what a pack of typical bullyboy cowards.

classic of bullies, they are cowards.
they won't tolerate any criticism, will ban, trip, threaten, have overtaken the UN and bullied them into passing ridiculous laws .
the leftards and bumlicking apologetics cant bend over far enough for them.

how do we rid this disease from our shores ??

Cowardness?

Fence off the shores and put up signs: "Non-Muslims Only". Same at drinking fountains and public toilets. Hopefully everybody's shaved pubes research is complete by now.

Quote:

Cowardness? Fence off the shores and put up signs: "Non-Muslims Only". Same at drinking fountains and public toilets. Hopefully everybody's shaved pubes research is complete by now.

That's so funny Helian, but not a bad idea for the anti-Muslimists and racists.  Have we got a political party that will lobby for apartheid in Australia?  Not only could it include all black people, but Muslims as well.

Yes. It makes me wonder who the real cowards are.

Helian do you think we should welcome people into this country who openly reject democracy and personal freedom?

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2009 at 1:11pm:

Helian do you think we should welcome people into this country who openly reject democracy and personal freedom?

The act of welcome occurs upon the immigrant’s pledge to uphold democratic beliefs. If they are openly advocates of insurrection or anti-democratic government, then they don’t qualify.

What exactly does the pledge say about democracy?

Can you claim to share democratic beliefs while openly rejecting them?

No, why?

Should we disallow those who openly reject democracy from taking the pledge and becoming citizens?

I don't think the average Australian Muslim does reject democracy FD.  Really how often do we hear dissenting opinions from them?  Occasionally a rebellious Sheikh will say something very annoying and chauvenistic, but overall they go about their business quietly.

The coalition created more disharmony with the amended sedition laws, forcing any dissenting voices underground.  Far better to have those who are unhappy have their say publicly without the fear of imprisonment.

Amended sedition laws...

The Howard government’s Anti-Terrorism Bill (2005) proposes that the old offence of “uttering seditious words” be repealed. In its place, though, the bill proposes to add five new offences. It would also double the penalties for sedition, from three years’ imprisonment to seven, and allow convictions on the basis of “recklessness” rather than requiring specific intent.

More importantly, it signifies a bid by the federal government to give itself the legal power to prosecute peaceful dissidents against Australian participation in US-led invasions and occupations of other countries such as Iraq and, possibly in the future, Iran and Syria, that Washington deems are targets of its global “war on terror”.

Thus the bill proposes to amend the sedition laws to make it an offence for “any person” who “urges another person to engage in conduct to assist, by any means whatever, an organisation or country ... engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force”.

This would give the government the legal power to prosecute any anti-war campaigner who speaks to another person, or hands a leaflet to another person, urging them to participate in a peaceful rally that calls for the withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq — since it could argue that this is providing assistance to patriotic Iraqis seeking to force the withdrawal of these troops from Iraq by engaging in armed hostilities against the ADF.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 1^st, 2009 at 2:50pm:

Should we disallow those who openly reject democracy from taking the pledge and becoming citizens?

Isn't that the same question I just asked you? Of course we should. If someone wants to undermine our democracy, they have no place being here. It is one of the most fundamental aspects of our society.

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2009 at 3:35pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 1st, 2009 at 2:50pm: Should we disallow those who openly reject democracy from taking the pledge and becoming citizens? Isn't that the same question I just asked you? Of course we should. If someone wants to undermine our democracy, they have no place being here. It is one of the most fundamental aspects of our society.

Then we're all agreed that we shouldn't welcome those who openly reject democracy. So that's how we keep them from our shores. Pretty simple really.

Quote:

I don't think the average Australian Muslim does reject democracy FD.  Really how often do we hear dissenting opinions from them?

You only here a dissenting opinion if you ask in a persistent and impolite manner and put up with various accusations made against you in the process. They use well worn platitudes to placate those who don't try to dig any deeper. They will convince people through very careful omission of the facts that the long term goals of Islam of destroying democracy and human rights don't exist. They will mislead people into thinking that the command to live under Australian law is permanent and not to be tossed aside once muslims are in a position to overthrow the government. This is not vaguge conjecture. Muslims have throughout history overthrown foreign governments violently and imposed Islamic law through force.


Quote:

Occasionally a rebellious Sheikh will say something very annoying and chauvenistic, but overall they go about their business quietly.

If you want to overthrow the government, it is best to go about it quietly. You are hardly going to announce it on the street corner.


Quote:

Then we're all agreed that we shouldn't welcome those who openly reject democracy. So that's how we keep them from our shores. Pretty simple really.

Is there actually anything in the pledge about supporting democracy?

Even if there was they'd lie...  that is the way of it.

You gonna subject everyone to a lie detector test?

We have the muslims, and muslim apologists, (which by dint of even needing apologists, says much about their philosophy), who frequent this forum, sometimes refer to Iran as a good example of a modern Islamic state, yet did anyone else hear them on the news, celebrating thirty years since their revolution, chanting, "Death To Israel", "Death To America".

Do we ever see mass rallies of the population, sanctioned by the authorities, chanting "Death To Muslims", in any nation on earth?
This open hostility against others who they feel disagree with their objectives, is proudly displayed in their home countries, yet they would seek to migrate to western countries, and then pretend that they do not harbour malevolent intentions toward those very democracies they seek refuge in.

If the situation ever arises of a muslim choosing between the country they live in, or Islam, it is no competition, and the fact is that Islam could very well call on them to act against the best needs of the country they have moved to.

You obviously still don't think this is a minority then Mozz...  good for you.

And this thread reminds me of the sequel.

Dumb and dumberer!

:D:D:D

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2009 at 3:47pm:

Is there actually anything in the pledge about supporting democracy?

Do you think there should be?

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2009 at 3:35pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 1st, 2009 at 2:50pm: Should we disallow those who openly reject democracy from taking the pledge and becoming citizens? Isn't that the same question I just asked you? Of course we should. If someone wants to undermine our democracy, they have no place being here. It is one of the most fundamental aspects of our society.

Do you see a difference between democracy and our democracy?

Sure. I remember Howard going on about including Australian values. But he was suggesting things like mateship, which is just stupid.

I think it should go well beyond simply making a pledge. I know it does. They get medical checkups. I'm pretty sure there would be screening to filter out the Nazis and other wackos. It wouldn't be that hard to suss out if someone's ideology included the destruction of democracy and the denial of individual rights and freedoms. This is actually something I've been meaning to look into. I just don't have the time at the moment.

Helian are you trying to get at something with these questions? Is it the definition of democracy thing again?