Gary Humphries tables bigoted petition against Muslims in the Senate

Grrrr said :

Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Let’s pretend that such “arbitration services” could or would ever be set up … If someone doesn’t think they’re getting a fair go under arbitration, they could use the services that arbitration is an alternative to – the courts. Right?

Intersting, do you think that muslim women would be allowed to divorce using mainstream Aussie courts if it was against the wishes of thier husbands and their Imam?

Do you really think a woman who may be under virtual house arrest by her husband and his family, who control the bank accounts and all monies could?

Do you think a woman in a foreign land who may not even speak English, and who may not have any contacts outside the family Mosque could just happily stroll into a solicitors, and ask for legal aid to divorce.

Grrrr said :

Did you leave England because there were too many Muslims there?

Nope, I left as I married an Aussie lady who promised me good weather, cold beer, and lots of hot sex, if I moved here.

Pommy bastard said :

Sharia courts can be set up in Aus as “arbitration services”, removing the need for them to comply with the constitution. Within them “judgements” could be settled and cases decided. Of course these “arbitrations” would be ruled under Sharia beliefs and perspectives, so everyone, women included, would get a fair chance of justice. Right?

Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Let’s pretend that such “arbitration services” could or would ever be set up … If someone doesn’t think they’re getting a fair go under arbitration, they could use the services that arbitration is an alternative to – the courts. Right?

Did you leave England because there were too many Muslims there?

Holden Caulfield said :

It’s bloody hard to change the Constitution, for a start.

Why bother changing it? Sharia courts can be set up in Aus as “arbitration services”, removing the need for them to comply with the constitution. Within them “judgements” could be settled and cases decided. Of course these “arbitrations” would be ruled under Sharia beliefs and perspectives, so everyone, women included, would get a fair chance of justice. Right?

Instead about complaining about the petition, or that Humphries tabled it, how about someone draw up a petition repudiating all the points in the original petition, get people to sign it, and then get Humphries to table it?

Fight fire with fire.

“Your petitioners ask the Parliament of Australia to:

1. reject any alteration to the Immigration Act, government immigration policies that serves to favour for or against any person of any colour, race, or creed.
2. seek not to discriminate by Act of Parliament or governmental policy against persons of a particular colour, race, or creed, to fully uphold their rights as citizens and residents of this country, and to protect them to the fullest extend of the Law.

Your petitioners humbly request.”

I don’t think we’ll ever see stonings in Sydney, but the UK is struggling with this issue:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/honourcrimes/crimesofhonour_1.shtml

In Australia, the debate is really more about the slow crumbling of our social cohesion in some places (eg poorer parts of Sydney) and, as always, it’s the more recent wave of migrants that get the blame. In this case, the media have made sure they happen to be defined by religion.

It would be really interesting to debunk this whole thing with some immigration stats. Years ago, there was a big argument about ‘Asian immigration’ (same arguments, but with a focus on Traids and the like rather than Sharia), until the stats were trotted out and it was UK migrants that dominated (without even including backpack overstayers)

Grail said :

Holden Caulfield said :

So anyone else can lobby for changes to our laws and/or constitution (Republic movement as one example) but Muslims need to keep their ideas to themselves … is that it?

Will it take women being stoned in the streets of Sydney to make you realise that it’s not lobbying that’s the issue here? The push will start off with radicals wanting to rule Muslims by Islamic law, in parallel with Australian law. A couple of stonings here, a dismemberment there, it’ll all start off fairly innocently.

Eventually the police will be overwhelmed with murder and violence cases involving Shariah law, and we’ll be pressed into modifying the constitution just to allow the police to pursue “real” crimes (i.e.: the crimes that are not violence committed in the name of some religion).

Yeah, I know, it’s a pissweak slippery slope argument. Sheer numbers will keep such lobbying under control. Just remember that “they” have a higher fertility rate than “us” 🙂

Haha, I like the last para. And I do understand where you’re coming from, or perhaps, where you’re going. However, at this stage, I think paranoia has well and truly set in.

It’s bloody hard to change the Constitution, for a start.

Deckard said :

Do you expect Pommy Bastard to go for Australia in the ashes?

I say! Steady on old chap, that’s utter heresy!!

I-filed said :

but I’m tired of seeing, for example, Iranian-Australians barracking for Iran at the soccer.

Are you serious? How is Iranian-Australians barracking for Iran at the soccer a misbehaviour?

This situation is revolting.

Canberrans are under-represented in our Federal Parliament as it is – to have the capacity of a Senator for the ACT hijacked by a handful (3) of NSW constituents on such a divisive matter that does not represent the views of the majority of the Canberra population is ridiculous. In the aftermath of the success of the 2011 Multicultural Festival, Senator Humphries position is also in bad taste and not representative.

When Senator Humphries does vote against the flow, it occurs when his vote makes no difference in Parliament. Can he cross the floor? – “yes he can”. But only when the numbers are already shored up on territory rights, euthanasia or civil unions – ie points where he’s tilting at windmills.

Senator Humphries obviously does not care about what Canberrans think – he is worried about what the voters of Lindsay think and Canberra/Fraser are a proxy for him because we have reduced voting power .

Holden Caulfield said :

So anyone else can lobby for changes to our laws and/or constitution (Republic movement as one example) but Muslims need to keep their ideas to themselves … is that it?

Will it take women being stoned in the streets of Sydney to make you realise that it’s not lobbying that’s the issue here? The push will start off with radicals wanting to rule Muslims by Islamic law, in parallel with Australian law. A couple of stonings here, a dismemberment there, it’ll all start off fairly innocently.

Eventually the police will be overwhelmed with murder and violence cases involving Shariah law, and we’ll be pressed into modifying the constitution just to allow the police to pursue “real” crimes (i.e.: the crimes that are not violence committed in the name of some religion).

Yeah, I know, it’s a pissweak slippery slope argument. Sheer numbers will keep such lobbying under control. Just remember that “they” have a higher fertility rate than “us” 🙂

I-filed said :

but I’m tired of seeing, for example, Iranian-Australians barracking for Iran at the soccer

Really? It’s just sport FFS.

Do you expect Pommy Bastard to go for Australia in the ashes? If you moved to the UK for a job opportunity would you support England??

I thought Gary had a point until I heard there were 3 signatures. There should have to be a minimum number of signatures for a petition to be tabled. Say a few hundred at least.

We should take a good, hard look at what’s been happening in the UK & Western Europe, immigration-wise. But sadly we won’t – we’ll keep our heads buried in the sand. Hey we wouldn’t want to be “bigoted”, would we!

p1 said :

I-filed said :

In America, you are American first, and THEN “Whatever-American”. Australia should have adopted a similar approach all along.

While I think I agree with the bulk of your statement, I tend to think America isn’t really the best example. While they may have put aside (for the most part) issues around the “old country” they make up for it by clinging to a broader racial identity which separates blacks, Hispanic, etc.

America is actually pretty segregated, I reckon. Having spent time there, it seems more to me like ethic groups clearly have their own neighbourhoods, and tend to keep to themselves. That said, people didn’t seem particularly concerned about a white Aussie family wandering around, despite standing out as the only caucasians in sight.

I-filed said :

In America, you are American first, and THEN “Whatever-American”. Australia should have adopted a similar approach all along.

While I think I agree with the bulk of your statement, I tend to think America isn’t really the best example. While they may have put aside (for the most part) issues around the “old country” they make up for it by clinging to a broader racial identity which separates blacks, Hispanic, etc.

Tiffany_from_Watson said :

Sad that he decided to do this given the sucess of Canberra’s Multicultral Festival this weekend.

I disagree – state-sponsored, grassroots multicultural identity policies are problematic and one of the reasons we are a troubled country. In America, you are American first, and THEN “Whatever-American”. Australia should have adopted a similar approach all along. “Multiculturalism” works best when it is a celebration of quaint stuff from the old country – like the Multicultural Festival – not e.g. policies that enable western Sydney breeding grounds for ghetto-ised radical Islam. I’m all for an all-races society in Australia – but I’m tired of seeing, for example, Iranian-Australians barracking for Iran at the soccer. Or fights between Serbians and Croations.
Tolerating that sort of misbehaviour does not lead directly to things like, let’s see – the Australian-resident Sri Lankan who had acid poured down his throat by enemies from “back home”. But it fosters a culture where intolerance and inter-ethnic violence become part of the tapestry along with the quaint stuff.
That said, I don’t support this particular petition either – but I absolutely support Senator Humphries’ decision

whatever14 said :

I agree totally with the motion, let their Muslim brothers take them, for it is clear that they will not integrate here. Saudi Arabia and other filthy rich muslim nations for example, can take them… Wonder why that don’t happen?

There are many different forms of discrimination. Religion (or flavour of religion) is just one of many.

whatever14 said :

I agree totally with the motion, let their Muslim brothers take them, for it is clear that they will not integrate here. Saudi Arabia and other filthy rich muslim nations for example, can take them… Wonder why that don’t happen?

Filthy rich captial greed you will find.

BallOfMonkey said :

Thereby imposing his own filter on what is discussed in public. I prefer Gary’s approach where this lunacy is put into the public spotlight where it can be rightly derided.

If his questions to the petitioners were “You’re from NSW, there are twelve Senators who have been chosen to represent you”, and then “But there are also 63 other non-NSW Senators, why have you asked me?”, and he provided answers to these in a statement also, I’d have less problem.
(But don’t see why one of our local Senators drew the short straw on this one, since -any- member of the Senate could have tabled it)

My question is still “Why Gary?”, since he’s normally savvy enough to see there’s likely media blowback, but this leave him being the lightning rod for criticism, instead of Fred Nile.

I agree totally with the motion, let their Muslim brothers take them, for it is clear that they will not integrate here. Saudi Arabia and other filthy rich muslim nations for example, can take them… Wonder why that don’t happen?

Pommy bastard said :

The problem arises when these things fester under the surface, and are not addressed in public. Bigotry is the result of irrational fears. Why do irrational fears arise, when ignorance is present. When is ignorance present, when issues are not discussed openly, with balance, and without rancour and insult.

The problem is that it is so easy, as we have seen here, to label anyone with a contrary view to your own as an “anti-this’ or “anti-that”, and refuse to engage with, or consider their opinion. Which is anti-democratic, if you’ll excuse the word play. It’s that sort of thinking, (or rather lack of thinking/knee jerk labelling,) which leads to the non-discussion of issues and views, and hence fostering of resentment.

Also the minor matter that to make this happen there would need a change to the constitution.

I doubt even one state or territory would vote for an amendment to allow discrimination against people solely because they’re muslim.

I certainly hope that’s the case.

The problem arises when these things fester under the surface, and are not addressed in public. Bigotry is the result of irrational fears. Why do irrational fears arise, when ignorance is present. When is ignorance present, when issues are not discussed openly, with balance, and without rancour and insult.

The problem is that it is so easy, as we have seen here, to label anyone with a contrary view to your own as an “anti-this’ or “anti-that”, and refuse to engage with, or consider their opinion. Which is anti-democratic, if you’ll excuse the word play. It’s that sort of thinking, (or rather lack of thinking/knee jerk labelling,) which leads to the non-discussion of issues and views, and hence fostering of resentment.

wantok said :

Either Humphries is deliberately dog-whistling (in which case, despicable) or astonishingly naive not to have known this was a CDP sham – at the very least he should have had the basic media awareness to know that tabling it would inflame community tension far more than ignoring the petition.

As much as I’m not a fan of GH, I don’t think that he’s dog whistling with this, and I have no doubt that he believes that he’s doing the right thing. On the radio this morning, he outlined some of the legislative history of petitions and his responses to them, and it stacks up. He also seems genuinely apologetic to the Islamic community and has made his own disapproval of the petition very clear.

I’m a tad ambivalent about his overall argument though. You can hardly say that not tabling a pissweak, obviously bigoted petition signed by 3 numpties is an example of ‘censorship’ or ‘denial of free speech’. People with these sorts of views (or any sorts of views) have free speech to express themselves as much as anyone else. But the idea that a petition (signed by 3 people) that expresses a view that is quite obviously unacceptable to the Australian people is so important that it should be tabled in Parliament, however, does strike me as being patently ludicrous (hence the mockery regarding similar nutjob views – what’s next, a petition tabled in parliament that says that we need to take serious action to deal with the Reptoid conspiracy?)

Some people have argued that having this ‘out in the open’ is a good thing because it alerts us to the existence of bigoted beliefs such as this. But I wonder if it might prove more problematic by emboldening the bigots by giving such petitions the veneer of endorsement or acceptability. Apart from that, who is so naive as to not be aware that there’s a whole bucketload of anti-Islamic bigotry going on?

BallOfMonkey said :

Skidbladnir said :

And as to Gary’s “I am only doing it to protect free speech”, he’s technically right, but he still had the option to ignore the bigots, instead of tolerating their intolerance…

Thereby imposing his own filter on what is discussed in public. I prefer Gary’s approach where this lunacy is put into the public spotlight where it can be rightly derided.

Or debated even.

There is no question that this matter is out there in the public, and that people have strong views on it. If the matter is ignored, and public debate within not only the political sphere, but also the religious and community forums, then resentment will grow, and a European style situation may evolve.

Let us not forget that many European countries have banned the burqa, and that idea has been mooted here. If we do not discuss integration, religious freedom, and the other matters that immigration evokes, and have ongoing dialogue on these matters then tensions within communities may develop.

As the British PM recently said;

A genuinely liberal country “believes in certain values and actively promotes them”, Mr Cameron said. “Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality. “It says to its citizens: This is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe these things.”

He said under the “doctrine of state multiculturalism”, different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives. “We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.”

Building a stronger sense of national and local identity holds “the key to achieving true cohesion” by allowing people to say “I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, but I am a Londoner… too”, he said.

astrojax said :

p1 said :

Pommy bastard said :

Not on the table yet, but being called for by some;

So what, I’ve been calling for free ham sandwiches for all every Tuesday.

that’ll impress the muslims, pb!

I guess I could change it to Vegemite sandwiches on white bread, make the eating of them compulsory, and tell anyone who doesn’t like it that they are unAustralian and they should fµ¢k off…

But the truth is I prefer a ham sammy. I guess I could make it cheese and tomato for the vego’s and religions who don’t like pigs. Now that I know you only need three signatures on a petition for Gazza to table it, expect to see this in the Senate soon…

Skidbladnir said :

And as to Gary’s “I am only doing it to protect free speech”, he’s technically right, but he still had the option to ignore the bigots, instead of tolerating their intolerance…

Thereby imposing his own filter on what is discussed in public. I prefer Gary’s approach where this lunacy is put into the public spotlight where it can be rightly derided.

Either Humphries is deliberately dog-whistling (in which case, despicable) or astonishingly naive not to have known this was a CDP sham – at the very least he should have had the basic media awareness to know that tabling it would inflame community tension far more than ignoring the petition.

p1 said :

Pommy bastard said :

Not on the table yet, but being called for by some;

So what, I’ve been calling for free ham sandwiches for all every Tuesday.

that’ll impress the muslims, pb!

Sad that he decided to do this given the sucess of Canberra’s Multicultral Festival this weekend.

johnboy said :

If they want to engage with the parliament they can do it publicly.

totally agree.

p1 said :

Pommy bastard said :

Not on the table yet, but being called for by some;

So what, I’ve been calling for free ham sandwiches for all every Tuesday.

Some old blokes at the bowling club reckon that everything started to go downhill when women got the vote, I reckon we could get more than three of them to sign a petition.

Pommy bastard said :

Not on the table yet, but being called for by some;

So what, I’ve been calling for free ham sandwiches for all every Tuesday.

Minor point, but tabling a law that favoured one specific religion would violate Section 116 of the Constitution.
116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

If you wanted to open the gates for Christians, you would need to make religiosity your filtering factor, rather than explicit Christianity.
(Which would defeat the point of the petition proposal, being that it is religiously discriminatory in nature and bigot-ignorant in motivation.)

And as to Gary’s “I am only doing it to protect free speech”, he’s technically right, but he still had the option to ignore the bigots, instead of tolerating their intolerance…

Brief Guides to Senate Procedure – No. 21: Petitions
Only Senators may present petitions, so a person wishing to petition the Senate must forward the petition to a Senator and ask the Senator to present it. While there is nothing in the rules of the Senate to compel a Senator to present a petition, most Senators take the view that they should seek to present any petition forwarded to them, even if the views represented in the petition do not reflect the views of the Senator presenting it.

johnboy said :

[
My understanding with this one is that several senators had already refused to table this one. It was a choice they were able to make.

I didn’t realise that – I stand corrected. Except for the bit about the maggots.

Holden Caulfield said :

[
So anyone else can lobby for changes to our laws and/or constitution (Republic movement as one example) but Muslims need to keep their ideas to themselves … is that it?

Besides, how far do you think a push for a referendum to introduce Shariah law in Australia would get anyway?

I don’t think it would get very far, at present. However the experience in the UK is that it can gain a foothold within Muslim communities, and develop a base from there.

Islamic sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in parts of Britain, a report claims.

Sharia, derived from several sources including the Koran, is applied to varying degrees in predominantly Muslim countries but it has no binding status in Britain.

However, the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali “court” sitting in Woolwich, south-east London.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535478/Sharia-law-is-spreading-as-authority-wanes.html

colourful sydney racing identity said :

My understanding is that practice dictates a petition can be lodged with any MHR or Senator and they then lodge it – otherwise you would have to ensure all signatories are from the same elecotrate.

My understanding with this one is that several senators had already refused to table this one. It was a choice they were able to make.

If it had 5,000 signatures from all over the country that would be one thing. But three signatures from the local bowls club (or wherever) makes it pretty clearly not an ACT thing.

Grail said :

Islam is not just a religion, it also claims to be a form of government. “Moderate” Muslims don’t want Shariah law, but once enough Australians are registered on the census as “Muslim” there will no doubt be a strong push by a vocal minority to a referendum for implementing Shariah law. I know Iranian families who fled death sentences, who still practice Islam, but certainly do not want Shariah law.

So anyone else can lobby for changes to our laws and/or constitution (Republic movement as one example) but Muslims need to keep their ideas to themselves … is that it?

Besides, how far do you think a push for a referendum to introduce Shariah law in Australia would get anyway?

johnboy said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Isn’t it simply standard practice for any local member to table a petition regardless of whether they agree/disagree with it’s contents?

The only unfortunate thing is that doing so it attracts media attention and then the maggots start crawling out as evidenced above.

Pretty sure Senator for the ACT isn’t local to Earlwood.

My understanding is that practice dictates a petition can be lodged with any MHR or Senator and they then lodge it – otherwise you would have to ensure all signatories are from the same elecotrate.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Isn’t it simply standard practice for any local member to table a petition regardless of whether they agree/disagree with it’s contents?

The only unfortunate thing is that doing so it attracts media attention and then the maggots start crawling out as evidenced above.

Pretty sure Senator for the ACT isn’t local to Earlwood.

Isn’t it simply standard practice for any local member to table a petition regardless of whether they agree/disagree with it’s contents?

The only unfortunate thing is that doing so it attracts media attention and then the maggots start crawling out as evidenced above.

johnboy said :

Pretty sure that proposal isn’t actually on the table yet PB.

Not on the table yet, but being called for by some;

A senior Muslim leader is again calling for elements of sharia law to be legally recognised in Australia.

During an open day at Sydney’s Lakemba Mosque at the weekend, the Australian Islamic Mission’s president, Dr Zachariah Matthews, called for aspects of sharia law to function as a parallel legal system.

His comments have sparked concerns that doing so would introduce a penal system under which women could be stoned to death for adultery and corporal punishment handed out for other offences.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/08/2839749.htm

Pommy bastard said :

Oh, and the title of this thread; shouldn’t bigoted be in inverted commas, or not there at all.

Er no, the petition is bigoted.

Oh, and the title of this thread; shouldn’t bigoted be in inverted commas, or not there at all.

Pretty sure that proposal isn’t actually on the table yet PB.

I’m glad that this has been brought out in the open, and that public debate will ensue. Far better have it now, than let things descend to the situation in the UK where riots, demonstrations, and the rise of the far right, been engendered by 7/7 terrorism attacks etc, are happening.

Does Aus want Sharia law to run alongside national law?

This isn’t the first time that this petition has been tabled into the Senate.
Last time, it was tabled by Senator Sandy Macdonald and had twelve signatories.

But its a Fred Nile’s Christian Democrats stooge play.

Its actually the CDP’s stated policy on Islam.

Was this petition idea suggested by the former Liberal MP Jackie Kelly and her husband Gary Clark?
Maybe Humpy could follow up with a letterbox drop in the marginal western Sydney seat of Lindsay.

Did anyone else notice that the petition is authorised by Rev. Fred Nile?

I think these three blokes from Eastwood really didn’t spend too much time thinking about the consequences of sending this thing in to a Senator.

johnboy said :

If they want to engage with the parliament they can do it publicly.

Fair enough I suppose, particularly if it’s on the Parliament website.

I will be writing to Gary Humphries to express my disappointment that he’s decided to table this; particularly given the signatories are not from his electorate. I encourage others who agree to do the same.

Maybe we should start our own petition requesting a ten year moratorium on bigoted politicians.

johnboy said :

Have a look at it, the link’s right there.

Oops, so it is. Mental note: Coffee before comments.

Islam is not just a religion, it also claims to be a form of government. “Moderate” Muslims don’t want Shariah law, but once enough Australians are registered on the census as “Muslim” there will no doubt be a strong push by a vocal minority to a referendum for implementing Shariah law. I know Iranian families who fled death sentences, who still practice Islam, but certainly do not want Shariah law.

This is the new Cold War – sensible people all over the world versus the Taliban and other religious extremists. The mentality is the same, even if the name changes (“Institute for Christian Economics,” “Westbrook Baptist Church,” and others if the I’ll). Look up “American Taliban” sometime:)

This petition seems to be a bunch of white supremacists – I do not understand why Gary would table a petition with only three signatures, much less one from Sydney which is not his electorate.

DarkLadyWolfMother said :

Is that signed by only three people? If so, I would have thought any petition with so few signatures would just be ignored.

Have a look at it, the link’s right there.

Eby said :

Wow, this is astounding and appalling. I don’t understand why he has tabled it, surely it would be up to the relevant NSW member?

JB do you think you should at least black-out the signatories’ addresses? As much as most of the crazier people on here would probably agree with them, it seems wrong to include all their details…

If they want to engage with the parliament they can do it publicly.

Wow, this is astounding and appalling. I don’t understand why he has tabled it, surely it would be up to the relevant NSW member?

JB do you think you should at least black-out the signatories’ addresses? As much as most of the crazier people on here would probably agree with them, it seems wrong to include all their details…

Sorry but you don’t table a petition with merely 3 signatures what a waste of everybody’s time.

How did Humphries get presented with the petition in the first place – given he doesn’t even represent the citizens of Earlwood?

Is that signed by only three people? If so, I would have thought any petition with so few signatures would just be ignored.

Good on Humphries.

A moratorium on immigration in general would be more helpful, while the government has a good hard look at the issue of overpopulation and how we’re going to prevent it.