HOW odd that a Christian pastor has been found guilty of vilifying Islam after quoting the Koran. Is this really what Premier Steve Bracks intended with his absurd racial and religious vilification law? Pastor Daniel Scot and Pastor Danny Nalliah were last week found to have committed religious vilification after the first trial under this new law. Judge Michael Higgins found Scot offended by quoting the Koran in a way that got "a response from the audience at various times in the form of laughter".
Yes, Scot made his audience of 250 Christians laugh at Islam. He didn't inspire them to burn a mosque, shout insults at Muslims, plant bombs or paint nasty slogans on fences. He just made the audience laugh. And that in Victoria is now a crime. But that's not the only absurdity in a case that has so far cost these two pastors more than $200,000 in costs. The absurdities start with the excuse the Premier gave in 2001 for imposing this law, threatening us with six months' jail and $6000 fines. "Victorians take considerable pride in the fact that people from . . . diverse backgrounds live together harmoniously in our community," he told Parliament.
Yet even though we got on well, we now had to limit our free speech -- despite Bracks conceding "freedom of expression is crucial to our democratic society". Publicly saying hurtful things about a race or religion would now be illegal. Fear not, Bracks soothed. This law was "confined to prohibit only the most noxious forms of conduct", and would "promote racial and religious tolerance". But it wasn't and hasn't. With a new law to play with, it was inevitable activists would try to use it. Meet May Helou, an official of the Islamic Council of Victoria, who'd also been hired by the Equal Opportunity Commission to ensure "Arabic and Muslim communities are aware of their rights under anti-discrimination laws". In 2002, Helou alerted several Muslim converts at the ICV to a seminar on jihad to be run by a Pentecostal church, Catch the Fire. AS two of the converts told the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing, she urged them to go so it wouldn't be held, one explained, "without any Muslims present".
So they went, and were horrified to hear Scot, from Muslim Pakistan, discuss the Koran. Once they'd reported their horror to Helou, the case against Scot and Nalliah, the Catch the Fire leader, was on. Already we see how this law inflamed tensions. Without it, the three Muslims would probably not have gone to Scot's seminar to be offended. Nor would Christians since, in retaliation, be going to Muslim events to do their own monitoring. What a farce. Why, for instance, was the Islamic Council now so righteous about vilification when it voted to install as Australia's Mufti Sheik Taj El-din El-Hilali, who has praised suicide bombers as "heroes", accused Jews of using "sex and abominable acts of buggery, espionage, treason and economic hoarding to control the world" and called September 11 "God's work against oppressors" -- as well as "the work of 100 per cent American gangs"? Why was the Islamic Council silencing two pastors who'd laughed at their religion, when it refused to sack its own Mufti who'd shamed it?
So what did Judge Higgins finally find in his summary judgment, released in the Friday before Christmas, with the full judgment and penalties still to come? Most of his summary criticises Scot, who had "made fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct". The judge gave 13 examples, starting like this:
"Pastor Scot, during the course of the seminar, made statements --
"(1) that the (Koran) promotes violence, killing and looting
"(2) that it treats women badly ...
"(5) that Allah is not merciful and a thief's hand is cut off for stealing ...
"(12) Muslim people have to fight Christians and Jews, humiliate them and fight them until they accept true religion (sic)..."
Indeed, at least eight of the accusations arose from Scot quoting the Koran at the seminar, and -- it seems to me -- for the most part accurately. The Koran indeed tells Muslims to "kill disbelievers where you find them" in defending Islam, to "fight those who believe not in God ... until they pay the jizya (a penalty tax for non-Muslims)", and to share loot after a war. It also instructs men how to punish "ill-conduct" in their wives -- "admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds (and last) beat them (lightly)". Thieves must indeed have hands lopped off, and so on. So what did Scot, in those 13 examples the judge gave, say that was actually false?
Higgins in his summary does not say -- other than that he used wrong immigration statistics and failed to cite a verse of the Koran that claimed Allah was indeed merciful. But he ruled that in quoting the Koran Scot "failed to differentiate between Muslims throughout the world, (and) that he preached a literal translation of the Koran and of Muslims' religious practices which was not mainstream ..."
Perhaps Scot should indeed have said more clearly that many Muslims would not accept his interpretation of the Koran -- or, more likely, were too peace-loving to take all its instructions so seriously. Certainly he and Nalliah put their case more stridently and luridly than was wise or fair, but that's just my opinion. But is Scot's "literal" reading quite so far out of the Muslim mainstream? Our own Mufti this year told Muslims to "prove our manhood towards God" in "a war of infidels". Melbourne's Sheik Mohammed Omran, the influential head of the Islamic Information and Support Centre of Australia, last year told SBS jihad was appropriate -- but outside Australia.
Feminists have also railed against Islam's treatment of women, as Iran this year sentenced to death even a mentally handicapped teenager who'd been prostituted by her mother. Only last year, a Melbourne Muslim told a court she'd helped her husband to torch their shop because the Koran allowed him to beat her. And last week we learned Prince Charles had met Islamic and Christian leaders to try to stop Islamic countries from killing Muslims who'd become Christian. It seems to me mainstream Islam is not as obviously sweet and peaceful as the judge appears to suggest, and it's perhaps naive to have laws which make Scot guilty of vilification - and fine him - for insisting it isn't. No, not naive. It's unfair and it's dangerous - not only to our right to speak our mind, but to our right to demand reform of a religion that needs a frank debate
Do we need any more evidence of how far Europe has fallen?
Prob'ly not. We're at the point where Bush is buying sympathy cards...
In 1521 at the Diet of Worms, Martin Luther defied the pope with these words: "Hier stehe Ich. Ich kann nicht Anders. Gott hilf Mier. Amen." In English, that would be: "Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen." Today the poor man would have to say: "Here I sit." He could not do otherwise.
Perhaps, "Here I sit, broken-hearted..."
The "sitzpinkler" movement, which started in Sweden a few years ago, has moved to Australia and Germany. I won't go into detail. You can figure it out for yourself. "Sitzpinkler" is German for a man who sits in the restroom even when he doesn't have to. Otherwise, by demonstrating his "dominance" over women, he risks excommunication by the Left.
I can remember when "You gotta squat to pee!" was an insult.
A newspaper called The Australian quoted a young woman named Jessica, a biologist, from the Swedish city of Uppsala: "All my friends demand that their husbands or boyfriends sit down," said Jessica. "I think it shows respect for the women who clean. My brother, for example, would not dream of standing up. Among the young, leftish intelligentsia, there is also a view that to stand up is a nasty macho gesture."
... thereby demonstrating that the term "man" doesn't reflect only gender.
Jessica has stumbled across the essence of why the world hates us: Simply because we are born American, we have advantages that they do not have.
Wanna watch while I conspicuously consume something?
America is devoted to individualism, capitalism and the idea that even a poor immigrant can one day become a millionaire. Our Constitution, written by brilliant men, gives us the right to pursue happiness.
Actually, that was the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. One's the idea, the other's the implementation.
If happiness means buying a big gun, we can do it. If happiness means buying a big SUV, we can do it. If happiness means bringing freedom to Iraq, we can do that too. We call this "natural." Europe calls it "a nasty macho gesture." But they say the same thing about standing up in the men's room. So do you think maybe we should stop caring about what they think of us?
I dunno. I does bother me that people who are capable of making perfectly good beer are so fond of warm milk. But that's a mild intellectual problem to sort through after I'm done considering more important things, like whether eating pickles will make you eventually turn green.
I got to thinking about "sitzpinkler syndrome" recently because of what I heard at a meeting at Tinley Park High School sponsored by a group called Common Ground (www.cg.org). The meeting was led by a fellow named Jim Kenny, a thoughtful, honest liberal, not the type to pass on fake documents like Dan Rather. Still, I got the feeling in this room of 150 people that I was a defiant stehpinkler. Mr. Kenney laid out seven reasons to explain why the rest of the world — specifically, the Muslim world — professes a deep hatred for America:
Our power, wealth and "hegemony."
Our "anti-democratic policies."
"Globalization."
Our "uncritical support for Israel."
Our "arrogance, jingoism and Americanism."
Islamism and anti-Americanism.
George W. Bush.
Well, let me say a few things.
Say on, MacDuff...
On Point No. 1, the reason we have so much power and wealth is that we are free and capitalist. We don't put undue burdens on our businesspeople.
We're good dancers because we don't put one foot in a bucket.
Hey, Sweden, try it sometime. If you were an American state, your economy would rank just five rungs from the bottom — down there with Mississippi.
... only without the good hunti'...
On Points 2 and 7, do I really have to remind the Left that the only democratic nation in the Middle East is Israel? On the other hand, every single Muslim nation in the world (there are more than 20) is run by a dictator. And now we're supposed to take lessons from the Muslim nations about democracy? Isn't that kind of ⊠stupid?
Isn't the whole list ... stoopid?
On Point No. 3, I never have figured out what globalization is anyway. I think it means you can find a Dunkin' Donuts shop in the capital of Pakistan. I once read a story by someone complaining about this state of affairs. Listen. I had no idea there was a Dunkin' Donuts in Pakistan in the first place. What are you hating me for? I didn't put it there. I care what Pakistanis eat exactly as much as Pakistanis care what Americans eat. If the rest of the world doesn't want Dunkin' Donuts in their midst, they should just ⊠not ⊠go ⊠there!
But there's the real problem, isn't it? Common folk (like all of us) need someone to tell them not to go there. If we're so presumtuous as to disobey the order not to go there, we need someone to kill us, or at least (this being Europe we're discussing) incarcerate us.
Another reason the anti-globalists love to hate us is that TV show "Baywatch." You know the whine — we unsophisticated Americans are shoving our beach bimbos on the rest of the world.
... and the rest of the world can't seem to take their eyes of the titties...
To which I say: You know, the reason "Baywatch" is on the air around the world is that a lot of non-Americans thought they could make money by offering the show to their countrymen. And what do you know? They were right. "Baywatch" was once the most popular show in 130 different nations. If you don't like that, well, why don't you do what I do? Let me spell it out: Don't ⊠watch ⊠it!
See my comment above...
That's right. "Baywatch" was on the air in America from 1990-2001, and I never watched one single episode.
Shucks. That's the same number of episodes I watched.
In sum, I saw little logic in the Tinley Park meeting and lots of emotion, navel-gazing and Oprah moments. "My God, what's going to end the world first? Global warming or 'Baywatch'?" Oh, spare me.
Makes your head ache, rolling your eyes like that, dunnit? I've got a permanent headache...
Readers, let me clue you in. There is one reason the rest of the world hates us, and it is really simple: Envy.
And to the rest of the world I reply: "Thhhhppp!"
They figure that if they can't do something, Americans shouldn't be allowed to do it either. You can go along with that thinking if you want to. I'm not. That's why I voted for George Bush. Here America stands.
Posted by: tipper ||
12/21/2004 9:23:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Re. "Sweden...If you were an American state, your economy would rank just five rungs from the bottom â down there with Mississippi."
Please don't insult Mississippi - the most generous folks in America (with their OWN money!)
#4
In America you can point your SUV off the pavement bop down a dirt road and nitrogenate the soil in a primative yet sensitive way. It reliefith the anxiety and restoreth the bladder. The question is.... how far a detour is necessary? Is waving at the traffic okay? Or should only the sounds of the wind, birds and assorted small furry creatures be heard?
#5
These Euro-wimp commies are closet racists:
I know quite a few men from West Africa, Latin America, and East Asia. I haven't taken a survey on this particular custom, but I think it's a safe bet that not one of them would sit down to pee, and they would think you were a castrato if you did it.
#6
"My brother, for example, would not dream of standing up. Among the young, leftish intelligentsia, there is also a view that to stand up is a nasty macho gesture."
Indeed. Much more appropriate to bend over.
Take it like a person.
#7
They are just practising for absorption into the ummah. Ask the imam: How bad is it peeing while standing?
Q5-: How bad is it peeing while standing in cammod (the english style toilet) but taking tahara or istanja with tissue paper!
5. It is not permissible to stand and urinate as this is now the culture of the Kuffaar. However, if one does urinate standing due to necessity and cleans himself with toilet paper, he will be excused provided the urine does not splash on his clothing or body.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Muhammad Kadwa
FATWA DEPT.
CHECKED & APPROVED: Mufti Muhammad Kadwa
Be sure to carry three rocks at all times.
Posted by: ed ||
12/21/2004 12:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Oh, and sensitive Swedes and genuflecting Germans, be sure to wear a hat (or turban) while you sit and do your business. Do we have to wear torpee for toilet?
Posted by: ed ||
12/21/2004 12:41 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Of course, this practice will soon spread to American LLLs, and institutions like Evergreen College will be removing standup urinals from their men's rooms altogether, assuming they haven't abolished gender-segregated facilities altogether by then. What do you call a unisex, sit-down only restroom? A LLLoo, of course.
#10
My ex-wife once asked me why I didn't sit down to wizz. I said "Because I don't have to". I slept on the couch for a few nights.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/21/2004 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I think Jessica really needs to hand her man a mop if he can't aim correctly. (BTW, why can't he clean the friggin' loo, darling? Ever think of that?)
Or put a little target in the toilet. Change the light bulb to something brighter.
Yeah, I know, I'm making too much sense.....
Posted by: john ||
12/21/2004 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Let me get this straight:
They hate America because they pee all over themselves ?
Did I miss a few dots here ?
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
12/21/2004 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I'm still trying to figure why Moose limbs spend so much time watching each other go potty. I could't tell you what my wife does in the barfroom. Couldn't tell you what my ex-wife does, either. Post-adolescence, I've only known a single woman who would occasionally take a leak while I was around, and that was a long time ago in a galaxy (and culture) far away. I have even less idea what casual acquaintances do, of either sex.
I don't think that's because I'm oversensitive or over-fastidious. Knowing just doesn't do anything for me. Discussing it does less. Yet the Faithful⢠seem to have recorded evey time the Profit's bowels erupted and what he was wearing at the time.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/21/2004 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
#15
There is a lot more interesting info in the article than how men pee. Honestly, don't people have more important things to worry about than anatomical geometry when peeing?
Standing to pee or sitting to pee has nothing to do with masculinity. I wouldn't start an argument over it (although routinely leaving behind a wet toilet seat could certainly provoke one).
Well I wonât sit down, no I wonât sit down
You can stand me up in front of the commode
But I wonât sit down
Gonna stand my ground, wonât be turned around (ewww!!)
And Iâll keep this world from dragginâ me down
Gonna stand my ground and I wonât sit down
How did we get to this sudden moment of cautious optimism in the Middle East? How did we get to this moment when Egypt is signing free trade agreements with Israel, when Hosni Mubarak is touring Arab nations and urging them to open relations with the Jewish state? How did we get to this moment of democratic opportunity in the Palestinian territories, with three major elections taking place in the next several months, and with the leading candidate in the presidential election declaring that violence is counterproductive?
How did we get to this moment of odd unity in Israel, with Labor joining Likud to push a withdrawal from Gaza and some northern territories? How did we get to this moment when Ariel Sharon has record approval ratings, when it is common to run across Israelis who once reviled Sharon as a bully but who now find themselves supporting him as an agent of peace?
It was a series of unfortunate events.
It was unfortunate that Ariel Sharon, whom tout le monde demonized as a warmonger, was elected prime minister of Israel. After all, as Henry Siegman of the Council on Foreign Relations reasoned in The New York Review of Books, "The war Sharon is waging is not aimed at the defeat of Palestinian terrorism but at the defeat of the Palestinian people and their aspirations for national self-determination."
It was unfortunate that George W. Bush was elected and then re-elected as president of the United States. After all, here is a man who staffed his administration with what Juan Cole of the University of Michigan called "pro-Likud intellectuals" who went off "fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv." Under Bush, the diplomats agreed, the U.S. had inflamed the Arab world and had forfeited its role as an honest broker.
It was unfortunate that Bush gave that speech on June 24, 2002, dismissing Yasir Arafat as a man who would never make peace. After all, the Europeans protested, while Arafat might be flawed, he was the embodiment of the Palestinian cause.
It was a mistake to build the security fence, which the International Court of Justice called a violation of international law. Never mind that the fence cut terror attacks by 90 percent. It was the moral equivalent of apartheid, the U.N. orators declared.
It was a mistake to assassinate the leaders of Hamas, which took credit for the murders of hundreds of Israelis. France, among many other nations, condemned these attacks and foretold catastrophic consequences.
It was unfortunate that President Bush never sent a special envoy to open talks, discuss modalities and fine-tune the road map. As Milton Viorst wrote in The Washington Quarterly, this left "slim prospects" for any progress toward peace.
It was unfortunate that Bush sided openly with Sharon during their April meetings in Washington, causing the European Union to condemn U.S. policy. It was unfortunate that Bush kept pushing his democracy agenda. After all, as some Israelis said, it is naïve to export democracy to Arab soil.
Yes, these were a series of unfortunate events. And yet here we are in this hopeful moment. It almost makes you think that all those bemoaners and condemners don't know what they are talking about. Nothing they have said over the past three years accounts for what is happening now.
It almost makes you think that Bush understands the situation better than the lot of them. His judgments now look correct. Bush deduced that Sharon could grasp the demographic reality and lead Israel toward a two-state solution; that Arafat would never make peace, but was a retardant to peace; that Israel has a right to fight terrorism; and that Sharon would never feel safe enough to take risks unless the U.S. supported him when he fought back.
Bush concluded that peace would never come as long as Palestine was an undemocratic tyranny, and that the Palestinians needed to see their intifada would never bring triumph.
We are a long way from peace. But as Robert Satloff observes in The Weekly Standard, Israel's coming disengagements "will constitute a huge leap - both in psychology and in strategy - rivaling the original Oslo accords in historic importance." And the U.S. is already raising millions to help build a decent Palestinian polity.
We owe this cautiously hopeful moment to a series of unfortunate events - and to a president who disregarded the received wisdom.
Posted by: tipper ||
12/21/2004 9:45:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
." And the U.S. is already raising millions to help build a decent Palestinian polity."
Good luck.
Professor Lloyd Peck of the British Antarctic Survey is worried about — stop me if you've heard this one before — global warming. For this year's Royal Institution Christmas lecture, he'll be warning that the merest smidgeonette of an increase in temperature in the south polar seabed will lead to the loss of a zillion species. As the oceans warm, the ice shelves that extend from the polar depths into the sub-Antarctic light will shrink, and the thick mats of algae on their underside will vanish, and the billions of tiny krill that feed on them will perish, and pretty soon, up at the scenic end of the food chain, all those cute seals and penguins and whales will be gone.
And all this will happen if the temperature goes up two degrees, from butt-numbingly freezing to marginally less butt-numbingly freezing. "It is going to be really unpleasant," Prof Peck tells the Guardian. "We are going to lose things — we just don't know how much."
snip
But, on the other hand, somebody might have invented a thing the size of the Palm Pilot you staple to the seabed that automatically lowers the temperature by two degrees and we'll have wall-to-wall algae. Who can say?
What we do know for certain is that the krill's chances of survival are a lot greater than, say, those of the Italians, or the Germans, or the Japanese, Russians, Greeks and Spaniards, all of whom will be in steep population decline long before the Antarctic krill. By 2025, one in every three Japanese will be over 65, and that statistic depends on the two out of three who aren't over 65 sticking around to pay the tax bills required to support the biggest geriatric population in history.
Does the impending extinction of the Japanese and Russians not distress anyone? How about the Italians? They gave us the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa, Gina Lollobrigida, linguine, tagliatelle, fusilli. If you're in your scuba suit down on the ice shelf dining with the krill and you say you'd like your algae al dente in a carbonara sauce, they'll give you a blank look. Billions of years on Earth and all they've got is the same set menu they started out with. But try and rouse the progressive mind to a "Save the Italians" campaign and you'll get nowhere. Luigi isn't as important as algae, even though he, too, is a victim of profound environmental changes: globally warmed by Euro-welfare, he no longer feels the need to breed.
And, if he doesn't care if he survives, why should the penguins and the krill feel any differently? Given the choice between the krill's hypothetically impending extinction and their own impending extinction already under way, Europeans would apparently rather fret about the denizens of the deep. Even Chesterton, who observed that once man has ceased to believe in God he'll believe in anything, might have marvelled at how swift the decay from post-Christian to post-evolutionary. Like the old song says: What's it all about — algae?
Posted by: badanov ||
12/21/2004 3:09:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In case you think this BS is so lame that no one would believe it, think again. I have a friend, she's really nice, kind, thoughtful, etc....and she just went on a trip (won't say where - the rantworld's a small place) but the temperature was unusually warm for the weekend.
Weather cycles take millions of years, but, my friends, with a wink and a nod, I was to believe that "unusually warm weather" was all the evidence we need.
#2
Here in Philadelphia, the "normal" low for December 20 (yesterday) is 29F. Last year on December 20 it was 26F. Yesterday it was 10F. Clearly Philadelphia is entering a new Ice Age. I'm running my furnace on overtime trying to induce global warming. I'm also looking for investors in my new company, Algae of Philadelphia Enterprises (APE) -- we're going to make a fortune selling algae and krill to members of our new Feed the Whales non-profit.
Posted by: Tom ||
12/21/2004 9:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Tom, lol! If you can get Michael Moore to eat your Krill, you'll make a fortune....a non-profit one, of course.
#1
The people on the right have a problem... ok it's inappropriate to commit foreplay on the steps of a religious institution... but how f*cked-up is it to have your wife dress like that... I notice the bloke's looking.. probly got wood.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
12/21/2004 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Howard, I'm sorry but I dont see what the people on the left doing as 'foreplay'. More like simply holding each other. They aren't even kissing and her legs are crossed.
Of course all those things are strictly forbidden in Islam.
To me this picture shows the why they hate us - we have freedom and support each other freely and willingly while they have a strict master/slave relationship and support is 'enforced'.
Anyone have any suggestions on what the woman on the right (the muslim one) is thinking?
#3
wow! Classic photo. Don't know what she's thinking, but the emotion is very strong and not a happy one. He seems to be listening to the the devils on his shoulders.
Left, "Cool!"
Right, "No, bad! not cool!"
Left, "cool!"
#4
The woman on the right is possibly not thinking at all: She has had minimal education and has never been encouraged to think or rewarded for thought. Her brain has been cooked in a black veil in a sunny, hot land. She may be merely following the gaze of her master.
Posted by: Tom ||
12/21/2004 10:09 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/21/2004 13:11 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Wait a minute! Look carefully: It appears that the Oppressor on the left has exposed his instrument of imperialist hegemony and is mobilizing for conquest.
#14
I dunno, guys. I'm not a big fan of the ROP(tm) but it just kind of looks like a picture of two people watching two other people too me. The obviously Muslim couple (husband and wife? brother and sister? Mother and son? It's pretty hard to say) aren't throwing their shoes or making obvious faces or anything. My wife and I have sat on the steps of San Francisco's city hall and watched all sorts of strange goings on with about the same bland expression.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
