Grandmother to sue mufti over rape comment

Can't wait to see how the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission handle this one.

I wonder if it will be with the vigour that they moved against the two pastors who allegedly "vilified" islam?

Methinks not.

I'm just suprised there hasn't been a deluge of complaints from all over the world by non-muslim women. This excuse for a man (who has 4 wifelets as far as I know) has insulted all of us.

I hope Ms. Davidson's lawyers pick up the mufti by the heels and sweep the floorwith his beard.

Apparently he has 4 wives and a lot of kids.

I don't know how many welfare cheques he gets.I have raised this issue on a local 'blog but no answers as yet.
I am guessing this woman has a good sense of the law and politix because I would do the same if I knew all the "ifs, buts, and maybes"!

Good for her.

But wait for the death threats to come rolling in. Not to excuse the death threats against Hilaly, but the people who will pop up to threaten Mrs. Davis will undoubtedly mean it.

On an irrelevant note, I'd like to appeal to the posters here and on Jihad Watch to clean up their spelling, grammar and diction. It's far too easy for opponents of these sites to point to us as a bunch of semi-literate village idiots given some of the postings here. I'm not saying this to be pedantic... I think that if we present ourselves better, we'll have a slightly better chance of being taken seriously.

Oh, and if people refrain from talking about "training with the Serbs for the coming war" and other such nonsense. It paints us all as a bunch of immature rednecks with childish war fantasies.

Cheers. And good work to the people of both sites!

This woman does not understand that political correctness only flows one way. Race and ethnicity always trump gender in the hierachy of political correctness. Political correctness has a pecking order established by the left. If two protected groups clash, the one higher in the food chain wins. The other is eaten. It goes like this:

From top to bottom:

muslims/blacks
chinese/orientals/native indians
hispanics
other non-whtes
Jews
gays
women
the handicapped
catholics
barney the dinosaur
the mentally retarded
veterans of popular wars
white protestant males

Of course within each group, there are subgroups. The nuances of which would extent the list exponentially. For example, a white buddhist woman would have preference over a white buddhist male. And so on. But Barney trumps both. But does a gay white protestant male trump a catholic? If you are a member of two disenfranchised groups, that may or may not up your seniority over another person who is a member of just one, albeit higher, disenfranchised groups. For example, if this woman was handicapped and gay, she would be given more weight. But enough to trump the racial and religious seniority of a this muslim? Probably not. If so, that is where a supercomputer is required to do the computation.

The Left has created a complex system for determining the relative equality of everyone in society according to the victimization quotient they have alloted them.

So for this woman, going up against this muslim, I'm afraid that her Christian whiteness put her claim at a disadvantage to his arabic muslim beardness. This is why a muslim who preached hatred and sexual violence, gets a pass from the Left, even if a woman, or a feminist, complains.

It vexes the Left to see this, it makes them squirm, but they have their hierarchy to follow. And they follow it just as Lenin followed the principles of Marxism. For them, it puts order in the universe.

Anthony posts:

Can't wait to see how the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission handle this one.

I wonder if it will be with the vigour that they moved against the two pastors who allegedly "vilified" islam?

Methinks not.

WELL SAID--AND ISN'T THAT THE CRUX OF IT. WE HAVE TO ATTACK OURSELVES FIRST THOUGH TO BE PC- Anthony, UHUH... WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THEIR "CULTURE"

Why is this grandma alone in this lawsuit?

If ever there was a case to be made for a class action lawsuit . . .this is it. If I lived in Australia, I would standing in line to join her lawsuit.

Gang rape against fresh exposed meat, as sanctioned by this imam has a list of REAL victims in Australia . . .IIRC, partially the reason for the Cronulla riots last year.

None of these REAL victims of gang rape by 'immigrants' should stand idly by while unwelcome imams spit this venom without REAL consequence. Accepting victimhood again is unaccepable.

It's time to GANG up (pun intended) against el-Hilaly and all who stand to support this dangerous pompous windbag . It's time the Australian justice system is used to effectively pierce the bubble of MC/PC nonsense that endangers all western civilization, but more specifically to protect cultural norms of Australian citizens.

A petition set up by a rape victim....

http://www.australiasaysno.com/

A petition set up by a rape victim....

http://www.australiasaysno.com/

Dear August:

I wish I felt your post was a good joke, however; in this supposedly equal society I am afraid that your model tends to reflect my own personal experience.

"One must not consider muslims as human beings. Human beings do not use their brain in such a manner."

mtriviso - I'm no fan of Islam or Muslim apologists but I must say that you are wrong. Muslims are human beings.

Of course they're human.  Criminals and psychopaths are human.

You go, Miss Elaine!

It doesn't matter if the rest of us are in one disenfranchised group or another...the only thing that matters is that she stood up and said , I ain't gonna take this lying down. I love that she turned the whiners credo back on the sheik, claiming that she was "offended" and that "he has incited racial, religious and sexual hatred." Good one! Slam it right back at him. And keep it coming. These guys are so used to women just rolling over and playing dead, (a woman is always an easy target for a good beating and, hence, intimidation, when she's tied up in her Hefty bag,) that when an intelligent, articulate western woman with some cajones says enough is enough, they don't know what to do. And these guys better be afraid, very afraid, because when a western woman has been pushed too far, especially in matters of love and honor, there is no telling what she might do. (Remember the case in the states several years back when the woman whose husband was having an affair which she didn't approve of, got a very important private part super-glued to his leg.)

Yes it's time to get angry, although after reading this stuff here every day, I don't know if I can get any angrier. Actually, like Elaine, it is time to channel our anger into action. Like her, we do not have to take this lying down.

Good- I hope she bankrupts the bastard.

1: He wasn't "inciting racial hatred", he was displaying his own retarded mentality.

2: Discrimination is not a crime. It's what free men are, and should be, allowed to do.

mtriviso

"One must not consider muslims as human beings. Human beings do not use their brain in such a manner. Muslims are anti-humans. Islam is anti-life"

This is patently absurd, and I think you know it. Muslims are as human as you and I. Herein lies the problem. Humans can be, and often are, evil. Humans have used "their brain" in such a manner. They still do, and they are not Muslims necessarily. I bet you know quite a few in your immediate vicinity.
By declaring them "unhuman" you shut down any discussion and understanding of humanity, conscience, responsibility, free will, and all that's the very essence of human nature.

August22

Your analysis is right (tragicomically so), but I think the woman is doing the best she can, trying to work within the narrow system that allows people like her very few chances of redress.
In a weakened, despirited West, the Courts have become the only battleground of ideas and solutions to problems, even though the law is heavily slanted against traditional values. One hopes there is a judge, or a panel of judges, or a jury that may still hang on to those values.

Judging by what I read about Australia, this woman has a chance.

August22, Your list is essentially accurate except for one group: Jews. You have to move them further down the list.

So, for this woman, going up against this Moslem, I'm afraid that her Christian whiteness put her claim at a disadvantage to his arabic Moslem beardness. This is why a Moslem who preached hatred and sexual violence, gets a pass from the Left, even if a woman, or a feminist, complains.
--- posted by August22

Yes yes, Marxist victim-prerogative is a bidding contest that asks the question, Who is the greatest victim?

I concur with your analysis, except for on small nit: I've never heard a feminist complain about Islam. I could be wrong, maybe Oriana Fallaci was a feminist. Last I heard, the self-aggrandizing feminist Rosie O'Donnell denounced JudeoChristianity to put Islam in a favorable light.

And, yes, I understand that the motives of intellectual cowardice displayed by feminists can get murky when the 6th Pillar and the Islam Fictive Reality swirl around a feminist's head, especially one so dumb as Rosie.

I've heard a few women complain, but never a feminist. The latter group seems to be silently lusting for the final order that only a scowling, bearded man can sustain.

Okay, the relevant Act she can complain under is the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, 2001.

It can be found here.

And a bit of light reading:

Part 2—Unlawful Conduct

Division 1—Unlawful Vilification

7. Racial vilification unlawful

s. 7

(1) A person must not, on the ground of the race of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), conduct—

(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and

(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.

Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

8. Religious vilification unlawful

(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), conduct—

(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and

(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.

9. Motive and dominant ground irrelevant

s. 9

(1) In determining whether a person has contravened section 7 or 8, the person's motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant.

(2) In determining whether a person has contravened section 7 or 8, it is irrelevant whether or not the race or religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons is the only or dominant ground for the conduct, so long as it is a substantial ground.

10. Incorrect assumption as to race or religious belief or activity

In determining whether a person has contravened section 7 or 8, it is irrelevant whether or not the person made an assumption about the race or religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons that was incorrect at the time that the contravention is alleged to have taken place.

11. Exceptions—public conduct

A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith—

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for—

(i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or

(ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.

12. Exceptions—private conduct

s. 12

(1) A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person engaged in the conduct in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties to the conduct desire it to be heard or seen only by themselves.

(2) Sub-section (1) does not apply in relation to conduct in any circumstances in which the parties to the conduct ought reasonably to expect that it may be heard or seen by someone else.

Division 2—Other Unlawful Conduct

13. Prohibition of victimisation

A person must not victimise another person.

14. What is victimisation?

(1) A person victimises another person if the person subjects or threatens to subject the other person to any detriment because the other person, or a person associated (whether as a relative or otherwise) with the other person—

(a) has made a complaint against any person;

(b) has brought any other proceedings under this Act against any person;

(c) has given evidence or information, or produced a document, in connection with any proceedings under this Act;

(d) has attended a compulsory conference at the Tribunal;

(e) has otherwise done anything in accordance with this Act in relation to any person;

(f) has alleged that any person has contravened a provision of this Act, unless the allegation is false and was not made in good faith;

(g) has refused to do anything that would contravene a provision of this Act—

or because the person believes that the other person or the associate has done or intends to do any of those things.

(2) It is sufficient for sub-section (1)(f) that the allegation states the conduct that would constitute the contravention, without actually stating that this Act, or a provision of this Act, has been contravened.

(3) In determining whether a person victimises another person it is irrelevant—

(a) whether or not a factor in sub-section (1) is the only or dominant ground for the treatment or threatened treatment, so long as it is a substantial ground;

(b) whether the person acts alone or in association with any other person.

15. Prohibition of authorising or assisting vilification or victimisation

s. 15

A person must not request, instruct, induce, encourage, authorise or assist another person to contravene a provision of this Part.

16. Liability of person who authorises or assists

If, as a result of a person doing any of the things specified in section 15, the other person contravenes a provision of this Part—

(a) a complaint about the contravention may be lodged against either or both of those persons; and

(b) for the purposes of the complaint, both of them must be taken to have contravened the provision.

17. Vicarious liability of employers and principals

s. 17

If a person in the course of employment or while acting as an agent contravenes a provision of this Part, both the person and the employer or principal must be taken to have contravened the provision, and a complaint about the contravention may be lodged against either or both of them.

18. Exception to vicarious liability

An employer or principal is not vicariously liable for a contravention of a provision of this Part by an employee or agent if the employer or principal proves, on the balance of probabilities, that the employer or principal took reasonable precautions to prevent the employee or agent contravening this Part.

_______________

Part 3—Complaints and Conciliation

19. Who may complain?

s. 19

(1) The following may complain to the Commission—

(a) a person who claims that another person has contravened a provision of Part 2 in relation to that person;

(b) if that person is unable to complain because of impairment—

(i) a person authorised by that person to act on his or her behalf; or

(ii) if that person is unable to authorise another person, any other person on his or her behalf;

(c) if that person is a child—

(i) the child; or

(ii) a parent of the child on the child's behalf; or

(iii) if the Commission is satisfied that the child or a parent of the child consents, any other person on the child's behalf.

(2) A person may complain on behalf of the person and another person or persons if the Commission is satisfied that—

(a) each person named in the complaint—

(i) is entitled to complain under sub-section (1)(a); and

(ii) has consented to the complaint being made on the person's behalf; and

(b) the alleged contravention arises out of the same conduct.

(3) A representative body may complain to the Commission on behalf of a named person or persons if the Commission is satisfied that—

(a) each person named in the complaint—

(i) is entitled to complain under sub-section (1)(a); and

(ii) has consented to the complaint being made by the body on the person's behalf; and

(b) the representative body has a sufficient interest in the complaint; and

(c) the alleged contravention arises out of the same conduct.

(4) A representative body has sufficient interest in a complaint if the conduct that constitutes the alleged contravention is a matter of genuine concern to the body because of the way conduct of that nature adversely affects or has the potential adversely to affect the interests of the body or the interests or welfare of the persons it represents.

s. 19

(5) An authorisation under sub-section (1)(b)(i) may be given—

(a) in writing; or

(b) in any other manner approved by the Commission.

(6) Two or more people may complain jointly.

(7) It is not necessary for the alleged contravention to relate exclusively to the complainant.

i think i will send this guy a steam crane
to help him get his head out of his ass and
his feet out of his mouth he needs it

This is patently absurd, and I think you know it. Muslims are as human as you and I. Herein lies the problem. Humans can be, and often are, evil. Humans have used "their brain" in such a manner. They still do, and they are not Muslims necessarily. I bet you know quite a few in your immediate vicinity.
By declaring them "unhuman" you shut down any discussion and understanding of humanity, conscience, responsibility, free will, and all that's the very essence of human nature.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at November 5, 2006 01:53 PM

Muslims may be human, but islam drains the humanity from their hearts, leaving empty shells, bodies. Within those heartless bodies are warped minds focused on hate, bloodlust, destruction, supremacy, and vengeance. These heartless shells are incapable of creating viable, prosperous societies. Like zombies with no free will, they accept islam's many constraints which prevent progress and prosperity, and they wish to impose these constraints on the world. Islam engenders decay and rot of the human psyche.

I'm sure mtriviso would agree that muslims are flesh and bone just like the rest of us and they breathe, eat and sleep as we do. But those are the only similarities we share. They are not unhuman, they are inhuman, and by virtue of their religious beliefs, they are more like feral beasts than people.

How could so many "human beings" fall prey to the evil doctrine of islam? I certainly do not consider muslims to be the innocent victims of a malevolent creed; God gave human beings brains and intellects so they could discern between good and evil. Muslims choose to believe in islam for a variety of reasons. The most ludicrous of those reasons is their belief that they are superior to non-muslims. The driving force behind their consummate rage is their blatant inferiority, which contradicts the Qur'an. How could allah decree that muslims are "the best of people" when obviously they are just the opposite?

APF, I didn't mean to imply that this woman was a feminist, only that if a feminist goes up against a muslim, the media will side with the muslim.

Naturally, feminists, being a pillar of the Left, never complain about islam. But as a woman, she would normally have the feminist backing when clashing with a misogynist man. But not in this case. And here are the reasons why. The muslim has 3 PC advantages over the 1 feminist advantage:

1. Race - non-white

2. Darker skinned (Third world) - better than even being lighter, Second world Chinese or latino

3. Religion - not only non-Protestant, but not even Christian.

This explains how a woman-hating man can get the upper hand on a liberal woman. Usually in the PC world, that is not possible. Unless such man has those 3 elements in his favor.

Will you guys stop posting c**p about feminists not complaining re islam? I have repeatedly stated here that I am a feminist. I regularly post here, write to the politicians and media about the issues, and inform my friends and rellies.

"Oh, and if people refrain from talking about "training with the Serbs for the coming war" and other such nonsense. It paints us all as a bunch of immature rednecks with childish war fantasies."

You are so right. There's been some crazy stuff posted in other threads too, that makes us look like a bunch of potential terrorists instead mature adults willing to work within the democratic system.

I've just sent the following to our NZ PM, other ministers (incl immigration), and all my friends. Any New Zealanders wanting to do something, please write to Cunliffe, Cosgrove, Goff, Clarke and any others you can think of.

Dear Mr Cunliffe (Minister for Immigration)

The NZ Herald reports that there are a number of immigrants in our country who publicly support the notion that a woman who do not dress in the Islamic style ‘can only blame herself’ for rape. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=000CDBFE-21FA-154B-9AF483027AF1010E).

I realise that there are still people of many backgrounds who support this mediaeval notion, but I must ask why we are allowing more people with such attitudes into our beautiful, free country?

The specific people publicly stating this idea are:

“A former president of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand, Dr Abdul Hafeez Rasheed, says Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali may have used an "inappropriate" analogy, but his message that women should cover up was "quite legitimate".

Another Auckland man, 23-year-old website developer Eyad Arwani, wrote on a local Muslim discussion website: "Just as there is [sic] thieves among men, there are those who cannot control their sexual desires, and if a woman attracts attention of such men and is violated, then she can only blame herself."

Fiji-born Dr Rasheed, now a lawyer in Mt Roskill, believed the criticism was part of an international campaign against Islam by "Zionist Christians".

He said the Koran was clear that women should cover themselves "from the wrist right down to the ankles and all over except the face - that is one interpretation. The other interpretation is that they should be completely covered."

Writing on the "Info for NZ Muslims website", Syrian-born Mr Arwani called on Muslims to support Sheik Alhilali.

"The argument that men should control themselves is ludicrous. It is just like saying thieves should not rob houses whose doors and windows are left wide open," he said.

The argument that men should control themselves is ludicrous. It is just like saying thieves should not rob houses whose doors and windows are left wide open.

- Eyad Arwani (male).”

I have before expressed great concern to our politicians about islamist attitudes to women, gays, democracy, freedom of expression (barring incitement to crime and threats) and to democracy. Here we have proof that my concern is not misplaced. Here are people who publicly state that the Prime Minister and I are legitimate rape targets if we don’t wear Islamic dress!

The Netherlands is dealing with this issue on a far larger scale, having assumed too long that all immigrants would appreciate western freedoms and settle in. Now, the Netherlands are desperately searching for ways to ensure that immigrants understand and appreciate the free lifestyle Dutch citizens wish to live. We should learn from that example.

My challenge to this government is to ensure that NZ does not end up in a similar desperate situation: only people who fully support our democratic freedoms for all, for gender equality and for gay rights should be allowed into the country.

"The mufti's Sydney friend, Keysar Trad, said the cleric 'did not address the comments to her (Mrs Davidson), did not make them about her'."

Yes, the taking of blanket offence -- like the Mohammed cartoons, Benedict XVI's citing of a Byzantine emperor's challenge to a Persian, etc., -- that's an exclusive Muslim prerogative, not available to infidels anywhere, at any time.

Ah yes the lawsuit. As an American I am suprised that more of this has not occured. It is time we break out the bid guns. God knows we have enough lawyers who need work so why not give it to them. Every little insult from muslims we should file a suit. Every time they want to build a mosque break out the silly zoneing laws to make the mosque hard to build. Make muslims spend their money in courts and not on jihad. Yes it will cost money but I cannot think of a better donation to war againt jihad. Donate money to their legal war chest and let them go at it. Who cares if you win or lose but as long as it is long and expensive. Make them have to open their accounting books which no doubt will be fun. Infact many cases will just be settled out of court. Why? Becuase muslims groups don't want their records exposed during discovery.

Too good. Give it to them.

bid = big

Let the lynchings and deportations begin.

August 22, you are completely right with your hierarchy of political correctness, can I borrow it for my blog? We should just be thankful that the superior minority of Muslim Homosexuals has not surfaced yet. I can't wait to become a lawyer and sue people like Sheik Taj el-Din el-Hilaly.

"I've never heard a feminist complain about Islam."
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer

Plenty of feminists have "complained", if you mean dared to tell some of the ugly truths about Islam - Taslima Nasrin, Irshad Manji, Ayan Hirsi-Ali, Geraldine Brooks, to name a few. They are feminists because they believe in full equality for women, regardless of whether or not they call themselves feminists. Some languages may not even have a word for feminist, but that doesn't mean a woman who speaks that language can't be one. Feminist is just a label. Part of the problem, though, is that the most prominent western "feminists" and organizations have swallowed the multiculti lie hook, line and sinker, and added to that a peculiar and usually unquestioning alliance with far-left politics. Any real commitment to "feminism", in the original sense of the word, has long been left in the dust by these traitors of women everywhere.

angloirishslav:

You forgot Phyllis Chesler, who herself underwent a very dramatic escape after marrying an Afghan Mulim in the 1960s and has been very much in the forefront of criticising the elements in the "feminist" movement who find common cause with Islamists.