15 February 2011

Gary Humphries tables bigoted petition against Muslims in the Senate

| johnboy
Join the conversation
68
bigoted nutbag petition

The ABC reports that the ACT’s Liberal Senator Gary Humphries has done what other Senators were unwilling to do and tabled a petition in the Senate, signed by three Sydney folk, calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration to Australia.

Gary’s on The Beast right now defending his championship of free speech.

Perhaps best if it had been left to a NSW Senator? Assuming any would touch it with a bargepole?

We’re trying to get a copy of the petition, if you can help email to john@the-riotact.com .

UPDATE: Senator Humphries has made this statement:

PETITIONS IN THE PARLIAMENT

I am a strong and proud supporter of multicultural Australia and have enjoyed a very strong relationship with the Muslim community both here in Canberra and around Australia.

Nonetheless, I believe it was my democratic responsibility as a Senator to table the petition I tabled last Thursday.

It is the right of every Australian to put their view to the Australian Parliament and the moment that Members and Senators start essentially acting as censors it detracts from our democracy.

Although I did not agree with what was in the petition, I tabled it for that very reason.

15 February 2011

I’ve now put the actual petition online so we all know what we’re talking about.

I would like to make it clear that in my opinion this is unequivocably the work of bigoted nutbags, who obviously have no mates, and I would not put it forward without being able to present that context.

Join the conversation

68
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Absolutely the right thing to do. Defending the rights of people he disagrees with.

GetUp, Avaaz, Change et al simply don’t understand the concept.

DBCooper said :

A wall of text, most likely directly copied from one of 22,000 other places. Everywhere it gets menitoned, it is being used to inflame the passions of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity.

This guy is the original source, and it comes from his book Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. Feel free to buy a copy from Amazon, but note that a number of the reviewers also comment on books about Christian persecution, the history of slavery and white supremacy.

However:

1)
They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.
You’re scared that they’ll express an interest in food? THE HORROR.
(Also I’ll also bet the threats are along the lines of “…Or I will not buy here.”)

I already buy spices from a halal butchery already. Does that make me a ‘victim of Islam’?

2) Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in India — Muslim 13.4%

The Muslim parts of India are actually pretty stable for the most part, and most of the unrest is over Kashmir. The Hindu\Sikhs cause most of their native unrest.

3) At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in Bosnia — Muslim 40%

Were you paying attention in the 90s, when the Srebrenica massacre occurred?
Most of the violence in Bosnia throughout the War was actually targetting of Bosniaki Muslim civilians at the hands of Othodox&Catholic Christian Serbs & Croats.
Note who lost the most in ethnic geography between 1991 and 2005.
Also, most of the Muslims coming into Bosnia to fight as Muslims were being encouraged to do so by foreign madrasas.

Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Most of Chad’s widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare is a direct result of being routinely invaded by Lybia for thirty years, over the Aozou Strip, and then dealing with issues resulting from the Sudanese civil infighting.

Seriously, it starts off bad, and then gets worse.

Just when you think all Australian politicians are a bunch of pu**ywhipped multiculturalism apologists……….

All immigration should be curtailed.

“As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States — Muslim 0.6%

Australia — Muslim 1.5%

Canada — Muslim 1.9%

China — Muslim 1.8%

Italy — Muslim 1.5%

Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.

This is happening in:

Denmark — Muslim 2%

Germany — Muslim 3.7%

United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%

Spain — Muslim 4%

Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for

Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%

Philippines — 5%

Sweden — Muslim 5%

Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%

The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%

Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%

India — Muslim 13.4%

Israel — Muslim 16%

Kenya — Muslim 10%

Russia — Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%

Chad — Muslim 53.1%

Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and ***ya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania — Muslim 70%

Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%

Qatar — Muslim 77.5%

Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%

Egypt — Muslim 90%

Gaza — Muslim 98.7%

Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%

Iran — Muslim 98%

Iraq — Muslim 97%

Jordan — Muslim 92%

Morocco — Muslim 98.7%

Pakistan — Muslim 97%

Palestine — Muslim 99%

Syria — Muslim 90%

Tajikistan — Muslim 90%

Turkey — Muslim 99.8%

United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%

Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%

Somalia — Muslim 100%

Yemen — Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.”

Captain RAAF said :

facet said :

Mrs Facet (who reads the CT) has pointed out that they report that another 35 politicians, 19 Liberal, six National and eight Labor MPs and senators plus two independents have also tabled it, several more than once.

Standing up in a crowded picture theatre and yelling out “FIRE” may be exercising freedom of speech but it is dangerous and irresponsible.

Not if the theatre is on fire it aint!

True – if the cinema is on fire yelling FIRE may be dangerous (may cause a stampede) but it is true (the information is justified true belief and may also be useful to others) and thus meets the standard for possibly dangerous but justified freedom of speech. If the cinema is not on fire, yelling FIRE is dangerous and false, and is wanton as it exposes people to the possible danger of stampede without conveying any possibly useful information and thus is not justified freedom of speech – Schenck v. United States … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

The current dog whistle, latest-menace bigotry falls into the second camp – it exposes good people to the possibility of violence and discrimination through “moral stampede” and is false because it relies on conflating “dangerous exclusionary fundamentalist extremism” with a particular religious viewpoint “Islam”.

I’m happy to shout out “dangerous exclusionary fundamentalist extremism” where ever I see it: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism et al. Even in cinemas.

Captain RAAF said :

facet said :

Mrs Facet (who reads the CT) has pointed out that they report that another 35 politicians, 19 Liberal, six National and eight Labor MPs and senators plus two independents have also tabled it, several more than once.

Standing up in a crowded picture theatre and yelling out “FIRE” may be exercising freedom of speech but it is dangerous and irresponsible.

Not if the theatre is on fire it aint!

Actually it is.

Theatres and other public venues have procedures in place to deal with such eventualities. Usually it’s “Keep calm, and obey the instructions of the authorized individual” s/he’ll be the one in the hard hat with Fire Warden written on it

Theatres don’t have fires, they have “Circumstances beyond our control”.

Diggety said :

I think this particular petition is silly (and will die in the arse) because it is favouring one on religion. Does that mean I can collect signatures asking to favour Atheists seeking asylum?

I think Gary’s point is that you can collect signatures for whatever you like.

Captain RAAF said :

facet said :

Mrs Facet (who reads the CT) has pointed out that they report that another 35 politicians, 19 Liberal, six National and eight Labor MPs and senators plus two independents have also tabled it, several more than once.

Standing up in a crowded picture theatre and yelling out “FIRE” may be exercising freedom of speech but it is dangerous and irresponsible.

Not if the theatre is on fire it aint!

+1.

I think it’s time for a grown up debate without calling each other names, or letting it be dominated by right/left idiots.

Segregation is the main issue, and that naughty term “melting pot” may be not so naughty after all.

I think this particular petition is silly (and will die in the arse) because it is favouring one on religion. Does that mean I can collect signatures asking to favour Atheists seeking asylum?

Captain RAAF9:41 am 17 Feb 11

facet said :

Mrs Facet (who reads the CT) has pointed out that they report that another 35 politicians, 19 Liberal, six National and eight Labor MPs and senators plus two independents have also tabled it, several more than once.

Standing up in a crowded picture theatre and yelling out “FIRE” may be exercising freedom of speech but it is dangerous and irresponsible.

Not if the theatre is on fire it aint!

Mrs Facet (who reads the CT) has pointed out that they report that another 35 politicians, 19 Liberal, six National and eight Labor MPs and senators plus two independents have also tabled it, several more than once.

Standing up in a crowded picture theatre and yelling out “FIRE” may be exercising freedom of speech but it is dangerous and irresponsible.

georgesgenitals2:15 pm 16 Feb 11

Pommy bastard said :

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.

Pics or it hasn’t happened.

Pommy bastard1:59 pm 16 Feb 11

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?

Pommy bastard11:11 am 16 Feb 11

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)

Holden Caulfield10:11 am 16 Feb 11

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.

Pommy bastard9:54 am 16 Feb 11

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!

georgesgenitals7:21 pm 15 Feb 11

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

georgesgenitals5:53 pm 15 Feb 11

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.

Pommy bastard4:02 pm 15 Feb 11

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?

Pommy bastard2:15 pm 15 Feb 11

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…

BallOfMonkey1:33 pm 15 Feb 11

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!

Tiffany_from_Watson12:44 pm 15 Feb 11

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.

colourful sydney racing identity11:09 am 15 Feb 11

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.

Pommy bastard11:08 am 15 Feb 11

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.

Holden Caulfield10:58 am 15 Feb 11

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?

colourful sydney racing identity10:58 am 15 Feb 11

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.

colourful sydney racing identity10:45 am 15 Feb 11

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.

Pommy bastard10:42 am 15 Feb 11

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.

Pommy bastard10:25 am 15 Feb 11

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.

Pommy bastard10:20 am 15 Feb 11

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?

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.

DarkLadyWolfMother9:41 am 15 Feb 11

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?

DarkLadyWolfMother9:28 am 15 Feb 11

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.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.