Recently in Australia Category

I spoke in Brisbane, Australia on December 1, 2011, as part of a five-city Australian tour in late November and early December. The tour sponsor was the Q Society of Australia.

Of all the talks I gave in Australia, in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, and Cairns, as well as in Brisbane, I think this one was the best -- although, of course, I am not seeing it from the audience's perspective. I start just before the 30 minute mark.

The sense of entitlement boggles the mind. They also want government-subsidized self-segregation. They didn't come to Australia to (shudder) live with Australians, by golly. "Pay for our trips home - the Islamic Women's Welfare Association," by John Masanauskas for the Herald Sun, January 13:

NEW migrants should get taxpayer subsidies to visit overseas relatives, an Islamic group has told the Federal Government.

The Islamic Women's Welfare Association also says Muslims prefer to live close to their own people and Australia should consider how to "facilitate the purchase of homes for new migrants".

In a submission to a federal multicultural inquiry, the association has urged the Government to give tax deductions to newly arrived migrants so they can visit relatives in their homelands.

"Migrants face a lot of sacrifices such as having to travel long distances to visit relatives, spending on communication costs, missing out on some events occurring in native countries etc," the submission said.

"This loss should be compensated by the Government in one way or the other to retain migrants in their country of adoption."

Victorian Muslim and president of the Australian Council of Bosnian Organisations Senada Softic-Telalovic said while some help might be justified for needy refugees who had to go overseas to settle their affairs, she didn't support travel compensation for all newcomers.

That type of argument will bring out further outrage from those who are so anti-migrant and so anti-multiculturalism," she said. Ms Softic-Telalovic said that Australia was seen as an ideal migration destination and new arrivals shouldn't take the country for granted.

"Migrants and refugees who come out now are in a significantly better position and you could say a more privileged position than those who came out in the 1970s," she said.

Victorian Multicultural and Citizenship Minister Nick Kotsiras said tax breaks for migrant trips abroad was a ridiculous idea.

"We are all equal and no one should get special privileges," he said.

I start around 30 minutes in, after Vickie Janson and Warren Raymond of the Q Society give opening remarks. This was the second talk I gave during my recent speaking tour of Australia.

This is just a partial video. I am hoping that complete videos that were taken of my talks in Perth and Brisbane will eventually become available. (This video is erroneously labeled as being from Perth, but it is actually the Sydney talk.) Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for this.

The claim of cause and effect does not add up rationally: a Danish caricature of Muhammad leads a successful kickboxer to plot to "kill as many Australians as possible to advance the cause of Islam." There is much more to the story, including Fattal's stint in a Lebanese prison where he appears to have been further indoctrinated.

The cartoon is ultimately an excuse seized upon in the context of a broader grievance culture, an obsession with "honor" (more accurately described as pride), and above all, a sense of entitlement to revenge that threatens to destabilize any society in which it takes hold.

More on this story. "Danish cartoon sparked fanatic's plot to kill Aussies," by Steve Lillebuen for the Sydney Morning Herald, December 18:

Wissam Fattal's descent from champion kickboxer to would-be terrorist appears to have begun at least six years ago, when a Danish cartoon sparked outrage, protests and several deaths across the Muslim world.

It was 2005 and Fattal, an expectant father with five siblings, was already a devout Muslim - but he was certainly no extremist.

At least, not yet.

The Danish cartoons appeared to change that, setting him on a path towards a criminal conviction for plotting to kill as many Australians as possible to advance the cause of Islam.

The cartoon did not throw some automatic switch in Fattal's mind and turn him into a zombie bent on killing. There was a pre-existing context in which he processed his taking offense and decided on appropriate action.

Fattal, now 35, had just returned to his homeland of Lebanon when the cartoons were first published.

He was infuriated by what many Muslims believed was an insulting, offensive depiction of the prophet Mohammed.

What's the body count for the Piss Christ?

A protest he joined against the cartoons that year became chaotic, causing extensive damage outside the Danish embassy in Beirut.

It resulted in his arrest and a jail term of three months.

When he returned to Australia, he had changed noticeably.

"It was during this time in Lebanon that you became what could be described as particularly strong, devoted and fundamentalist in your religion," Victorian Supreme Court Justice Betty King said as she sentenced Fattal to 18 years in prison on Friday.

"You became more religious and more fervent and fundamental in your views as time went on."

Around the same time, he abruptly ended his kickboxing career. He had won several championships across the Middle East, but said his view of the sport had changed.

His religious beliefs became also become more rigid and simplistic.

By 2009, his attitude could be described in a single statement: Australia was at war with Muslims and it was up to devout believers like him to do something about it....

Toward the end of my recent speaking tour of Australia, I did three short interviews with Sheik Yermami and Vlad Tepes. Above is the third. The first is here and the second is here.

Two pious men

Justice Betty King doesn't get it. Aweys and El Sayed were not ungrateful, as far as they themselves were concerned. They think they were doing Australians a favor by killing a few kuffar in order to terrorize and weaken Australian society, and thereby pave the way for Sharia rule. "Judge berates terrorists who were given refuge in Australia," by Norrie Ross for the Herald Sun, December 17 (thanks to Kenneth):

THREE terrorists had repaid the kindness of Australians with an evil plot to slaughter dozens of soldiers at an army base, a judge said yesterday.

Justice Betty King said the families of Saney Aweys, 28, and Nayev El Sayed, 27, had fled civil war in Somalia and Lebanon, while Libyan Wissam Fattal, 35, came to Australia to further his kickboxing career.

"The fact that Australia welcomed all of you, and nurtured you and your families, is something that should cause you all to hang your heads in shame that this was the way you planned to show your thanks for that support," the judge said.

"Your views about Australia and Australians, and your attitude towards the country's armed forces, its civilians, and its government, were clear. Your plans were evil."

Justice King jailed the three for 18 years, and set minimum terms of 13 1/2 years[.]

The judge said Fattal, Aweys and El Sayed were all unrepentant radical Muslims and would remain a threat to the public while they held extremist views. But of the three, only Fattal can be deported on his release from jail. His co-conspirators have Australian citizenship.

Justice King said the men had planned an armed attack on Sydney's Holsworthy army base by up to six men, who would shoot dead as many people as they could before they were killed.

She said they all had a connection to the Preston mosque, support for a Somalian terrorist group, and were driven by extremist Muslim views.

"All of you believe in the principle of martyrdom. All of you believe it is your obligation to oppose and deal with those you describe as infidels," the Supreme Court judge said.

"It is an unfortunate but widely known fact that some Muslims hold extremist views of not only their religion, but of their obligation under their religion to martyrdom, (and) have engaged in worldwide terrorism."

Yet another judge assumes she knows more about Islam than devout and observant Muslims, and presumes to lecture them about it and tell them they're holding "extremist views."

The judge said the men's plan was amateurish and far from sophisticated.

But it was "deadly serious" and, if carried out, its results would have been horrific.

Fattal, who has caused trouble consistently in court and in jail, was dragged out of court before sentencing when he began a rant about "Jews, Palestine and Afghanistan", and said he did not recognise the court.

At the end of the sentencing, El Sayed shouted "God is with us", as a woman wept hysterically....

Human rights activist Babette Francis

Babette Francis is Indian-born and experienced life in Muslim-majority provinces before the Partition of the Indian sub-continent into India and Pakistan. I am wearing a traditional Indian garland that she kindly presented to me. Here is her account of one of the talks I gave during my recent Australian tour.

"Australians warned about Islamic 'jihad by stealth,'" by Babette Francis for News Weekly, December 24:

Muslims in Australia are the first migrant group which has no intention of assimilating in the host country, according to an American authority on Islamic extremism during a recent speaking tour of Australia.

Robert Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for US army, FBI and counter-terrorism officers, heads Jihad Watch and is a prolific author.

Even before his arrival in Australia for his speaking tour, Spencer’s impending visit was denounced by the Deputy Premier of Queensland, Andrew Fraser, who called upon the Liberal National Party and Bob Katter’s Australian Party to denounce advertising material distributed by the main sponsor for Spencer’s visit, the Q Society, which is dedicated to halting the further Islamisation of Australia.

I had lunch with Robert Spencer during his time in Melbourne and heard him speak that evening on the nature and aims of Islam. He emphasised the “jihad by stealth” approach by Muslims in Australia, noting they are the first migrant group which has no intention of assimilating in the host country.

He said: “Muslims constitute the first immigrant group with a notion of ‘superior governance’ to the existing society of the host country. They see it as a ‘divine responsibility’ to emigrate — just as Mohammed moved from Mecca to Medina — with the intention of establishing Sharia law wherever they are.

“This is not a question of race — both Hindus and Pakistanis, who shared the same country until the middle of last century, were racially similar. However there has never been an attempt by Hindu immigrants to establish a Hindu worldview as the sole approach to life in Australia.

“Islam, on the contrary, has the aim of fighting [this is the meaning of jihad] from without or within a society to establish Sharia law here.”

Some nominal and secular Muslims come to Australia, as well as to Europe and North America, to escape Sharia, and when they get to the West they find authorities eagerly granting concessions to their more rigid coreligionists.

Loss of free speech

Spencer observed the asymmetrical nature of the battle with Islam. If one complains about the Islamisation of the country, one’s facts and observations are not listened to; one is immediately labelled ‘Islamophobic’. A phobia is an irrational fear, but in the case of Islam there is a well-attested danger of an increased incidence of terrorist killings, aggressive Islamist policies and refusal to integrate into a host country.

Spencer said “hate speech” laws are advancing in Australia. They are really Islamic laws because in Islam you are punished not because what you have said is untrue, but for saying what is not permissible to say under Islam.

The Islamic approach, said Spencer, is “a polemic against Judaeo-Christian society”. Muslims deplore the division of politics and religion in the West. They state with pride that their “religion” covers everything in life from everyday matters to everything in the political sphere.

I myself was living in India when over a million people were killed during riots which accompanied the Partition of the sub-continent into India and Pakistan. There was murder and mayhem by both Hindus and Muslims, but even as a teenager I understood the reason my country had to be divided was because the Muslim-majority provinces would not accept incorporation into a secular, democratic country.

Islam allows for no separation between religion and state, evident now when elections in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have resulted not in the establishment of secular governments but of Islamist regimes, Sharia law and, of course, polygamy, which is completely counter to any concept of equal rights and dignity for women.

Spencer said that he was in Australia not because he hated anyone, but because he loves truth, law, freedom and human rights, the essence of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

The alternative to this, he warned, is to grasp power over everyone and everything.

As he pointed out: “The Koran’s Sura 3.110 says ‘the best of People’ should rule the earth. The ‘best of people’ refers to Muslims. Non-believers whom Muslims rule in the Koran states are to be ceaselessly subjugated.

“This differs from Christianity as unbelievers are to be made to suffer in this life as well as in the next. While the God of the Christians says ‘Vengeance is mine’, in the Islamic system the Koranic mandate is that Muslims should rule and inflict suffering on non-Muslims and exact revenge on them for being non-believers.

“Muslims’ purpose is to put an end to the rule of unbelievers. Non-Muslims have no rights. This motivated Abu Hamza, now in jail in Britain. From an excess of piety he injured himself while trying to construct a bomb to kill unbelievers. He was following the dictates of his ‘religion’.”

Ritual humiliation

Sharia mandates a state of subordination of unbelievers. The tax — or jizya — is the payment a non-Muslim makes to a Muslim for not killing him/her. Spencer likened it to paying protection money to the Mafia. There is nothing benign about it. Humiliation must accompany the payment of such a tax — whose alternatives are conversion or death.

There is more.

Toward the end of my recent speaking tour of Australia, I did three short interviews with Sheik Yermami and Vlad Tepes. Above is the second. The first is here.

Toward the end of my recent speaking tour of Australia, I did three short interviews with Sheik Yermami and Vlad Tepes. Here is the first.

The Q and A session was lively. And here, in case you missed it, is the main talk again:

This was the first of the talks I gave during my recent Australia speaking tour.

Videos thanks to Vlad Tepes.

Here is the first of the talks I gave during my recent Australia speaking tour.

Video thanks to Vlad Tepes.

In Human Events today I discuss some commonalities between the stealth jihad here and in Australia, where I just finished a two-week, six-city speaking tour.

Everywhere all over the Western world it’s the same story: Muslim groups are growing ever more aggressive in demanding concessions to Islamic law and practice, and Western authorities are responding with eager submission, even when such concessions involve restrictions on long-cherished freedoms. And in every instance, the mainstream media focuses public attention upon those who are determined to resist the advance of Islamic law, as if those standing up for freedom were the problem, not those trying to destroy it.

I’ve just completed a two-week speaking tour of Australia, hosted by the Q Society, an Australian human rights group. While there, I heard the Q Society’s Vickie Jansen report on the situation on the ground in Australia: “La Trobe University has its Muslim-only toilets and prayer rooms. The group Aussie Muslims is campaigning for exclusively Muslim prayer rooms in a western Australia hospital on the basis that they need to avoid the idolatry that may occur if they share. Our public schools are adapting to a Muslim Perspectives curriculum project in which, among many other things, not just female-only swimming is recommended for our Muslim students, but exclusively Muslim-only swimming (these are all sounding much like apartheid practices). Some public schools are catering to diversity by ensuring tuckshops [cafeterias] are exclusively halal.”

This coincides with similar initiatives in the U.S., where (until public attention compelled them to take it down) the Muslim Brotherhood​ group known as the Muslim Students Association's website featured a “Muslim Accommodations Task Force” page. It included PDFs of pamphlets titled “How to Achieve Islamic Holidays on Campus,” “How to Establish a Prayer Room on Campus” and “How to Achieve Halal Food on Campus.”

The demands of Muslim groups all over the Western world for separate facilities are in the service of a supremacist ideology that emanates from the Koranic assertions that Muslims are the “best of people” (3:110), while unbelievers are the “vilest of created beings” (98:6). Unbelievers are unclean (9:28)—which leads to the conclusion that Muslims should avoid contact with them. Every capitulation made to demands for Muslim accommodation only feeds these supremacist notions, working directly against the principles of equal justice and equal rights for all.

Nevertheless, Left-leaning Western politicians are eager to accommodate these demands. While I was in Australia, the Deputy Premier of Queensland, Andrew Fraser, denounced the Q Society for fliers protesting against the sale of halal meat that was not labeled as such, and the introduction of misleading and whitewashed material about Islam into Australian schools. “Modern Australia has a proud multicultural heritage,” thundered Fraser. “This kind of prejudicial rubbish has no place anywhere, let alone here in Queensland.”

So in Fraser’s view, to advance an apartheid-like system that institutionalizes the oppression of women and non-Muslims serves Australia’s “proud multicultural heritage,” but to resist that system in the name of freedom and equality of rights for all is “prejudicial rubbish.”...

There is more.

Victoria is the Australian state that has outlawed giving offense, thereby handing a tool to Islamic supremacists to silence truthful speech about Islam and jihad. I spoke about the suicidal folly of such laws frequently during my Australian speaking tour over the last two weeks.

Here we see that on the one hand, Victoria's government is ruling out Qur'anic courts, but on the other, is encouraging Muslims to report even "minor" incidents of "hate," which have been used and even fabricated by Muslims in the United States in order to deflect attention away from jihad terror activity and gain for Muslims privileged victim status. And so it is only a matter of time: Premier Ted Baillieu is ruling out Qur'anic courts today, but once he receives reports of a sufficient number of "hate crimes," no matter how trivial or spurious, he will surely bend to Islamic supremacist demands.

"Baillieu government rules out koranic courts," by Pia Akerman for The Australian, December 5:

THE Baillieu government has ruled out introducing koranic courts similar to the Koori courts for Aboriginal offenders, despite growing support from the Muslim community.

A spokesman for Victorian Attorney-General Robert Clark rejected the proposal put forward by the president of the state's Somali community, which has also been dismissed by lawyers.

The government's refusal came as Australian Federation of Islamic Councils president Ikebal Patel said the suggestion of a koranic court "absolutely" fitted with a call he made earlier this year for legal pluralism.

His submission to a federal government inquiry on multiculturalism sparked controversy and prompted Attorney-General Robert McClelland to rule out any changes that would introduce aspects of sharia law in Australia.

"There are many ways the Australian legal system can engage with issues of Islamic law," Mr Patel told The Australian.

"My comments about legal pluralism and sharia law were taken out of context: people thought we were talking about an eye for an eye, having your hands being chopped off and all the rest of it.

"You don't want to have systems which are not operating within the greater Australian legal system."...

The Baillieu government refused to give its reasons for rejecting the proposal, but prominent Melbourne defence lawyer Rob Stary said there was no realistic prospect of separate courts for Muslims.

"I don't see it in the foreseeable future," he said, speaking on behalf of the Law Institute of Victoria's criminal law division....

I do. Here's why: "New clamp on Muslim haters," by John Masanauskas for the Herald Sun, December 3 (thanks to all who sent this in):

MUSLIMS are being urged to report hate crimes under a special disaster plan to deal with the fallout from terrorist attacks.

Under the Muslim Emergency Management Plan, backed by the state and federal governments, Victorians will be given advice on how to react to anti-Muslim incidents, even if they are considered minor.

Muslim victims of abuse are encouraged to save evidence, take photos and report any incident to police and their local mosque or Islamic organisation.

And in another initiative, Victoria Police is introducing new strategy to deal with violence and threats motivated by prejudice.

It comes amid growing concern over inter-racial tensions in Melbourne's suburbs and against the backdrop of fears of further terrorist attacks that could strain relations further.

Police are being asked to develop databases on crime motivated by race or religion, so that offenders can be prosecuted.

The "prejudice-motivated crime strategy" focuses on crimes linked to race, religion, sex, age, disability or homelessness.

Muslims told the Herald Sun they faced increasing abuse on the streets because of their religion.

"A lot of women get yelled at and told 'Go home', or 'There's no place for you here', especially women wearing the burqa," a Muslim source said.

"It happens in shopping centres, at the park or just when you are walking along in the street."

Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria director Ross Barnett said the new police initiative was needed.

He said judges had the power to take into account hate-related issues in sentencing, but police were not equipped to provide the evidence.

"The elements of the strategy include training for officers, capacity to start collecting data so they've got a sense of what is happening, how often it happens, and what the extent of it is," he said.

The Muslim Emergency Management Plan, financed by the state and federal governments, was devised by the Islamic Council of Victoria with support from the Department of Premier and Cabinet's Office of Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship.

Islamic Council general manager Nail Aykan said there was no doubt Muslims would suffer a backlash in the event of a terrorist attack....

Why? When has that ever actually happened? Outside of a handful of incidents after 9/11, innocent Muslims have never been targeted in the West -- and yet after every jihad plot, the mainstream media focuses on a backlash that never materializes.

When I spoke in Melbourne, Perth, Sydney and Brisbane during my speaking tour of Australia, Vickie Janson of the Q Society, the human rights organization that brought me out, gave this eye-opening address at the beginning of each event:

On behalf of the Q Society of Australia it is my pleasure to welcome you all here tonight and to extend a very warm welcome to Melbourne to our special guest speaker Mr Robert Spencer, who we’re all very much looking forward to hearing.

My name is Vickie Janson and I’m the DP of Q Society – the organizing body behind this Robert Spencer Australian Tour. This tour has been made possible through both generous sponsorship and the many sacrifices of Q Society members and supporters to whom we are all most grateful.

It is my pleasure to particularly thank the CDP who are the major sponsor of this Melbourne event. The CDP are the only political party that are consistently raising in the public domain the concerns of rising Islamisation, and the impact of this upon Australian culture, values and law. So we thank the CDP for their support and encourage everyone to wander over to their table at the completion of the meeting to see what they’re all about.

We all know there is no such thing as a free lunch, and none knows this better than our very generous lunch sponsors. Their sponsorship has subsidized these public meetings to make them affordable for all. Thank you so very much to all those who participated in the lunch sponsorship.

Now, before we go any further, it is unfortunately necessary for me to read a legal announcement, which in itself highlights one of the major concerns facing free democracies.

PLEASE NOTE: Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 – otherwise known as ‘Victoria’s Blasphemy law’ is a serious concern for Q Society. As we are incorporated in Victoria, this law may even apply to statements made in other states. While we find this law abhorrent because it prohibits free speech and advances totalitarianism, we respect that the Rule of Law is a fundamental Australian value.

And we affirm that in accordance with Section 11 of the RRTA which permits conduct engaged in reasonably and in good faith in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for any purpose that is in the public interest or in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest…that Q Society does act reasonably and in good faith, and there is little need to discuss whether the topic of Islam is in the public interest.

We do not encourage or incite others to feel hatred, revulsion, contempt or ridicule of Muslims in breach of the RRTA. However, we will discuss Islam, including its legal code sharia law, and the Islamic political, cultural, economic, social or religious practices that we genuinely believe seek to undermine personal freedom and Australian values.

Nor do we seek to generalize about Muslims and so will not generalize that, just because some Muslims are successful and integrated, that there is nothing to worry about at all. If there are problems in certain sections of the Muslim community, we will discuss these as we would discuss problems in any other group.

If anyone in the audience feels emotions of anger, or of being incited or provoked into negative feelings against Muslims because our speakers tonight refer to passages of Islamic scripture, history, or the conduct of certain Muslim persons in a critical manner, then we would ask that you please leave this venue and stop reading our material. You are welcome of course to speak to a member of Q Society afterwards who can assist in explaining the context in which we discuss Islam.

Finally, if anyone in the audience has come for the purpose of deliberately claiming offence, as part of a premeditated legal action against Q Society or without genuine, good faith intentions, then please also leave now; you have been put on notice that your presence is simply a provocation and incitement to us. Thank you for your attention.

My current Australian speaking tour has been expertly organized by the Q Society. The Q Society is a formidable vanguard of Australian patriots who are determined to stand for human rights against Islamization in Australia. They deserve the support of all freedom-loving people -- all who are threatened by the human rights abuses encoded within Islamic law have a friend and defender in the Q Society. And that also means, of course, that dhimmis and self-seeking political opportunists will consider the Q Society an enemy.

And so it is with the Deputy Premier of Queensland, Andrew Fraser, who has called upon the Liberal National Party (LNP) and Katter's Australian Party MPs to denounce the Q Society for entirely true and accurate fliers -- which you can see above -- defending free Australia against Islamization and the institutionalized oppression of Islamic law. Fraser claims that the flier's assertions are false, but does not and cannot substantiate that claim. He also has the ignorance, audacity, and moral myopia to claim that denouncing the Q Society is a moral issue -- as if defending Western civilization is something people should be ashamed of, and for which they should apologize.

That is precisely the position that Islamic supremacist groups take in the U.S. and Australia -- and Fraser, like so many opportunist politicians, eagerly parrots their line.

"Hate mail hits westside letterboxes," from the Courier Mail, December 1:

A Victorian group is being blamed for anti-Islamic propaganda being distributed on the westside.

Deputy Premier and Member for Mt Coot-tha Andrew Fraser has blasted the pamphlets, distributed by QSociety.

``There is no room in Queensland for hate politics,'' he said.

``The flyer makes a number of outrageous and false claims that the practice of Islam by many Australians threatens our food production, academic integrity in our schools, and equal access to public spaces.

``Modern Australia has a proud multicultural heritage. This kind of prejudicial rubbish has no place anywhere, let alone here in Queensland.''

On Monday, QSociety organised a Brisbane visit by controversial anti-Islamist US author Robert Spencer.

Yikes! But it's true: I am anti-Islamist -- see, for example, here.

"LNP must denounce anti-Islam group: Fraser," from 9News, December 1:

Queensland's Deputy Premier Andrew Fraser has called on Liberal National Party (LNP) and Katter's Australian Party MPs to denounce a group spreading anti-Islamic propaganda in the state.

Mr Fraser's west Brisbane electorate is being letterbox dropped by a group called Qsociety, which is concerned with the "erosion of Western values and the Islamisation of Australia".

The flyers say "it's time to say no" to the Halal food industry, "whitewashed Islamic content" in state schools, Sharia finance and "segregation and apartheid" such as prayer rooms.

They direct readers to a website and a Victorian address.

Mr Fraser on Thursday told parliament the flyers presented a chance for MPs who voted against his bill on same sex civil unions to take a stand on another human rights issue.

The bill passed on Wednesday night, with Labor MPs given a conscience vote and the LNP voting against it.

Mr Fraser said they should denounce Qsociety.

"It's to the credit of this house and our democracy that we can debate a sensitive issue such as civil partnership with civility," he said.

"Perhaps today the LNP can overcome their moral timidity to join with me in distancing themselves from hateful and hurtful prejudice propagated by Qsociety and condemn (it) in the most unambiguous terms as I do, on behalf of the Labor government.

"(Not) to do so would be an act of complicity.

"The interests if decency require us all to condemn this prejudice."

Decency requires us to condemn spineless dhimmitude and stand for justice and equality of rights for all.

Robert Spencer in Sydney, November 29, 2011
by Assad Elepty

Robert Spencer, who has written 10 books and hundreds of articles on the nature of Islam and the threat it poses to western societies, spoke in central Sydney to a packed audience on the evening of November 29, 2011. He has already spoken in Perth, Brisbane and Melbourne and has given radio interviews while in this country.
He was introduced by Vickie Jansen of the Q Society.

Robert spoke for over an hour and then answered many varied questions from his audience about the nature and aims of Islam. In his talk Spencer referred to the Jihad by stealth approach by Muslims in Australia, noting that this is the first migrant group which has no intention of assimilating in the host country. He said that Muslims constitute the first immigrant group with a notion of 'superior governance' to the existing society of the host country. They see it as a 'divine responsibility' to emigrate -- just as Mohammed moved from Mecca to Medina with the intention of establishing Shariah law as an eventual aim wherever they are. This is not a question of race -- for both Hindus and Pakistanis, who shared the same country until the middle of last century, were racially similar. However there has never been an attempt by Hindu immigrants to establish a Hindu worldview as the sole approach to life in Australia. Islam, on the contrary, has the aim of fighting [this is the meaning of 'jihad'] from without or within a society to establish Islamic Shariah law there.

Spencer observed the assymetrical nature of the battle with Islam, in that if one dares to complain about the Islamisation of the country, one's facts and observations are not listened to; one is immediately labelled 'Islamophobic'. He said that a phobia is an irrational fear. But in the case of Islam there is a REAL fear of factually evident situations -- e.g. terrorist killings, aggressive Islamist policies and refusal to integrate into a host country. He said that 'hate speech laws' are advancing in this country. They are really Islamic laws in that in Islam it is not for speaking the truth. You are punished not because what you have said is untrue, but for saying what is not permissible to say in Islam. The Islamic approach is 'a polemic against Judeo-Christian society' . Muslims deplore the division of politics and religion in the west. They state with pride that their 'religion' covers everything in life from everyday matters and all in the political sphere. Spencer says he is not here because he is into hatred of anyone -- but because he loves truth, law and freedom and human rights. This is the essence of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The alternative to this is to grasp power over everyone and everything.

He said that the Koran's Sura 3.110 says that 'the best of People' should rule the earth. The 'best of people' refers to Muslims and those whom Muslims rule, the Koran states, are to be ceaselessly subjugated. This differs from Christianity as the unbelievers are to be made to suffer in this life as well as in the next. While the God of the Christians says that 'Vengeance is mine,' in the Islamic system the Koranic mandate is that Muslims should rule and exact suffering on non Muslims and extract revenge on them for being non-believers. The purpose of the Muslims is to put an end to the rule of the unbelievers. Non-Muslims have NO rights. This motivated Abu Hamza, now in jail in Britain; from an excess of piety he injured himself while trying to construct a bomb to kill unbelievers. He was following the dictates of his 'religion'. Shariah mandates a state of subordination of unbelievers. The tax or jizya -- is the payment a non-Muslim makes to a Muslim for not killing him/her. Spencer likened it to paying protection money to the Mafia. There is nothing benign about it. Humiliation must accompany the payment of such a tax -- whose alternatives are conversion or death. Spencer noted that work is not accorded the same dignity in Islamic societies as it in in the west. The result of work may be respected but not the actual act of work itself. Thus having dhimmis or host societies pay a jizya tax is a source of ready income for Islamic leaders as other kinds of work are not promoted or valued in Islamic countries. Spencer quoted that some Islamic leaders in the past did not want all the dhimmis to convert as they were needed to finance Islamic expansion. Using the tax system of another country is another example of using another's money to finance the aims of Islam.

Spencer stated that it is the intention of the Islamic world that Islamic law is brought to the west. If there is a conflict between Australian law and Islamic law, the Australian law will in time give way, as national laws have in other countries.There are 100 shariah courts in Britain and over 850 Muslim no-go Zones on France. Spencer told the story of the Somali workers in the meat packing plant in the United States who insisted that they be given prayer time during factory hours. After a legal battle the prayer times were given which seriously disrupted the working of the factory and resulted in non-Muslim workers having to do extra work to cover the missed hours. When the non-Muslims insisted that they had the right now to work less hours as the Muslims were, they were refused that request. Only the Muslim workers were granted prayer time.

Spencer warned his audience to be vigilant for the signs of this jihad, signs such as
* halal tuckshops in government schools. This has already occurred a number of government schools.
* A 'Muslim only ' approach to activities such as swimming. Insisting on 'Muslim women only' or 'Muslim only' swimming times.
* Organisations or councils boycotting Israel, while ignoring the crimes committed in Islamic states.
* Appointments of Muslim outreach officers in secular organisations.
* Lack of protest in the face of halalisation of Australian food.

Spencer encouraged others to speak in the name of freedom and democracy when they perceived their human rights were being attacked under the guises of stealth jihad. He said vigilance was required to recognise the doctrines, deceptions, subjugation and aggressive intent of Islam. He said to his audience -- 'Stand up without apology for the dignity of the human person and the freedom of conscience.'

Assad Elepty is a Coptic Christian human rights activist.

Chris Smith interviewed me on Sydney's 2GB radio shortly before my talk there Tuesday evening. Listen here. Omar and Muhammad call in toward the end of the segment.

No, not that ABC. Wednesday evening Steve Austin of Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Brisbane, Queensland interviewed me about my Australian speaking tour and a number of related topics regarding the stealth jihad. Listen here.

I am still in Australia, and have thus far spoken publicly in Melbourne, Perth, and Sydney, and have had several illuminating meetings with local activists. It was a magnificent evening and a packed house in Sydney -- alas, not videoed -- and it was encouraging to see so many knowledgeable, informed people determined to defend freedom. Here, courtesy the Right Wing Death Bogan blog, is another report on my talk in Melbourne, reproduced here with gratitude: "JihadWatch Comes To Town," by Nilk at rightwingdeathbogan, November 28:

PJG has written a guest post over at JihadWatch about Robert Spencer's vist to Melbournistan.

I've known PJG for quite some time now, and we've attended the occasional demo together, so I'm happy to agree with what s/he has to say. Rather than rehash that, I'll add my observations of the evening. (This is your opportunity to rush over to JW and read the report!)

I found the evening to be wonderfully refreshing. Yes, of course Vickie did have to read out a long-winded legal disclaimer, and there was some amusement at her suggesting basically that in the interest of the public interest, we're going to discuss things that are not supposed to be discussed. If you think you might be offended, or if you've come here with the intention of accusing Robert and the Q Society of inciting hatred and hurt feelings then you know where the door is.

That is, of course, my paraphrasing. Vickie is much more diplomatic in that situation than I would be, and it is shocking that in this day and age, in Australia, we are forced into this defensive posture.

Unfortunately, with our draconian laws having claimed several scalps, with Andrew Bolt's being most visible.

The less visible are the likes of QC Peter Faris who has removed himself from public commenting and so many others I know who have been looking over their shoulders before speaking for too long now.

Robert spoke freely and with gusto about the encroachment of sharia norms on our own culture. The extent to which this has occurred is always shocking when you stop to consider the small, incremental steps that have been taken, and what they actually signify.

From the separate toilets for muslims at LaTrobe University - which a friend tells me have been there for years and years and are kept clean by the muslim students in poor comparison to the toilets used by non-muslims - to the City of Monash spending money to put a privacy screen around a public swimming pool so that muslim women can swim without any prying eyes on them.

Needless to say, that last one is going to cost more than anticipated.

These are the most visible symptoms of sharia regulations entering the mainstream, but they are by no means the only ones. Our wonderful 'blasphemy law', also officially known as the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of 2001 (go read that one, too), has been used primarily against christians, and while it may be worded in a neutral manner, people really aren't that stupid.

Everyone knows who it's there to shackle.

And it's not those who agree with the current, Leftist paradigm.

One recurring theme from Robert Spencer's talk was that we are the inheritors of the greatest, most amazing civilisation the world has ever seen, and he is correct. [...]

God bless Robert Spencer for his work, his passion and his knowledge. His enthusiasm definitely fired me up - it's very easy to get disheartened in this game, and it can become easy to find excuses for not blogging as often as I should.

So what will you be doing for the rest of the war?

Read it all.

Robert Spencer in Melbourne 26/11/11
by PJG (longtime Jihad Watch commenter)

On a day of relentless spring rain, Melbourne – or a select contingent thereof - welcomed Robert Spencer for his first talk in his first ever visit to Australia, courtesy of the Q Society of Australia. The 250-seat room was full to capacity, booked out well in advance of the day.

For a change I decided to put aside my old habit of taking notes. After all, the event was being filmed, and I would have access to the film. But afterwards, Robert asked me to write about the event for Jihad Watch, so what follows is a brief snatch of snippets.

Vickie Janson, Vice-President of the Q Society and candidate for the Christian Democratic Party, led off with a sobering disclaimer, mindful as we all are now of local laws restricting free speech, and – with a winning smile – invited anyone with ultra-sensitive feelings or a plot to use those laws against us to kindly leave. She then gave us a run-down on what is happening vis a vis the encroachment of Islamic laws and norms, that is, the steady road to control of us by them, here in Australia in schools, universities, workplaces and elsewhere. As keeping up with Islamic advancement and its enabling and funding by our government is now virtually a full-time job, much of what she informed us in her inimitably cheerful style shocked the audience.

Vickie quoted a Muslim cleric who said that there was no “clash of civilizations, but instead a rise and fall of civilizations.” It is clear that to many Muslims here and abroad their religion constitutes the “rising civilization” and ours the falling (not that they would prefer to stop at ours; Hindu and Buddhist civilizations are in their sights for being given a helping hand to disappear…)

Another member of Q called Warren then gave a talk about what he has seen in recent years in Europe, including the car-burning in France and a memorial (!) devoted to the young Muslim car thieves who were accidentally killed when they hid from pursuing police in an electricity compound and whose deaths were “avenged” by Muslim anti-police rioting. These were stories of immigration-related events our government smugly believes cannot happen in sunny Australia, where it is constantly proclaimed that multiculturalism is an outstanding success story and caution is brushed aside.

When Robert Spencer took the floor, it was clear from the enthusiastic atmosphere that few in the room were new to his views and that his message was seen as acutely urgent. He talked of the responsibility of Western people to learn and respond to the Islamic perspectives which are giving rise to Muslims’ so-frequently misinterpreted words and actions, and expanded on the theme that terrorism and da’wa (the call to Islam) are but two sides of the same coin and directed at the same result, the imposition of Shari’a law. Quoting from Maududi’s commentary in a Koran given to him by the Finsbury Park mosque and using Koran 9:5 as an example, Spencer demonstrated that what Muslim apologists claim to be a misleading absence of “context” proves to be from their own side a misleadingly invalid argument, “context” being at least as alarming as verse and backed up by respected Muslim commentary.

He spoke of many topics which will be familiar to JW readers: the Mafia-like dhimma pact, the absence of the “clash” factor as we in the West politely accede to Muslim demands, the campaign of erosion of our free speech which is central to the Islamic agenda, the existence of self-protective Western laws which are being ignored or under-utilized in the interests of political correctness, and the highly successful phenomenon of contrived Muslim victimhood which has the effect of causing us to rush to make further accommodation for them after every terrorist attack and every expression of grievance.

This last aspect was in reply to one of the many spirited questions asked of him in the latter half of the evening. Many questions reflected the helpless frustration people felt in the face of the plethora of tactics employed by Islamic organizations and individuals and shameful capitulation by our own political parties. Spencer advised not only being persistent in our efforts to inform governments and fellow citizens, but to emulate his colleague Pamela Geller’s creativity, for example her “copycat” bus and taxi advertisements which forced public enquiry into Islamic human rights abuses such as death for apostasy and honour killings.

When pressed as to the vexing question of whether President Obama is a Muslim, Spencer could only surmise that if he were, he would not be doing anything differently; the outcomes of Obama’s policies have been extraordinarily helpful to zealots in the Muslim world – both outside and inside America.

As for Iran, it is important that we understand the Iranian Shi’ite view about the Twelfth Imam and about how Muslim “victimhood” can exist in a most threatening and sinister form on a national level as a tactic of war.

And lastly, about “moderate’ or “secular” Muslims about whom so many nurture great hope, Spencer wasted little time. Of course there are many, many Muslims who pose no threat and are not determined to impose the supremacist aspect over us their religion demands they do, but he did caution, in view of fatally naïve exercises of US soldiers teaching Afghani soldiers, against playing with guns with Muslims.

We may not all be able to dazzle people with erudition and quickness of wit the way Spencer can, but at events such as this one we can develop arguments and tactics based on stated intentions of Muslims which are derived from their texts and their own tactics based on principles within those same texts. Robert Spencer and the Q Society on this night helped and encouraged us to work harder, and to devise means in the vital job of defending the uniquely free and prosperous civilization we have inherited through the blood, sweat and inspiration of others before us and which it is our sacred duty to deliver untarnished to our descendants. They will have their own battles, as we have had ours; let us at least spare them the vice-like grip of Islam.

Oh, and a good time was had by all before and after the talks. So many conversations with so many people; the freedom to speak one’s mind; not once being glared at or called a racist/bigot/Islamophobe…! Thankyou, Q and Mr Spencer!

Just like America. Why the subterfuge? Why the utter disregard for consumers' right to know what has happened to their food between the farm and the table?

It certainly appears to be a move to wear down resistance, and to trick consumers into eating something many would not knowingly buy. That would make it easier for food companies to be lazy about labeling and indifferent to customers' concerns, while profiting from foreign and minority markets without consideration for the majority in their home country. In the meantime, they have advanced an ideological agenda -- the foisting of Islamic law on consumers -- for the sake of profit.

Another Australian official raised this issue in February. It seems to have fallen on willfully deaf ears.

"Halal meat converting Aussies: MP," by Nick Butterfly for the West Australian, November 25 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A WA Liberal MP has claimed Australians are unknowingly being converted to Islam by eating Halal meat.

Conversion requires the free assent of the will, but it is true that Sharia is being imposed on consumers. In that regard, society is being converted. The halal meat issue is also a vehicle for dawah, or Islamic proselytizing, where it is spun as a mark of pious devotion, and even claimed to be a "humane" form of slaughter.

In a speech to Parliament yesterday, backbencher Luke Simpkins said most Australians did not know that most of the meat they ate came from animals killed in accordance with Muslim law.

“By having Australians unwittingly eating Halal food we are all one step down the path towards the conversion, and that is a step we should only make with full knowledge and one that should not be imposed upon us without us knowing,” Mr Simpkins told Parliament.

“What is happening is wrong. Too often the minorities in this country are looked after without regard to the majority.”

Mr Simpkins said he had carried out an unofficial survey in his northern-suburbs electorate of Cowan and had discovered that most meat at major chains such as Coles or Woolworths had been killed under Halal conditions, but had not been labelled as such.

Muslim students are more equal than other students at Australia's Monash University. And what's the big deal about a listing of "radical" mosques? What could possibly go wrong in our brave, new multicultural world?

"Muslim handbook is divisive," by Miranda Devine for the Herald Sun, November 24 (thanks to Kenneth):

MONASH University prides itself on its "multicultural learning environment" and yet it produces a handbook for one certain class of students, and not for others.

Salaam Monash is the title of the glossy 50-page "handbook for Muslim students".

"At Monash we understand that Muslim students have specific social, religious and cultural needs," writes Professor Stephanie Fahey, deputy vice-chancellor, in a foreword to the handbook.

The booklet lists Islamic banking and financial institutions, Muslim publications, women's groups and schools. It also lists Muslim medical and dental practitioners, which splits up doctors into male and female groups.

There is also a halal food guide and a list of halal grocers and butchers.

Much of the information seems useful and, having had a young Muslim house guest recently, I know just how tricky it can be to find halal food.

Really? I'm in Australia now and in walking around Melbourne, I saw an abundance of shops offering it.

But there is no similar handbook for other religious or ethnic groups, not for Buddhists, Taoists, Germans, Greeks, Sikhs, Mormons or vegans.

Why encourage one group of people to maintain an identity separate from other Australians?

Most unwise, however, is that the handbook lists without comment some of Australia's most radical prayer halls.

Among them is cleric Sheikh Mohammed Omran's Islamic Call Society in Brunswick, where young Muslim men have been radicalised. A number of men arrested in Operation Pendennis, over a foiled 2005 Melbourne terror plot, had frequented the mosque, according to a New York Police Department study, which identified it as an "extremist incubator".

Similarly, the handbook points students in the direction of Coburg's ISNA mosque, associated with preacher Abu Hamza, who was videotaped telling men they could "beat their wives to shape them up" but only as a last resort. In the lecture entitled "The Keys to a Successful Marriage", he said: "You smack them, you beat them. You are not allowed to bruise them."...

"Monash University should not be endorsing (an) ideology which prescribes that Muslims must not eat our food, wear our clothes, share our services or even use our 'infidel' money," said four insiders who wrote to me. "International students would be better served with a handbook explaining Australian culture and values."

Monash is not alone. La Trobe has its own Muslim student guide and last year opened a $927,000 prayer room.

In 2006 RMIT produced a Muslim handbook "In the name of Allah the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful". Two years later 1000 Muslim students protested against sharing new prayer rooms with Christians and Jews....

This could lead to a direct confrontation between Muslims upholding Islamic law and practice and Australian authorities. In such instances, Muslims are used to non-Muslim authorities giving way to their demands. We'll see if that happens here. "Parents may be jailed over forced marriages," from AAP, November 23 (thanks to Kenneth):

Parents who force their adult children into marriage could be jailed under draft laws the federal government plans to bring before parliament next year.

The government today released an exposure draft of a new bill aimed at toughening Australia's laws against forced marriage, forced labour and other slavery-like practices.

The bill will explicitly outlaw coercing, threatening or deceiving anyone - underage or adult - into a marriage they don't want.

Until now, prosecutions have been mounted only against people for forcing minors into marriage.

Offenders - including the other party to the marriage or the victim's parents - could face up to seven years' jail in aggravated cases and four years' jail in other cases.

Status of Women Minister Kate Ellis says everyone has a right to choose whether to marry and whom to marry.

"These offences will reinforce that a marriage must be entered into with the full and free consent of both parties and that forcing someone into marriage is an abuse of human rights," Ms Ellis said.

The laws will apply both to marriages occurring within Australia and those involving Australians in other countries.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said it was hard to put a figure on how many people were currently being forced into marriage because it was difficult to detect the crime.

"But even if it's one or two, it's a serious enough issue considering the impact on that person's life for the government to pay it the necessary attention," Mr Bowen said.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012 will also introduce a new offence of forced labour.

It will also outlaw harbouring or receiving a victim of trafficking or slavery and improve the availability of reparations to victims....

The opposition welcomed the announcement but warned the laws would only be as good as the enforcement behind them.

Aye, there's the rub.

Why wouldn't they? Nothing was done while they were in prison to disabuse them of their jihadist notions. Do Australian authorities expect them to have become "moderate" by osmosis? "Police fear freed Muslim extremists pose a threat," by Keith Moor for the Herald Sun, November 14 (thanks to Kenneth):

These Muslim extremists have been allowed to walk free. Herald Sun

TWO Muslim extremists who were accused of plotting a deadly terrorist attack are back on Melbourne's streets after being freed last week.

Police fear Aimen Joud and Ahmed Raad still pose a threat, as there is no sign their anti-Western beliefs changed in prison.

"Their radical and extreme views remain a concern," one investigating officer said yesterday.

"While local police will be aware of where they are living, and will keep an eye on them when they can, there is not the manpower to do it constantly."

Police Association secretary Greg Davies said it was disturbing that the pair were likely not to be watched around the clock.

Police secretly taped Joud and Raad laughing while watching and discussing sickening jihadi video footage of Muslim extremists beheading hostages and killing US soldiers.

Australian-born Joud, 27, and Raad, 28, were senior members of a homegrown terror cell run by Muslim cleric Abdul Benbrika.

They were freed eight days ago, after serving non-parole terms of just six years behind bars....

Put another shrimp on the barbie for me. Details in the video, filmed in front of my bookshelves in the Jihad Watch headquarters, and more specifically here.

Put another shrimp on the barbie for me. In late November and early December I'll be making my first tour of Australia, speaking in Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, Canberra, Brisbane and Cairns. Details here.

Video thanks to Eeyore.

And what are wives for in Islam, anyway? Women's Rights in Islamic Law Update: "Islamic sex guide says wives meet only 10% of husbands' desires," by Lindsay Murdoch for the Sydney Morning Herald, October 14:

BANGKOK: Just months after telling its members to serve their husbands better than prostitutes, prompting widespread criticism, the Obedient Wives Club of Malaysia has stirred further controversy by publishing a guide to Islamic sex.

The 115-page pocket-sized book, which will outrage many Muslims and non-Muslims, says a Muslim man can have sex with all of his wives at the same time.

Under strict Islamic tradition a man can have up to four wives if he can provide for them all.

That's actually in the Qur'an (4:3).

The club prompted an outcry from women's groups and Islamic religious authorities when it was established in June, claiming to have 1000 members....

Among organisations that condemned the club was the Wanita Malaysian Chinese Association, which passed a motion describing its advice to women as an insult to their basic human rights.

In its foreword the book says studies showed women only gave their husbands 10 per cent of what men desired of their wives' bodies. It contains explicit sex details, including fondling of a breast, and one chapter deals with ''how sex becomes worship''.

The book says sex is sanctioned by God and is intended to make a new life.

''You (God) have said that all these acts are halal, pure, beautiful and like a prayer (between man and wife),'' it says.

In June the club's vice-president, Dr Rohaya Mohamad, prompted criticism when she advised women to behave like a ''first-class whore'' while in the company of their husbands if they wanted their marriage to succeed....

The book is circulating in Malaysia at a time when radical Islam is expanding across Asia through a movement called Hizbut Tahrir, which is attracting many middle-class Muslims, including businessmen, lawyers and mothers.

Hizbut Tahrir wants to unite all Muslim countries in a globe-spanning bloc ruled by strict sharia law. It is operating openly in Australia.

Milad bin Ahmad-Shah al-Ahmadzai was arrested on charges that he broke into a cash machine. See, if Australia would just be more generous with the jizya, this poor chap would never have been "radicalized" by al-Awlaki. "Man with terror links held after raid," by Dylan Welch for The Age, September 29 (thanks to Block Ness):

A SYDNEY man with ''demonstrated connections'' to one of the world's most dangerous terrorist preachers has been arrested by Sydney police over allegations he broke into a cash machine.

Milad bin Ahmad-Shah al-Ahmadzai was arrested after three other men were prevented from robbing a cash van at gunpoint in far western Sydney yesterday morning.

Ahmadzai, 21, is alleged by Australia's domestic intelligence agency, ASIO, to have had contact with the Yemen-based al-Qaeda preacher, Anwar al-Awlaki.

Awlaki is of great concern to Western intelligence agencies due to his repeatedly demonstrated ability to radicalise via the internet young Muslim men in Western countries.

Awlaki is seen as such a threat that last year he was placed on a CIA ''catch or kill'' list.

Last year, Ahmadzai was one of 23 Australian residents whom ASIO judged of such concern that it alerted US authorities to them. The US State Department subsequently added them to a domestic no-fly database, according to a leaked cable from the US embassy in Canberra.

But yesterday morning, Ahmadzai was in a different type of trouble, arrested by detectives from the New South Wales Police robbery squad at his home in Ermington in Sydney's west.

He was arrested shortly after three other men, aged between 24 and 29, were found by detectives in a car park in Cecil Hills in Sydney's outer suburbs.

The three men were in two stolen cars and police allege they found a rifle, two handguns and several balaclavas with them. An armoured cash van was also in the car park when the arrests occurred.

The three were taken to western Sydney police stations and charged with robbery and firearms offences.

After the arrests, police executed search warrants at Ahmadzai's home and five other locations, seizing a Subaru WRX, a pistol, ammunition, Australian and US currency, a pill press, anabolic steroids, two-way radios, laptop computers, mobile phones and passports....

On the Australian passport, only Muslims are allowed to cover facial features.

Only religious reasons are acceptable excuses for covering hair, ears and facial contours. And only Islam has such religious reasons. From the Australian Govermnent's general photograph guidelines:

The photograph must show you without any hat or other head covering. However, if you wear a head covering for religious reasons we will accept a photograph of you wearing it, but your facial features from bottom of chin to top of forehead and both edges of your face must be clearly shown.

The rationale for declining to prosecute Abdul Nacer Benbrika largely seems to boil down to "Eh, we don't feel like it." The judge also opined that it would be "oppressive" to the jihadists, and "the oppression outweighs the public interest in trying the accused."

Surely their "hearts and minds" have been duly won.

First, a profile of who might be freed so soon: "Terror cleric Abdul Nacer Benbrika headed twin cells," by Cameron Stewart for The Australian, September 21 (thanks to J):

The nation's two largest terror cells were linked by a common spiritual leader, joint terror training camps and close friendships between extremists in Melbourne and Sydney.

After a Victorian judge yesterday threw out a second round of charges against convicted terrorists, it can be revealed that self-proclaimed Muslim cleric Abdul Nacer Benbrika was considered the central figure and the driving force behind both cells in Melbourne and Sydney.

The groups' targets were to have included a terrorist strike on the 2005 AFL grand final between the Sydney Swans and the West Coast Eagles, Melbourne's Crown casino during Grand Prix weekend in 2006 and Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor.

Benbrika, who is currently serving a minimum 12 years in jail for leading a terrorist organisation, was recorded telling one of his followers: "If we want to die for jihad, we have to have maximum damage. Maximum damage. Damage their buildings, everything. Damage their lives. To show them, we'll have to be careful."

The close links between the two extremist groups - potentially the most deadly in Australia's history - can be revealed for the first time after the Victorian Supreme Court yesterday threw out new charges against four members of the Melbourne cell and lifted 21 supression orders that had blanketed names and evidence from the twin trials in Melbourne in 2008 and Sydney in 2009.

Judge Terry Forrest rejected a proposed second trial for the four men, Benbrika, Aimen Joud, Fadl Sayadi and Ahmed Raad, who were charged with conspiracy to do acts in preparation of a terrorist act, as an abuse of the court process. All four had already been jailed for most of their criminal conduct and if found guilty, would not receive "significant additional terms of imprisonment".

"While I have found that this second prosecution was commenced in good faith, I consider the objective effect of trying each accused a second time is oppressive," Justice Forrest said.

The lifting of the supression orders, which had obscured from public view the shared purpose and co-operation between the groups, means that the full extent of Benbrika's network of extremist followers can be exposed.....

More: "Abdul Benbrika and other terrorists wanted to kill but can't be prosecuted," by Keith Moor for the Herald Sun, September 21 (thanks to Twostellas):

Radical Muslim cleric Abdul Benbrika has escaped trial over his plot to bomb Australia and he could walk free from jail in only six years.

One of his co-accused Melbourne terrorists already has been released and the other two are eligible to be freed in November.

The decision to abandon the case was made despite terror cell members associated with Benbrika ordering or buying all the chemicals and equipment needed to make a "Mother of Satan" bomb capable of killing hundreds.

Police planted many listening devices in the homes of various cell members and secretly recorded 16,418 hours of Benbrika and the Melbourne and Sydney cell members talking during a 16-month inquiry.

They also tapped hundreds of phones and monitored 97,480 calls between Benbrika and Melbourne and Sydney cell members in relation to their alleged plot to commit a terrorist act, which would not be put before a jury.

The police and legal costs associated with trying to get Benbrika and three of his followers to trial on conspiracy to commit a terrorist act charges were at least $20 million.

Police disappointed case scrapped

This morning police were philosophical that the case would not go ahead.

Acting Chief Commissioner Ken Lay said he could understand officers being "a little bit disappointed’’ the case against Benbrika and three other Melbourne terror cell members would not proceed. [...]

But Victorian Supreme Court judge Terry Forrest recently granted a defence application to permanently stay the conspiracy case against Benbrika, Joud, Sayadi and Raad, saying it would be "oppressive" to subject them to a second trial.

Police and prosecutors are privately disappointed the case has been abandoned as they consider the evidence against Benbrika and his three co-accused was overwhelming.

In handing down his decision to abandon the conspiracy to commit a terrorist act charges, Justice Forrest said if it had proceeded it would be "lengthy, complex and expensive".

Justice Forrest also found each of the men would not receive a significantly longer sentence if convicted in the second trial.

"I have concluded that the proposed conspiracy trial is an abuse of the court's process and that I ought to stay it permanently in respect of all accused," he said.

"The public interest in bringing the accused men to trial is diminished by the fact that they have already been prosecuted and punished for most of their criminal conduct and that they will not receive significant additional terms of imprisonment.

"While I have found that this second prosecution was commenced in good faith, I consider the objective of trying each accused a second time is oppressive.

"It is oppressive because each of the accused has already been the subject of a very lengthy first criminal trial involving at times unconscionably harsh conditions of incarceration and transport.

"I am satisfied that all four accused men have made out their individual cases for abuse of process on the basis of oppression.

It is a common jihadist practice to claim abuse and torture in custody. Al-Qaeda has provided step-by-step instructions.

"In each case, in my view, the oppression outweighs the public interest in trying the accused."...

Strictly speaking, Michael Smith was wrong. Muhammad did not marry a nine-year-old and consummate the marriage when she was eleven. He actually married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine: "The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)." -- Bukhari 7.62.88.

But that is not why he is being investigated. He is being investigated because he told a truth -- Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, had sex with a child -- and Muslims consider truth-telling to be "inciting hatred against Muslims." Witless dhimmi Australian authorities are going along. It is ever thus. Last night the dishonest Imam Moustafa Zayed, in our second debate, kept claiming that I was inciting hatred against Muslims -- and there again, his only evidence was that I tell truths about Islam that he would prefer not be told.

"2UE host's remarks on prophet investigated," by Heath Aston for the Sydney Morning Herald, August 14 (thanks to Lloyd):

THE radio presenter Michael Smith is being investigated by the media watchdog over his assertion that the prophet Muhammad ''married a nine-year-old and consummated it when she was 11''.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority confirmed in a letter dated July 21 that it was investigating the remarks by the 2UE afternoon host.

Adem Cetinay, a Muslim from Bossley Park, complained that Mr Smith was inciting hatred against Muslims through his July 5 broadcast.

''By making this remark he is asserting that God's messenger is a paedophile. This is racist, it's stupid and it is not needed on air,'' he wrote to the station's program director, Peter Brennan.

Mr Brennan replied that Mr Smith had made the ''throwaway line''.

''However, at no time did he refer to any Prophet's name, nor did he use the word 'Prophet'. He did not refer to anybody whatsoever in the broadcast,'' he wrote.

Mr Cetinay took his complaint to ACMA. In a letter, the authority's Eileen Haley said it would embark on an investigation that could take ''several months''.

Meanwhile, Mr Cetinay is awaiting a response over a separate complaint about remarks Mr Smith made over the controversial ''Jesus: a prophet of Islam'' billboard.

''What if someone whacked up a billboard and said well, I think it's a fact that because Muhammad was married to a 11 … you know consummating a marriage with an 11-year-old, by these standards he's a paedophile". His guest, Diaa Mohammed, the founder of MyPeace, which erected the sign, agreed that Muhammad had consummated his marriage with an 11-year-old....

Will hordes of journalists descend upon Sydney, investigating what created the intellectual climate and line of thought that Khaled Zakaria identifies with? What do you think?

"Man accused of Facebook bomb threat," by Anne Tarasov in The Age, July 31 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

A CLEANING business owner used Facebook to threaten to ''kill all Christians and Jews'' and bomb Sydney, police allege.

Khaled Zakaria, 30, faced Parramatta Bail Court yesterday charged with one count of using a mobile phone to menace or harass and two counts of making hoax threats using a mobile phone.

In documents tendered to the court, police said Mr Zakaria, of Greenacre, threatened to bomb intelligence agency ASIO, stab officers at Goulburn's super-max jail and ''get'' officers at Bankstown police station under the Facebook profiles Kay Zee, Khaled Ibn-Al Walid and Khaled Ibn-Alwalie.

Police alleged Mr Zakaria posted threatening comments on the Ban the Burka and Sharia for Australia Facebook pages, including: ''There's going to be a big bang in the City of Sydney on 30th of July, 2011. Watch out. Bang Bang.''

Following Mr Zakaria's arrest on Friday by officers from the joint counter-terrorism team and the Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad, police searched his house and car and seized two mobile phones and other related items.

Mr Zakaria's lawyer, Derek Druitt, told the court his client may be a victim of mistaken identity because he employs three people, one of whom has a similar name and initials. He said the ''hoax'' messages were posted using a work phone used by everyone at the company....

Yeah, sure, that's it. Mistaken identity! That's the ticket.

"The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)." -- Bukhari 7.62.88

Anti-dhimmitude in an Australian court: "Man who had relationship with primary-school girl jailed for 10 years," by Mark Dunn for the Herald Sun, July 22 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A MAN who claimed it was culturally acceptable for him to have a sexual relationship with a primary-school child who later bore him a son will spend up to 10 years in jail.

The 31-year-old, now classified as a pedophile, had claimed his cultural background meant age was not a relevant factor in choosing a wife or sexual partner, the County Court in Melbourne heard.

But in sentencing the man, who migrated as a refugee from a north-Asian country, Judge Lisa Hannan said his continued sexual relationship with the girl - from the age of eight until she fell pregnant - was repulsive and defied morality.

The court heard the man, who was married to an adult at the time of the offending and already had a child, had an IQ in the bottom 5 per cent for his age group.

"Your conduct is abhorrent to anyone with even a shred of decency or moral compass,'' Judge Hannan said.

"Whether or not it may or might have been acceptable in any culture in any part of the world is irrelevant.''

The court heard the man, who pleaded guilty to charges of persistent sexual abuse of a minor and child stealing, had told authorities in his cultural background "there were no restrictions on age'' for a relationship.

But Judge Hannan said the man knew he was breaking Australian law, that he initially lied about having sex with the child and attempted to procure an abortion before a baby was born in 2010.

"You knew what you were doing was wrong,'' the judge said.

Judge Hannan, in setting a seven-year minimum, said his "disgraceful desires'' had "robbed her of her childhood''.

Judge Hannan also disputed the extent of the man's remorse, noting he continued to try to justify his relationship with her - including saying he loved her "for real''.

"I do not think you are truly remorseful ... indeed you still seek to justify it.''

Homemade Sharia courts are mushrooming all over the West. They are a direct attack on our rule, and everybody who is running and using them should be put in front of a judge and charged with sedition. Unfortunately, the police do far too little to find such people.

Note that Ahmed Kilami doesn't deny that this is the Sharia punishment for those who drink alcohol. He just objects to the attackers' taking the law into their own hands. The law is clear: once Muhammad flogged a man forty times for drinking alcohol. "Intruders whip Silverwater man, 31, for drinking," from AAP, July 18 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A Sydney man who was held down on his bed and whipped up to 40 times by strangers had recently converted to Islam and was reportedly being punished for drinking.

The 31-year-old was asleep in his apartment in Silverwater, in Sydney's west, when he woke to find four bearded men in his bedroom about 1am (AEST) yesterday.

Three of the intruders restrained him on the bed while the fourth man used a cable to lash him 40 times.

The attack lasted about 30 minutes and left the man covered in welts, the Seven Network reported today.

The man reportedly told police he had only recently converted to Islam and that fundamental Wahabi Muslims were punishing him for having a few drinks with friends.

Members of Sydney's Muslim community have condemned the attack.

"This criminal act has no place in Islam. As Australian Muslims we are required to follow Australian law, not take the law into our own individual hands," Ahmed Kilami, from the Muslim Village, told the Seven Network.

"I hope these guys are caught and face the full force of the law."

The victim has moved out of his home but hopes what happens to him will not distort people's view of his adopted religion, the network said.

Of course. That would be the worst thing.

There is no distinction within Sharia between what they're asking for below and the aspects of Sharia that are opposed to basic human rights. How will Muslims in Australia make that distinction? Or will they care to do so at all?

"Give us our own laws, say Islamic leaders," by John Masanauskas in the Herald Sun, July 11:

ISLAMIC leaders want Muslims in Australia to get interest-free loans for religious reasons.

The nation's Islamic leaders want recognition of sharia law as it applies to banking practices, according to an exclusive Herald Sun survey of imams.

There was also a call for recognition of sharia law as it applies to family law.

The survey showed some imams are sceptical that Osama bin Laden's death will be of benefit to ordinary Muslims, and they are unhappy with the way US forces disposed of his body.

The survey has also revealed:

STRONG condemnation of MPs who criticise Muslim women for wearing the burqa/nijab.

CONCERN that ordinary Muslims are still being linked to terrorism.

DISGUST that innocent people in Muslim countries are being killed in the "war on terror"....

Here's a thought: perhaps the niqab is "culturally insensitive" to Australians. In the West, the female face is not a private part. Carnita Matthews' case in Australia was an unfortunate demonstration of how the niqab can be used to game the system: her conviction and prison term were overturned because she could not be positively identified. The proposed laws support a recent revision in regulations for New South Wales police, who now have the authority to ask women to remove their face veils for identification.

The niqab is the product of a society where women are segregated, always under the control of male "guardians," and live as perpetual minors. Australia is no such society, and pressuring it to be "sensitive" to a practice incompatible with its values of equal rights and responsibilities of men and women before the law is absurd.

"New Australian law to make Muslims lift veils," by Rod McGuirk for the Washington Examiner, July 10 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

Muslim women would have to remove veils and show their faces to police on request or risk a prison sentence under proposed new laws in Australia's most populous state that have drawn criticism as culturally insensitive.

A vigorous debate that the proposal has triggered reflects the cultural clashes being ignited by the growing influx of Muslim immigrants and the unease that visible symbols of Islam are causing in predominantly white Christian Australia since 1973 when the government relaxed its immigration policy.

Under the law proposed by the government of New South Wales, which includes Sydney, a woman who defies police by refusing to remove her face veil could be sentenced to a year in prison and fined 5,500 Australian dollars ($5,900).

The bill — to be voted on by the state parliament in August — has been condemned by civil libertarians and many Muslims as an overreaction to a traffic offense case involving a Muslim woman driver in a "niqab," or a veil that reveals only the eyes.

The government says the law would require motorists and criminal suspects to remove any head coverings so that police can identify them.

Critics say the bill smacks of anti-Muslim bias given how few women in Australia wear burqas. In a population of 23 million, only about 400,000 Australians are Muslim. Community advocates estimate that fewer than 2,000 women wear face veils, and it is likely that even a smaller percentage drives.

"It does seem to be very heavy handed, and there doesn't seem to be a need," said Australian Council for Civil Liberties spokesman David Bernie. "It shows some cultural insensitivity."

The controversy over the veils is similar to the debate in other Western countries over whether Muslim women should be allowed to wear garments that hide their faces in public. France and Belgium have banned face-covering veils in public. Typical arguments are that there is a need to prevent women from being forced into wearing veils by their families or that public security requires people to be identifiable.

Bernie noted that while a bandit disguised with a veil and sunglasses robbed a Sydney convenience store last year, there were no Australian crime trends involving Muslim women's clothing.

"It is a religious issue here," said Mouna Unnjinal, a mother of five who has been driving in Sydney in a niqab for 18 years and has never been booked for a traffic offense.

"We're going to feel very intimidated and our privacy is being invaded," she added.

Unnjinal said she would not hesitate to show her face to a policewoman. But she fears male police officers might misuse the law to deliberately intimidate Muslim women.

"If I'm pulled over by a policeman, I might say I want to see a female police lady and he says, 'No, I want to see your face,'" Unnjinal said. "Where does that leave me? Do I get penalized 5,000 dollars and sent to jail for 12 months because I wouldn't?"

Sydney's best-selling The Daily Telegraph newspaper declared the proposal "the world's toughest burqa laws." In France, wearing a burqa — the all-covering garment that hides the entire body except eyes and hands — in public is punishable by a 150 euro ($217) fine only.

The New South Wales state Cabinet decided to create the law on July 4 in response to Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione's call for greater police powers. Other states including Victoria and Western Australia are considering similar legislation.

"I don't care whether a person is wearing a motorcycle helmet, a burqa, niqab, face veil or anything else — the police should be allowed to require those people to make their identification clear," State Premier Barry O'Farrell said in a statement.

The laws were motivated by the bungled prosecution of Carnita Matthews, a 47-year-old Muslim mother of seven who was booked by a highway patrolman for a minor traffic violation in Sydney in June last year.

An official complaint was made in Matthews' name against Senior Constable Paul Fogarty, the policeman who gave her the ticket. The complaint accused Fogarty of racism and of attempting to tear off her veil during their roadside encounter.

Unknown to Matthews, the encounter was recorded by a camera inside Fogarty's squad car. The video footage showed her aggressively berating a restrained Fogarty and did not support her claim that he tried to grab her veil before she reluctantly and angrily lifted it to show her face.

Matthews was sentenced in November to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement to police.

"War is deceit."

But that conviction and sentence were quashed on appeal last month without her serving any time in jail because a judge was not convinced that it was Matthews who signed the false statutory declaration. The woman who signed the document had worn a burqa and a justice of the peace who witnessed the signing had not looked beneath the veil to confirm her identity. [...]

Government leaders have also condemned some Muslim clerics who said husbands are entitled to smack disobedient wives, force them to have sex and for suggesting that women who don't hide their faces behind veils invite rape.

Hitting disobedient wives? That's Qur'an 4:34.

Forced sex? Muhammad said: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning." -- Sahih Bukhari 4.54.460

And: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle." -- Ibn Majah 1854

But, cue the claims of persecution:

"I wouldn't like to go and say this is Muslim bashing," said Ikebal Patel, president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, of the proposed New South Wales laws.

"But I think that the timing of this was really bad for Muslims," he said.

If we wait for you to tell us when a good time will be, we'll never stop waiting. Of course, that's the idea, isn't it?

What did Joseph Adams say that was inaccurate? What did he say that was false? If Muhammad was not "the first terrorist of Islam," did he not say that he was, according to Islamic tradition? "I have been made victorious through terror" (Bukhari 4.52.220).

"Lib adviser sacked after anti-Islam web posts," by Heath Aston for the Sydney Morning Herald, July 10:

THE O'Farrell government has been embarrassed by a Liberal adviser who posted anti-Islamic comments online, including a description of the Prophet Muhammad as ''the first terrorist of Islam''.

Joseph Adams, who worked in the electorate office of the Smithfield Liberal, Andrew Rohan, was sacked on Friday. Mr Adams, pictured, had angered some of his 1000 Facebook friends - which include 15 state government MPs and four ministers - with selected excerpts from the Koran which he said prove Islam promotes killing, not love.

He was labelled a ''bigot'' and the ''biggest f---ing racist ever'' by shocked friends.

What race is Islam again?

A record of his posts between March 24 and June 17, obtained by The Sun-Herald, show the criticism only spurred him on to make more offensive remarks.

''The religious babble you refer to is Islam,'' he commented on June 4. ''There was no war. It was terrorism. Muhammad was the first terrorist in the name of Islam.''

He followed up with: "Why are you getting upset? I'm not the one who is teaching others to kill in the name of Islam. Mohommed is not my hero.''

Do Islamic jihadists not kill in the name of Islam? They consistently and unanimously explain and justify their actions with references to Islamic texts and teachings.

On March 24, he taunted ''friend'' Faten Dabs with the comment: ''If you leave Islam it is HALAL for you to be EXECUTED. Lol. No wonder people are afraid to leave Islam.''

Does Islam not have a death penalty for apostasy? Do not all the sects of Islam and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach this? Did not Muhammad say, according to Islamic tradition, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari 9.84.57)?

After being branded a bigot on Facebook , he responded: ''Your biblical quotes are as ridiculous as your comparisons. I guess you never paid attention at Sunday school. Jesus spoke in parables. Mohommed on the other hand gave orders to kill.

Did not Muhammad say, according to Islamic tradition, "If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them" (Sunan Abu Dawud, 19.2996)?

''You seem to like standing up for killers and murderers. Is Ivan Milat a good person too? Perhaps you think Hitler was a great Prophet too? After all he did put a book together called Mein Kampf. Don't waste our time here Aaron. The only bigot here is someone with an uninformed view.''

Indeed.

Mr Adams, who identifies himself as an Australian of Assyrian Christian descent, told The Sun-Herald on Friday that he was not ''thinking politically'' when he made the remarks.

''Rather than listen to what people say about the Koran I decided I would read it myself,'' he said.

''It was nothing political, it was out of pure emotion. I didn't think it would be used against me and people would accuse me of being racist.

''What I did was a mistake, I did not think it would be used for political purposes. In my mind I was living in a free society where we value free speech. Why should religion be a taboo subject?''

Indeed.

But the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, did not agree. Late on Friday a government spokesman said in a statement: ''The comments were totally inappropriate and the staff member has already been terminated.''

Gutless dhimmi.

In the West, the female face is not a private part. This necessary and eminently logical move comes in the aftermath of the Carnita Matthews case, which set up a perfect Catch-22 wherein the defendant would not remove her niqab for reasons of Islamic "modesty," and then won an appeal because she could not be positively identified behind the veil.

"NSW police given power to remove veils," from the Australian Associated Press, July 4 (thanks to JN):

Muslim women can be forced to remove their face veils during routine car stops under new powers granted to NSW police.

Premier Barry O'Farrell said cabinet had approved the move today so police could properly identify motorists or any other people suspected of committing a crime.

"I don't care whether a person is wearing a motor cycle helmet, a burqa, niqab, face veil or anything else, the police should be allowed to require those people to make their identification clear," Mr O'Farrell said in a statement.

Last week, NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione said police needed stronger powers to identify women who wear full facial veils.

It follows the case of Sydney woman Carnita Matthews, who in November 2010 was sentenced to six months in jail for falsely accusing a police officer of forcibly trying to remove her burqa.

The case arose after Ms Matthews was pulled over while driving in Woodbine in June 2010.

However, the sentence was quashed on appeal last week after NSW District Court judge Clive Jeffreys ruled there was no evidence to confirm Ms Matthews filed a criminal complaint against the officer, because the person who did so was also wearing a veil and wasn't positively identified.

An appeal has been launched against the decision but Mr O'Farrell said Attorney-General Greg Smith had been advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions it was unlikely to succeed.

However, Mr O'Farrell said the new police powers - which are expected to be in place within a couple of months - should help prevent a recurrence of such a case in the future.

"I have every respect for various religions and beliefs but when it comes to enforcing the law the police should be given adequate powers to make a clear identification," he said.

Police have had the power to ask women to remove face veils during the investigation of serious offences but did not have such powers during routine car stops.