Guest post: David Leyonhjelm. A new era in the Senate

From The Fin Review

The first of July 2014 will be my first day as a Senator, representing NSW and the Liberal Democratic Party. I hope history will say it was the day we got to work putting Godzilla back in its cage.

Godzilla is that blundering monster that our governments have become, with their hands in our pocket and noses in every room of our house.
I am the first politician elected to an Australian parliament on a purely libertarian platform, with a mission to lower taxes, remove regulation, and put an end to the nanny state.

To see the challenge I face, you only need to stand at Canberra’s War Memorial and look down Anzac Parade. From there you can look towards the modest building that was once our Parliament House and on to new Parliament House.
At the first sitting in Canberra’s old Parliament House in 1927, taxation was less than 10 per cent of GDP, with most of this directed to core government functions like defence, and only the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Ministers had their own offices.

These days, taxation is around 30 per cent of GDP, most directed to social security, health and education, and on sitting days there are 5,000 people in new Parliament House in more than 4,500 rooms. They are not there to produce anything; they are there to make legislation, tell others to make legislation or more likely, tell someone to do something entirely unrelated. Others are busy spending your money to let you know what a great job they are doing or what a bad job the people down the corridor are doing.

But of course, Parliament House is only the nerve centre of the monster. According to the latest figures, Australia has 1.9 million public servants – as many people as there are men, women and children living in Perth. Their salaries alone amount to $134 billion, or more than $100 dollars a week from each person in Australia. Much of this could be more prudently spent by individual Australians for their own purposes. It never seems to matter how much money is taken from us, it is never enough to satisfy the beast or those who believe they are entitled to it.

Public servants are mostly dedicated, well-meaning employees who spend their days in busyness. But the public service also tends to attract people who think they know what’s good for us, and are intent on delivering it whether we need it or not.

When there are so many people being busy on our behalf, they start to encroach on our lives; drafting laws we don’t need, spending money on things we can do for ourselves, spending money telling us what to do, and finding new ways to collect the money so they can do it all over again.

But if you corner any one of them at a barbecue, stories soon emerge about waste and mismanagement, the entanglement of bureaucracy, and how people in their organisation are cavalier with your money.

They might tell you why the Department of Industry spent $75,000 on coffee machines and a further $45,000 on a contract to service them; why Centrelink spent $4.6 million on a new logo; and why the Government committed $16 million to help a profitable corporation upgrade a chocolate factory in Hobart.

And these are just small examples that do not begin to explain the $10 billion we pay for government spending on corporate welfare or the tens of billions taken from us and then redistributed as welfare handouts to middle class people who don’t need it.

How does this happen? It is simply, as the economist Milton Friedman put it, what happens when people are allowed to spend money in the worst possible way – by spending someone else’s money on somebody else.

In my term in Parliament, I want to convince Australians to reconsider whether handing their money over to the government is better than keeping it themselves. I want them to understand that disapproving of something does not justify it being prohibited or heavily regulated. I want them to understand the connection between the liberties they care about and the liberty of others, and to understand that individual freedom is universal, precious and must be fiercely protected.

We need more people in the Senate intent on putting Godzilla back in its cage, but in the meantime I will bring argument, reason, pleading and occasionally, blackmail, to the fight.

David Leyonhjelm is the new NSW Senator representing the Liberal Democratic Party.

This entry was posted in Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

488 Responses to Guest post: David Leyonhjelm. A new era in the Senate

  1. This man, owns a number of ‘political party labels’, he conned the, admittedly easily conned AEC, to register a name with ‘Liberal’ in it, knowing full well that people will vote for him believing he is part of the LNP.

    Maybe, but the implication is that he doesn’t stand for anything and is a populist weathervane.
    This is the opposite of the truth.; Leyonjhelm obviously has a set of ideas and principles, everyone knows what they are, and he is consistent in advocating them.

    So if highlighting the fact that he has been active under different different labels and parties is supposed to show that he doesn’t stand for anything, then the point you’re making is incorrect.

    More likely, he’s been experimenting with different ways of getting noticed and getting his message out to voters. The message itself hasn’t really changed.

  2. MemoryVault

    We have been spared this since Howard took the most courageous step of his primeministership in banning most guns.

    Ah yes. The banning of private firearm ownership, the confiscation of privately owned firearms, and the introduction of retrospective legislation. The three most important steps towards the establishment of a dictatorship.

    And Howard gave us all three.

  3. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    On voting senatorial, firearms ownership is the one issue which would shift my primary vote.

    Due entirely to Howard’s actions.

  4. Go rest and take it easy. You’re in a hysterical state.

    Daisy – you’re a breath of fresh air.

  5. Infidel Tiger

    Daisy, you are delight.

    The perfect blend of raving nutcase and fuckwit.

  6. MemoryVault

    Daisy – you’re a breath of fresh air.

    Yes, Numbers, you and Daisy were obviously meant for each other.
    Now why don’t the pair of you get together and toddle off somewhere and start your own Fourth Reich. I’m sure there’s lots and lots of things neither of you have even thought of banning yet.

    How about pet rocks? It’s only a matter of time before some far right Christian nutter bashes somebody’s brains out with a pet rock. Probably a gay person. After all, it’s in the Bible.

    Maybe you should ban that too.

  7. Dave Wane

    David has the right correct philosophy, and as seen this morning on Sunday Agenda, is becoming a good media performer. So far, I have not found anything he has said or written, that I do not agree with. I have been a member for about 12 months. The Liberal Democratic Party are a long overdue “Breath of Fresh Air” on our political landscape, especially amongst the coalition – who always talk-the-talk of small government, but rarely, if ever (well not for long, if they do) walk-the-walk. Labor, of course talk and walk “Big Government” every waking (and sleeping) hour.

  8. Esp Ghia

    I hope this bloke practices what he preaches.

  9. .

    Fisky
    #1363054, posted on June 28, 2014 at 5:00 pm
    That’s not what happened Fisk and you know it.

    Yes it is what happened. You claimed Honduras had diplomatic relations with both Beijing and Taipei, which is clearly untrue.

    No. First of all I think the policy is facile.

    I was wrong about Honduras (who did try to get dual recognition). Taiwan protested, not China (who were hitherto not recognised). Taiwan weren’t happy with even informal recognition of the mainland (whereas the mainland tolerate informal recognition of Taiwan). I noted if Taiwan was not recognised as China, it would be consistent with the mainland’s policy regarding Taiwan, on paper.

    You predicted there would be a war etc if this or anything like it was attempted. You then went on some silly bloody rant about how the LDP would cause a war and kill Australians.

    Your statements start off in diplomatic truisms and then turn into bloody silly, unhinged nonsense.

  10. .

    Daisy
    #1363887, posted on June 29, 2014 at 1:01 pm
    If people seriously believe that Leyonhjelm is some benign entity, you are wrong. This man, owns a number of ‘political party labels’, he conned the, admittedly easily conned AEC, to register a name with ‘Liberal’ in it, knowing full well that people will vote for him believing he is part of the LNP.

    The LDP have had the name for 13 years. The AEC tried to get us to change it once, we did in 2007 for the election. Your talk is highly patronising to all of the other voters. If we didn’t parties with similar names enter politics, the DLP for example would have never contested a seat.

    In many respects he is more dangerous than Palmer, he just doesn’t have the money behind him.

    He’s the opposite in fact.

    This person would be happy for each and everyone of us to own a gun.

    Good. Free people don’t have less rights than the police.

    Just think about that, the mad people on the internet now who vent their bile there, might just decide the next step is to shoot people.

    I have never had that inclination. You’re a worrying person, daisy.

    It is happening in other countries on a daily basis.

    No it’s not.

    We have been spared this since Howard took the most courageous step of his primeministership in banning most guns.

    It was the most cowardly thing he did.

    If people think Leyonhjelm is a friend of conservatives, you are wrong, the only difference between him and the insane far far christian right is that he does not profess or openly state that these type of beliefs underpin him.

    David is an athieist.

    What have you got against people being openly Christian? Or are only openly left wing Christians acceptable to you?

    My point is that he cannot see this, and if he can’t see the correlation between his gun toting views and mass murder then he can’t actually see many other things objectively, he is blinded by his mad ‘religious – in a non-deity sense’ mantra.

    There is no correlation. YOU are the religious nutter in this instance, Daisy.

  11. Oh come on

    Australia is not America. We don’t need a majority to elect senators.

    Your point being..?

    We already have the draconian gun laws in place. A handful of liberty-loving Senators can’t roll them back.

  12. Oh come on

    he conned the, admittedly easily conned AEC, to register a name with ‘Liberal’ in it, knowing full well that people will vote for him believing he is part of the LNP.

    Prove it, dipshit. Until you can demonstrate that this isn’t a lie, I see no reason not to assume the rest of your comment to be equally dishonest.

  13. tomix

    Daisy @ 1.01pm-
    . In many respects he is more dangerous than Palmer, he just doesn’t have the money behind him.
    Palmer certainly poses a danger to the ALP vote, if that’s what you mean.

    David Leyonhjelm is right behind Monsanto’s GM agenda, so his Party likely won’t have too many money worries.

  14. Infidel Tiger

    David Leyonhjelm is right behind Monsanto’s GM agenda, so his Party likely won’t have too many money worries.

    Let’s hope so. Only lunatics are against GM foods.

  15. wreckage

    Monsanto’s GM agenda

    Right, your name is now on my “raging hysterical fuckwit” register.

    NEW ZEALAND’S GUN LAWS PREVENTED ANY FURTHER MASSACRES.

    Look ‘em up. They worked. End of discussion.

  16. wreckage

    GM agenda: cheaper, more nutritious food with less pesticides.

    THE HORROR.

  17. Demosthenes

    David Leyonhjelm is right behind Monsanto’s GM agenda

    Amazing how direct exposure to the issues in a professional capacity, coupled with extensive research into the pros and cons, can lead one to a sensible conclusion.

    Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of Greenpeace? ;-)

  18. JC

    Who was the idiot that mentioned Monsanto in a bad light? Fuck off. Monsanto is God’s firm on earth. what they do is saintly and should be part of everyone’s retirement portfolio. The firm will go some ways towards feeding the world.

  19. tomix

    THE HORROR, indeed.

    1.20 A GM food supplement killed about 100 people and caused 5,000-10,000 to fall sick
    1. One brand of the supplement L-tryptophan created a deadly US epidemic in the 1980s
    2. The company genetically engineered bacteria to produce the supplement more economically.
    3. Their product contained many contaminants, five or six of which were suspected as the cause of the disease.
    4. Discovering the epidemic required multiple coincidences, suggesting that adverse reactions to GM foods may be hard to identify.

    See 65 Health Risks of GM Foods.

  20. Oh come on

    Wtf? Anti-GM food cranks in the Cat ranks?

  21. tomix

    Amazing how direct exposure to the issues in a professional capacity, coupled with extensive research into the pros and cons, can lead one to a sensible conclusion..

    Nooo, methinks Senator Dave is up to no good. We’ll find out soon enough.

  22. Demosthenes

    Wtf? Anti-GM food cranks in the Cat ranks?

    I think he’s also an anti-vaxxer, but I might be confusing one dingbat with another.

  23. tomix

    Wtf?

    Can any of you galahs refute any of the 65 Health Risks? Don’t be shy.

  24. Infidel Tiger

    Tomix is an anti-GMOer, anti-vaxxer and from yesterday’s comments it would appear a Port Arthur conspiracist.

    Each to their own.

  25. tomix

    A Port Arthur conspiracist, you say?

    Don’t be absurd. Evrabody knows you buy a gun today and you’re an expert marksman in the mornin’.

    And ar..3.9 Disease-resistant crops may promote human viruses and other diseases
    1. Viral genes inserted into disease-resistant crops produce “viral” proteins.
    2. Consuming these may suppress the body’s defense against viral infections, particularly in the gut.
    3. The proteins may also be toxic and lead to disease.
    4. Viral transgenes also produce RNA, which might influence gene expression in humans in unpredicted ways.
    Multinational Companies wouldn’t allow that to happen, would they?

  26. Tel

    Anti-GM food cranks in the Cat ranks?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

    That’s what put me off Monsanto, although they say you should not hate the players you should hate the game. The problem with the Intellectual Property game is that the big players have a huge advantage as gradually all business turns into court cases. The end result is only lawyers can do business. That ain’t my idea of free trade.

    That is, a patent prohibits unauthorized use of an invention in any manner, not merely unauthorized use for its intended purpose.

    Considering that purpose of the invention is one of the key parts of the patent, saying that the intended use is irrelevant would be just bloody stupid. Absolutely ridiculous.

    Patents are granted for the “innovation” of nothing more than taking an existing technology and writing down some purpose for it that no one has yet written down… but at the same time the Canadian court says that intended use is irrelevant.

    Broad sweeping patents on genetic material should be absolutely outlawed. Software patents should also be outlawed (actually software patents are already outlawed, but lawyers found effective workarounds, and those workarounds should be outlawed as they are clearly deliberate subversion of existing law).

  27. Wozzup

    “http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/

    There’s a chart here showing the murder turnaround somewhere between 1940 and 1960 which is basically the start of the “War on Drugs”. That’s for the USA, and it has come down from a peak in 1990 (although in recent years its going up again).

    I can’t find a similar chart for Australia but I think it’s actually even worse than the USA.”

    I don’t think there is any great secret to the question of the rise and fall in crime rates – especially violent crimes like murder. Try correlating it to the age profile of the population – especially the number of young men. I have seen evidence that there is a strong correlation between men aged in their teens up to their late 30′s or 40′s (I think – its been a while) People mellow with age. Even killers with blood on their hands. But high testosterone, poor education, poor impulse control, low IQ – all of which are incidentally also related to a tendency to be a member of a low socio-economic group are all crime rates for younger men.

    Which in my view is a good argument for not putting firearms in their hands as its likely to make society less stable and more, not less, violent as the gun lobby claims. But lets not go there as last time it came up I just got a shit load of irrational abuse from the pro gunners who read this blog and to whom Leyonhjelm is a hero.

  28. Tel

    Can any of you galahs refute any of the 65 Health Risks? Don’t be shy.

    I can mention that the article you pointed to does not provide references for any of the cases. That said; lots of things that people do every day are risky, so the choice must come down to the individual. GM food should be tested regularly and labelled for the consumer to know what’s in the bag. Other than that, do your own research.

    GM is new, and new things inherently contain dangers that do not exist in old, well tested things. At the same time, new things can be beneficial, and if no one tried new things we would all be scrunted. The right and proper place to settle this is a marketplace.

  29. Demosthenes

    GM food should be tested regularly and labelled for the consumer to know what’s in the bag.

    Part of the reason GMO companies get such a bad rap is that they resist even sensible things like labelling.

    As an aside, I note that mandatory truthful labelling is a restriction on free speech. Any “no restrictions” people want to speak to that?

  30. Tel

    Part of the reason GMO companies get such a bad rap is that they resist even sensible things like labelling.

    Isn’t that the free market at work? A company’s reputation should rightly be worth money, and if any company wants to go out and hose their own reputation by insisting on business practice that most people consider unreasonable then they get what they get in return.

    I’ll also point out that the radical anti-GM crowd could have also settled for a sensible compromise like insisting on labelling laws and leave it at that. The whole idea of Liberal Democracy is that it allows difference of opinion in a workable manner while people still get on with their lives. You want a system that encourages people to be as reasonable as possible under any circumstance, and marginalises the extremists.

  31. tomix

    If GMOs are so wonderful, why doesn’t Monsanto want it advertised on the label?

    Answer: Because no one would buy it.

  32. tomix

    Otoh, plenty of products advertise “Does not contain GMO materials”

    Those seem to sell alright.

  33. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    The end result is that only lawyers can do business

    I’m not opposed to G. M. crops as such – what I do object to is the legal dogfight that ensues when someone who chooses NOT to grow G.M. crops has their crop contaminated by G.M. seed. My understanding is that, under the terms of the contract anyone wanting to grow G.M. crops signs with Monsanto, HE is legally obliged to sue ME for breach of patent, and the onus is on ME to prove that I am not illegally using their seed. It’s happening here with G.M. canola, and I believe it will only be a matter of time before the situation occurs with G.M. wheat.

  34. jupes

    Answer: Because no one would buy it.

    I would.

  35. Infidel Tiger

    I’m not opposed to G. M. crops as such – what I do object to is the legal dogfight that ensues when someone who chooses NOT to grow G.M. crops has their crop contaminated by G.M. seed.

    I object to those court cases too. Thankfully the anti-GMO fucktards got their right whack and lost the case.

    You do realise that if the anti-science loons win, they are asking for 10km boundaries between farms with organic crops and those that aren’t? The end goal has and always will be to make broadacre farming unviable.

  36. john constantine

    i don’t grow gm canola, just because of the hassle, the accreditation crap and monitoring [and expense]

    a lot of the hassle comes from the demands of the swampies that the rednecks follow a precise flowchart recipe to produce it.

    canola is commonly windrowed –the whole paddock is cut like hay, and left in windrows to dry and mature evenly, and hit the almost unreasonable moisture levels to deliver seed. the dry fluffy windrows are only held down by their own weight and tangled-uppedness.

    willy-willy’s scatter and spread windrows all the time. rare to have significant damage over a paddock, but impossible tp prevent small scatterings.

    –the suggestion is that because people consume canola oil, and that there is no dna in the oil canola is the wrong gm food to go to war over.

    although i grow canola, i prefer to use olive oil, butter and good mutton dripping for human consumption oils.

  37. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1364211, posted on June 29, 2014 at 6:03 pm
    A Port Arthur conspiracist, you say?

    Don’t be absurd. Evrabody knows you buy a gun today and you’re an expert marksman in the mornin’.

    So, you’re an illiberal anti-Islamic sectarian, anti-GM and a Port Arthur Massacre conspiracy theorist? Were you created just to irritate me?

  38. Infidel Tiger

    although i grow canola, i prefer to use olive oil, butter and good mutton dripping for human consumption oils.

    Good idea. Canola oil is terrible for you.

  39. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    I object to those court cases too

    You do realize that the farmer who lost that particular case is appealing? There may, or may not be one happening where GM canola washed down a hill, and contaminated a non GM crop, and the owner of the non GM crop, is now liable to be sued.

    I’ve also heard two Canadian farmers speaking, who had gone in for GM crops, and wished they hadn’t…..Monsanto raised the cost of the seed – which you must buy from Monsanto, and the cost of the chemicals – which you must use according to Monsanto directions – and getting out of the contract is a long and involved business.

  40. jupes

    So, you’re an illiberal anti-Islamic sectarian …

    Are you pro-Islam Ari?

  41. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1364306, posted on June 29, 2014 at 7:25 pm
    So, you’re an illiberal anti-Islamic sectarian …

    Are you pro-Islam Ari?

    In comes the bigot. I don’t want to ban the religion, is my answer to your silly question.

  42. Aristogeiton

    Demosthenes
    #1364246, posted on June 29, 2014 at 6:24 pm
    GM food should be tested regularly and labelled for the consumer to know what’s in the bag.

    Part of the reason GMO companies get such a bad rap is that they resist even sensible things like labelling.

    As an aside, I note that mandatory truthful labelling is a restriction on free speech. Any “no restrictions” people want to speak to that?

    There’s no evidence it is harmful to humans. Why is mandatory labelling necessary? If people are really frightened, then producers can certify that there is no GM content in the foodstuff. This is just part of the campaign by greenie nutters to lie about GM foods, and then tie their lies to the product through mandatory labelling.

  43. Fisky

    Anyone who doesn’t want to ban halal food is a secret jihad-sympathiser.

  44. .

    Which in my view is a good argument for not putting firearms in their hands as its likely to make society less stable and more, not less, violent as the gun lobby claims. But lets not go there as last time it came up I just got a shit load of irrational abuse from the pro gunners who read this blog and to whom Leyonhjelm is a hero.

    Except it doesn’t – you don’t have an argument.

    The evidence is against gun control. Which is why the Shooters Party, LDP etc are becoming more popular.

    The only irrational argument put forward was by you – you thought some gun owners were dickheads and that firearms could turn you into a dickhead. So you got rid of yours because you were irraitonal.

  45. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1364312, posted on June 29, 2014 at 7:30 pm
    Anyone who doesn’t want to ban halal food is a secret jihad-sympathiser.

    Is that seriously your position, or are you trolling?

  46. Infidel Tiger

    You do realize that the farmer who lost that particular case is appealing?

    Of course he is. His case is funded by Greenpeace and various other Nazi groups.

    I hope the treacherous cnut loses and is imprisoned for life.

    If you have half a clue, you’ll hope the same too.

  47. Fisky

    Did you know that the secret Halal jizya tax has directly financed 85% of terrorist incidents since 9/11? What a disgrace!

  48. tomix

    Aristogeiton @ 7.30pm-
    If people are really frightened, then producers can certify that there is no GM content in the foodstuff

    Monsanto are on the warpath to stop producers from doing that.

  49. Infidel Tiger

    No one is forced to grow or buy GM crops or food. No need to put that much tinfoil on just yet.

  50. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1364323, posted on June 29, 2014 at 7:43 pm
    Did you know that the secret Halal jizya tax has directly financed 85% of terrorist incidents since 9/11? What a disgrace!

    I’m sure you have a reputable source to back this extraordinary allegation?

  51. Tel

    Why is mandatory labelling necessary?

    Why should anything have a label? If someone asks for a tin of beans, you have every right to sell them a tin of asparagus, or dogfood, or creamed corn, instead, right? I mean, not like it’s been proven harmful or anything.

  52. tomix

    The point is, if it’s not labelled either one way or the other, choice goes out the window.

    Not a problem in LDP-Land?

  53. Infidel Tiger

    Why should anything have a label? If someone asks for a tin of beans, you have every right to sell them a tin of asparagus, or dogfood, or creamed corn, instead, right? I mean, not like it’s been proven harmful or anything.

    If a pale skinned redhead from Fitzroy can be an aborigine, then i don’t see why not.

  54. Aristogeiton

    Tel
    #1364339, posted on June 29, 2014 at 7:52 pm
    Why is mandatory labelling necessary?

    Why should anything have a label? If someone asks for a tin of beans, you have every right to sell them a tin of asparagus, or dogfood, or creamed corn, instead, right? I mean, not like it’s been proven harmful or anything.

    This has been unlawful under the Sale of Goods Acts for more than a century. This is a silly example.

  55. Tel

    The best kind of marketplace… the lucky dip marketplace. Pick a random price, pick a random product!

    Everyone goes home a winner because we just tell them it’s really something else.

  56. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1364340, posted on June 29, 2014 at 7:54 pm
    The point is, if it’s not labelled either one way or the other, choice goes out the window.

    Here’s the answer to your question from Uncle Milt. If the goods are dangerous, then the supplier will be dealt with under the law. I have seen no credible evidence that GM food is dangerous.

  57. Tel

    Ari, you are saying that for more than a century it has been recognised that correct labelling is valuable. Thanks for proving my point. Monsanto can join in and do it too.

  58. .

    What are you banging on about Tel? That has nothing to do with that court case.

  59. Infidel Tiger

    Should Coca-Cola have to list their recipe?

  60. Fisky

    I’m sure you have a reputable source to back this extraordinary allegation?

    I do! If you simply enter the phrase “85% of terrorist attacks are caused by halal food” into Google without quotation marks, no less than 59,800 results come up. It’s clearly common knowledge!

  61. Aristogeiton

    Tel
    #1364351, posted on June 29, 2014 at 7:59 pm
    Ari, you are saying that for more than a century it has been recognised that correct labelling is valuable. Thanks for proving my point. Monsanto can join in and do it too.

    No I’m not. I’m saying that if you sell goods by description, or sample, then they must correspond to the description or sample. Creamed corn is still creamed corn, GM or no. If the goods are labelled ‘no GM’, then that is their description which they must correspond to. You can’t sell asparagus as creamed corn; it’s not lawful.

  62. Tel

    Ari, stop changing the topic. No one said anything about dangerous goods, it’s a consumer choice what he/she wants to buy. If there’s a dislike of the risk of new things, the consumer has a perfect right to choose not to use new technology.

  63. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1364356, posted on June 29, 2014 at 8:04 pm
    I’m sure you have a reputable source to back this extraordinary allegation?

    I do! If you simply enter the phrase “85% of terrorist attacks are caused by halal food” into Google without quotation marks, no less than 59,800 results come up. It’s clearly common knowledge!

    No link in the first page were relevant. You’re trolling. Cut it out.

  64. Tel

    Ari, can I sell a tin in Australia with a blank label, that just contains some random food?

  65. tomix

    There was “no credible evidence” that Thalidomide was unsafe. A doctor had to fake the data to get it banned.

    Are you suggesting that in the LDP Utopia Thalidomide could make a comeback?

  66. Demosthenes

    There’s no evidence it is harmful to humans. Why is mandatory labelling necessary?

    It’s not about harm, but the consumers’ right to know what they’re buying.

    This has been unlawful under the Sale of Goods Acts for more than a century.

    What a shocking infringement on our sacred right of free speech!

  67. Aristogeiton

    Tel
    #1364359, posted on June 29, 2014 at 8:04 pm
    Ari, stop changing the topic. No one said anything about dangerous goods, it’s a consumer choice what he/she wants to buy. If there’s a dislike of the risk of new things, the consumer has a perfect right to choose not to use new technology.

    Sure they do. But you are demanding that the producer label the goods a certain way. And that is not on. The producer can respond to the market for non-GM food by selling just that. My guess is, most people don’t give an actual fuck.

  68. JC

    It’s not about harm, but the consumers’ right to know what they’re buying.

    What right is that? There’s no such fucking right. It’s made up.

  69. Demosthenes

    no less than 59,800 results come up.

    I got 60,300. Clearly Google is deliberately hiding the truth from you.

  70. Aristogeiton

    Demosthenes
    #1364364, posted on June 29, 2014 at 8:06 pm
    [...]
    What a shocking infringement on our sacred right of free speech!

    Selling individuals specific goods, and delivering another type of goods, is a breach of contract and possibly fraud. Are you saying that the wrong of fraud and the enforceability of contractual obligations offend your finely-tuned principle of freedom of speech? This is utter stupidity.

  71. JC

    My guess is, most people don’t give an actual fuck.

    Most don’t while some do. The idea of labeling products especially for products that contain GM is that the anti-gm zealots use that information to fuck over the firms. It’s basically anti-gm.

  72. Fisky

    I got 60,300. Clearly Google is deliberately hiding the truth from you.

    They are traitorously trying to softball Islamic terrorism!

  73. JC

    food labeling would make its way into the market without any need for regulations if that is what consumers want. However as for a right… Bullshit.

  74. Infidel Tiger

    It’s not about harm, but the consumers’ right to know what they’re buying.

    You’re asking for much more than that.

    Should they have a right to know what pesticides and herbicides were used? Was the farmers daughter menstruating when she entered the dairy shed?

  75. JC

    I think I’m starting to figure who this Dem is and it’s not good.

  76. JC

    Fucking right. My arse it’s a fucking right.

  77. Aristogeiton

    Infidel Tiger
    #1364379, posted on June 29, 2014 at 8:13 pm
    It’s not about harm, but the consumers’ right to know what they’re buying.

    You’re asking for much more than that.

    Should they have a right to know what pesticides and herbicides were used? Was the farmers daughter menstruating when she entered the dairy shed?

    You’ve won the thread. The wife got a kick out of that one.

  78. Demosthenes

    You’re asking for much more than that.

    Everyone missed the sarcasm.

  79. .

    Actually tomix, Thalidomide is undergoing research (in particular with corticosteroids and COX2 inhibitors such as Celebrex and Vioxx) to be used for advanced prostate cancer and multiple myeloma.

    I hope Thalidomide does make a comeback, and the TGA and US FDA back off and let people get the medicines they need (alone with medical marijuana).

    The LDP is a pro science party.

  80. Demosthenes

    Are you saying that the wrong of fraud and the enforceability of contractual obligations offend your finely-tuned principle of freedom of speech?

    I’m teasing out what principle people are subscribing to. The question is, do we let people sue for fraud or breaking contract (allow free speech with consequences) or do we prevent the lie in the first place (restrict free speech)?

  81. Demosthenes

    The common law is all about economic efficiency. As you point out, over the centuries judges and legislators decided that restrictions and regulations made for the easier transaction of commerce than a free-for-all with legal mop-up after the fact.

  82. Aristogeiton

    Demosthenes
    #1364392, posted on June 29, 2014 at 8:18 pm
    Are you saying that the wrong of fraud and the enforceability of contractual obligations offend your finely-tuned principle of freedom of speech?

    I’m teasing out what principle people are subscribing to. The question is, do we let people sue for fraud or breaking contract (allow free speech with consequences) or do we prevent the lie in the first place (restrict free speech)?

    I’ve already said I’m a libertarian. Why waste my time trolling?

  83. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Should they have a right to know what pesticides and herbicides were used.

    Wheat growers have been able to supply that information, in the name of “Quality assurance” for several years now.

  84. Demosthenes

    Of course, being human, judges and legislators (and the regulators they created) have in many areas gone totally overboard and need to be reined in, no question. But we’re talking principle here, not specifics.

  85. Aristogeiton

    Demosthenes
    #1364394, posted on June 29, 2014 at 8:21 pm
    The common law is all about economic efficiency. As you point out, over the centuries judges and legislators decided that restrictions and regulations made for the easier transaction of commerce than a free-for-all with legal mop-up after the fact.

    No I didn’t say that at all.

  86. JC

    Of course, being human, judges and legislators (and the regulators they created) have in many areas gone totally overboard

    Yea like accidentally overboard perhaps? Just by pure accident. Fuck off.

  87. Infidel Tiger

    Wheat growers have been able to supply that information, in the name of “Quality assurance” for several years now.

    Should my loaf of Tip To have that info on it?

  88. jupes

    No link in the first page were relevant. You’re trolling. Cut it out.

    LOL

    He was having a go at me you stupid twit.

  89. jupes

    Anyone who doesn’t want to ban halal food is a secret jihad-sympathiser.

    No, just gullible.

  90. jupes

    I don’t want to ban the religion, is my answer to your silly question.

    Yeah. The more Islam the better for Australia.

  91. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Should my loaf of Tip To have that information on it

    All jesting aside, it was the flour mills who were demanding that we keep that information, and the not so veiled threat was “You will have to be quality assured to sell your grain” so perhaps, that is the next step.

  92. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1364420, posted on June 29, 2014 at 8:36 pm
    Anyone who doesn’t want to ban halal food is a secret jihad-sympathiser.

    No, just gullible.

    Well, the very fact that it’s hard to distinguish from your position should give you pause. One doubts it will. You nutter.

  93. Joe Goodacre

    Dot,

    What did you make of Ari’s case, put forward to show the need for defamation law?

    Did you think an over zealous parent at a public school who thought that his children weren’t getting a good enough education, and writing an email to 15 parents with opinions he honestly held on the topic is an appropriate area for the state to intervene in? This seemed a particular miscarriage of justice because the court didn’t take 5 minutes to even find out from any of the 15 parents whether the email had affected their view of the principal?

  94. Joe Goodacre

    See below for link.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2009/1186.html

    Hopefully Ari in the interim will provide a good reason why it’s a good thing bureaucrats abuse defamation law to prevent a parent from sharing their honestly held opinions regarding the principal in a public school with other parents.

    I thought on here we were pro families, free speech and words being an insufficient category of harm – i.e against abuse by the state.

  95. Joe Goodacre

    In fact this is probably one of the worst cases one would rely upon to justify defamation law – it’s also relatively obscure.

    Some personal connection clouding your judgment?

  96. wreckage

    Viruses and bacteria randomly transpose DNA and RNA all over the place, all the time. You’re probably carrying traces of mosquito DNA right now. Point is: it doesn’t matter.

  97. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1364575, posted on June 29, 2014 at 11:27 pm
    See below for link.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2009/1186.html

    Hopefully Ari in the interim will provide a good reason why it’s a good thing bureaucrats abuse defamation law to prevent a parent from sharing their honestly held opinions regarding the principal in a public school with other parents.

    The defence of honest opinion was not made out. See paragraph [87] et seq.

    The finding was that the defendant knowingly falsified the information, not that they were honestly held (see [109]); the defendant asserted otherwise ([112]), but could provide not good reasons to back his ridiculous assertions.

    The defendant’s behaviour was malicious and his statements were false. See the extraordinary behaviour of the defendant from [25]. This is all after the defamation occurred, and after he was asked to retract. In fact:

    The pre-publication emails [that is, before the first defamation], the very language of the matter complained of, and the defendant’s evidence referred to, provide ample support for the finding that the motive and intention which actuated the publication was to force the plaintiff to resign by discrediting and denigrating her before the recipients. Put another way, I am satisfied that his dominant motive, by reason of his dislike and anger towards her, was to so injure the plaintiff that she would resign.

    Once again, Joe proves he can’t, or won’t, read and understand. This case was only provided as an example of the damage a motivated, malicious individual can do to one’s career and reputation, even if you aren’t rich and powerful. If you think that this behaviour is defensible then you’re a disgrace.

  98. Aristogeiton

    How the fuck did you get through law school? Have standards slipped so much?

  99. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1364564, posted on June 29, 2014 at 11:11 pm
    [...]
    This seemed a particular miscarriage of justice because the court didn’t take 5 minutes to even find out from any of the 15 parents whether the email had affected their view of the principal?

    Furthermore, the relevant test is whether the publication “tends, in the minds of ordinary reasonable people, to injure his or her reputation”. So I’m not sure what the benefit (or relevance) of adducing evidence from the 15 parents would have been. But you’d know this, I suppose, if you knew the first thing about this area of law.

  100. jupes

    Well, the very fact that it’s hard to distinguish from your position should give you pause.

    Well it’s a lot better than your position which is: The more Islam the better for Australia.

    This is where the libertarian position is as loopy as the Greens. You tolerate importing a totalitarian ideology as if it will have no effect on your libertarian paradise. Madness.

  101. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1364731, posted on June 30, 2014 at 6:28 am
    [...]
    Well it’s a lot better than your position which is: The more Islam the better for Australia.

    Humour me and trot off and find any point at which I’ve said anything remotely resembling that.

  102. jupes

    Humour me and trot off and find any point at which I’ve said anything remotely resembling that.

    Sure.

    … you’re an illiberal anti-Islamic sectarian,

    You use this as a term of abuse. The inference is that you yourself are not anti-Islamic. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude you are pro-Islamic. But wait, there’s more:

    I don’t want to ban the religion,

    Of course you don’t, you are pro-Islam. At the very least, you don’t want to put any controls on the number of Muslims who come here. You are pro-Islamic immigration. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude you think Islam is good for Australia.

  103. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1364875, posted on June 30, 2014 at 10:53 am
    [...]
    The inference is that you yourself are not anti-Islamic. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude you are pro-Islamic. [...]
    I don’t want to ban the religion,

    Of course you don’t, you are pro-Islam

    Flawless logic.

  104. jupes

    Flawless logic.

    How about this (left out of your rebuttal for some reason)?

    You are pro-Islamic immigration. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude you think Islam is good for Australia.

    Perfectly logical I think you would have to agree.

  105. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1365392, posted on June 30, 2014 at 7:39 pm
    Flawless logic.

    How about this (left out of your rebuttal for some reason)?

    You are pro-Islamic immigration. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude you think Islam is good for Australia.

    Perfectly logical I think you would have to agree.

    Who could? When I have I said I was “pro-Islamic immigration”, for example? Here’s your tautology:

    1) I criticise you for your absurd, illiberal and illogical anti-Islamic sectarianism (like here, and here; there are innumerable other examples I can’t be bothered recapitulating);
    2) therefore I am “pro-Islamic”;
    3) wherefore I am “pro-Islamic immigration”;
    4) proposition that I think “Islam is good for Australia”.

    Only statement 1) is established on the basis of anything I have said. Do you think that this is a valid form of argument? Really?

  106. Fisky

    Jupes accuses other people of supporting Muslim immigration, even though he himself has never succeeded in describing a mechanism that would reduce Muslim immigration. He leaves the actual brainwork to others.

    It’s a dismal form of argumentation.

  107. Fisky

    In fact, you could just as easily say that Jupes is pro-Islamic immigration on the same evidence that he uses to accuse others – he has never actually said how he would reduce Islamic immigration. I’d say he’s a Wahhabist shill paid for by the Saudi foreign ministry to discredit opposition to Islamic immigration.

  108. jupes

    1) I criticise you for your absurd, illiberal and illogical anti-Islamic sectarianism (like here, and here; there are innumerable other examples I can’t be bothered recapitulating);

    Of course you can’t. My ‘anti-Islamic sectarianism’ as you call it is neither absurd nor illogical though it is illiberal.

    Do you think that this is a valid form of argument? Really?

    Yes I really do. How could you be cool with Islamic immigration but think that Islam is NOT good for Australia? Isn’t there a phrase for holding two opposite thoughts at the same time?

  109. jupes

    He leaves the actual brainwork to others.

    Yeah I get it. Only those with political policy writing experience can post here.

  110. jupes

    I’d say he’s a Wahhabist shill paid for by the Saudi foreign ministry to discredit opposition to Islamic immigration.

    Well that’s an improvement on a mass murderer’s groupie I suppose. Perhaps I should be grateful.

    Hey, you’ve given me an idea. Saudi Arabia is Judenfrei, so is Jordan. Perhaps we could ask them for advise on how to draft legislation to keep out unwanted groups.

    Does that mean I can post here now?

  111. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1365473, posted on June 30, 2014 at 8:58 pm
    [...]
    Do you think that this is a valid form of argument? Really?

    Yes I really do. How could you be cool with Islamic immigration but think that Islam is NOT good for Australia? Isn’t there a phrase for holding two opposite thoughts at the same time?

    How can you be this stupid? Read through your little syllogism, which I have outlined helpfully for you a couple of comments back. Ok, you establish point 1). Now read the above quote. You proceed directly to 2) and 3) without further argument or proof. This is not a valid argument. It’s just bigotry; you are essentially trying to discredit those who criticise you by imputing beliefs to them which they do not hold, or by reduction to a false dichotomy. You argument can be summarised thusly: “you criticise my bigotry; you think Islam is good; Islam is bad”. It’s stupid, unedifying and illogical.

  112. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1365495, posted on June 30, 2014 at 9:07 pm
    [...]
    Hey, you’ve given me an idea. Saudi Arabia is Judenfrei, so is Jordan. Perhaps we could ask them for advise on how to draft legislation to keep out unwanted groups.

    And your argument against Islam is a moral one, right?

  113. Tel

    Yeah I get it. Only those with political policy writing experience can post here.

    http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/8d49f7ad4bbcf4ef852573590040b7f6/2c0a15a30105f16185257cc8004be075!OpenDocument

    Those critics conjure up claims of “EPA secret science” — but it’s not really about EPA science or secrets. It’s about challenging the credibility of world renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society. It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it — and won’t agree to protect it. If EPA is being accused of “secret science” because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it — then so be it!

    The same woman who claims that passive smoking will kill you even after the British Medical Journal, and the American Cancer Institute, and the World Health Orgization all came to the conclusion that it was statistically insignificant. Presumably none of those groups were qualified to analyse it (one of the groups was from Stanford, same as Google, don’t believe me, just Google it).

  114. jupes

    You argument can be summarised thusly: “you criticise my bigotry; you think Islam is good; Islam is bad”.

    No. My argument is that if you believe that an action is good, then you must also believe that the result of that action is also good. Otherwise you are being stupid, unedifying and illogical.

    It’s stupid, unedifying and illogical.

  115. Tel

    Perhaps we could ask them for advise on how to draft legislation to keep out unwanted groups.

    They have a pretty simple system: the king and his mates get to decide. Don’t try too hard with drafting… just delegate to people who will give the right answer.

    Speaking of draft, how about this? Anyone who can drink me under the table is automatically Australian. We might get a lot of cute Eastern European ladies in the door, hope that’s OK in the scheme of things?

  116. jupes

    And your argument against Islam is a moral one, right?

    Of course. I think it is immoral to allow a murderous, totalitarian belief system to establish itself here in the name of tolerance.

  117. Tel

    Anyone who doesn’t want to ban halal food is a secret jihad-sympathiser.

    You know I ate at a halal certified restaurant today and I heard someone ordering roast pork at the same place, but I didn’t want to take chances so I ordered the roast lamb (which was very good). I really must ask, who thinks that halal certification puts more money in the hands of criminals than, the “War on Drugs” does? Just a show of hands… I’m curious about the answer.

  118. Tel

    Viruses and bacteria randomly transpose DNA and RNA all over the place, all the time. You’re probably carrying traces of mosquito DNA right now. Point is: it doesn’t matter.

    Point is it isn’t for you to decide what’s good or bad for me to eat, nor is it the state’s job to decide. I claim sovereignty over my own body and mind, by dint of natural law. All other property rights are rendered irrelevant and useless unless one can achieve this basic ownership of self. I decide, not you.

  119. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1365584, posted on June 30, 2014 at 9:50 pm
    [...]
    My argument is that if you believe that an action is good, then you must also believe that the result of that action is also good.

    Well this is a new ‘argument’; remember, I helpfully outlined your earlier reasoning for you above. Bit thin don’t you think? I suppose that Mikhail Kalashnikov should be tried for war crimes on the strength of your innovative new moral argument?

    Look, just go back to posting lunacy here, and I’ll try my best to ignore you.

  120. Aristogeiton

    Tel
    #1365641, posted on June 30, 2014 at 10:14 pm
    Viruses and bacteria randomly transpose DNA and RNA all over the place, all the time. You’re probably carrying traces of mosquito DNA right now. Point is: it doesn’t matter.

    Point is it isn’t for you to decide what’s good or bad for me to eat, nor is it the state’s job to decide. I claim sovereignty over my own body and mind, by dint of natural law. All other property rights are rendered irrelevant and useless unless one can achieve this basic ownership of self. I decide, not you.

    As IT noted above, Tel, we’ll be putting warning stickers on milk drawn by menstruating milkmaids as soon as is legislatively and bureaucratically possible.

  121. Tel

    Didn’t you also say it was OK for Coles to sell frozen bread and pretend it was freshly made?

    And I suppose the banks have no reason to tell their depositors how little reserves they hold?

    Because personal choice in a free market is based on ignorance and deception, right?

  122. Aristogeiton

    Tel
    #1365701, posted on June 30, 2014 at 10:38 pm
    Didn’t you also say it was OK for Coles to sell frozen bread and pretend it was freshly made?

    And I suppose the banks have no reason to tell their depositors how little reserves they hold?

    Because personal choice in a free market is based on ignorance and deception, right?

    Where does it end, Tel? Banks throw open their books to you? Here’s an idea: clear the stench of corporatism from the banking sector and maybe you might have your voluntary disclosure of reserve deposits. Should the government mandate labelling everything with every conceivable piece of information because you are incapable of making judgments of value and quality? You’re just another big-state whinger, mate.

  123. Fisky

    How can you be this stupid? Read through your little syllogism, which I have outlined helpfully for you a couple of comments back. Ok, you establish point 1). Now read the above quote. You proceed directly to 2) and 3) without further argument or proof.

    Jupes reminds me of Prohibitionists who claim that if you don’t want to ban drugs outright, you must be pro-drug and in favour of school-children using drugs. What they don’t understand is that every action has trade-offs, opportunity costs, etc. Maybe, just maybe, people of good faith have reasons that the costs of attempting total prohibition (as opposed to amelioration) of an action are higher than the benefits.

    That would be too much for ideologues to understand unfortunately.

  124. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1365753, posted on June 30, 2014 at 11:15 pm
    [...]
    Maybe, just maybe, people of good faith have reasons that the costs of attempting total prohibition (as opposed to amelioration) of an action are higher than the benefits.

    ‘[I]f you believe that an action is good, then you must also believe that the result of that action is also good’. Ergo, if you don’t believe in drug prohibition, then you might as well be directly injecting dirty heroin in the the collapsed veins of a doe-eyed baby child.

  125. Aristogeiton

    s/in the/into the/

  126. jupes

    I suppose that Mikhail Kalashnikov should be tried for war crimes on the strength of your innovative new moral argument?

    No. Try and concentrate Ari. Mikhail Kalashnikov believed the result of his action was good.

    BTW you still haven’t answered this question: How could you be cool with Islamic immigration but think that Islam is NOT good for Australia? Or do you actually believe that a murderous totalitarian belief establishing itself here is a good thing?

  127. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1365921, posted on July 1, 2014 at 6:33 am
    I suppose that Mikhail Kalashnikov should be tried for war crimes on the strength of your innovative new moral argument?

    No. Try and concentrate Ari. Mikhail Kalashnikov believed the result of his action was good.

    BTW you still haven’t answered this question: How could you be cool with Islamic immigration but think that Islam is NOT good for Australia? Or do you actually believe that a murderous totalitarian belief establishing itself here is a good thing?

    Bugger off. You still haven’t demonstrated the truth of your initial, ridiculous chain of assertions, whose questions still go begging in your final paragraph. Why should I now proceed to argue some other teleological ethics, whose ends you have yet to explain?

  128. tomix

    Aristogeiton is Pro-Islamic for the very best of reasons, jupes. By filling Australia’s cities with them, the cops will somehow be able to prevent their women from genitally mutilating their own infant female relations, thereby making the world a nicer place.

  129. jupes

    Why should I now proceed to argue some other teleological ethics, whose ends you have yet to explain?

    Indeed. You cannot answer my question without beclowning yourself.

  130. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1365991, posted on July 1, 2014 at 8:38 am
    Why should I now proceed to argue some other teleological ethics, whose ends you have yet to explain?

    Indeed. You cannot answer my question without beclowning yourself.

    Because it’s incomplete you fucking ignoramus. It’s like you’re a half-pregnant Consequentialist. You and Joe Goodacre are peas in a pod. Whenever your idiot ideas run out you just shift the goalposts. Piss poor. You and your imbecilic mate tomix both. You three are probably the most boring, stupid fucks who regularly post here.

  131. “All the people at [Sale that day] were the same as me. Everyone of those people in that audience hated [John Howard’s] guts. Every one of them would have agreed he deserved to be shot.”

    Charming.
    RTWT

  132. jupes

    That would be too much for ideologues to understand unfortunately.

    No. Here is what I cannot understand:

    The Prophet Mohammad had 11 wives, one of whom was six when he married her and nine when he consummated the marriage. He was 54 at the time (see Michael Smith’s blog for details). He was a murderer and warlord who allowed his followers to rape female captives (but only after they’d killed the husbands – Muslims can’t commit adultery) and keep them as slaves. He ordered the stoning to death of female adulterers.

    Every single Muslim believes Mo lived the perfect life.

    Islam is an ideology of conquest. The ability of Muslims to actually achieve that conquest has ebbed and flowed over the centuries, however it’s not for want of trying. Wherever Islam comes into contact with another culture there is conflict:
    ‘Moderate’ Indonesia has had two Bali bombings, embassy bombings and beheadings of Christian school girls.
    ‘Moderate’ Malaysia has occasional outbreaks of violence against ethnic Chinese.
    The Philippines has MILF and Abu Sayef.
    Chinese Muslims commit mass murder against the locals.
    Burmese Muslims are in constant conflict with local Buddhists.
    Indian Muslims have committed numerous acts of terrorism against local Hindus.
    Pakistani Muslims have committed acts of terrorism against Indian Muslims including the recent attack on Mumbai.
    Muslims in Iraq, Syria and Egypt regularly murder Christians.
    After helping liberate Muslims in Libya, they showed their gratitude by desecrating Commonwealth War Graves and murdering the US ambassador.
    Israel has been under constant attack from Muslims since its inception.
    Nigerian Muslims kidnap girls and commit mass murder in schools because they believe western education is bad.
    This century Muslims have committed mass murder in the US, UK, Spain, France and Russia to name just a few.
    When Muslims aren’t murdering Kaffirs, they are killing each other. See Sudan, Syria, Iraq etc
    When Muslims have democracy they often elect terrorists. See the Palestinian Territories and Egypt.

    There is a general rule for Islamic immigration in Western countries. The more Muslims; the more crime and terrorism. Polls have shown that many non-violent Muslims share the same objectives as their terrorist co-religionists. They want their host countries to allow them to follow Sharia law and they agitate for this to happen.

    A major step to the Caliphate is to get western countries to accept Islamic laws. They are well on the way. The UN is agitating to make insulting the Prophet a crime under international law. Muslims believe Kaffirs are unclean so US guards at Gitmo handle Korans with gloves.

    We have seen what happens in Europe when larger Muslim populations than Australia’s immigrate to the West. The UK now allows Sharia law for marriage and finance. Parts of England have Muslims patrolling the street enforcing dress codes. Does anyone believe they will stop at this? It is in this context that Halal certification should be seen for what it is. A small step in the Islamification of Australia.

    So far 21 Muslims in Australia have been jailed for terrorist offences. There have been notorious cases of pack rape committed by Muslims and numerous cases of murder and gun crime. Many of them mutilate their daughters. Muslims are out on the street protesting when someone in the US makes a movie about Mo but are nowhere to be seen when Muslims commit actual atrocities. Some Muslim dickhead the other day wanted to give a speech giving a moral justification for murdering women and girls.

    So what I want to know is what is the benefit for Australia to have more Muslims living here? Fisky? Ari?

  133. Fisky

    Jupes, I regret to remind you, once again, that you have not ONCE attempted to explain what you intend to do about Muslim immigration, a serious omission in my view. You obviously believe that this is some sort of national emergency, in fact it seems to be the only subject that you talk about. And yet you have not devoted any time at all to considering what might be done about it. So obviously, your concern does not extend to solutions, but you’ll accuse other people of being pro-Islam even though their substantive position of not advocating any solution to Muslim immigration is in fact the same as yours.

    Hence, you aren’t taken very seriously.

  134. jupes

    Hence, you aren’t taken very seriously.

    Well it’s all very well to claim that isn’t it. That’s a good way of avoiding the question.

    You would rather talk about the nuances of immigration policy development than address the blindingly obvious danger that Muslim immigration poses to this country.

    Nevertheless I will indulge you in your red herring.

    I would ban Islamic immigration. This would be achieved by potential immigrants stating their religion on the immigration form. If they lie and are later caught in a Mosque, wearing a Hijab, or the Islamic man-dress they will be deported.

    Your main concern appears to me to be that the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation would be upset if we ceased Islamic immigration. So the choice appears to be to keep Australia safe or keep the OIC happy. Keeping the OIC happy seems more important to you. That’s called appeasement in my book. But maybe you know more about Islam than me. Maybe you can explain the benefits of Islamic immigration to Australia.

    I’m predicting you can’t so will avoid the question and/or resort to abuse.

  135. Demosthenes

    The more Muslims; the more crime and terrorism.

    I’m going to need sources for this one.

  136. jupes

    I’m going to need sources for this one.

    Any newspaper. Any day of the year.

  137. Demosthenes

    So you have nothing. Big surprise.

  138. jupes

    So you have nothing. Big surprise.

    Yeah you’ve got me Demo.

    Islam really is the Religion of Peace. I just made all that stuff up.

  139. Fisky

    I would ban Islamic immigration. This would be achieved by potential immigrants stating their religion on the immigration form. If they lie and are later caught in a Mosque, wearing a Hijab, or the Islamic man-dress they will be deported.

    It’s clear from your quote that you would actually ban Islam, not Islamic immigration. You want to shut down all mosques.

    Your main concern appears to me to be that the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation would be upset if we ceased Islamic immigration.

    Nope, I’ve never bothered to consider the OIC angle because in fact I think they are a joke and not vital to Australia’s interests. But Indonesia and Malaysia are pretty vital as I’m sure Mk50 will be able to fill you in. A lot of people are going to get killed if you ever get your way, but because you never will, we can be assured that there is nothing to worry about.

  140. Fisky

    I’m going to need sources for this one.

    You haven’t noticed the wave of terror attacks and terrorist group takeovers of Muslim majority countries?? Then again, you were part of the “push-pull factors” crowd who supported Rudd-Gillard’s boats policy, so there’s no surprise there.

  141. Demosthenes

    Yeah you’ve got me Demo.

    You made a claim. Presumably, you made it because you believe it. Presumably, you believe it because you were convinced it was true. Presumably, you were convinced by evidence.

    Am I wrong in any of these logical steps? If not, you can easily produce the evidence that convinced you. If you can’t… well, it doesn’t look good for your credulity.

  142. Demosthenes

    Then again, you were part of the “push-pull factors” crowd who supported Rudd-Gillard’s boats policy

    I never supported Rudd-Gillard’s boats policy. You repeat the “with us or against us” fallacy.

    Push factors are as real as pull factors. Anyone who denies this is living in a dream world.

  143. Fisky

    Yes you did. You oppose Operation Sovereign Borders and I’m certain that you also opposed the Pacific Solution. Because no one who supported the Pacific Solution would later oppose OSB.

    The only alternative to OSB on offer was the Rudd-Gillard mess. This started in 2008 with the end of offshore processing and boat turnbacks, and I have no doubt at all that you would have applauded this as “humane” and “far-sighted” at the time.

  144. Demosthenes

    You oppose Operation Sovereign Borders and I’m certain that you also opposed the Pacific Solution.

    Opposing A does not mean supporting B. That’s a concept even you can grasp.

    The only alternative to OSB on offer was the Rudd-Gillard mess.

    My views on policy must be limited to what is “on offer” by the two major parties? How absurd. How tribalist of you.

  145. The only alternative to OSB on offer was the Rudd-Gillard mess.

    Bullshit – a solution like that applied when the Vietnamese boat people began arriving would have been successful and should have been implemented. But that would have required leadership. Neither of the two political leaders at the time had either the courage or the ability.
    Of course, the minute wee Johnny used the Tampa to win an election in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, any chance of that was history.
    He is responsible for the disasters since, including the drownings.

  146. Fisky

    Opposing A does not mean supporting B. That’s a concept even you can grasp.

    Surely if you applauded the end of the Pac.Sol., then it must have been on account of the superiority of the alternative, in your eyes.

    My views on policy must be limited to what is “on offer” by the two major parties? How absurd. How tribalist of you.

    If you are barracking for the end of a working policy, you are in effect siding with the Greens if anything. That’s a real worry.

  147. Fisky

    Bullshit – a solution like that applied when the Vietnamese boat people began arriving would have been successful and should have been implemented.

    Except very few of those currently attempting to arrive by boat (the paper/document destroyers) are even remotely in the same situation as those who were effectively expelled from their country by a regime you supported at the time. So no, there is no “regional solution” on offer, and never will be.

    Of course, the minute wee Johnny used the Tampa to win an election in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, any chance of that was history.

    I didn’t realise that John Howard was able to predict the 9/11 attacks occuring two weeks after his successful and humane Tampa turnback. He really was a man with remarkable foresight if that’s the case.

    He is responsible for the disasters since, including the drownings.

    What, you mean the drownings that occured under the opposite policy to his? Absurd. But then socialists don’t usually take responsibility for their mistakes.

    I bet you were out there campaigning against allowing in the “Saigon crooks” along with your other Far Left extremist friends when the boat people issue was live in the 70s. Penny to a pound, that was your position.

  148. Demosthenes

    Surely if you applauded the end of the Pac.Sol.

    I didn’t do any such thing. Your perception of me is all wrong.

    If you are barracking for the end of a working policy

    There was no barracking. You flagrantly lie, but what’s new?

    you are in effect siding with the Greens if anything.

    Immediately after employing a false dichotomy and being put in your place, you move the goalposts to a false trichotomy. Typical.

    Still no attempt by you to establish what my actual views are. Is that because you’re intellectually lazy and only have a limited number of pigeon holes to put me in?

  149. Fisky

    Demos, anyone who spends hours on the internet trying to argue against Operation Sovereign Borders (that’s you!) was also an opponent of the Pacific Solution, believed that push factors outweigh pull factors, and that the Rudd-Gillard policy was more humane. Now all of these positions are wrong, and I’m sorry that you hold them, but events have moved on. OSB is the only credible policy on offer.

  150. tomix

    1735099

    One difference is that the Vietnamese boat people of the 70s were fleeing a murderous communist regime.

    These boaties are being imported for electoral purposes by the ALP.

    Was the boatpeople loss of life 200,000+? Shame on the Whitlam Government.

  151. I bet you were out there campaigning against allowing in the “Saigon crooks” along with your other Far Left extremist friends when the boat people issue was live in the 70s.

    In 1977 I was teaching at Corinda State High which at the time had a cohort of newly-arrived Vietnamese kids fresh off the boats.
    I combined a group of them with a class of kids with disabilities on an excursion to go and see “To Kill a Mockingbird” at a cinema at Enoggera, not far from the army base where I had been discharged 6 years prior. The Vietnamese kids needed the language practice, and the wheelies needed able-bods to push their wheelchairs. I drove the bus and supervised the group.
    On arriving in front of the cinema, and as the kids were getting out of the bus, a bloke with an army haircut in civvie clothes appeared and proceeded to abuse the Vietnamese kids calling them “dirty stinking noggie c**ts”. I got the kids into the cinema ASAP.
    The Vietnamese kids couldn’t understand English well enough to construe his meaning, but a couple of the kids with disabilities ended up in tears.
    This same mindless bigotry is reflected in much of what is posted here. The only significant change is the target. Both groups arrived as refugees in boats.
    At least back then the bigotry wasn’t driving a brutal bipartisan policy.

  152. Dave Wane

    Correct. And of course, the South Vietnamese were more or less in our neighbourhood. Unlike those arriving by boat in recent years who make their way from the other side of the world by airliner to democratic and safe enough Indonesia, and then try to make their way to nearby Australia by boats, and then claim to be “refugees”. Hardly!

  153. Fisky

    Numbers, I note you deliberately avoided the question about whether you believed the boat people who arrived were “Saigon crooks”, as did the entire contemporaneous Australian Left. Were the adults who came to Australia lackeys who deserved to be returned to face trial or not?

  154. JC

    Push factors are as real as pull factors. Anyone who denies this is living in a dream world.

    That’s why we’ve been flooded with boats in the past six months since the policy change. The various seas and Indian oceans are filled with them right now. You fucking imbecile. You pathetic fucking idiot.

    It’s the complexity of the push pull factors. Lol

  155. Tom

    Push factors are as real as pull factors. Anyone who denies this is living in a dream world.

    Hi Alan.

  156. Tel

    It’s the complexity of the push pull factors. Lol

    It isn’t all that complex. Opportunity without motive… no problem. Motive without opportunity… also no problem.

    Motive and opportunity together… there’s going to be a problem.

  157. Tel

    One difference is that the Vietnamese boat people of the 70s were fleeing a murderous communist regime.

    There’s a lot of Syrian Christians, fleeing to Turkey and other places in Europe to avoid being murdered.

    We are at least a little bit responsible, we should help them.

  158. Tom

    I didn’t realise the name J****h is now as reviled in the Cat software as the name of the Third Reich’s propaganda chief, whose name also cannot be mentioned without triggering a cyber air raid anti-tr*** siren.

  159. jupes

    You want to shut down all mosques.

    Well yes, I would rather there was no mosques in Australia. Would you be happy living next door to one? Nevertheless there are Muslims here now so I accept we have to have mosques. I just don’t want any more.

    A lot of people are going to get killed if you ever get your way …

    A lot more will get killed if we continue with Islamic immigration.

    I’m predicting you can’t so will avoid the question and/or resort to abuse.

    Yep. Avoided the question.

  160. jupes

    There’s a lot of Syrian Christians, fleeing to Turkey and other places in Europe to avoid being murdered.

    We are at least a little bit responsible, we should help them.

    Exactly.

  161. Dave Wane

    For me, there is no parallel whatsoever between those flying to safe Indonesia from the other side of the world and then trying to make their way through the back door to Australia by boat, to the South Vietnamese people who were escaping a brutal communist regime at the end of an equally brutal war, trying to escape to freedom by sailing south to Australia – and all in our part of the world.

  162. JC

    Tel

    I know I’m just making fun of that moron actually taking Liars Party talking point seriously. There was never any question that demand to get here and start milking Centrelink was a big factor (pull factor). Morrison nixed that by simply saying that anyone who gets here by boat will not be settled in Australia.
    Bang. Whack. No boats for the past six months.

  163. oldsalt

    Just a guess Jupes, but wouldn’t the alleged benefits of Muslim migrants be pretty much the same as for immigration in general? ie fill gaps in the birthrate and workforce, boost housing construction etc.

    In theory, theists with family should do well here and vote Coalition. Perhaps some/many will, eventually. I would have thought that marrying into the existing population, over time, is a better indicator of assimilation than politics. Anyone got some stats? How much time should we give them? If, after some generations, the stats and the politics align to show that they really do want to remain separate, that would be a powerful argument against further migration. Kevin Andrews tried to give preference to Christian refugees eg Chaldeans, Copts and Karens but was thwarted by his own Department.

  164. tomix


    There’s a lot of Syrian Christians, fleeing to Turkey and other places in Europe to avoid being murdered.

    We are at least a little bit responsible, we should help them.

    Maybe we could help by asking our great and powerful ally to desist from giving the murderers that $500 million.

  165. Fisky

    Well yes, I would rather there was no mosques in Australia. Would you be happy living next door to one? Nevertheless there are Muslims here now so I accept we have to have mosques. I just don’t want any more.

    A lot more will get killed if we continue with Islamic immigration.

    You think we’re going to take seriously your suggestion that Muslims will have their ID checked on the way into the mosque each Friday to determine whether they are one of the “existing” true-blue Aussie Muslims who are allowed to go to mosque, or one of the “illegal” Muslims who must have lied on their passport application form and are therefore to be deported??? HTF is that going to work?

    You’re ridiculous. Wear your clown nose next time you come here, please.

  166. jupes

    I’m predicting you can’t so will avoid the question and/or resort to abuse.

    Still avoiding the question and now comes the abuse.

    You’re ridiculous. Wear your clown nose next time you come here, please.

    If nothing else you are predictable.

  167. jupes

    HTF is that going to work?

    If one of them get’s picked up by the cops in Islamic garb, or photographed on social media then they get the boot. There doesn’t have to be a stakeout at the mosque.

    The reality is that the majority could be screened before they get here. I’m sure the Syrian Christians would be only too happy to point out the fake ones amongst them.

    No one said it would be easy and it may appear too hard for your delicate sensibilites Fisky, however it is far easier stopping them coming than dealing with them once they get here. How much time and money do you think our security services are currently using to stop Islamic terrorists? How much time and money are the police currently using chasing Islamic criminals?

    Again: Please explain the benefits of Islamic immigration to Australia. Go.

  168. tomix

    I’ll have a go. Cheaper house prices for Muslims in Sydney.

    Because once you’ve got over 5% in your street, it’ll be a rush to sell and move out while you’re still alive.

  169. Fisky

    If one of them get’s picked up by the cops in Islamic garb, or photographed on social media then they get the boot

    This is hilarious. Jupes wants to design a law that will lead to the deportation of some people based on what clothes they wear, but not others. You just can’t make this stuff up.

    Again: Please explain the benefits of Islamic immigration to Australia. Go.

    Moron, I was the one who actually came up with ways of cutting Islamic immigration to Australia, not you. All you have and have had to offer is posturing and making absurd accusations against others. And then when you try to explain the detail of your ideas, it’s even more absurd than much of the rubbish on the LDP platform.

  170. Fisky

    The Ban on Muslim Clothes 2014 Act:

    If you are caught wearing Muslim clothes, you will be chucked out of the country, unless you can show that you immigrated to Australia prior to the Act, in which case you can stay here and wear Muslim clothes.

    Australia will be an even bigger laughing stock than it was under Gillard.

  171. Tel

    The reality is that the majority could be screened before they get here. I’m sure the Syrian Christians would be only too happy to point out the fake ones amongst them.

    They are already screened, and sitting in refugee camps in Turkey. If some Turks want to slip into the stream don’t worry too much.

  172. jupes

    If, after some generations, the stats and the politics align to show that they really do want to remain separate, that would be a powerful argument against further migration.

    How many generations do you want to wait before you realise there is a problem? Look at Europe where most countries Islamic immigration program is a generation ahead of ours.

    Not much assimilation going on there.

  173. oldsalt

    Tomix, said in jest and perhaps unintentionally but you have highlighted my main concern for the medium to long term ie residents vacating the street is exactly what some Muslims want. The political violence will stop one day. But some want their own streets.

    Some pretty interesting types have come to us via Xmas Isl over the years. The Tanjung Priok uprising and suppression is considered to be the foundational event of Jemaah Islamiyah. Some, like Basyir, fled to Malaysia and founded JI. Some fled to Xmas Isl. One of them became Imam there for a bit. From Aceh, he now lives on the mainland where he calls for elements of Syariah and for separate Muslim housing in Perth, where they can live the way they want to and don’t have to mix with the rest of us. The good news is most Muslims don’t agree with him. There’s a difference between prudent vigilance and a counsel of despair. jalil

  174. jupes

    Australia will be an even bigger laughing stock than it was under Gillard.

    Or not. I suspect a lot of Europeans would be very happy to have similar laws. Indeed, France has banned the burqa (niqab actually). (Too bad they don’t enforce it though.)

    I was the one who actually came up with ways of cutting Islamic immigration to Australia

    Riiighhht. So you agree with me that Islamic immigration is bad for Australia. Good.

    What’s with all this bile you have been directing at me then? In your view, your hypothetical way of dealing with it is superior to mine. That’s it?

  175. oldsalt

    Of course there are problems with some Muslim migrants. It was apparent long before the bombs started.

    Perhaps the problem is our now discredited, I think, take on multiculturalism, and over reaction against assimilation because of historical abuses against indig, which has encouraged Muslim separatism?

  176. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1366649, posted on July 1, 2014 at 9:15 pm
    [...]
    What’s with all this bile you have been directing at me then? In your view, your hypothetical way of dealing with it is superior to mine. That’s it?

    It’s because you’re an illiberal nutter.

  177. jupes

    It’s because you’re an illiberal nutter.

    Oh hi Ari. I see you’ve come back now that my earlier post is out the way.

    Don’t worry. I didn’t expect you to respond.

  178. oldsalt

    Jupes I could add considerably to your list of Islamic infamy but I think a bit of balance is in order first. The Armed Forces of the Philippines and Christian proxies have been known to indulge in a wee bit of Muslim bloodletting, as have Hindus and Buddhists in India and Burma. Oh and Russians in Chechnya. That shouldn’t be used as a blanket reason to stop Christian, Hindu and Buddhist migrants coming here, unless they were among the perpetrators, and doesn’t mean their children and grandchildren won’t be good citizens.

    Like you I’d like to prioritise Christian refugees, but neither Party is interested in changing the law to facilitate this. The only practical response is to become an activist with Christian refugees and personally help resettle them here.

    Like you I don’t want us to follow the European path. The people who are already here are not going away, so again the only practical response is to personally get involved helping them assimilate. Remember, leaving it all to the State is not likely to end well.

  179. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1366692, posted on July 1, 2014 at 9:54 pm
    It’s because you’re an illiberal nutter.

    Oh hi Ari. I see you’ve come back now that my earlier post is out the way.

    Don’t worry. I didn’t expect you to respond.

    Yes. I was quivering in fear of your intellectual genius.

  180. Fisky

    What’s with all this bile you have been directing at me then? In your view, your hypothetical way of dealing with it is superior to mine. That’s it?

    No, it is out of frustration in going round and round in circles with people who don’t understand how logic works. Ari gave you some examples up the thread.

  181. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1366741, posted on July 1, 2014 at 10:36 pm
    What’s with all this bile you have been directing at me then? In your view, your hypothetical way of dealing with it is superior to mine. That’s it?

    No, it is out of frustration in going round and round in circles with people who don’t understand how logic works. Ari gave you some examples up the thread.

    Fisky’s right. That’s it.

  182. wreckage

    Well, one way to reduce the proportion of Muslim immigrants is to actively look into the non-Muslim peoples suffering oppression, and offer asylum to them. That is, assuming you want to reduce the proportion of Muslim immigrants.

  183. Fisky

    Well, one way to reduce the proportion of Muslim immigrants is to actively look into the non-Muslim peoples suffering oppression, and offer asylum to them. That is, assuming you want to reduce the proportion of Muslim immigrants.

    We canvassed that at length two weeks ago. My idea was to insert language regarding those seeking religious asylum to include a reasonable fear of:

    -forced conversion
    -execution for apostasy
    -violence or threats of violence for practicing one’s faith

    By changing the language to focus on actions that affect believers rather than mere identity, this would help to weed out the usual whingers who claim they are being oppressed for being Muslims even though there aren’t any real restrictions on their faith.

    If we give special priority to those who can meet 3/3 or 2/3 points, then the Islamists are done.

  184. Aristogeiton

    This is a very good idea, Fisky.

  185. oldsalt

    Not sure how this would go with Islamists fleeing from other Islamists eg the Sunni Shia conflict. JI people got here by claiming Suharto was threatening them with point 3. Islamists fleeing El Sisi may claim the same thing. Many of the Burmese Rohingya Muslims now coming by boat would pass your test, as would Afghan and Pakistani Hazaras. Pretty much the whole population of Christians in North Maluku would have passed during the war there.

  186. Fisky

    Not sure how this would go with Islamists fleeing from other Islamists eg the Sunni Shia conflict. JI people got here by claiming Suharto was threatening them with point 3. Islamists fleeing El Sisi may claim the same thing. Many of the Burmese Rohingya Muslims now coming by boat would pass your test, as would Afghan and Pakistani Hazaras. Pretty much the whole population of Christians in North Maluku would have passed during the war there.

    No, because if priority is given to those who meet 2/3 points or more, then the Shia face no threat of execution for apostasy or threat of forced conversion. Sunnis don’t want to convert Shia, because they already follow the same religion. They just want to kill them.

    The Rohingyas wouldn’t meet 2/3 of those points either.

  187. oldsalt

    Shia in Indonesia would qualify for 2 points of your test. There are attacks and attempted forced conversions by Sunnis, backed by the Govt.

    How will you define forced conversion? Threat of death or threat of discrimination? There’s an element of force in both big enough for lawyers to drive a haulpak through. Shia in Gulf States are vulnerable, as are Sunni in Iran. Forced conversion applies from sect to sect within a religion.

    Forced conversions, from one religion, sect or political party, are a standard part of inter-village warfare in many parts of Asia and Africa.

  188. oldsalt

    Hazaras in Baluchistan and Rohingyas in Rakhine, from where current asylum seekers are coming, also experience forced conversion and would qualify for two of your points.

    Depending on who issues the fatwa, both Shia and Sunni can consider the other to be apostate. There is no central authority and, again, our first lawyer’s brother could drive a haulpak through.

    It’s standard practice for some Shia and Sunni to acquiesce to overt membership while covertly remaining faithful to the other. As it is with some Chinese Catholics.

  189. Demosthenes

    Motive and opportunity together… there’s going to be a problem.

    Thank you, Tel. Dreamers like to pretend that push factors don’t exist, so I’m curious how they explain why current refugees come from places like Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, while previous waves came from places like Lebanon, or Vietnam, or Europe, as you go back in time?

  190. jupes

    The Armed Forces of the Philippines and Christian proxies have been known to indulge in a wee bit of Muslim bloodletting, as have Hindus and Buddhists in India and Burma. Oh and Russians in Chechnya.

    Why is that do you think oldsalt?

    If they are in large enough numbers, Muslims will harass, intimidate and murder the local population. Sometimes the locals and or government fight back.

  191. jupes

    My idea was to insert language regarding those seeking religious asylum to include a reasonable fear of:

    -forced conversion
    -execution for apostasy
    -violence or threats of violence for practicing one’s faith

    Oldsalt is correct. Those three points are too vague not to mention hard to prove. You need to prohibit Islam.

  192. jupes

    Wow. Even the European Court of Human Rights doesn’t fret about banning Muslim clothes.

    Unlike some here.

  193. Tintarella di Luna

    Even the European Court of Human Rights doesn’t fret about banning Muslim clothes.

    Face-covering is not a religious observance it is a tribal mechanism of control. To have such a thing in Australia, or specially designated prayer rooms for followers of Islam on Commonwealth land be it in Universities or at airports, for Halal to be imposed on everyone without consent is to promote a state religion which breaches s116 of the Australian Constitution.

    Section 116 of the Commonwealth Constitutionforbids the Commonwealth parliament to pass a law establishing a religion, imposing a religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and forbids a religious test to be required as a qualification for office in the Commonwealth.

    While there may not be a specific law what we are seeing is the pre-eminence of secular life is being eroded incrementally.

  194. jupes

    Face-covering is not a religious observance it is a tribal mechanism of control.

    Yeah nah. In reality it is both. Sure not all Muslims wear the veil, however there is a very vague reference in the Koran that many Muslims believe advocates face covering.

    Certainly those who wear it are in no doubt it is part of the Religion of Peace.

  195. Fisky

    You need to prohibit Islam.

    What a great idea! (never going to happen)

  196. Fisky

    “Wow. Even the European Court of Human Rights doesn’t fret about banning Muslim clothes.

    Unlike some here.”

    You are invincible in your thickness of the head. I have argued at length for banning the burka on at least three separate threads, on one of which I know you were present.

    You seem to have developed your own prototype of the Leftist Anti-Knowledge Device, except in your case it wipes everything clean on a 24-hour loop.

  197. Infidel Tiger

    You need to prohibit Islam.

    It worked for drugs. I can’t see this failing.

  198. Fisky

    Hazaras in Baluchistan and Rohingyas in Rakhine, from where current asylum seekers are coming, also experience forced conversion and would qualify for two of your points.

    oldsalt, I will have to take your word for it (although I link to point me in the right direction would be appreciated), but I cannot comprehend how this works. To convert to Islam, you need to say, “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his messenger” in the presence of a witness. That’s it, you’re a Muslim!

    Both Sunni and Shia have the same profession of faith, and believe in the same five pillars of Islam. What exactly is the mechanism for converting from one sect to another??

  199. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1367014, posted on July 2, 2014 at 6:43 am
    Wow. Even the European Court of Human Rights doesn’t fret about banning Muslim clothes.

    Who gives a fuck what the ECHR does?

  200. jupes

    I have argued at length for banning the burka on at least three separate threads, on one of which I know you were present.

    Gee, sorry for not remembering your position on everything. I’ll take notes in future.

  201. jupes

    Funny thing is though, I do seem to remember your position on Malcolm Turnball for some strange reason.

  202. Fisky

    What the fuck does Malcolm Turnbull have to do with this discussion?? You really are dense.

  203. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1367295, posted on July 2, 2014 at 3:59 pm
    Funny thing is though, I do seem to remember your position on Malcolm Turnball for some strange reason.

    You’re an asshole.

  204. Fisky

    A real piece of work. At least Matthew has a brain.

  205. tomix

    Old Turnbull He’d be a Muslim fan for sure. Not many muslims in Vaucluse.

  206. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1367320, posted on July 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm
    Old Turnbull He’d be a Muslim fan for sure. Not many muslims in Vaucluse.

    Oh look. Here’s the other fuckwit.

  207. tomix

    Seriously, let’s imagine Australia with Turnbull still opposition leader. Rudd would be well into his third term with a massive majority and the pundits would be canvassing why further elections were needed.

    And David Leyonhjelm wouldn’t be a senator.

  208. Aristogeiton

    tomix
    #1367336, posted on July 2, 2014 at 4:34 pm
    Seriously, let’s imagine Australia with Turnbull still opposition leader.

    “Seriously, let’s change the subject because my bigot mate has been given a pasting”.

  209. Fisky

    Rudd would certainly be into his third term with a 100-seat majority if the Liberals had run on tomix’s “let’s ban mosques” platform.

  210. Aristogeiton

    Fisky
    #1367345, posted on July 2, 2014 at 4:40 pm
    Rudd would certainly be into his third term with a 100-seat majority if the Liberals had run on tomix’s “let’s ban mosques” platform.

    Nah. Federal Police would be cruising around as we speak, checking the ID of anyone seen wearing a Hijab/Niqab e.t.c and charging and deporting new migrants who contravene the laws. The laws would apply as easily to male or female migrants. There would be no constitutional challenge to the laws banning mosques, and even if there were, s. 116 has not been contravened.

  211. Aristogeiton

    Hey jupes, I suppose that your laws would ban the importation and possession of Halal foods as well?

  212. tomix

    Misrepresentation. I never advocated banning mosques. Converting them to ice skating rinks, well maybe…

  213. Empire

    Converting them to ice skating rinks, well maybe…

    How about a reverse Hagia Sophia?

  214. tomix

    Bit incendiary, Empire. We shouldn’t antagonise them, so Fisky reckons. And he’s right.

  215. Empire

    I was thinking direct to museum. Fahour could establish a chain.

  216. jupes

    “Seriously, let’s change the subject because my bigot mate has been given a pasting”.

    By who? Not you that’s for sure. Here’s your contribution:

    It’s because you’re an illiberal nutter.

    Yes. I was quivering in fear of your intellectual genius.

    Who gives a fuck what the ECHR does?

    You’re an asshole.

    Oh look. Here’s the other fuckwit.

    LOL. That’s told me! I bow to your great intellect and wit.

  217. Aristogeiton

    jupes
    #1367581, posted on July 2, 2014 at 8:04 pm
    “Seriously, let’s change the subject because my bigot mate has been given a pasting”.

    By who? Not you that’s for sure. Here’s your contribution

    As Fisky noted above, the abuse is what happens after you don’t respond to logic. Now fuck off.

  218. oldsalt

    Fisky sorry, trying to reply but haven’t been able to get through.

  219. Tel

    My idea was to insert language regarding those seeking religious asylum to include a reasonable fear of:

    -forced conversion
    -execution for apostasy
    -violence or threats of violence for practicing one’s faith

    Very sensible. All of these points are completely incompatible with a Libertarian philosophy and they would easy apply to the Christians fleeing from Syria. Attempting to outlaw Islam in Australia would also be incompatible with a Libertarian philosophy and equivalent to the third point above.

  220. oldsalt

    Fisky please don’t think I’m trying to discredit your 3 point proposal, I’m not. You need to game it with more real life situations and keep tweaking. The lawyers who game our current system will game yours too, with the same results.

  221. Fisky

    Not at all – I’m not in the legal field so I’d much like to hear from lawyers about how to beef it up.

  222. oldsalt

    Some years back the Ahmadiyyah sect in Indon were attacked and threatened with forced mass conversion. They threatened a sit-in at our Post and to seek asylum, all half a mill of them. Your 3 point plan would have helped them but wouldn’t have helped the Ambonese Christians seeking protection from Jihadist ethnic cleansing. Your 3 points would have been a coupla hoops too many.

  223. Fisky

    I’m not too worried about that Pakistani sect (or that’s where they originated right?) getting in as they seem to be peaceful. Druze and Alawites I don’t mind either. It’s the Arab Sunnis that need to be screened out to the greatest extent possible. They are a menace.

  224. Fisky

    Did Kevin Andrews ever look into this, i.e. how to protect M/E Christians and fast-track their applications? I would be interested to know what language he was proposing.

  225. oldsalt

    re Christians fighting back in Minda, I’m reminded of the Christian Tad Tad [The Chopchops] sect there who decided that eating their Muslim opponents was a handy solution. They ate a Priest too, a belated concession to neutrality.

  226. tomix

    They ate a priest? Look, is there any way these ChopChops could be fast tracked into Australia?
    There’s plenty of food for them here.

  227. jupes

    Attempting to outlaw Islam in Australia would also be incompatible with a Libertarian philosophy …

    Yes, far better to allow unrestricted Islamic immigration into our Libertarian paradise. What could possibly go wrong?

  228. wreckage

    Well, if you wanted to do it, you would go and make headlines and TV spots in a refugee camp full of Christians (or Buddhists, or whoever you please) and make big public promises to them, as PM. Then tell the dept. they are to start processing now, load the lot onto a cruise liner and bring them all to Oz. Scatter them all over the place and hand them some sort of Visa, preferably hashing the paperwork completely.

    You need numbers though, so when the dept tries to unfuck the situation they face headlines like “20,000 refugees to be deported” and so on.

    Then sit back, as it’s someone else’s problem now. Lather, rinse, repeat; indeed, the more you do it the harder it is to undo. Abruptly stop when people cotton on and start declaring themselves Christian, Buddhist, or whatever.

    The point here is to take the simple tactic of creating an irretrievable mess, and using it against the ALP.

  229. wreckage

    The other, and preferably run in tandem, method is to jam the Skilled Visa spigot wide open and fast-track those into citizenship. Of course, nobody with useful skills would want to come here, but maybe you could hook a few thousand Chinese retirees. And then make a path for them to import yet further Chinese as carers, etc.

    Ultimately the idea is not necessarily about religion, but about balancing the intake of people from parts of the world that have been rolling disasters for the last 1000 years, with people who have had or supported stable laws and secular government for generations. The Copts are one example of a minority that cold be expected to support secular government; there are plenty of others.

  230. jupes

    Ultimately the idea is not necessarily about religion, but about balancing the intake of people from parts of the world that have been rolling disasters for the last 1000 years, with people who have had or supported stable laws and secular government for generations.

    Won’t work with Islam. As we have already seen, subsequent generations are likely to be more radical than the first.

    Non-Muslims from tribal societies also have great trouble assimilating.

  231. Fisky

    Won’t work with Islam. As we have already seen, subsequent generations are likely to be more radical than the first.

    Non-Muslims from tribal societies also have great trouble assimilating.

    If you had read and comprehended wreckage’s comment, it is clear that he was calling for FEWER Muslim migrants and MORE non-Muslim migrants. Like every other sane person on this thread. But you seem to read comments calling for FEWER Muslim migrants as advocating jihad, or something.

    For one day, I would be intrigued to experience what it’s like to have a brain that is always stuck in reverse doing donuts. You never fail to miss the point, jupes.

  232. Fisky

    Well, if you wanted to do it, you would go and make headlines and TV spots in a refugee camp full of Christians (or Buddhists, or whoever you please) and make big public promises to them, as PM. Then tell the dept. they are to start processing now, load the lot onto a cruise liner and bring them all to Oz. Scatter them all over the place and hand them some sort of Visa, preferably hashing the paperwork completely.

    I think that’s the way to do it. Make a huge public issue out of it and dare the ALP and the bureaucracy to stand in the way.

  233. wreckage

    You also have to think “what is the worst, stupidest, most hostile way I could do this?” That comes pretty naturally to the ALP, but Libs would have to work on it.

  234. jupes

    If you had read and comprehended wreckage’s comment, it is clear that he was calling for FEWER Muslim migrants and MORE non-Muslim migrants.

    Maybe.

    Ultimately the idea is not necessarily about religion, but about balancing the intake of people from parts of the world that have been rolling disasters for the last 1000 years, with people who have had or supported stable laws and secular government for generations.

    Maybe not.

    If you disregard religion and take in a ‘balance’ of people from people who come from ‘parts of the world that have been rolling disasters for the last 1000 years’, you will end up with plenty of Muslims. Oh and tribal people.

  235. wreckage

    Read it again, jupes. You’ve inverted the meaning.

  236. jupes

    You’ve inverted the meaning.

    Please explain how if we disregard religion while taking people from parts of the world that have been rolling disasters for the last 1000 years, we don’t end up with Muslims.

    By that criteria they are the prime candidates.

Comments are closed.