Quote:

Sydney Uni teaching how sharia law could be integrated into Aussie law Australia’s most prestigious law school has introduced courses which teach students how sharia law could be incorporated into Australia’s legal system. As part of Muslim Minorities And The Law, professors Salim Farrar and Dr Ghena Krayem are teaching Sydney University students how polygamy and lowering the age of consent could be sufficiently applied to Western civilisation. The course uses a book, written by the professors, that promotes the idea that “sharia law and common law are not inherently incompatible”. A portion of the textbook identifies the benefits of turning away from monogamous relationships and notes how sharia law does not recognise the minimum age in marriage. “There is no minimum age for a contract of marriage, but it should not be consummated if that would cause harm to the putative spouse,” the book reads. Sharia law is Islam’s most religious law and the prospect of its integration into western civilisation has long been condemned given its sometimes radical sentencing recommendations. However, the Sydney academics believe otherwise. “When we move to actual recognition in the courts, we will argue that there is much evidence of compatibility… we will suggest that ‘accommodation’ is not enough and that as liberal democratic societies, we should move towards notion of ‘recognition’,” they state in their book. https://au.news.yahoo.com/sydney-university-course-teaching-sharia-law-benefits-36373595.html

More lunacy from leftist lawyers

If only they could fkk off out of Australia and stick their bullsh1t monkey laws up their collective arses.


Time to put the sand n1gger in its place, seems they're getting a bit too uppity

BigOl64 wrote on May 10^th, 2018 at 6:20pm:

If only they could fkk off out of Australia and stick their bullsh1t monkey laws up their collective arses. Time to put the sand n1gger in its place, seems they're getting a bit too uppity

Damn right!

These dune bunnies should be bundled out of this country post-haste!

BigOl64 wrote on May 10^th, 2018 at 6:20pm:

If only they could fkk off out of Australia and stick their bullsh1t monkey laws up their collective arses. Time to put the sand n1gger in its place, seems they're getting a bit too uppity

NOT HELPFUL.

Quote:

ISLAMIC LAW ....Sharia is not optional; it is prescribed for believers (5:48). Although Muslims as individuals often decide which parts to follow or ignore, the Quran (33:36) says that it is not fitting for a believer to choose for themselves (i.e., disregard) any matter already decided by Allah. Likewise, a government that limits God's Law in any way is an enemy of Allah and must be fought. The establishment of Sharia is the fundamental objective of every Islamic terror group. Once an Islamic state is in place, the Quran (9:29) and Sharia (o9.8) make it mandatory for Muslims to fight those Jews and Christians who will not convert or accept inferior status. This reality is left out by proponents of Sharia in the West, who hide behind the cloak of religion and expose only the more benign personal rules (such as those dealing with prayer and hygiene). This is to make it appear as if detractors are religious bigots whose real problem is intolerance for a different set of beliefs about God and worship. [with much, much more explained.   including many more examples of real ISLAMIC law strictures.]

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/sharia.aspx




.




This, is also what ISLAMIC law requires.

ISLAMIC LAW TEXT....

"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."

Baronvonrort wrote on May 10^th, 2018 at 5:58pm:

[quote] Sydney Uni teaching how sharia law could be integrated into Aussie law Australia’s most prestigious law school has introduced courses which teach students how sharia law could be incorporated into Australia’s legal system. As part of Muslim Minorities And The Law, professors Salim Farrar and Dr Ghena Krayem are teaching Sydney University students how polygamy and lowering the age of consent could be sufficiently applied to Western civilisation.

https://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/ghena.krayem.php
https://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/salim.farrar.php

It's all part of the push by activist Muslims to gradually build for themselves a parallel Islamic society within our borders.

Creeping Islamisation is well on its way in Australia.

We don't need a referendum on the republic ~ we need a referendum on any further Muslim immigration, but unfortunately the last Australian Conservative Party was abandoned many years ago.

BigOl64 wrote on May 10^th, 2018 at 6:20pm:

If only they could fkk off out of Australia and stick their bullsh1t monkey laws up their collective arses. Time to put the sand n1gger in its place, seems they're getting a bit too uppity

1.  Who is a 'sand n1gger?'

2.  What is their place (whoever they are?)

1 muslim A-rabs
2 sandy middle east teaming with A-rabs

Frank wrote on May 10^th, 2018 at 10:19pm:

1 muslim A-rabs 2 sandy middle east teaming with A-rabs

Far cough Soren.  You were not asked.  Big Hole is a big boy and your offerings will not assist him, or anyone.

Not at all surprised.

The resident apologists whose unique insights seem to be based on anecdotal tales of Muslim neighbours, (and usually a bogan on the other side for a handy comparison  ::)) or going to an Islamic country liking the food and not getting stabby choppy always reassure "islamaphobes" that there is nothing to see here, wonderful religion of peace don't ya know, bollards are just for decoration.

Others, the ones who read a bit about events in Europe, who can see parallels and warnings, read stuff like this and maybe have a more cynical insight into the potentialities for a future Australia should this sort of stalking horse be uncontested that the virtue signaling luvvies are too vested in asserting moral superiority to admit or recognise.

Secret Wars wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 8:50am:

Not at all surprised. The resident apologists whose unique insights seem to be based on anecdotal tales of Muslim neighbours, (and usually a bogan on the other side for a handy comparison  ::)) or going to an Islamic country liking the food and not getting stabby choppy always reassure "islamaphobes" that there is nothing to see here, wonderful religion of peace don't ya know, bollards are just for decoration. Others, the ones who read a bit about events in Europe, who can see parallels and warnings, read stuff like this and maybe have a more cynical insight into the potentialities for a future Australia should this sort of stalking horse be uncontested that the virtue signaling luvvies are too vested in asserting moral superiority to admit or recognise.

Very well said.

Stalking horses. There's not just one, but several in active service at any one time. Islamic schools is just but one, and then the mosques. It's all about building a parallel society until the numbers reach a critical point when they'll start demanding degrees of autocracy separate from the Australian government.

There's a Plan. Of that, there is no doubt.

SO 1 subject thats an elective. Holy lord we are indoctrinating an entire generation.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 9:50am:

SO 1 subject thats an elective. Holy lord we are indoctrinating an entire generation.

Ah,     ....so you ARE a moslem!

Or was that the use of the royal 'we' ?


And i thought that you were in favour of Australia, the republic ?

Yadda wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 10:17am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 9:50am: SO 1 subject thats an elective. Holy lord we are indoctrinating an entire generation. Ah,     ....so you ARE a moslem! Or was that the use of the royal 'we' ? And i thought that you were in favour of Australia, the republic ?

'


Ummm, what an odd conclusion to make. I point out that its probably not every Syd Uni law student being taught this and so its not like we are indoctrinating an entire generation (and yes it was the royal we) and you go for I'm a muslim thing.


I think you're a little obsessed Yadda.

@ #14

I believe that i am.

Additionally


here is the handbook for Sydney Uni law listing compulsory and elective subjects


http://sydney.edu.au/handbooks/law/undergraduate/units_of_study/electives_table.shtml


I'm having a hard time finding the subject called Muslim Minorities and the Law

My own bad on myself for not going to postgraduate. Its given to postgrad students and its still an elective. So the numbers of our poor children being indoctrinated would be 5?

This unit seeks to explore, illustrate and evaluate the interconnections, tensions and conflicts in Muslims' applications of Islamic Law in Common Law states with a view to forming appropriate policies at national level for accommodation while addressing issues of communal identity, security and social exclusion.

It examines these broad issues in four countries: Australia, Canada, the UK and the United States, and explores them in the context of family affairs, crime and business.

This unit should appeal to government officers, policy makers, community workers, NGOs, criminal justice officers and students interested in contemporary applications of Islamic law and Islamic studies

Baronvonrort wrote on May 10^th, 2018 at 5:58pm:

Quote: Sydney Uni teaching how sharia law could be integrated into Aussie law Australia’s most prestigious law school has introduced courses which teach students how sharia law could be incorporated into Australia’s legal system. As part of Muslim Minorities And The Law, professors Salim Farrar and Dr Ghena Krayem are teaching Sydney University students how polygamy and lowering the age of consent could be sufficiently applied to Western civilisation. The course uses a book, written by the professors, that promotes the idea that “sharia law and common law are not inherently incompatible”. A portion of the textbook identifies the benefits of turning away from monogamous relationships and notes how sharia law does not recognise the minimum age in marriage. “There is no minimum age for a contract of marriage, but it should not be consummated if that would cause harm to the putative spouse,” the book reads. Sharia law is Islam’s most religious law and the prospect of its integration into western civilisation has long been condemned given its sometimes radical sentencing recommendations. However, the Sydney academics believe otherwise. “When we move to actual recognition in the courts, we will argue that there is much evidence of compatibility… we will suggest that ‘accommodation’ is not enough and that as liberal democratic societies, we should move towards notion of ‘recognition’,” they state in their book. https://au.news.yahoo.com/sydney-university-course-teaching-sharia-law-benefits-36373595.html More lunacy from leftist lawyers

I don't think we should be giving any sort of real or implied legitimacy to Muslim demands to have sex with children or treat women as property.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 10:28am:

This unit seeks to explore, illustrate and evaluate the interconnections, tensions and conflicts in Muslims' applications of Islamic Law in Common Law states with a view to forming appropriate policies at national level for accommodation while addressing issues of communal identity, security and social exclusion.....

Moslems promote       moslem 'victimhood'      night and day,       up and down,       left and right.

And their 'fabricated' 'put on'       'victimhood' is a [very useful] crock;


the meme goes....

"Brothers, Allah calls on us to fight and to kill the enemies of Allah!"

"Brothers, do not be friends with the enemies of Allah!"

"OH LOOK,      THE INFIDELS HATE US AND CONTINUALLY PERSECUTE [and prosecute!!!] US!!!"





'social exclusion' of themselves, is what moslems actively promote [to all members of their own community].

'social exclusion' of themselves [from association with non-moslems], is in the DNA of ISLAM


[to their daughters] You can't have a relationship with a non-moslem boy.

[to their children] Don't go to places where lots non-moslems hang out. They will be a bad influence upon you.

and on....


And then, the moslem will turn around and say, "I'm a victim. I'm being ostracised!"



Ishaq:231 - "Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men.
Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders."





"If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel."
Koran 5.47-48

i.e.   Believers are obligated to judge all matters, as per what Allah has revealed,    towards those matters.



"Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred...."
Koran 58.22


"O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers."
Koran 9.23


"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
Koran 5.51


"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them."
Koran 3.28


"O ye who believe! Take not - MY ENEMIES - and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love,..."
Koran 60.1

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98

While they are at it, perhaps the Uni can teach future lawyers a way to accommodate the desires of some Catholic priests to have sex with little boys. After all, if there is a cloak of religion it must have some legitimacy, right?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 11:23am:

While they are at it, perhaps the Uni can teach future lawyers a way to accommodate the desires of some Catholic priests to have sex with little boys. After all, if there is a cloak of religion it must have some legitimacy, right?

That is a fair 'parallel' of moral comparison.        imo.

Yadda wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 11:17am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 10:28am: This unit seeks to explore, illustrate and evaluate the interconnections, tensions and conflicts in Muslims' applications of Islamic Law in Common Law states with a view to forming appropriate policies at national level for accommodation while addressing issues of communal identity, security and social exclusion..... Moslems promote       moslem 'victimhood'      night and day,       up and down,       left and right. And their 'fabricated' 'put on'       'victimhood' is a [very useful] crock; the meme goes.... "Brothers, Allah calls on us to fight and to kill the enemies of Allah!" "Brothers, do not be friends with the enemies of Allah!" "OH LOOK,      THE INFIDELS HATE US AND CONTINUALLY PERSECUTE [and prosecute!!!] US!!!" 'social exclusion' of themselves, is what moslems actively promote [to all members of their own community]. 'social exclusion' of themselves [from association with non-moslems], is in the DNA of ISLAM [to their daughters] You can't have a relationship with a non-moslem boy. [to their children] Don't go to places where lots non-moslems hang out. They will be a bad influence upon you. and on.... And then, the moslem will turn around and say, "I'm a victim. I'm being ostracised!" Ishaq:231 - "Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders." "If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel." Koran 5.47-48 i.e.   Believers are obligated to judge all matters, as per what Allah has revealed,    towards those matters. "Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred...." Koran 58.22 "O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers." Koran 9.23 "....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends.... ......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them." Koran 5.51 "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them." Koran 3.28 "O ye who believe! Take not - MY ENEMIES - and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love,..." Koran 60.1 "....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith." Koran 2.98

Ummm, ok.

Aussie wrote on May 10^th, 2018 at 9:50pm:

BigOl64 wrote on May 10th, 2018 at 6:20pm: If only they could fkk off out of Australia and stick their bullsh1t monkey laws up their collective arses. Time to put the sand n1gger in its place, seems they're getting a bit too uppity 1.  Who is a 'sand n1gger?' 2.  What is their place (whoever they are?)

I thought Frank answered it quite well.

It is about time they complied with our laws and stop thinking that they deserve any consideration for their laws, not their country, not their option.


If they want bullsh1t muslim laws, go to a bullsh1t muslim country of their liking and shut the fkk up about their religion. I sick of fkking hearing about their religion and their fkking demands.

Yadda wrote on May 10^th, 2018 at 6:41pm:

BigOl64 wrote on May 10th, 2018 at 6:20pm: If only they could fkk off out of Australia and stick their bullsh1t monkey laws up their collective arses. Time to put the sand n1gger in its place, seems they're getting a bit too uppity NOT HELPFUL.

I am sick to death about how we need to change anything and everything about our country just to make them happy, lest they get offended and go into a killing spree like they do in europe.

Fkk them all.  >:( >:(

BigOl64 wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 2:49pm:

Aussie wrote on May 10th, 2018 at 9:50pm: BigOl64 wrote on May 10th, 2018 at 6:20pm: If only they could fkk off out of Australia and stick their bullsh1t monkey laws up their collective arses. Time to put the sand n1gger in its place, seems they're getting a bit too uppity 1.  Who is a 'sand n1gger?' 2.  What is their place (whoever they are?) I thought Frank answered it quite well. It is about time they complied with our laws and stop thinking that they deserve any consideration for their laws, not their country, not their option. If they want bullsh1t muslim laws, go to a bullsh1t muslim country of their liking and shut the fkk up about their religion. I sick of fkking hearing about their religion and their fkking demands.

You really have a very severe case of hyperdramatic imaginitis.  Everyone in Australia must comply with Australian Law.  I don't care of they also comply with some parallel mumbo jumbo if they elect to do so.  They first and foremost are subject to Australian Law.

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 2:56pm:

BigOl64 wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 2:49pm: Aussie wrote on May 10th, 2018 at 9:50pm: BigOl64 wrote on May 10th, 2018 at 6:20pm: If only they could fkk off out of Australia and stick their bullsh1t monkey laws up their collective arses. Time to put the sand n1gger in its place, seems they're getting a bit too uppity 1.  Who is a 'sand n1gger?' 2.  What is their place (whoever they are?) I thought Frank answered it quite well. It is about time they complied with our laws and stop thinking that they deserve any consideration for their laws, not their country, not their option. If they want bullsh1t muslim laws, go to a bullsh1t muslim country of their liking and shut the fkk up about their religion. I sick of fkking hearing about their religion and their fkking demands. You really have a very severe case of hyperdramatic imaginitis.  Everyone in Australia must comply with Australian Law.  I don't care of they also comply with some parallel mumbo jumbo if they elect to do so.  They first and foremost are subject to Australian Law.

And you did read the bit where they want to change Australian law to suit their bullsh1t laws, didn't you, champ?

Because that is the point of the OP.

Quote:

And you did read the bit where they want to change Australian law to suit their bullsh1t laws, didn't you, champ? Because that is the point of the OP.

No, it is not the point of the OP at all.  The Thread is based on ignorance very carefully shredded to pieces by Bojack Horseman.

The only people who can impose Laws are legislators.  They get elected.  If Australia elects a majority of Muslims to Government, THEN I'll get interested in hysteria.

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 3:06pm:

Quote: And you did read the bit where they want to change Australian law to suit their bullsh1t laws, didn't you, champ? Because that is the point of the OP. No, it is not the point of the OP at all.  The Thread is based on ignorance very carefully shredded to pieces by Bojack Horseman. The only people who can impose Laws are legislators.  They get elected.  If Australia elects a majority of Muslims to Government, THEN I'll get interest in hysteria.

So will continue defending Muslims until they take over, and then you will panic?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 4:47pm:

Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 3:06pm: Quote: And you did read the bit where they want to change Australian law to suit their bullsh1t laws, didn't you, champ? Because that is the point of the OP. No, it is not the point of the OP at all.  The Thread is based on ignorance very carefully shredded to pieces by Bojack Horseman. The only people who can impose Laws are legislators.  They get elected.  If Australia elects a majority of Muslims to Government, THEN I'll get interest in hysteria. So will continue defending Muslims until they take over, and then you will panic?

I don't 'defend' Muslims any more than I defend Christians or Calathumpians or whatever.  I attack bigotry, and there is plenty of that here.

You defended Gandalf against my accusation that he said certain things. When I quoted him you refused to read the quotes. But you continued insisting he did not say the things I quoted him saying. I doubt you would do that for a non-Muslim.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 5:12pm:

You defended Gandalf against my accusation that he said certain things. When I quoted him you refused to read the quotes. But you continued insisting he did not say the things I quoted him saying. I doubt you would do that for a non-Muslim.

I guess you are referring to the 'mindless collective etc' thing.  Effendi....I have no doubt that in your posts, you do misrepresent what Members say....you do that with me.  Gandalf says you do it with him.  I believe him, and go to bat for him on that score.

How that credibly translates into your (false) assertion that I defend Muslims (plural/generic) I dunno.

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 5:42pm:

freediver wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 5:12pm: You defended Gandalf against my accusation that he said certain things. When I quoted him you refused to read the quotes. But you continued insisting he did not say the things I quoted him saying. I doubt you would do that for a non-Muslim. I guess you are referring to the 'mindless collective etc' thing.  Effendi....I have no doubt that in your posts, you do misrepresent what Members say....you do that with me.  Gandalf says you do it with him.  I believe him, and go to bat for him on that score. How that credibly translates into your (false) assertion that I defend Muslims (plural/generic) I dunno.

You say these things in defence of Gandalf, at the same time as flatly refusing to read quotes of what he says, even when I go to the trouble of quoting it in the thread for you, after you asked me to quote him. What else other than a peculiar devotion to believing Gandalf's lies can this be interpreted as?

Is there something special about Gandalf that he is the only Muslim you would do this for?

Do you also believe Cat Stevens when he says he did not call for the death of Salman Rushdie?

Quote:

You say these things in defence of Gandalf, at the same time as flatly refusing to read quotes of what he says, even when I go to the trouble of quoting it in the thread for you, after you asked me to quote him. What else other than a peculiar devotion to believing Gandalf's lies can this be interpreted as?

I refuse to read your quote bombs, simple as that.  It is exacerbated because your rarely answer a question, and when you do, it is never responsive to the question.  You have your Muslim bashing agenda, and that's that.  I don't share your passion obsession about it.


Quote:

Is there something special about Gandalf that he is the only Muslim you would do this for?

I guess so, given he is the only Muslim I have any communication with.  He seems like a well grounded, sensible, moderate bloke.  In contrast, if you read the posts (good luck) of for example, Yadda......you'll see a vast and significant difference.


Quote:

Do you also believe Cat Stevens when he says he did not call for the death of Salman Rushdie?

Why would I bother with that?  Stevens is Stevens....just a person who happens to be able to sing.  Hardly a brainiac.

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 3:06pm:

Quote: And you did read the bit where they want to change Australian law to suit their bullsh1t laws, didn't you, champ? Because that is the point of the OP. No, it is not the point of the OP at all.  The Thread is based on ignorance very carefully shredded to pieces by Bojack Horseman. The only people who can impose Laws are legislators.  They get elected.  If Australia elects a majority of Muslims to Government, THEN I'll get interested in hysteria.

NOBODY  was ELECTED to bring in Muslim immigrants - yet here they are, multiplying before our eyes.

Quote:

I refuse to read your quote bombs, simple as that.

So basically you defend a person, insisting I am lying about what they said, and when I provide the quotes you refuse to read them so you can continue accusing me of lying about it.


Quote:

He seems like a well grounded, sensible, moderate bloke.

Who believes in mindless collectives of treacherous Jews. But you cover your eyes when it comes to that, don't you Aussie?


Quote:

Why would I bother with that?  Stevens is Stevens....just a person who happens to be able to sing.  Hardly a brainiac.

Same with Gandalf. But both are Muslim and both deny saying things they said. Were you not involved in the debate about this here recently?

Frank wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 6:11pm:

Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 3:06pm: Quote: And you did read the bit where they want to change Australian law to suit their bullsh1t laws, didn't you, champ? Because that is the point of the OP. No, it is not the point of the OP at all.  The Thread is based on ignorance very carefully shredded to pieces by Bojack Horseman. The only people who can impose Laws are legislators.  They get elected.  If Australia elects a majority of Muslims to Government, THEN I'll get interested in hysteria. NOBODY  was ELECTED to bring in Muslim immigrants - yet here they are, multiplying before our eyes.

Was anyone elected to bring in Scandinavians?  Are there any here in Australia?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 6:17pm:

Quote: I refuse to read your quote bombs, simple as that. So basically you defend a person, insisting I am lying about what they said, and when I provide the quotes you refuse to read them so you can continue accusing me of lying about it. [quote]He seems like a well grounded, sensible, moderate bloke.

Who believes in mindless collectives of treacherous Jews. But you cover your eyes when it comes to that, don't you Aussie?


Quote:

Why would I bother with that?  Stevens is Stevens....just a person who happens to be able to sing.  Hardly a brainiac.

Same with Gandalf. But both are Muslim and both deny saying things they said. Were you not involved in the debate about this here recently?[/quote]

Same hurdeygurdey, (sp?) same merry go round.  Been there done that Effendi.

Start a Thread in Relationships and I'll see if I am willing to have this discussion with you there.

You can start by actually quoting what Gandalf said at the outset of that 'mindless collective etc' discussion.

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 6:19pm:

Frank wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 6:11pm: Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 3:06pm: Quote: And you did read the bit where they want to change Australian law to suit their bullsh1t laws, didn't you, champ? Because that is the point of the OP. No, it is not the point of the OP at all.  The Thread is based on ignorance very carefully shredded to pieces by Bojack Horseman. The only people who can impose Laws are legislators.  They get elected.  If Australia elects a majority of Muslims to Government, THEN I'll get interested in hysteria. NOBODY  was ELECTED to bring in Muslim immigrants - yet here they are, multiplying before our eyes. Was anyone elected to bring in Scandinavians?  Are there any here in Australia?

Thank you for trying to shift the point. You introduced the idea of elections being the deciders, I just called you out on it (you don't understand it at all, we can see that. You are bewildered as your resting position.)

Anyway, mass immigration was strictly whites only to start with.

Leader of the Labor Party from 1960-1967 Arthur Calwell supported the White European Australia policy. This is reflected by Calwell's comments in his 1972 memoirs, Be Just and Fear Not, in which he made it clear that he maintained his view that non-European people should not be allowed to settle in Australia. He wrote:

I am proud of my white skin, just as a Chinese is proud of his yellow skin, a Japanese of his brown skin, and the Indians of their various hues from black to coffee-coloured. Anybody who is not proud of his race is not a man at all. And any man who tries to stigmatize the Australian community as racist because they want to preserve this country for the white race is doing our nation great harm... I reject, in conscience, the idea that Australia should or ever can become a multi-racial society and survive.[39]



As with many other things, Whitlam f***d it up good and proper. Whitlam - what an Italian:nice to look and listen to but a complete political incompetent and bum.



The legal end of the White Australia policy is usually placed in the year 1973, when the Whitlam Labor government implemented a series of amendments preventing the enforcement of racial aspects of the immigration law.[27] These amendments:

Legislated that all migrants, regardless of origin, be eligible to obtain citizenship after three years of permanent residence.
Ratified all international agreements relating to immigration and race.
Issued policy to totally disregard race as a factor in selecting migrants.
The 1975 Racial Discrimination Act made the use of racial criteria for any official purpose illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy#Abolition_of_the_policy


Labor now wants to open the people smuggling trade. Continuity of destructive, anti-Australian ideology.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 11:04am:

Baronvonrort wrote on May 10th, 2018 at 5:58pm: Quote: Sydney Uni teaching how sharia law could be integrated into Aussie law Australia’s most prestigious law school has introduced courses which teach students how sharia law could be incorporated into Australia’s legal system. As part of Muslim Minorities And The Law, professors Salim Farrar and Dr Ghena Krayem are teaching Sydney University students how polygamy and lowering the age of consent could be sufficiently applied to Western civilisation. The course uses a book, written by the professors, that promotes the idea that “sharia law and common law are not inherently incompatible”. A portion of the textbook identifies the benefits of turning away from monogamous relationships and notes how sharia law does not recognise the minimum age in marriage. “There is no minimum age for a contract of marriage, but it should not be consummated if that would cause harm to the putative spouse,” the book reads. Sharia law is Islam’s most religious law and the prospect of its integration into western civilisation has long been condemned given its sometimes radical sentencing recommendations. However, the Sydney academics believe otherwise. “When we move to actual recognition in the courts, we will argue that there is much evidence of compatibility… we will suggest that ‘accommodation’ is not enough and that as liberal democratic societies, we should move towards notion of ‘recognition’,” they state in their book. https://au.news.yahoo.com/sydney-university-course-teaching-sharia-law-benefits-36373595.html More lunacy from leftist lawyers I don't think we should be giving any sort of real or implied legitimacy to Muslim demands to have sex with children or treat women as property.

More evidence muslims don't have any problems with marrying children.

Perhaps they should have said these Islamic laws are wrong and violate our constitution.

Iran changed their constitution to only allow Islamic laws after the 1979 Islamic revolution so muslims have a track record in changing constitutions when they get the numbers or the power to do it.

Frank wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 6:54pm:

Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 6:19pm: Frank wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 6:11pm: Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 3:06pm: Quote: And you did read the bit where they want to change Australian law to suit their bullsh1t laws, didn't you, champ? Because that is the point of the OP. No, it is not the point of the OP at all.  The Thread is based on ignorance very carefully shredded to pieces by Bojack Horseman. The only people who can impose Laws are legislators.  They get elected.  If Australia elects a majority of Muslims to Government, THEN I'll get interested in hysteria. NOBODY  was ELECTED to bring in Muslim immigrants - yet here they are, multiplying before our eyes. Was anyone elected to bring in Scandinavians?  Are there any here in Australia? Thank you for trying to shift the point. You introduced the idea of elections being the deciders, I just called you out on it (you don't understand it at all, we can see that. You are bewildered as your resting position.) Anyway, mass immigration was strictly whites only to start with. Leader of the Labor Party from 1960-1967 Arthur Calwell supported the White European Australia policy. This is reflected by Calwell's comments in his 1972 memoirs, Be Just and Fear Not, in which he made it clear that he maintained his view that non-European people should not be allowed to settle in Australia. He wrote: I am proud of my white skin, just as a Chinese is proud of his yellow skin, a Japanese of his brown skin, and the Indians of their various hues from black to coffee-coloured. Anybody who is not proud of his race is not a man at all. And any man who tries to stigmatize the Australian community as racist because they want to preserve this country for the white race is doing our nation great harm... I reject, in conscience, the idea that Australia should or ever can become a multi-racial society and survive.[39] As with many other things, Whitlam f***d it up good and proper. Whitlam - what an Italian:nice to look and listen to but a complete political incompetent and bum. The legal end of the White Australia policy is usually placed in the year 1973, when the Whitlam Labor government implemented a series of amendments preventing the enforcement of racial aspects of the immigration law.[27] These amendments: Legislated that all migrants, regardless of origin, be eligible to obtain citizenship after three years of permanent residence. Ratified all international agreements relating to immigration and race. Issued policy to totally disregard race as a factor in selecting migrants. The 1975 Racial Discrimination Act made the use of racial criteria for any official purpose illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy#Abolition_of_the_policy Labor now wants to open the people smuggling trade. Continuity of destructive, anti-Australian ideology.

Ah!  I see.  So....white Muslems are welcome.  The tinted ones can far cough.

Yes?

8-)

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 6:24pm:

freediver wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 6:17pm: Quote: I refuse to read your quote bombs, simple as that. So basically you defend a person, insisting I am lying about what they said, and when I provide the quotes you refuse to read them so you can continue accusing me of lying about it. [quote]He seems like a well grounded, sensible, moderate bloke. Who believes in mindless collectives of treacherous Jews. But you cover your eyes when it comes to that, don't you Aussie? [quote]Why would I bother with that?  Stevens is Stevens....just a person who happens to be able to sing.  Hardly a brainiac.

Same with Gandalf. But both are Muslim and both deny saying things they said. Were you not involved in the debate about this here recently?[/quote]

Same hurdeygurdey, (sp?) same merry go round.  Been there done that Effendi.

Start a Thread in Relationships and I'll see if I am willing to have this discussion with you there.

You can start by actually quoting what Gandalf said at the outset of that 'mindless collective etc' discussion.
[/quote]

How do you figure out when it began Aussie?

And why not quote the relevant bits rather than the first comment he ever made?

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 7:19pm:

Frank wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 6:54pm: Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 6:19pm: Frank wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 6:11pm: Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 3:06pm: Quote: And you did read the bit where they want to change Australian law to suit their bullsh1t laws, didn't you, champ? Because that is the point of the OP. No, it is not the point of the OP at all.  The Thread is based on ignorance very carefully shredded to pieces by Bojack Horseman. The only people who can impose Laws are legislators.  They get elected.  If Australia elects a majority of Muslims to Government, THEN I'll get interested in hysteria. NOBODY  was ELECTED to bring in Muslim immigrants - yet here they are, multiplying before our eyes. Was anyone elected to bring in Scandinavians?  Are there any here in Australia? Thank you for trying to shift the point. You introduced the idea of elections being the deciders, I just called you out on it (you don't understand it at all, we can see that. You are bewildered as your resting position.) Anyway, mass immigration was strictly whites only to start with. Leader of the Labor Party from 1960-1967 Arthur Calwell supported the White European Australia policy. This is reflected by Calwell's comments in his 1972 memoirs, Be Just and Fear Not, in which he made it clear that he maintained his view that non-European people should not be allowed to settle in Australia. He wrote: I am proud of my white skin, just as a Chinese is proud of his yellow skin, a Japanese of his brown skin, and the Indians of their various hues from black to coffee-coloured. Anybody who is not proud of his race is not a man at all. And any man who tries to stigmatize the Australian community as racist because they want to preserve this country for the white race is doing our nation great harm... I reject, in conscience, the idea that Australia should or ever can become a multi-racial society and survive.[39] As with many other things, Whitlam f***d it up good and proper. Whitlam - what an Italian:nice to look and listen to but a complete political incompetent and bum. The legal end of the White Australia policy is usually placed in the year 1973, when the Whitlam Labor government implemented a series of amendments preventing the enforcement of racial aspects of the immigration law.[27] These amendments: Legislated that all migrants, regardless of origin, be eligible to obtain citizenship after three years of permanent residence. Ratified all international agreements relating to immigration and race. Issued policy to totally disregard race as a factor in selecting migrants. The 1975 Racial Discrimination Act made the use of racial criteria for any official purpose illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy#Abolition_of_the_policy Labor now wants to open the people smuggling trade. Continuity of destructive, anti-Australian ideology. Ah!  I see.  So....white Muslems are welcome.  The tinted ones can far cough. Yes? 8-)

So you would welcome white muslims like Jake Bilardi?

What race is he?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-13/jake-bilardi-what-we-know-australian-teenager-islamic-state/6314260

Quote:

How do you figure out when it began Aussie?

I guess you locate the genesis of the discussion about 'mindless collective etc.'  You'd know.  I would never have noticed, so I'd have no idea at all.

But.....undeniable fact is....you have made it your lynch pin/focal attack point against Gandalf over many Threads, and years.

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 7:19pm:

Frank wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 6:54pm: Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 6:19pm: Frank wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 6:11pm: Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 3:06pm: Quote: And you did read the bit where they want to change Australian law to suit their bullsh1t laws, didn't you, champ? Because that is the point of the OP. No, it is not the point of the OP at all.  The Thread is based on ignorance very carefully shredded to pieces by Bojack Horseman. The only people who can impose Laws are legislators.  They get elected.  If Australia elects a majority of Muslims to Government, THEN I'll get interested in hysteria. NOBODY  was ELECTED to bring in Muslim immigrants - yet here they are, multiplying before our eyes. Was anyone elected to bring in Scandinavians?  Are there any here in Australia? Thank you for trying to shift the point. You introduced the idea of elections being the deciders, I just called you out on it (you don't understand it at all, we can see that. You are bewildered as your resting position.) Anyway, mass immigration was strictly whites only to start with. Leader of the Labor Party from 1960-1967 Arthur Calwell supported the White European Australia policy. This is reflected by Calwell's comments in his 1972 memoirs, Be Just and Fear Not, in which he made it clear that he maintained his view that non-European people should not be allowed to settle in Australia. He wrote: I am proud of my white skin, just as a Chinese is proud of his yellow skin, a Japanese of his brown skin, and the Indians of their various hues from black to coffee-coloured. Anybody who is not proud of his race is not a man at all. And any man who tries to stigmatize the Australian community as racist because they want to preserve this country for the white race is doing our nation great harm... I reject, in conscience, the idea that Australia should or ever can become a multi-racial society and survive.[39] As with many other things, Whitlam f***d it up good and proper. Whitlam - what an Italian:nice to look and listen to but a complete political incompetent and bum. The legal end of the White Australia policy is usually placed in the year 1973, when the Whitlam Labor government implemented a series of amendments preventing the enforcement of racial aspects of the immigration law.[27] These amendments: Legislated that all migrants, regardless of origin, be eligible to obtain citizenship after three years of permanent residence. Ratified all international agreements relating to immigration and race. Issued policy to totally disregard race as a factor in selecting migrants. The 1975 Racial Discrimination Act made the use of racial criteria for any official purpose illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy#Abolition_of_the_policy Labor now wants to open the people smuggling trade. Continuity of destructive, anti-Australian ideology. Ah!  I see.  So....white Muslems are welcome.  The tinted ones can far cough. Yes? 8-)

Don't  pretend to be stupiider than you are.

Europeans are not Asians, Africans, Arabs, etc.

You ignored the point:


Quote:

Ah!  I see.  So....white Muslems are welcome.  The tinted ones can far cough. Yes?

Well?

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 9:35pm:

Quote: How do you figure out when it began Aussie? I guess you locate the genesis of the discussion about 'mindless collective etc.'  You'd know.  I would never have noticed, so I'd have no idea at all. But.....undeniable fact is....you have made it your lynch pin/focal attack point against Gandalf over many Threads, and years.

I have made a point about what he actually said. I quoted him. You covered your eyes so you did not have to see what Gandalf posted, but continue to insist I am misrepresenting him.

I still do not know what the point would be of going back to the 'start' of the discussion, or even how you would decide what the start is. Is this like when you pick a random word and ask me to define it?

No.

I'm out of this here.  I have been on this merry-go-round before with you and got nowhere.

If you want to battle on, let's relate in Relationships.

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 10:13pm:

No. I'm out of this here.  I have been on this merry-go-round before with you and got nowhere. If you want to battle on, let's relate in Relationships.

Is that where discussions go to die of pointlessness?

Why do you keep harping on about the 'start' of the discussion?

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 3:06pm:

Quote: And you did read the bit where they want to change Australian law to suit their bullsh1t laws, didn't you, champ? Because that is the point of the OP. No, it is not the point of the OP at all.  The Thread is based on ignorance very carefully shredded to pieces by Bojack Horseman. The only people who can impose Laws are legislators.  They get elected.  If Australia elects a majority of Muslims to Government, THEN I'll get interested in hysteria.

So there was a majority of abbos in government positions when all the laws favoring them came out especially our fully abbo PM reading out the appology.

I did not realise that majority of minister were shirt lifters who voted in the recent gay marriage law.


All the sand monkeys need to do is have enough influence over governments and the law changes, screaming racist islamophobia works well at influencing some weak minded apologists.

Nice try, but not all of use are so easily fooled.

Look to europe to see our future.  >:( >:(

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 10:01pm:

You ignored the point: Quote: Ah!  I see.  So....white Muslems are welcome.  The tinted ones can far cough. Yes? Well?

They can all far cough. You are conflating two different things, race and religion. Europeans are not Muslims. The objection to Islam is based on its ideology, not on the race of people who are mindless enough to subscribe to it.

Frank wrote on May 12^th, 2018 at 1:22pm:

Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 10:01pm: You ignored the point: Quote: Ah!  I see.  So....white Muslems are welcome.  The tinted ones can far cough. Yes? Well? They can all far cough. You are conflating two different things, race and religion. Europeans are not Muslims. The objection to Islam is based on its ideology, not on the race of people who are mindless enough to subscribe to it.

Is it okay if we import white European Muslims?

Aussie wrote on May 12^th, 2018 at 1:27pm:

Frank wrote on May 12th, 2018 at 1:22pm: Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 10:01pm: You ignored the point: Quote: Ah!  I see.  So....white Muslems are welcome.  The tinted ones can far cough. Yes? Well? They can all far cough. You are conflating two different things, race and religion. Europeans are not Muslims. The objection to Islam is based on its ideology, not on the race of people who are mindless enough to subscribe to it. Is it okay if we import white European Muslims?

So long as they are not muslims

I ask:


Quote:

Is it okay if we import white European Muslims?

The answer is


Quote:

So long as they are not muslims

::)

Aussie wrote on May 12^th, 2018 at 1:52pm:

I ask: Quote: Is it okay if we import white European Muslims? The answer is [quote]So long as they are not muslims

::)[/quote]


Didn't think you would get that.


No is the answer

Aussie wrote on May 12^th, 2018 at 1:27pm:

Frank wrote on May 12th, 2018 at 1:22pm: Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2018 at 10:01pm: You ignored the point: Quote: Ah!  I see.  So....white Muslems are welcome.  The tinted ones can far cough. Yes? Well? They can all far cough. You are conflating two different things, race and religion. Europeans are not Muslims. The objection to Islam is based on its ideology, not on the race of people who are mindless enough to subscribe to it. Is it okay if we import white European Muslims?

No.