Posted on 10/25/2006 6:18:18 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
AUSTRALIA'S top Muslim cleric Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali should be sacked and deported for comments which essentially excused young Muslim men who committed rape, Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward said.
Ms Goward said the sheik had a history of making such comments and many would feel Australia's tolerance had been abused.
"It is incitement to a crime. Young Muslim men who now rape women can cite this in court, can quote this man ... their leader in court," she told the Nine Network.
"It's time we stopped just saying he should apologise. It is time the Islamic community did more than say they were horrified. I think it is time he left."
Sheik Alhilali's comments were delivered in a Ramadan sermon to 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, News Limited reported.
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" he said.
"The uncovered meat is the problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
I was thinking the same thing. Basically, his comment says that Muslims are animals. He shouldn't have a problem with them being treated as such then.
I can't say whether or not the animals actually get pleasured or not. LOL!
well at least there is one arab who recognizes that he and his ilk are animals.
well at least there is one arab who recognizes that he and his ilk are animals.
The Australian/American Gun Law Debate
By Gabrielle Reilly
Being an Australian American, I regularly find myself in the middle of the great gun debate between the two countries’ philosophies on gun ownership. Australians want Americans to have fewer guns and stricter rules, and Americans claim the Australian government has removed Australians’ right to defend themselves by implementing such strict gun laws in Australia. It is not until you have lived in both countries and understand the historic build-up and culture that you can really understand the two vastly different attitudes to gun ownership. All sorts of statistics are manipulated to prove both points of view, but I believe the whole issue needs to be accessed from a much more fundamental point of view… geographic location and the risk of predators, the origins of the first settlers, and human nature. Surprisingly, part of my opinion was inspired from watching the creatures that inhabit the Galapagos Islands.
The Galapagos Islands were formed by underwater volcanoes 500 miles from land. The creatures that inhabit the new and remote islands arrived by ocean or air to an environment with no existing threats so they had no predators… a lot like Australia. The creatures on the Galapagos Islands enjoy a spoilt innocence unlike most creatures around the world. Scientists concluded after researching these creatures that fear is a behavioral adaptation and when it is unnecessary, fear disappears. Perhaps that is why Australians are famous for that line “no worries, mate.”
When Australia was settled, the authorities (the British soldiers) had the guns and the settlers/convicts, for the most part, obeyed the rules. The Aboriginals in Australia were nomadic and so a fight over land ownership was nominal compared to the gruesome fights America’s first settlers had with the Native American. The majority of settlers to Australia were from the United Kingdom and most people viewed the world in pretty much the same way. Guns never became part of day-to-day life in Australia, which operated under an organized structure from the beginning.
British authorities took care of security; there was no threat on the island, no threat on the border, and the settlers spoke the same language and held similar ideals. Australians really became very similar to the creatures that enjoy the serenity of the Galapagos Islands and have lived without fear. Australians have never felt the need to have to defend themselves, so they don’t feel like the government is taking any rights away, but in fact, are giving them the right to continue to live without fear. So if the creatures of the Galapagos Islands are happy and live in relative peace, why would you want to introduce a wolf to disrupt the status quo? Then why would you want to introduce guns now in Australia? So let’s review America’s origins and threats.
America shares borders and has not enjoyed the luxury of being an isolated island. The original settlers came from all over Europe with vastly different ideals. The original 13 states were inhabited with revolutionaries who fought the king, people fleeing from religious persecution, the Puritans, the Quakers… all speaking many different languages and having different ideals. They had to fight for America from the day they arrived between the Minutemen who fought the British to people moving west fighting Native Americans. Heck, then they fought each other.
Americans had to have guns to protect their families because there was no central control to protect them at that point as they established a new society. This gun-owning culture has been ingrained over the generations and if guns were removed from society there would be an uprising. They do not believe the government should protect them and in fact many feel the need, unlike Australians, that they should be allowed to bear arms to protect themselves from their government as the revolutionaries did when they left England. The second amendment is the right to bear arms and many Americans associate that right with the right to protect their families still.
So Americans had just cause to evolve with guns. They had predators and people settling the country with different ideals. Americans sought freedom from the British Empire, and Australia became a colony under the British Empire’s protection. Justifiable fear has become ingrained in the American culture, which is why Americans feel as vigilantly that they have a right to own a gun as Australians fight to avoid the introduction of the gun. The most basic premise for the people of both countries is security and knowing their own culture. Both cultures know what the threats are and what offers their family the most security.
Considering the many issues to contend with, America really had as much diversity as Europe and has managed to create an impressive society over the past few hundred years (although not perfect) for the many different tribes to live alongside each other. Tolerance to different ideals and patriotism to a central ideal of one “America” has been key to that unity and success.
Without understanding the fundamentally different cultures and attitudes that come only from living in both America and Australia, it is virtually impossible to understand how both sides of this debate do have very valid points. What we need to recognize is that the issues are so different in each country that the same gun law model cannot be used for both countries. You cannot have cookie cutter gun laws in the same way you cannot have cookie cutter democracies. You cannot take someone’s history away, and it is their history that leads them to make the decisions they make. Everyone’s history is so different and there are so many things we just don’t know we don’t know.
END
WISDOM
The art of being wise
is knowing what to overlook.
- William James
Nah, wrapped in chum laced rags then set afloat in a life vest off the Great Barrier Reef.
Here's the cure:
"Hey guys! I found this big black thing. It's sitting outside uncovered"
Would it be the the fault of the bomb or the rock that had been left outside?
Are you suggesting that on Galapagos the many varied inhabitants there behave in opposition to the natural order? That no creature on Galapagos preys upon another to sustain itself? That on Galapagos, survival of the fittest is non existant?
I'm actually kinda glad that he's saying this 'openly'. It exposes what the Muslims have in mind, and it would force people to start thinking differently about them.
In Gabrielle Reilly's essay the gun is the wolf, not the muzzie. I hope she keeps her burka close so she doesn't become the next victim for wearing a pair of jeans.
A waste of petrochemical products. Chumming .........
Think it'd help?
Are you suggesting that on Galapagos the many varied inhabitants there behave in opposition to the natural order? That no creature on Galapagos preys upon another to sustain itself? That on Galapagos, survival of the fittest is non existant?
----
I'm suggesting nothing. I simply cut and pasted an article that appears to go a long way toward explaining our differences in attitudes towards guns as a whole.
As far as the island analogy goes, I think she has a point. Australia had very few predatory animals, the crocodile is the only one I can think of...and its habitat is limited to the far, tropical north. The dingo dog hails from islands in the Indonesian archipeligo.
Are there predatory animals on the Galapagos? I can't think of any.
Survival of the fittest...would apply to reptiles and herbivors...even seed eating finches! If they don't get enough to eat or can't find shelter in their particular environment, they die off, whilst similar creatures having plenty, thrive nearby (through protecting their territory.)
Opposition to natural order you say...well, Natural Order comes easy to someone who lives on the land as I do. Other than that, it's a Theory IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.