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.
Well, we advertised this tour with the theme “˜Socio-Political Jihad” — conquering the West without swords, guns or bombs — quite frankly — who needs them? While I was preparing for tonight an old saying popped into my head that will be familiar to many; – “˜there’s more than one way to skin a rabbit”. I think we”d all agree, whatever way it’s done, it’s not looking good for the rabbit!
Likewise there is more than one way to undermine democracy, the rue of law, freedoms, order, institutions, values and the open culture democratic countries enjoy. Having sat in numerous Islamic lectures in Australia, I am aware there are many individuals who may not necessarily support the means of terrorists, yet there is growing support for their ultimate goal to see Islam rise politically, legally and culturally. There is, if you like, violent and non-violent means to the same end of promoting sharia law and the Islamic state concept.
I often say dawah and jihad are two sides to the same coin — dawah being the peaceful invitation to accept the Islamic narrative. No matter what way the coin falls — both dawah and jihad effectively do the same job and it’s heads up for Islamic sharia either way. Unlike totalitarian regimes, democracy by nature is very accommodating to this “˜peaceful pillaging of society”.
It’s not just the Muslim Brotherhood who have a documented strategy of what they call civilizational jihad. In 1980 the Islamic Council of Europe published a book titled “˜Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States” — which outlined a strategy for the Muslim community on how to “˜resist assimilation and become a majority” — so this is not a conspiracy, or just an ideal of some, but a documented strategy,”¦ And with at least 85-100 sharia courts in Britain, Muslim enclaves and no go zones for non-Muslims in many parts of Europe we can all see how successful this strategy has been. Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels describes this resistance to integration as a kind of cultural osmosis where western values don’t quite penetrate the Islamic world while Islamization diffuses from the Muslim community into non-Muslim societies.
But what of Australia?
Opposition spokesman on immigration, Scott Morrison, in a recent address said this: quote –
I do not see the experience of Europe on immigration as a prophecy for our own future in Australia.
While I empathise with the comments of Angela Merkel and David Cameron as they battle with these questions in a European context, their immigration practice has followed a very different path to Australia”¦unquote
It appears successful integration is to be attributed to immigration practice — something dependent upon Australian process rather than Islamic strategy.
I can assure you, having attended numerous Islamic lectures in Australia, the same strategy in Europe is alive and well here: Mike and I attended one at the Melbourne Uni 2008 where Dr Abdullah Hakim Quick assured the audience that there is no clash of civilizations, just a rise and fall of civilizations”. Quick noted that the decline of western power and the rise of Islam would first take shape socially, and then politically. (So theologically, this is an Islamic expectation and as we look around a growing reality.) This was followed by comments from Sheik Tawfique Chowdhury who said that Australia was a young country — and yet to cement its heritage and identity and of course the inference was that Islam would provide this cement.
Well, how are they going? Is the evidence pointing towards the Scott Morrison narrative or Sheik Chowdhury”s?
Earlier this year I had a visit to Monash University to discuss this little booklet — Salaam Monash — handbook for Muslim students that Miranda Devine has just brought to our attention in the Herald Sun. While we are all hearing the “˜social inclusion” narrative with lots of public money thrown to the cause, this booklet essentially advises Muslims how they can avoid integration altogether.
It directs them not just to Muslim institutions, mosques, prayer centres, (some dubious ones at that) Islamic publications, websites, schools, miscellaneous services, food outlets, etc”¦.but also to Muslim medical and dental practitioners — non-Muslim practitioners will not be getting a slice of this business simply based on their lack of adherence to the Islamic faith. If anyone else did, this it would be called discrimination – this blatant preferencing of Muslim only medical and dental practitioners obviously falls far short of notions of real “˜social inclusion”.
All this is quite interesting given that on the “˜students rights” page — it is noted that excluding or isolating a person is a form of bullying — yet the whole booklet appears to exclude non-Muslim Australians. And if any of our international students thought they might be tempted to taste a bit of freedom in Australia and choose for themselves what to wear, attend or eat”¦afterall — the Quran does say the food of the “˜People of the Book” is lawful for Muslims (5:5) “¦there is a note in the Monash Muslim students handbook reminding them: “˜It is the responsibility of each individual to be vigilant in making sure that the food they consume is halal.” This is a public university mandating”¦Vigilance – almost seems a bit like bullying in itself”¦
And then there’s the “˜halal helpline” noted for any desperate situations”¦one can’t help but wonder if Malaysian author Syed Akbar Ali is right in his assessment that the halal industry is all a great burden upon people and part of a huge commercial industry driven by Islamist profiteers. And if this is the case, Australia is making it increasingly difficult for them to shake it off here.
So let me ask a question in good faith — a question that any reasonable person might ask — how do we expect integration, shared culture, values and laws, when we promote segregation — when we cant share the same food, finance, doctors, dentists, public services, swimming pools, and other public spaces?
La Trobe University has its Muslim only toilets and prayers rooms, the group Aussie Muslims is campaigning for exclusively Muslim prayer rooms in a WA 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 where, 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 are exclusively halal, very diverse – no more ham sandwiches or bacon bits for these kids, there are calls for legal pluralism by the peak Islamic body AFIC, HBT openly advertises its three point methodology on how to overturn democracy and impose the Islamic state, seditiously circulating books like this “¦. forbidding support of democracy and the rule of law”¦and the government has committed Australia to support sharia finance –an innovation of the MB to undermine Western economies, we have a Sydney council who has been busy boycotting Israel and a Melbourne council employing a “˜Muslim Outreach Officer” to educate the community about Islam; all this with public money – and to give substance to our concerns the recent report by legal academics Ann Black and Kerri Sadiq finds that a “˜system of legal pluralism based on SL abounds in Australia; a system endorsing polygamous and underage marriages in contravention of the marriage act”¦
On and on and on it goes”¦the social and legal framework for little Islamic states in the making popping up everywhere. Perhaps, as Mr Morrison claims, our selective immigration policies are more robust than Europe, however our social policies appear to heading us in exactly the same direction. And to ignore the social cost will be to our own peril. I don’t think anyone here likes the prospect of being skinned rabbit!
It would be an oversight to only mention the challenge of this peaceful pillaging of western society when reports confirm there is also an over representation in violent crime, suggesting the fostering of a culture of violence.
In a report by Phyllis Chesler (published in the Middle East Quarterly Spring 2010) it’s noted that in Europe, 96% of the perpetrators of honor killings are Muslims and allegations of “˜unacceptable Westernization” accounted for 71% of these crimes in Europe and 91% in North America.
Unacceptable Westernization”¦while enjoying the benefits of the West, this is the crime these girls were killed for”¦
Bad attitudes towards things western abound, and building up Islam rather than a healthy respect for western freedoms and law may ultimately convert these bad attitudes into bad actions. We don’t see too many figures published here but The Age (21/10/11) recently reported that in 2008 42% of clients of the Australian Muslim Women’s Centre for Human Rights reported domestic abuse, and last year that figure rose to 80%. Honor killing is just the extreme end of domestic abuse and inadvertently promoting sharia in any form is a reckless pursuit on the part of democratic governments.
To conclude, I would like to highlight that this is essentially a battle of ideas manifesting at the extreme end in terrorism. Not only are we engaged in an asymmetric war militarily, but the ideological battle is also an asymmetric one. While Pastors have been taken before the courts accused of mocking and vilifying Islam, the spokesman for the ICV who is a partner in the comedy act “˜Fear of Brown Planet” received a government grant to mock and vilify white people and non-muslims. So non-Muslims get fined and Muslims get public grants.
When I attended the VCAT hearings where the Pastors stood accused there were two burqa clad women at the back one day”¦when Judge Higgins entered the room and all were required to stand, they remained seated and were overheard saying “˜We won’t stand for an infidel judge” — this is in a vilification hearing!! It seems vilification is asymmetric as well. I was quite amazed to read the argument of the defence lawyer of the Muslim who called the Australian Jewish soldier who returned from Afghanistan “˜a dirty animal — a thousand times worse than a pig–¦his lawyer said “˜the alleged comments were made in a political context and were not necessarily offensive”¦and the barrister added”¦”insults are a legitimate part of the political discourse–¦interesting isn’t it. If the word Muslim was substituted for Jew — would any lawyer be game to uphold that argument.