Australia: Topless bathing to be banned to "protect" Muslims

Greetings:

Quoting: "I don't want to have any provocations or disturbances on our public beaches,"

Then you don't want any Muslims on your public beaches. You see, they live to be provoked and/or disturbed.

In reading the original article, the comment below the picture makes the suggestion even more ridiculous:

Those are Muslim women, at an Indonesian beach; the eye-candy lying on the beach is a foreign tourist.

And where does it stop Mr.Nile? At what point will you turn and say enough is enough, this is Australia not some Middle Eastern Country where Western Values are completely rejected by being inforced.

Be Australia not Islam, and be proud of it and support it. The tendency to practice the warped perversion of mulitculturalism is your achilles tendon and Muslims know it--

But then again you are more fearful of Muslims than you are of your own fellow Australians---PITIFULL!!

"The practice was at risk of raising the ire of Muslim men in particular, Mr Nile said.

"I don't want to have any provocations or disturbances on our public beaches," he said..."

Why? What exactly does "raising the ire of Muslims" mean?

I am disappointed in Fred Nile. It is fair enough for him to make comments about topless sunbaking, but tying them in with Muslims and their bloody (please excuse Aussie language) uptight sensitivities in unnecessary. No, it is worse. I am sick of people using Muslims in their attempts to change society, whether it be "multiculturalism and diversity" or setting up Muslims as some kind of moral force for good, an inspiration to Christians or whatever.

I live in an increasingly Muslim neighbourhood, and nowadays find great pleasure in seeing what I used to take for granted, or even criticize as "too casual" - young people strolling around in shorts, free and easy and happy. The other vision of fat, waddling, sour-faced creatures in their ghastly, dismal, bosom-crushing brown tents is too depressing.

Modesty is fine, just not THEIR version of it.

"raising the ire"? -- I'm reminded of a story from the dhimmiwatch archives:
Aug 15, 2008
MARINA, Egypt (AFP) — Islamic hymns fade out giving way to Arabic pop music as women remove their veils to reveal bikinis or one-piece swimsuits at a religiously correct beach for women only in Egypt.... "The 'sharia' swimsuits are not practical," said Marwa, who says she is as happy as a "fish in water" at La Femme, where she feels she can be herself. The only moment of concern for Marwa is when YOUNG MEN RIDING JET SKIS TRY TO INCH THEIR WAY CLOSER TO THE COAST TO SNEAK A VIEW OF THE WOMEN.

--They sound really upset about it.

Elric 66:
I do not think it is the "ire" of Muslim men that will be "raised" when they get an eyeful of topless women. I am a fairly conservative (socially and fiscally) Roman Catholic Italo American gal and dress modestly myself. Yet, if I remember correctly from my human reproduction and biology class, it ain't the IRE in a man that woman's naked breasts are known to give RISE to.

Happy New Year Australia. Stay free and sassy if you can.

BevC

And why don't Muslims respect the Australian culture? After all if it's to be a truly multicultural society then all customs should be respected, most of all the native customs. What's next? Having to cover your legs and faces because that makes Muslims angry too? After all in many countries that is a fact.

Fred Nile is a hypocrite. He ran last political campaign as being the one candidate who was opposed to Islam.

Now he's talking about wanting to protect muslims sensitivities from Australian beach goers who bathe topless.

TOTAL HYPOCRITE!!

"Our beaches should be a place where no one is offended, whether it's their religious or cultural views," he said.

Even a modestly intelligent person should realize that this is simply impossible. You cannot have a society where nobody is offended. It is regrettable that a person who is so obviously mentally challenged can become a politician.

The woman lying down on a towel is not the one that looks out of place. Don't go to the beach if your eyes start burning from seeing too much skin. How stupid.

Voltaire above is absolutely correct about the hypocrisy of Fred Niles.

Fred is a good example of why many people remain suspicious of christian conservatives in politics because, just like many islamists, they are not above a bit of lying to get what they want.

In this case, Fred really just wants less skin exposed on the beach (everywhere really). For that he is prepared to say and do anything, including using muslims and asians as an excuse when only last year he was campaigning against face veils (he wants to see women's faces, just not the other parts of their bodies).

Here's to a great New Years and to topless women everywhere - a surer symbol of western and feminist freedom you can't find.

Fred Nile is a political whore. He is chosing sides based on 'who will direct more money to him'.

AND I OBJECT.

More beaches need to be opened up to topless bathing or else it will offend the rest of us men.

This fool Fred Nile will open the door to the introduction of Sharia as a parallel legal code with this.

The problem is not the topless women it is the warped mindset of Muslim men that see opportunity for rape everytime and regard infidel women as whores.

I, for one have no issues with topless...anything.

Doesn't my oppinion count? Oh, wait. I forgot: I'M A WHITE MAJORITY.

Champ is right, don't go to the beach if you know your eyes might be offended.

Which brings up the question of just why Mohammadans would go to those particular beaches to begin with? The binoculars and telephoto lenses are suspicious.

There's a certain river in Northern California USA, very near duh swami's temple, that in the summer is a hot bed of nudist activity. Very hot.
There is an obnoxious, on going problem of men with binoculars. They hide in the bushes above the beaches and...The locals call them 'bushwackers'...A very low form of life.

I won't give the name of this river, nor directions on how to get there, as it may offend Mohammadans, who may flock there to get their sensitivities injured.
I don't want to be responsible for turning a pious Mohammadan into a bushwacker...

The Rev Nile is just trying to save Mohammadans from the same fate...

I understand why Conservatives (I'm assuming that Aussie conservatives are similar to American ones) would be opposed to topless bathing. But why use either that as a cover for pandering to Mohammedans, or conversely, pandering to Mohammedans as a cover for their otherwise rational opposition to topless bathing?

I agree with PG. I'm all for wholesome behavior. However, I don't consider anything Mohammedans do wholesome.

Burkas on Bondi beach offend ME. What is the remedy for that offense, Mr. Nile?

I don't get it. Fred and his Christian Democrats were the only party running on a ban Muslim immigration for ten years ticket. Now he's worried about offending their distorted sense of 'modesty'????

I have a similar view as jewcat. I voted for his party last year because of their stance on Muslim immigration. Now this?

First the topless goes.

Then the bikinis.

The the one pieces get longer.

Then the exposed hair is offensive.

Then we have his and her beaches.

Mr Nile, it is time to retire.

Hey swami that's the American River isn't it.

Quote:
"The practice was at risk of raising the ire of Muslim men in particular, Mr Nile said."

He is 100% correct in this. Don't we all remember their Mufti Hilali of Australia excusing Mohammaden men who rape women. It is like leaving raw meat exposed to hungry cats, he claimed.

It is not their ire that will be raised but their lust. After all, even their phony prophet Mo couldn't control his lust when he saw even his own daughter-in-law Zainab undressed.

To Mohammaden men, all that Mo did was sacred and an example to be emulated.

Letters to Mr Nile would be in order - especially from people who can tell him that they voted for him primarily because he originally ran on a ticket of restricting or ending Mohammedan immigration.

Be sure to enclose the delicious little essay by French schoolteacher Monsieur Robert Redeker which, when published in Le Figaro in 2007, cost him his job and gained him a barrage of Muslim death threats.

And why? - because M le professeur R. Redeker dared to point out, in no more than 1000 words, a few simple home truths about Islam (and unfavourably compared it, to boot, with Christianity).

I shall post it in this thread - in the original French, which is delightful, and then in English translation - because among other things it mentions that the wearing of 'le string', that is, the thong bikini, was banned on the 'Paris beaches', for reasons precisely identical - and identically worded - to those given by Mr Nile.

M. Redeker observes, caustically, that it is the wearing of the burqa in the streets of Paris which should cause far greater offence than 'le string', because it is a sign of our society's foolish toleration of the repression of women by Islam.

Get a green highlighter, my fellow Aussie jihadwatchers, and mark up that passage before you send the essay to Mr Nile, and then ask him: which is more offensive to a Christian's sensibility?

An Aussie sheila sunbathing on the beach with her bosom exposed (which merely provokes anxiety among those whose task it is to detect and treat sun cancer and melanoma) or a Muslim woman marching down an Australian street - or beach - with her face erased and her body obliterated by a shroud-like garment that marks her out as some Muslim male's absolute possession?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013333.php#c277012

THE ARTICLE: IN Le Figaro, September 19, 2006.

(For those looking for the sound-bite quote; here it is: "Le Coran est un livre d’inouïe violence" (The Qu'ran is a book of extraordinary violence)

Robert Redeker (Philosophe. Professeur au lycée Pierre-Paul-Riquet à Saint-Orens de Gammeville. Va publier Dépression et philosophie (éditions Pleins Feux).

Les réactions suscitées par l’analyse de Benoît XVI sur l’islam et la violence s’inscrivent dans la tentative menée par cet islam d’étouffer ce que l’Occident a de plus précieux qui n’existe dans aucun pays musulman :

la liberté de penser et de s’exprimer.

L’islam essaie d’imposer à l’Europe ses règles : ouverture des piscines à certaines heures exclusivement aux femmes, interdiction de caricaturer cette religion, exigence d’un traitement diététique particulier des enfants musulmans dans les cantines, combat pour le port du voile à l’école, accusation d’islamophobie contre les esprits libres.

Comment expliquer l’interdiction du string à Paris-Plages, cet été ? Étrange fut l’argument avancé : risque de «troubles à l’ordre public».

Cela signifiait-il que des bandes de jeunes frustrés risquaient de devenir violents à l’affichage de la beauté ? Ou bien craignait-on des manifestations islamistes, via des brigades de la vertu, aux abords de Paris-Plages ?

Pourtant, la non-interdiction du port du voile dans la rue est, du fait de la réprobation que ce soutien à l’oppression contre les femmes suscite, plus propre à «troubler l’ordre public» que le string.

Il n’est pas déplacé de penser que cette interdiction traduit une islamisation des esprits en France, une soumission plus ou moins consciente aux diktats de l’islam.

Ou, à tout le moins, qu’elle résulte de l’insidieuse pression musulmane sur les esprits. Islamisation des esprits : ceux-là même qui s’élevaient contre l’inauguration d’un Parvis Jean-Paul-II à Paris ne s’opposent pas à la construction de mosquées.

L’islam tente d’obliger l’Europe à se plier à sa vision de l’homme.

Comme jadis avec le communisme, l’Occident se retrouve sous surveillance idéologique.

L’islam se présente, à l’image du défunt communisme, comme une alternative au monde occidental.

À l’instar du communisme d’autrefois, l’islam, pour conquérir les esprits, joue sur une corde sensible. Il se targue d’une légitimité qui trouble la conscience occidentale, attentive à autrui : être la voix des pauvres de la planète.

Hier, la voix des pauvres prétendait venir de Moscou, aujourd’hui elle viendrait de La Mecque !

Aujourd’hui à nouveau, des intellectuels incarnent cet oeil du Coran, comme ils incarnaient l’oeil de Moscou hier. Ils excommunient pour islamophobie, comme hier pour anticommunisme.

Dans l’ouverture à autrui, propre à l’Occident, se manifeste une sécularisation du christianisme, dont le fond se résume ainsi : l’autre doit toujours passer avant moi. L’Occidental, héritier du christianisme, est l’être qui met son âme à découvert. Il prend le risque de passer pour faible.

À l’identique de feu le communisme, l’islam tient la générosité, l’ouverture d’esprit, la tolérance, la douceur, la liberté de la femme et des moeurs, les valeurs démocratiques, pour des marques de décadence.

Ce sont des faiblesses qu’il veut exploiter au moyen «d’idiots utiles», les bonnes consciences imbues de bons sentiments, afin d’imposer l’ordre coranique au monde occidental lui-même.

Le Coran est un livre d’inouïe violence.

Maxime Rodinson énonce, dans l’Encyclopédia Universalis, quelques vérités aussi importantes que taboues en France.

D’une part, «Muhammad révéla à Médine des qualités insoupçonnées de dirigeant politique et de chef militaire (...) Il recourut à la guerre privée, institution courante en Arabie (...) Muhammad envoya bientôt des petits groupes de ses partisans attaquer les caravanes mekkoises, punissant ainsi ses incrédules compatriotes et du même coup acquérant un riche butin».
D’autre part, «Muhammad profita de ce succès pour éliminer de Médine, en la faisant massacrer, la dernière tribu juive qui y restait, les Qurayza, qu’il accusait d’un comportement suspect».
Enfin, «après la mort de Khadidja, il épousa une veuve, bonne ménagère, Sawda, et aussi la petite Aisha, qui avait à peine une dizaine d’années. Ses penchants érotiques, longtemps contenus, devaient lui faire contracter concurremment une dizaine de mariages».

Exaltation de la violence : chef de guerre impitoyable, pillard, massacreur de juifs et polygame, tel se révèle Mahomet à travers le Coran.

De fait, l’Église catholique n’est pas exempte de reproches. Son histoire est jonchée de pages noires, sur lesquelles elle a fait repentance.

L’Inquisition, la chasse aux sorcières, l’exécution des philosophes Bruno et Vanini, ces mal-pensants épicuriens, celle, en plein XVIIIe siècle, du chevalier de La Barre pour impiété, ne plaident pas en sa faveur.

Mais ce qui différencie le christianisme de l’islam apparaît : il est toujours possible de retourner les valeurs évangéliques, la douce personne de Jésus contre les dérives de l’Église.

Aucune des fautes de l’Église ne plonge ses racines dans l’Évangile. Jésus est non-violent. Le retour à Jésus est un recours contre les excès de l’institution ecclésiale.

Le recours à Mahomet, au contraire, renforce la haine et la violence.

Jésus est un maître d’amour, Mahomet un maître de haine.

La lapidation de Satan, chaque année à La Mecque, n’est pas qu’un phénomène superstitieux. Elle ne met pas seulement en scène une foule hystérisée flirtant avec la barbarie. Sa portée est anthropologique. Voilà en effet un rite, auquel chaque musulman est invité à se soumettre, inscrivant la violence comme un devoir sacré au coeur du croyant.

Cette lapidation, s’accompagnant annuellement de la mort par piétinement de quelques fidèles, parfois de plusieurs centaines, est un rituel qui couve la violence archaïque.

Au lieu d’éliminer cette violence archaïque, à l’imitation du judaïsme et du christianisme, en la neutralisant (le judaïsme commence par le refus du sacrifice humain, c’est-à-dire l’entrée dans la civilisation, le christianisme transforme le sacrifice en eucharistie), l’islam lui confectionne un nid, où elle croîtra au chaud.

Quand le judaïsme et le christianisme sont des religions dont les rites conjurent la violence, la délégitiment, l’islam est une religion qui, dans son texte sacré même, autant que dans certains de ses rites banals, exalte violence et haine.

Haine et violence habitent le livre dans lequel tout musulman est éduqué, le Coran.

Comme aux temps de la guerre froide, violence et intimidation sont les voies utilisées par une idéologie à vocation hégémonique, l’islam, pour poser sa chape de plomb sur le monde.

Benoît XVI en souffre la cruelle expérience. Comme en ces temps-là, il faut appeler l’Occident «le monde libre» par rapport à au monde musulman, et comme en ces temps-là les adversaires de ce «monde libre», fonctionnaires zélés de l’oeil du Coran, pullulent en son sein.”

- Posted by: Sebastien at September 28, 2006 4:57 PM

Robert Redeker: English translation
- Posté le Jeudi 28 septembre 2006 par Sittingbull

'What should the free world do while facing Islamist intimidation?

'The reactions caused by Benedict XVI’s analysis of Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by Islam to stifle what the West values more than anything, and which does not exist in any Moslem country:

'freedom of thought and expression.

'Islam tries to impose its rules on Europe: opening of public swimming pools at certain hours reserved exclusively for women, ban on caricaturing this religion, demands for special diets for Muslim children in school cafeterias, struggle to impose the veil at school, accusations of Islamophobia against free spirits.

*'How can one explain the ban on the wearing of thongs on the Paris-Beaches* this summer?* {my emphasis - dda}

*'The reasoning put forth was bizarre: women wearing thongs would risk “disturbing the peace”. * {my emphasis added - dda}

'Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent while being offended by displays of beauty? Or were the authorities scared of Islamist demonstrations by virtue squads near Paris-Beaches?

'*However, the authorization of the veil on the street is more disturbing to public peace than wearing a thong, because it invites complaints against the upholding of the oppression of women." {my emphasis added - dda}.

'This ban represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam.

'At the very least it is the result of the insidious Muslim pressure on people’s minds: even those who protested the introduction of a “Jean Paul II Square” in Paris would not be opposed to the construction of mosques.

' Islam is trying to force Europe to yield to its vision of humanity.

'As in the past with Communism, the West finds itself under ideological watch.

' Islam presents itself, like defunct Communism, as an alternative to the Western world. In the way of Communism before it, Islam, to conquer spirits, plays on a sensitive chord. It prides itself on a legitimacy which troubles Western conscience, which is attentive to others: it claims to be the voice of the oppressed of the planet.

'Yesterday, the voice of the poor supposedly came from Moscow, today it originates in Mecca!

'Again, today, western intellectuals incarnate the eye of the Koran, as they have incarnated the eye of Moscow.

'They now excommunicate people for Islamophobia, as they once did for anti-communism.

'This open-ness to others, specific to the West, is a secularization of Christianity that can be summarized thus: the other person must come before myself.

'The Westerner, heir to Christianity, is the one that bares his soul. He runs the risk of being seen as weak.

'With the same ardor as Communism, Islam treats generosity, broadmindedness, tolerance, gentleness, freedom of women and of manners, democratic values, as marks of decadence.

'They are weaknesses that it seeks to exploit, by means of useful idiots, self-righteous consciences drowning in nice feelings, in order to impose the Koranic order on the Western world itself.

'The Koran is a book of unparalleled violence.

'Maxime Rodinson states, in Encyclopedia Universalis, some truths that in France are as significant as they are taboo.

'On one hand: “Mohammed revealed in Medina unsuspected qualities as political leader and military chief (…) He resorted to private war, by then a prevalent custom in Arabia (….)

'Mohammed soon sent small groups of partisans to attack the Meccan caravans, thus punishing his unbelieving compatriots and simultaneously acquiring the booty of a wealthy man.”

'There is more: “Mohammed profited from this success by eradicating the Jewish tribe which resided in Medina, the Quarayza, whom he accused of suspect behaviour.”

'And: “After the death of Khadija, he married a widow, a good housewife, called Sawda, and in addition the little Aisha, barely ten years old. His erotic predilections, held in check for a long time, led him to ten simultaneous marriages.”

'A merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist, such is the man revealed through the Koran.

'Of course, the Catholic church is not above reproach. Its history is littered with dark pages, for which it has officially repented. The Inquisition, the hounding of witches, the execution of the philosophers Giordano Bruno and Vanini, those wrong-thinking Epicureans, in the 18th century the execution of the knight of La Barre for impiety, do not plead in the church’s favor.

'But what differentiates Christianity from Islam is obvious: it is always possible to go back to true principles of the Gospels, the peaceful character of Jesus as opposed to the deviations of the Church.

'None of the faults of the Church have their roots in the Gospel. Jesus is non-violent. Going back to Jesus is akin to forswearing the excesses of the Church.

'Going back to Mahomet, on the contrary, reinforces hate and violence.

'Jesus is a master of love; Mahomet is a master of hatred.

'The stoning of Satan, each year in Mecca, is not only an obsolete superstition. It not only sets the stage for a hysterical crowd flirting with barbarity. Its meaning is anthropological. Here is a rite, which each Muslim is invited to submit to, that emphasizes violence as a sacred duty in the very heart of the believer.

'This stoning, accompanied each year by the accidental trampling to death of some of the believers, sometimes up to several hundreds, is a rite that feeds archaic violence.

'Instead of getting rid of this archaic violence, and thus imitating Judaism and Christianity (Judaism starts when it abandons human sacrifice, and enters civilization; Christianity transforms sacrifice through the Eucharist), Islam builds a nest for this violence, where it will incubate.

'Whereas Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites spurn violence, by delegitimizing it, Islam is a religion that exalts violence and hatred in its everyday rites and sacred book.

'Hatred and violence dwell in the book with which every Muslim is brought up, the Koran.

'As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation were the methods used by an ideology hell bent on hegemony, so today Islam tries to put its leaden mantle all over the world.

'Benedict XVI’s cruel experience bears witness to this.

;Nowadays, the West has to be called the “free world” in comparison to the Muslim world; likewise, the enemies of the “free world”, the zealous bureaucrats of the Koran’s vision, swarm in the very center of the free World.”
-
http://extremecentre.org/2006/09/28/robert-bedeker-english-translation/#more-2929

Australia? Wussing out this badly?

Bloody hell. There goes another once manly country turned dhimmi bitch.

It's embarrassing.

An easier solution is to simply ban women from going to the beach.

Anything less might offend Muslims.

I should point out, for the benefit of Americans unfamiliar with Australian politics, that Nile does not in fact command very much 'clout'. It is disappointing that he has moved from a position against Muslim immigration to an apparently dhimmi attitude.

When I showed my husband this story he said, 'Fred Nile? But who listens to *him*?".

It is possible that this story, by associating Islam with Nile who is popularly seen as a 'wowser' [definition of 'wowser' = someone who pokes their noses into others' fun with a 'spot it and stop it' mindset], will if anything make the average Australian more, not less, suspicious of Islam.

My first paragraph above should read:

"I should point out, for the benefit of Americans unfamiliar with Australian politics, that Nile does not in fact command very much 'clout'. Therefore, although it is indeed disappointing that he has moved from a position against Muslim immigration to an apparently dhimmi attitude, the fact remains that his opinions are not of very great significance. He is no Geert Wilders".

I just want to point out that Muslims are not complaining about topless bathing in Aus. In this case it is the gutless politician who assumes Muslims would be offended by it. Niles's email in-box should be bulging with comments from his electorate. Don't let him get away with this ridiculousness.

Hence the Dhimmi accusation, Tommo.

There may not have been a specific complaint from the Muslim community about women being topless on beaches, but the perception that Western women generally present themselves in public like “uncovered meat” receives unanimous support from followers of this misogynist cult. No-one has to explicitly complain; their sensitivities are “understood and respected", and accommodations made.

Dear Bevc:

That’s a great laugh!

Makes my day!

Wow! Just great!

An afterthought: Maybe Fred Nile’s can’t rise?

Bonne Année!

Nile's address

F.Nile@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Thanks for the link!

Here's what I sent:

Mr. Nile-

Muslim men offend me at the beach just by looking at me. Would you please remove them permanently from beaches for regular human beings or at least have them wear burqas? They are so gosh-darned ugly what with those uni-brows and unwaxed body parts, and the drooling is ridiculous. If I want to get wet, I'll jump in the water. Plus, they can't take their eyes off my little boy. I'm scared.

Nile's other address, as listed on the Christian Democratic Party web page:

admin@cdp.org.au

Excuse me, Nile, but did you forget to take your common sense pills recently. Australia is Australia, founded by good people from England and Ireland and other Christian European countries.
If Muslims - who believe in a death cult that is NOT a religion, and who believe in a leader that was a child molester (yes, that Mo married Ayesha when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old) - anyway, if Muslims don't like the Australian beaches, then they should leave Australia and return to the backwards country from which they came.
Send this wanker thousands of emails reminding him that Australia is Australia, and not some backwards Muslim country.

Nile's other address, as listed on the Christian Democratic Party web page:

admin@cdp.org.au

Excuse me, Nile, but did you forget to take your common sense pills recently. Australia is Australia, founded by good people from England and Ireland and other Christian European countries.
If Muslims - who believe in a death cult that is NOT a religion, and who believe in a leader that was a child molester (yes, that Mo married Ayesha when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old) - anyway, if Muslims don't like the Australian beaches, then they should leave Australia and return to the backwards country from which they came.
Send this wanker thousands of emails reminding him that Australia is Australia, and not some backwards Muslim country.

A little confused here myself. Just read an article from the Times of India about this and either Mr Niles has changed his story or the Times is changing it themselves.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Rest_of_World/Sydney_plan_to_ban_topless_sunbathing_triggers_outrage/articleshow/3915910.cms

Nothing about Muslims, just Christians and wanting to make sure the law is straight forward and clearly defined about the definition of nudity.

dumbelsdoresarmy is quite correct.
Nile is about as relevant here as Windows '95.

(And yes, he is being a political opportunist.)

Hey swami that's the American River isn't it.

Posted by: payingattention

The American is one of them, but I was thinking of the South Yuba. A little further north...

Those Yuba City types! Thanks swami.

Fred Nile is a muslim hater
he has called for banning the chador and stopping all Muslim immigration. He has opposed Muslims building schools

So the idea he is doing this because of the Muslim community is laughable. Rather he is doing it to stir up anti-Muslim hatred much as dumbo watch does

You apparently take issue with the goals of the blog. May I ask you some questions?

1.)Do you believe that there are no supremist aspects in the teachings of Islam (The Qu'ran and Hadiths), Or do you believe that violent Muslims are a tiny minority?
2.)If you answered tiny minority, then why do you think that most (if not all) of the eastern Muslim countries practice a violent form of Islam including hatred of Isreal, terrorism and Shi'ra law?
3.)Do you beleive that Mohammad and the Quar'an are perfect or at least good examples of behavior?
4.)Do you believe that Muslims do not in fact force people in Islamic run countries to follow the tenets of Islam, and that the concern expressed in this article is unfounded?

I await your answers.

This is the first article I have decided to respond to after reading this site for a long time. I live on a beach, in a community that is slowly being invaded by Muslims. They are changing our community, and not for the better. Woman are being hassled on the beach for wearing normal swim wear. People walking dogs, myself included, get stones tossed at them. As neighbors they are as unpleasant as can be. The idea of fitting into a community and respecting others does not exist in their culture.

I continue to stand up for myself and remind my new neighbors that if they do not like America's freedoms they can go back home. I'll even pay for the plane ticket.

In Boston, the building of a massive mosque has taken down both the state senator, and local councilman for the area. They made promises any one could have told the city they had no intention of keeping.

It's offensive to me to see the kind of "covered meat" seen in the picture going with this story.

Bare is Beautiful.

Covered Meat is UGLY!

fibrowitch

Your situation sounds really nasty. Do you have many friends and neighbours who share your concerns?

Perhaps you need to contact 'davegreybeard' who posts regularly on this site, and obtain from him some of his little leaflets that give the key facts - just the facts, ma'am - about Mohammed and Islam.

If you have friends who also have dogs, perhaps it's time to form 'dog-walking' clubs. There's safety in numbers. NEVER walk alone. Gather together and walk your hounds en masse - five, ten, twenty, thirty people - and dogs - at a time. If some of the dogs can be really big, and black as the ace of spades, this will be even better (Mohammed told Muslims that black dogs are Satan).

Every time any Muslims throw stones and yell insults at the dog-walkers and the dogs, video and audio the whole thing, and note down the exact date, place and time.

Surely throwing stones - which can cause serious injury - classifies as an assault - breaking the law. If you have actual factual documented evidence of deliberate stone-throwing aimed at humans and/or pet dogs which are fully under leash, then you will have something to show to the police.

Likewise on the beach: form 'bathing clubs'. Meet for a picnic and a swim, at pre-set times. Band together.

Try to set things up so that whenever the Muslim males (and/or females) try to bully and cuss at the Infidel women in swimwear, they will get recorded doing so on full sound and colour; again, make sure you have witnesses to write down date, place and time. Give the resultant footage to the local cop-shop.

Alternatively: once you have the evidence, let the videos of Muslims harassing and chucking rocks at law-abiding dog-owners in the public streets and parks, and bullying and insulting perfectly acceptably dressed women on the beaches, be posted on youtube...or forward them to Mr Spencer.

By the way, the questions in my previous post were aimed at stillistanbul.

Dda: Actually, that TV show called "Today Tonight" (I think) on Channel 7 in Melbourne, which has other versions, is always interested in the annoying habits of Muslims, and I am sure they would appreciate little video clips. People criticize these shows as "bogan" but they have their uses; and besides, if the bogans are on our side, then all strength to them, their own habits are forgiven.

"In reading the original article, the comment below the picture makes the suggestion even more ridiculous:

Those are Muslim women, at an Indonesian beach; the eye-candy lying on the beach is a foreign tourist."

Posted by: PRCS

Actually it is an Australian beach. The lifeguards are allowed to wear burqini's now because of their muslim faith. So yes it is an Australian beach, because they are wearing the Australian lifeguard 'uniform'.

(Not very uniform though, when some women wear burqini's and others the normal bathingsuits. Not very uniform at all. It seems that muslims LOVE to show their special status everywhere they go.)

I think it is rediculous that the Conservative MP Fred Nile says "he wants topless bathing banned in NSW to protect Sydney's Muslim and Asian communities."
That is counter protective to the people who want to live in freedom and be able to go topless if they want to.
It is NON OF THEIR (muslim's and dhimmi's) F*CKING BUSINESS!!!
If those muslims feel offended then piss off out of Australia! You have NOTHING to do whatsoever in a free country when you feel offended by other people's freedoms.
Politicans who feel obligated to 'protect' the harmless scared poor poor muslims who can not possibly in any way shape or form protect themselves against the vile behaviour of non muslims, really are a bunch of blind morons...

The free people should be the ones to feel offended by the barbaric behaviour of many muslims around the world and quite rightly so even!
Everyday our freedoms get chipped away and it is not even the muslims fault really, they are just doing what they think is right. The nature of the beast so to speak (Ayayay, when will I get a lawsuit against me?!) But it is the behavioural idiocy by 'our countries leaders' who enable muslims to chip away at our freedoms.

Or am I just being crazy and islamophobic?!?!?!

"Fred Nile is a muslim hater
he has called for banning the chador and stopping all Muslim immigration. He has opposed Muslims building schools

So the idea he is doing this because of the Muslim community is laughable. Rather he is doing it to stir up anti-Muslim hatred much as dumbo watch does"

Posted by: stillistanbul

@StillIstanbul

My girlfriend was born and raised in Istanbul and still lives there and she vomits upon people like you. She would be aplauding Fred Nile for trying to ban the chador and stop all muslim immigration.

(((But I still think Fred Nile is a pussy from trying to ban going topless on the beach, I don't think he is trying to stir up anti-islamic hatred. But hey, you muslims are already the best at doing that yourselves. Just look at Mumbai, great example of muslim tolerance!)))

She has seen people like you destroying the secular character of Istanbul, the secular city she loved. She has seen the akp and people like you destroying the secular character of Türkiye. A place where people used to be able to wear what they wanted, short skirts, bikini's etc. But now the streets are being taken over by burqa women and bearded men in jalaba.

StillIstanbul... PPFFFF! Go play in the desert in Saudi Arabia with your backwarded idea's!
You are an insult to every secular Turk who lives in Istanbul. The people of Istanbul don't want people like you!

Luckily, Fred Nile is desperate fool, that nobody takes seriously.

The same paper ran another story the following day after that story broke, asking whether women should be spared having to view fat ugly men's "man-cans" (not my expression) on the beach.

Relax folks. This one's straight out of the "no news fit to print today" column.