?

A. Correct

Q. To tell a false story; thatís right, isnít it?

A. Well, to protect people, yes.

Q. But you had come to this Commission with the intention, the premeditated intention, of giving false evidence; thatís right, isnít it?

A. Yes.

The last two lines of the transcript are the most damaging for Lisa Zanatta because she admitted to premeditated perjury and no one can defend that. Ms Zanatta clearly continued to perjure herself about other issues but her credibility is gone and so is her career.

Possible Criminal Charges

Lisa Zanatta should be charged and found guilty of perjury given her admission at the Royal Commission that she deliberately gave false evidence. There are possible other criminal charges as well given the data she took to Sydney was in effect stolen data. The fact that she flew the data up to Sydney instead of email or mail itself says that she knew what she was doing was corrupt.

Others who would want to be very worried include Cbus CEO David Atkin and NSW CFMEU Secretary Brian Parker. Mr Parker also gave evidence on Friday before Ms Zanatta and denied knowing how the data ended up in Sydney, instead Mr Parker and the CFMEU blamed whistleblower Brian Fitzpatrick. (Click here to read more)

Then there are CFMEU National Secretary Dave Noonan and NSW President Rita Mallia who are also both Directors of Cbus. They both have plenty to answer for as well and have a fiduciary duty as Directors
Andu is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2014, 07:22
  #14797 (permalink)  
7x7
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
I wonder how many people are re-considering their plans to go to Gallipoli in April 2015? It would seem to me to be a plum target for the Islamic radicals in so many ways. Massed Westerners in a very confined space celebrating a "Crusader invasion". I've heard that that's the spin being put on the 1915 failed landings by the new Turkish Government - a successful Muslim repulse of a "Crusader" army.
7x7 is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2014, 07:54
  #14798 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,066
I saw in The Australian the other day that many of the allocated seats/positions that had been won by ballot are not being taken up. One reason given was cost but I think your theory is the most likely 7X7.
parabellum is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2014, 14:05
  #14799 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 857
Wow. Anyone else see this?

Well done to the person who did the transcript!

Lateline - 08/10/2014: IS a reaction to unjust occupation

I wonder if he would have behaved like that with a male interviewer?

Last edited by Clare Prop; 8th Oct 2014 at 14:47.
Clare Prop is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2014, 15:29
  #14800 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Age: 21
Posts: 83
The dolt on Lateline was made to look a fool and by a woman. That will go down with his mates at the mosque. He is a prime example of parasites who use an Aussie accent under false pretences.
bugged on the right is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.