tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post116212432700106991..comments2023-11-03T19:05:08.512+11:00Comments on Harry Clarke: Migration policy & the muftiUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-82137589294727510352008-01-05T20:31:00.000+11:002008-01-05T20:31:00.000+11:00whitey, I think the Australian left fosterrs guilt...whitey, I think the Australian left fosterrs guilt about just about everything we do. It is this general guilt that gives the game away and weakens us.hchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799594181016858701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-20870068012732372782008-01-05T19:18:00.000+11:002008-01-05T19:18:00.000+11:00In my opinion, as a white Australian, what under ...In my opinion, as a white Australian, what under pins us not selecting what types of people we let into our courty is the guilt we have ( deep down ) for invading the original Australians and even the way we still treat them. Otherwise, why should we feel it's bad to select people on any basis we choose. We all choose our friends on any basis we like, why not our country as well. Why should we feel bad about being careful and as selective as we like. So the question that rages in Australian circles is why or why not let people into our country to radically change the way we live, because all Australians know very well what happened when Engalnd first came here. Until that war ends, white Australia is vunerable to guilt and conquest by a stronger force under the same princiles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-1162204327482374522006-10-30T21:32:00.000+11:002006-10-30T21:32:00.000+11:00The principles of non-discrimination that underly ...<EM>The principles of non-discrimination that underly Australia's immigration policies are simply not up for debate.<BR/></EM><BR/><BR/>Rubbish Rabee. Should we allow unreconstructed Nazis into Australia?<BR/><BR/>Cannibals?<BR/><BR/>Discrimination on the basis of race is wrong because nobody can choose (or change) their race.<BR/><BR/>You can choose to give up your religion or culture if it is odious. <BR/><BR/>If you choose to cling to barbaric beliefs and practises then that is nobody's fault but your own, and it is not discrimination to tell you to get fucked as a result.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-1162180190139279282006-10-30T14:49:00.000+11:002006-10-30T14:49:00.000+11:00Harry - doesn't Australia already have a very sele...Harry - doesn't Australia already have a very selective immigration policy? If it weren't for the ALP playing silly-buggers and trying to vote-rig Hillaly would have been deported in the 1980s.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-1162176768460168572006-10-30T13:52:00.000+11:002006-10-30T13:52:00.000+11:00Rabee, The selective immigration policy practiced ...Rabee, The selective immigration policy practiced in Australia was common to the other two major countries of immigration - the US and Canada up to the 1970s. <BR/><BR/>It is certainly true that you should not judge an individual person in respect of any desired attribute on the basis of skin colour. Skin colour is an inessential attribute. Martin Luther King said judge people by the 'quality of their hearts' and I agree. <BR/><BR/>But it is the quality of hearts that I am concerned with not skin colour and, in this respect, culture I think is a relevant characteristics to judge admissability. <BR/><BR/>If there are blocks of people who have the cultural views of the Mufti why should Australia accept them?<BR/><BR/>Why should we want people who exhort the value of religiously-inspired violence (Jihad) and terrorism? <BR/><BR/>What advantage is there to us in accepting people whose culture suggests women are pieces of meat who need to be locked away to protect them from rape while men are like feral animals who will devour them unless they are covered? Will having such people in Australia make us a stronger community? Is this a community view you would want your kids growing up to experience?<BR/><BR/>Are the claims of residents that thugs at Cronulla made life difficult for Anglo women (read 'pieces of meat in bikinis' awaiting attack) on that beach believable when many of those men had a religious base at the Mufti's mosque at Lakemba? Isn't it that true that many of the men who participated in the riots were were based there?<BR/><BR/>I am unsure but the connection worries me. Do these men really think in this way about Australian women? Why do they seem reluctant to give the Mufti the flick? Did they deep down share his views? Or do they openly support them?hchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799594181016858701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-1162165623285060152006-10-30T10:47:00.000+11:002006-10-30T10:47:00.000+11:00Any debate on Australia's immigration policy that ...Any debate on Australia's immigration policy that questions or threatens the underlying tenant that this policy should not discriminate in terms of ethnicity, religion and culture, is simply not acceptable. There is no turning the clock back to the disgraceful White Australia policy. There is no turning back the clock to Australia's Bela-Apartheid. Not even a bit.<BR/><BR/>A debate on immigration that does not question the non-discriminatory principles is of course legitimate.<BR/><BR/>The principles of non-discrimination that underly Australia's immigration policies are simply not up for debate. <BR/><BR/>Any such debate would mean that the racists at the Cronulla race riots have won. It is clear to me that the main aim of those riots were to initiate a debate on the non-dicriminatory tenants of immigration policy. <BR/><BR/>The same people who showed understanding during the Cronulla riots and used those riots to propose such a debate on immigration, will now use Hilali's sermon. <BR/><BR/>It is essential that Australia address the causes of the Cronulla riots, and this is a priority that is much more urgent that addressing immigration policy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com