Category Archives: Austraian Capital Territory
During the course of the last government we saw the rather unedifying spectacle of the Labor party trying very hard to distract attention from its failings by letting the polity be distracted by the Greens long held desire to change the marriage act. With all kinds of silliness we saw MPs asked to consult with their constituents about their feelings on the subject we saw several doomed to fail private members bills presented to the parliament and we saw the Canberra town council try to create same sex marriage in their jurisdiction even though they knew that their efforts would be quickly torn down by the high court. So it should surprise no one that the high court has in fact ruled that the whole edifice created by the Canberra Town council is null and void.
The problem with political stunt flying is that those sort of aircraft are bound to come back to earth with a very unpleasant crash and sadly people get hurt. Some how I think that the sad Gay couples pictured in the Canberra Times’ picture gallery will direct all of their angst at the wrong players in this bit of legal theater. They will undoubtedly blame the current government instead of both the Labor party and the Greens who gave them such false hope that there is any substantive mood for change of the Marriage act in the Australian polity. At best its a fringe issue a long way down the political agenda of most people. The general public are more than OK with homosexuality per se I would venture that the reforms to various acts to remove discrimination against same couples made by Labor under Rudd is generally endorsed and that within the greater Australian community* being Gay is of no more consequence than having a particular hair colour. That is something to give ourselves a collective pat on the back for but Gay marriage? Forget it, its not going to happen in this country any time soon because there are far more pressing fish to fry than the vanities of that small proportion of the community who bat for the other team.
*Our Islamic community is a notable dissenter when it comes to social acceptance of homosexuality within our society and that the Koran insists that being Gay is a capital offense.
This result is precisely what I expected when I wrote may earlier post on the overreach of the Canberra Town council>
The High Court determined that the federal parliament has the power under the Australian constitution to legislate on same-sex marriage, and that whether or not same-sex marriages are legalised is a matter for the federal parliament.
“The Court held that the object of the ACT Act is to provide for marriage equality for same sex couples and not for some form of legally recognised relationship which is relevantly different from the relationship of marriage which federal law provides for and recognises,” the summary judgment said.
“Accordingly, the ACT Act cannot operate concurrently with the federal Act.”
It said because the ACT does not validly provide for the formation of same sex marriages, the whole of the ACT’s Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 has no effect.
Supporters of gay marriage were dismayed at the ruling.
“This is devastating for those couples who married this week and for their families,” Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome said shortly after the decision was handed down in Canberra.
However, he said the ruling was just “a temporary defeat”.
Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Ivan Hinton was one person who took advantage of the ACT laws, marrying his partner Chris Teoh in Canberra last weekend.
“I don’t want to be unmarried this afternoon,” he told reporters outside the High Court.
The Australian Christian Lobby said the ruling upheld the uniformity of marriage laws across the country.
“Marriage between a man and a woman is good for society and beneficial for governments to uphold in legislation,” managing director Lyle Shelton said in a statement.
“It’s about providing a future for the next generation where they can be raised by their biological parents, wherever possible.” Mr Shelton was concerned for same-sex couples who thought they were married under the ACT legislation.
“Understandably they will be disappointed at the decision handed down today and it is unfortunate they were put in this position,” he said.
Human Rights Law Centre spokeswoman Anna Brown said the ruling was a blow to the same-sex couples who had tied the knot in the ACT.
“The outcome has laid responsibility for advancing marriage equality squarely at the feet of the federal parliament,” she said.
ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher said her government had no regrets about pursuing marriage equality.
There are no short cuts to bringing about such a substantive change to our society and anyone who thinks that its a good thing to try to make such changes through the back door opened by an overblown town council are clearly deluded. The high court has spoken and made it clear that the definition of marriage is entirely within the remit of our FEDERAL parliament and the activists that pursued this bit of street theatre should be hanging their heads in shame that they have given Gay marriage advocates such empty and false hope,
Well I’m Cheering a good decision Comrades
- First Australian gay weddings held in capital city (thehimalayantimes.com)
- High Court to rule on same-sex marriages (sbs.com.au)
- First day of gay marriage in ACT (news.smh.com.au)
- First Australian gay weddings held in capital city (cnsnews.com)
- High Court to rule on same-sex marriages (radionz.co.nz)
Could there ever be a topic that gives as freely as the push for same sex marriage? It certainly is a cause that arouses great passion form its advocates many of whom try very hard to berate, bully and intimidate their interlocutors when they can not convince them that marriage is only about “love”. If the lesson of human history tells us anything it is that marriage is about many things but prime amongst them is the formalising of a pair bond for the purpose of propagating the species.
As someone who does not endorse changes to the marriage act I have been subject to the abuse I mention. As I have previously argued I don’t think that “marriage” is really desired by same sex couples, rather it is social acceptance of their sexuality something that to a large extent they already have in this country. None the less they seek further affirmation in changing the definition of marriage to include their partnerships. It is a project that will fail even though they do seem to have a reasonable level of support among the young people who are led by their romantic loins when considering such things. My own teenage daughter thinks that my position on same sex marriage is “terrible” and “wrong” none the less I see no reason for me to change my position. which brings me to the recent passing of a bill in the ACT “parliament” to create same sex marriage in that jurisdiction. In the first instance I think its entirely relevant to remind readers how small and insignificant the ACT is at a national level. in many ways the ACT assembly is little more than a glorified Town Council it has sway over an area substantially smaller than any of the major cities of this country and a population that is easily exceeded by many of our provincial towns. So to envision it being on par with the other states or even the Northern territory is entirely wrong headed its a minor town council with delusions of grandeur, which trades upon its responsibility to host the national parliament to inflate its importance. in reality it should focus on the same matters as other town councils, namely roads refuse and rates instead we get cavorts like the same sex marriage nonsense. neatly summed up by Paul Kelly in the OZ:
Only a year ago a same-sex marriage bill was defeated in the House of Representatives 98-42. That is not a close vote. Since then Labor, the main same-sex marriage party, has lost a swag of seats and the Coalition, the main traditional marriage party, has gained seats. The September 2010 debate saw the Coalition vote as a bloc against same-sex marriage. Even if Coalition MPs had voted on conscience the bill would have been defeated by a wide margin. This remains the situation.
Why is this? The explanation, contrary to much same-sex propaganda, is that support for its cause is far more equivocal than it admits and, for many people, there is resistance to the nature of the noisy and often intimidatory same-sex campaign. Telling people who are not persuaded to your position that they are prejudiced or bigots does not, ultimately, assist your cause.
Attorney-General George Brandis announced on October 10 that the commonwealth would challenge the validity of the ACT laws. He had advice from the acting Solicitor-General they were invalid. This was no surprise.
The founding fathers enshrined marriage in the Constitution as one of the legislative powers of the national parliament. Moreover, under section 109 a federal law prevails over a state law “to the extent of the inconsistency” between them. The national parliament ignited the marriage provision in 1961 when the attorney-general, Garfield Barwick, promoted the federal marriage law. Until then, states and territories had regulated marriage.
Barwick’s intent was to honour the purpose of the founding fathers and create a national, consistent and uniform law for marriage in Australia. He specified a free vote for MPs. The issue was not treated as a party matter. His design was embraced by ALP deputy leader Gough Whitlam.
The Abbott government has a firm position: the Barwick design. Brandis stands on the shoulders of Barwick and Whitlam. Brandis has signalled the depth of his own views by saying “it has been understood for more than half a century that there is a single commonwealth law governing marriage”.
Indeed, there has been almost no suggestion since 1961 that states retain a residual power in legislating marriage. Lawyers will dispute the matter. But for many people it is hard to imagine a greater inconsistency between federal law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and the state-territory push for same-sex marriage.
In his recent Eureka Street posting, Frank Brennan calls the ACT law “a dog’s breakfast” and shows that it has conflicting definitions of marriage. He warns of the risks in the tactics of the same-sex lobby and says any changes to marriage law should come only by free vote in the national parliament.
States and territories know any marriage laws they pass must be tested in the High Court. It is imperative, given lives are being affected, that test come as fast as possible. Brandis rang the ACT Chief Minister, Katy Gallagher, told her he intended to challenge her law and suggested the ACT not operate its law until the High Court resolved the issue. ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell later told Brandis there would be no delay.
The situation is clear: the ACT government is responsible for each and every consequence if this law fails. It is inconceivable that Whitlam, a Labor icon and human rights champion, would have tolerated this ACT indulgence designed to undermine national marriage laws that, if upheld, would permit states to freelance on marriage (think a populist Queensland premier merrily legislating against a federal same-sex marriage law).
If the High Court eventually upholds the Brandis position in relation to territory and state law, the onus will shift back to where it should belong, the national parliament. At this point Labor should insist that Abbott operate by the Barwick rules and give MPs freedom from party positions on the vote. This is the best means of advancing debate on marriage laws. Yet there is a danger that Labor may commit a huge tactical blunder on this front.
In the end I expect that homosexuality will continue to become far more socially acceptable than it already is. It is certainly something that I look forward to because I steadfastly believe that we should all be able to openly love and openly live with the partners of our choice regardless of their gender. The great irony is that at its heart the ACT bill creates a form of civil union for homosexual couples and when I an others have previously advocated civil unions as an instrument to meet the needs of gay couples the usual suspects have gone into a form of apoplexy that is most undignified and dare I say it, counter-productive to their cause because they then alienate those of us who do want to see our Gay brethren living happy lives even if we hold a more traditional view of what a marriage is and should remain.
- Australia capital backs gay marriage (bbc.co.uk)
- Tony won’t shift on gay marriage : sister (theage.com.au)
- Austrailian Federal Government Seeks to Kill Nations First Same-Sex Marriage Laws (lezgetreal.com)
- Tony Abbott launches legal challenge after Australia’s capital passes gay marriage (independent.co.uk)
- Fed govt will challenge ACT gay marriages (news.theage.com.au)
- ACT prepares to debate gay marriage bill (news.theage.com.au)
When you are impotent its rather difficult to convince your paramours that you can give them a scorching seeing to if they don’t do as you wish. thus I find that Gillard’s threats to the states about their majority disinterest in he “Gonski ” education plan rather pathetic and just a little bit sad.
Lets be honest here, NO ONE expects that Labor will be in office in six months time let alone the next six years which means that all of the threats about future funding are ridiculous and it demeans the office of Prime minister for Gillard to keep up the pretence that Labor stands a snowflake’s chance in hell of making good on anything it promises between now and September 14. Even if we were not in an Ersatz election campaign and Labor was not facing defeat beyond that which it received in Queensland there is the not so small matter of Gillard’s form when it comes to truthfulness which the voters are reminded of every time they pay their energy bills which always invoke a memory of the foundational lie of the Gillard incumbency ” There will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead ” still echoes for me when ever Gillard says anything at all and I’m very sure I’m not the only one who can’t forget or forgive her for such dishonesty. If there is a song that epitomises Labor’s stench to the voters it has to be this:
While the alternative is not perfect it does not need to be to be better than the disaster that is the Labor party that is disintegrating more every new day. the only bright spot for Labor true believers has to be the fact that the loopy Greens are likewise in substantial decline and now struggle to get into double digits.
We live in a secular age and in this country we expect that there should be a well defined separation between church and state, however when the government of the day “gets religion” which encourages them to set up a huge edifice to promote the tenets of their faith who would be surprised that the shear cost of the instrumentality and its lack of any immediate benefit for the billions it is costing should lead them to consider shutting it all down to help a budget bottom line that is in a rather perilous state for a plan due to be delivered just prior to the next federal election:
The thing that I find amusing about this is that it actually a wise move politically for the government to contemplate this sort of departmental pruning on a number of different levels.
Firstly the staff in this department will not be missed by the public because the work they do is pointless anyway
Secondly you can bet that as a recently created instrumentality that the majority of the staff are employed on short term contracts which would make them easier to sack/dispense with
Thirdly those public servants have been on notice since the rise of Tony Abbott that they are going to be gone as soon as he gets the lodge so being sacked by Labor won’t be much different to what they were expecting anyway.
Fourthly Most work in Canberra which is a solidly Labor town so their votes would still be mostly delivered to the government anyway because you can bet that most who work in the department are likely to be Greens supporters.
Fifthly it will save lots of money on the expenditure side of the Ledger which is desperately needed to try to balance the budget to recover Wayne Swan’s economic credibility.
Then on the other hand the Coalition must be delighted at the prospect of the Gillard government wearing all of the political pain for doing that which they will be planning as one of their first items of business after September 15. They will be able to achieve the abolition of this monument to leftist hubris with out being blamed or daemonised for doing so during the election campaign. The beauty of it all just sends a shiver down my spine , further it lends a fair bit of weight to my prediction that in a post Gillard parliament a very much chastened ALP will not oppose any bill to dismantle the Carbon Tax et al because they will be so despairing about the issue that they will just want to get it behind them and move on .
As for the Greens, well I expect that they will be rather like that Shakespearean storm, all sound and fury signifying nothing.
I hope that I won’t have any copyright problems for doing this but I’m going to post the entire text of Geert Wilders’ Melbourne speech here for the benefit of the Sandpit’s readers:
Finally, I am here.
I am very happy to be in your beautiful and magnificent country, Australia.
400 years ago, the Dutch were the first Europeans to discover Australia. They named this land after their own and called it New Holland. So, here I am today, a visitor from the Netherlands, with a message from the old Holland to the New Holland.
I am here to tell you how Islam is changing the Netherlands and Western Europe beyond recognition. We are in the process of losing our culture, our identity, our freedom.
I am also here to warn Australia about the true nature of Islam. It is not just a religion as many people mistakenly think; it is primarily a dangerous totalitarian ideology.
I am here to warn you that what is happening in my native country might soon happen in Australia too, if you fail to be vigilant.
And I am here to advice you on how to turn the tide of Islamization. Inform people. Confront them with the truth. Don’t be afraid to speak. Use your right of free speech.
Because if you do not use it, you will lose it. And find and elect politicians who are not afraid to speak the truth about Islam.
Before I start, allow me to thank the Q Society for inviting me to your country. Thank you Debbie, Andrew, Ralf, and all the other volunteers for making this visit possible. Debbie never booked so many conference rooms in her life as in the past few weeks, and never had so many cancellations. Debbie, you are my hero. You have had a very hard time. But I bet you think twice about ever inviting me to Australia again.
The Q Society and its volunteers embody the courage for which Australians are known in Europe.
We, Europeans, owe our freedom in part to the thousands of young and brave Australians who fought, and died, at Passiondale and at Gallipoli.
These Australians – your fathers and grandfathers – persevered against all odds.
And so did the Q Society, despite the efforts of the governing establishment to discourage my visit.
First, Chris Bowen, the then federal minister of Immigration, had me wait five long weeks for a visa, forcing us to postpone my visit from October to February.
Then, the minister implicitly warned people to stay away from my speeches by writing a newspaper article in the Australian saying that I was a fringe figure from the far-right.
Western Australia’s premier Colin Bartnett went as far as to tell the media that I am “not welcome” in his state. I wonder how many public figures in the world have already been told that they are not welcome in Western Australia. Trying to find this out, I googled the words “not welcome in Western Australia.” Guess what? Only two items popped up: “Geert Wilders” and “US nuclear base.”
Private enterprises followed the example by boycotting my visit, declining the booking of venues, turning down adds, and refusing banking services.
But the Q Society did not give up.
Thank you also to La Mirage here in Melbourne, where we are gathered today, for making this evening possible.
So, here I am, with a message that your political leaders do not want you to hear.
But first, let me tell you who I am and how I live.
I am an elected politician from one of the oldest democracies in the world. I am the leader of the Party for Freedom, the largest Dutch opposition party. We have almost 1 million voters in a country that is known for its tolerance. I am not a fringe figure; I am not far-right either. Political opponents brought me to court, accusing me of hate speech and discrimination. But the court in Amsterdam after an ordeal that lasted 2 years cleared me of all charges.
Earlier, I have spoken in the premises of the United States Congress, the British House of Lords, the Danish Parliament and other government premises. I participated in conferences in the U.S. and Canada, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere, with people none of which belong to the far-right.
For the past 9 years I have been living under round the clock police protection. Wherever I go, plainclothes policemen go with me. I live in a government safe house, bulletproof and safer than the National Bank. I wish I had their money. Earlier my wife and I have even lived in army barracks and prison cells just to be safe from assassins.
Why do I need this protection? I am not a president or king, I am a simple parliamentarian.
I have been marked for death. I was placed under police protection in November 2004 when the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was slaughtered in broad daylight because he had criticized Islam. A few hours later, the police found a letter written by van Gogh’s assassin threatening to kill me and my colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali as well. We, too, had been critical of Islam, especially through our work in parliament.
Ayaan has since left for America, but I continue to candidly express my views about Islam in the Dutch Parliament and in the public debate around the world.
But it is not I who am important here. What is at stake is the defense of our freedom.
Only two weeks ago, a good friend of mine, Lars Hedegaard, a journalist from Denmark, survived an assassination attempt. A foreigner tried to shoot him through the head. Why? For the simple reason that Lars is critical of Islam.
Europe has become a dangerous place for those who criticize Islam. So many people rooted in a culture entirely different from our own Judeo-Christian and humanist tradition have entered Europe that now Europe’s identity and its culture are in danger.
Australian tourists visiting our major European cities today can still see the postcard views of the Eiffel tower, Buckingham Palace and the Amsterdam canals, but if they are not careful and walk too far, they risk entering a dangerous Islamic ghetto.
Islam has creating a parallel society within our cities. Shortly before her death in 2006, the
well-known Italian author Oriana Fallaci wrote: “In each one of our cities, there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” – end of quote.
The Islamic presence is changing the outlook and the character of Europe. In some urban neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor-killings.
Five years ago, Michael Nazir-Ali, the Anglican bishop of Rochester, England, who is himself of Muslim descent, already warned for Islamic no-go zones. “Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them and even the risk of violence,” he said.
Last month, a group called Muslim Patrol posted a video on Youtube showing how they control an entire neighborhood of the British capital London. They intimidate people, force women to cover up, harass gays, confiscate alcohol, and forbid non-Muslims to walk past the local mosque.
Two years ago, a high ranking German police officer admitted that no-go zones outside police authority are proliferating all over Germany. We can witness this phenomenon all over Europe.
I used to live in Kanaleneiland, a suburb of Utrecht which, during the 20 years that I lived there, transformed into a very dangerous neighborhood for non-Muslims. I have been robbed. On several occasions I had to run for safety.
The same transformation has happened in parts of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other cities, in the Netherlands, as well as in cities in Belgium, Germany, Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden and other countries.
In August 2011, a Dutch newspaper sent its war correspondent – yes, you heard right, its war correspondent – to the Dutch city of Helmond to investigate reports that Islamic thugs were harassing local residents. His article detailed terrible abuses suffered by the non-Muslim population, including the sexual harassment of young girls. The locals complained that the police are afraid of the thugs.
In France, the authorities have drawn up a list of 751 so-called “sensible urban areas.” These are the lost territories of the French Republic, even though a staggering 5 million people, or 8 percent of the total French population, live in them.
In Brussels, the capital of the European Union, 25 percent of the population is Muslim. The city has several predominantly Islamic districts. Police officers entering these neighborhoods have been shot at with Kalashnikovs. Three years ago, the police union acknowledged that there are boroughs in Brussels which – I quote – “officers do not dare enter in uniforms.” End of quote.
In my own country, Moroccans are the largest ethnic group among Islamic immigrants. Almost every week there are incidents with Moroccan youths. In the Netherlands, 65 percent of all the Moroccan boys between 12 and 23 years have have already been arrested at least once by the police.
The list of violent incidents involving Moroccans, whether occurring in our streets, our schools, our shopping malls or on our sports fields, is endless. But the victims are almost never Moroccans or Muslims.
I am not exaggerating. I tell it like it is.
Two years ago, Germany’s Family Minister Kristina Schröder advocated – I quote – “an open debate about racist Muslims.” End of quote.
Last September, Jean-Francois Copé, the former French Budget Minister under president Sarkozy, also pointed out that – I quote “racism is growing in our cities.”
Copé, too, was referring to the surge of Islamic violence against ethnic Frenchmen.
Islam has brought us jihad: intimidation, violence.
Then there is the phenomenon of nonviolent jihad. The rise of Islam also means the rise of Islamic sharia law in our judicial systems. In Europe, we have sharia wills, sharia schools, sharia banks. The introduction of elements of sharia law in our societies creates a system of legal apartheid. Sharia law systematically discriminates between groups of people.
Britain now has official sharia courts. One of these courts settled the inheritance of a man whose estate had to be divided between his children. It gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with the Koranic pronouncement that a woman is only worth half a man. This is a disgrace. In our civilization, men and women used to be treated as equals before the law. In contemporary Europe, this is no longer the case.
Sharia law also affects our fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech. Sharia law forbids criticism of Islam. This is considered blasphemy. The penalty is death.
That is why I have been marked for death. That is why people like me and Lars Hedegaard are in so much trouble; that is why three years ago a man with an axe tried to chop the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard to pieces; that is why we, and Salman Rushdie and others are living in hiding. Because if you criticize Islam, you pay a very high price.
This brings me to the second major topic of my speech. The nature of Islam.
Is it not strange that we, who are not Muslims, are punished by Islam for breaking Islamic rules? Religious rules do not apply to people who do not belong to a specific religion, do they? Indeed, a religion – every religion – should be voluntary. Yet, Islam imposes its rules on everyone.
Why does sharia law alter our Western secular legal system in such a dramatic fashion? The answer is that rather than a religion, Islam is a totalitarian political ideology which aims to impose its legal system on the whole society.
Islam is an ideology because it is political rather than religious: Islam is an ideology because it aims for an Islamic state and wants to impose Islamic Sharia law on all of us.
Islam is totalitarian because it is not voluntary. It orders that people who leave Islam must be killed.
Contrary to all the other religions – real religions – Islam also lays obligations on non-members.
Your fellow Australian, the theologian Mark Durie has said – I quote: “Islam classically demands a political realization, and specifically one in which Islam rules over all other religions, ideologies and competing political visions. Islam is not unique in having a political vision or speaking to politics, but it is unique in demanding that it alone must rule the political sphere.” – end of quote.
We can see what Islam has in store for us if we watch the fate of the Christians in the Islamic world, such as the Copts in Egypt, the Maronites in Lebanon, the Assyrians in Iraq, and Christians anywhere in the Islamic and Arab world. The cause of their suffering is Islam. Indeed, the only place in the Middle East where Christians are safe to be Christians is Israel. Israel is also the only democracy in the Middle East, a beacon of light in an area of total darkness. We should all support Israel.
My friends, I always make a distinction between Muslims and Islam. Most Muslims are moderate, but the ideology of Islam is dangerous. The moderates are the captives of a totalitarian system. If only they could liberate themselves from the Islamic culture of fatalism and apathy, then the most beautiful things could happen to them and the whole world.
I have travelled the Islamic world extensively. I have visited countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia. I was overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of many people there. They are often good people, but they are the captives of Islam. These people are not free; they live under the yoke of Islamic sharia law. If they leave Islam, they sign their own death verdict.
Thirty years ago, I travelled from Israel to Egypt. This trip made a huge impression on me. Israel and Egypt are neighbours, with the same climate, the same natural riches, similar resources, the same potential. And yet Egypt is poor, while Israel is wealthy.
Freedom is the key to prosperity; and Islam deprives people of it.
However, as long as Islam remains dominant, there can be no real freedom.
Just look at what is happening in the Arab countries. The so-called Arab Spring quickly degraded into a freezing Arab Winter. The situation of women and non-Muslims, such as Christians, worsened dramatically.
In Islamic countries, democracy does not lead to freedom. Islam keeps people entrapped in a mental prison. A survey by the American Pew Center found that even though 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates.
Despite the presence of many moderate Muslims, the growing Islamic presence in Europe is causing huge problems. Europe’s Islamic lobby is increasingly assertive.
It has successfully pressured European politicians into implementing pro-Islamic policies, institutionalizing sharia practices, adopting anti-Israeli positions, and restricting freedom of speech under the pretext that telling the truth about Islam is a hate speech crime.
In the Netherlands, we have prison cells with arrows on the floor directing towards Mecca; prisons where only halal food is served; Islamic lawyers who do not have to rise when the judge enters the courtroom; schools that close on Islamic holidays; works of art that are removed from public buildings because they might offend Islam; separate swimming hours, separate theatre performances, separate courses for men and women; nurses in homes for the elderly who are exempt for treating men because Islam forbids women to touch men; etcetera.
Islamic and pro-Islamic groups drag people to court simply because they exercise their legal right of freedom of speech. This is called legal jihad. People like myself, Lars Hedegaard in Denmark, and countless others from Canada to Austria have been subjected to endless time, energy and money consuming trials for speaking the truth.
To understand the nature of Islam, one also has to understand its founder, Muhammad, the author of the Koran. It is uncomfortable for people to speak about it, but we must because he is the example of 1.5 billion people. According to Islam, Muhammad is the perfect man whose life must be imitated. The consequences are horrendous and can be witnessed on a daily basis.
Islam presents Muhammad as the role model to 1.5 billion people. Fortunately, the majority of them do not follow this example. The fact that Islam presents him as the model man obliges us, however, to talk about his character and the things he did.
Islamic texts such as the Sira, Muhammad’s biography, and the Hadiths, the descriptions of Muhammad’s life from testimonies of his contemporaries, show that he was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered.
The sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people’s throats were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes massacred. An example is the extinction of the Jews in Medina in 627. Muhammad himself participated in chopping off their heads. The women and children were sold as slaves. As you know, Muhammad married the 6 year old girl Aisha whom consummated when she was 9 years old. In our countries today, such a pedophile would be sent to jail for a very long time.
Islamic violence does not spring from social and political grievances, as politically-correct sources claim. Islamic violence springs directly from Islam and Muhammad’s example.
Because Muhammad lied and cheated in order to advance Islam, some followers feel entitled to do the same. Islam even has a word for this kind of lying. It is called taqqiya.
Because Muhammad spread Islam through acts of terror, some of his followers do the same.
Because Muhammad established an Islamic state, some of his followers see it as their duty to do the same.
Because Muhammad had his critics and the critics of his Islamic state murdered, some of his followers regard it as their duty to kill everyone who speaks his mind about Muhammad and Islam.
It is no coincidence that all the Islamic states in the world demand that freedom of speech be curtailed and that criticism of Islam and its prophet be forbidden. And yet, it is our duty to speak out and tell the truth.
Anyone who voices criticism of Islam and Muhammad is in grave personal danger. And whoever attempts to escape from the influence of Islam and Muhammad risk the death penalty. We cannot continue to accept this state of affairs. A public debate about the true nature and character of Muhammad is badly needed how uncomfortable it might be to some people.
Understanding Islam and Muhammad, also learns us important lessons about our present situation. That is the third major topic I want to address: the lessons for Australia.
It is important that you realize that in our present days Islam is spreading predominantly through the method of immigration from Islamic countries. Muhammad himself conquered Medina through the method of immigration. Or Hijra as it is called in Islam.
Hijra is an instrument of jihad. It is an instrument that Islam uses to dominate the free world.
So, in order to stop Islamization, we should stop as we try to do in the Netherland where my party sees it as its first priority to stop immigration from Islamic countries. Enough is enough.
I realize that this may be a difficult message in a country such as Australia. Your country was built on immigration. Over one in four of Australia’s 22 million inhabitants were born overseas.
They came to Australia from many countries and continents. They were welcomed because they contributed. They have strengthened Australia.
Dutch immigrants, like countless immigrants from other countries, have helped to turn Australia into what it is today. Australia is home to over 300,000 people of Dutch descent.
These Dutchmen never caused any problems because they did not bring along an ideology which prohibits friendship with non-Dutchmen, which commands them to hate non-Dutchmen, and to submit or kill non-Dutchmen.
My countrymen did not come to impose their own culture upon the non-Dutch Australians; they assimilated into Australian society and, in doing so, they enriched it.
Today, Europe, too, is confronted with millions of immigrants. Unfortunately, many of these immigrants are not strengthening nor enriching our societies, because many of them refuse to assimilate and they create a parallel society within our nations. A very large number of these immigrants have moved to Europe from Islamic countries. Europe is in the middle of an Islamization process, driven by immigration from North Africa, Turkey, the Middle East and other parts of the Islamic world, such as Somalia.
The Islamic countries belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It is the largest voting bloc and the biggest Israel haters in the United Nations. In 1990, it adopted the Cairo Declaration on human rights in Islam, in which human rights is bound by Sharia law. It also calls for the death penalty for people who leave Islam or insult Islam, Muhammad or the Koran.
There is a second priority which we have in our party platform. This is to counter Sharia or Islamic law in our own country.
Let me explain. When people move to another country, they integrate, they blend in, they assimilate. That is the natural order of things.
When immigrants from Islamic countries settle in Western countries, they move from an unfree society to a free society. People always prefer freedom over tyranny. That is human nature.
In the normal order of things, immigration from Islamic countries would weaken Islam.
Their contact with Western freedoms, would lead Islamic people to abandon Islam. However, through the creation of a Sharia-based parallel society – we see it happen all over Europe, be careful that it does not happen in Australia – Islam manages to continue its control over its captives.
Islamic societies – including Islamic enclaves in the West—exert tight social control that is indicative of the totalitarian character of Islam.
My friends, I am here to warn Australia. Learn from the European lesson. The more Islam you get into your society, the less civilized it becomes and the less free.
How did the Europeans get into their present situation? It is partly our own fault because we have foolishly adopted the ideology of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is far worse than multiculturalism. Cultural relativism is the biggest political disease that we face in our countries today.
I am proud to say – I do not care whether people like it or not – that our culture which is based on Judeo-Christian and humanist values such as liberty, democracy and tolerance, is far better than the Islamic culture. I am proud of it.
We should not close our eyes to the fact that all over Europe and Australia, new mosques and Islamic centers are under construction. In any major city in Europe you will encounter halal shops and women in headscarves and burkas.
Two years ago, there was the case of Carnita Matthews, the Islamic convert in a burka, who escaped a jail sentence in New South Wales because the authorities could not prove that she was the person in a burka making a false statement to the police.
Open the pages of our newspapers and you will read horrific stories of women being trampled, female genital mutilation and honor killings in our own back yards.
We have to speak out, because it is the only tool we have got. We stand for our convictions, but we never use violence. We abhor violence. The reason why we reject Islam is exactly Islam’s violent nature. We believe in democracy.
We cherish the tradition of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Jelena Bonner, Lech Walesa and Ronald Reagan. These heroes defeated a totalitarian ideology by the power of their conviction and by using no other means than their words.
As the ex-Muslim and Islam-critic Ali Sina said: “We don’t raise a sword against darkness; we lit a light.” So it is. We lit the light of the truth. And the truth will set us free. The truth that while Muslims can embrace freedom, Islam cannot.
Let no one tell you that Islam respects freedom. Freedom and Islam are incompatible.
Let no one tell you that Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is an ideology of violence.
Let no one tell you that you should tolerate the intolerant. We should not tolerate the intolerant and start becoming intolerant to those who are intolerant to us.
We should stop the building of new mosques. Enough is enough.
We want no more immigration from Islamic countries for we have enough Islam already.
If you are a criminal immigrant you should be expelled! If immigrants do not commit crimes, they are equal to anyone else. But if they commit crimes, they should be sent packing.
Very often, the appeasers are the governments who are afraid of Islamic radicals threatening violence and riots against anyone who dares to confront their intolerant ideas.
What we are witnessing today is how freedom dies. It dies because the political elite is cowardly unwilling to defend it. We must not accept that.
Indeed, my friends, we must change course.
We must struggle every single day against the rising tide of Islamization, even when our opponents brand us as extremists, even when they take us to court, and treathen to kill us, we should continue speaking the truth.
If we do not oppose Islam, we will lose everything: our freedom, our identity, our democracy, our rule of law, and all our liberties.
We must end the disease of cultural relativism and proudly proclaim: Our Western culture, based on Judeo-Christian and humanist principles, is far better than the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, will we be willing to defend our own identity.
You must demand that immigrants accept Australia’s values, and not the other way round.
We must support the persecuted Christians in the Islamic world. We must also stand with Israel. Israel is in jihad’s frontline. Because by helping Israel to survive, we help ourselves.
But most important of all – and this is the final message of my speech – most important of all, we must defend freedom of speech. Everything else depends on it.
We cannot correct our mistakes if we are not allowed to talk about them.
There is reason for concern if the erosion of our freedom of speech is the price we must pay to accommodate Islam. There is something badly wrong if those who deny that Islam is a problem do not grant us the right to talk about the issue.
Public discussion should not be stifled by threats; On the contrary, public discussion should be promoted. And everyone should be allowed to freely express his opinions. That is why Europe and Australia are in desperate need of an equivalent of America’s First Amendment which guarantees us a maximum of freedom of speech.
Friends, there is hope if we overcome our fears and begin to speak the truth.
If we remain silent, we are certain to go from defeat to defeat; But if we speak the truth, we will be able to turn the tide and it will be our first victory of many.
Yes, my friends, there is hope. But only if we outgrow our fears and dare speak the truth.
As Ronald Reagan said “The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted.”
The future freedom of Australia, the liberties of your children – they depend on you.
The ANZAC spirit helped keep Europe free in the past; the ANZAC spirit will keep you free in the future. Be as brave as your fathers, and you will survive.
There is hope because we are not alone. We still speak for the majority. While the elite has largely fallen for cultural relativism, the people have not.
In my country, the Netherlands, 56 percent of the population see Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity.
In Britain, a survey last month showed that the public regard immigration as the biggest issue facing British society.
In Germany, 64 percent hold that Islam is violent and 70 percent that it is fanatical.
In France, 74 percent are convinced that Islam is intolerant and not compatible with French society.
These people are not wrongheaded, they are not extremists; they stand for decency, common sense and liberty. We must speak on their behalf. We must encourage them. We must tell them not to give up and not to lose heart.
My friends, always remember that our voice is the voice of liberty; it is the voice of liberation.
Let us defend our own freedoms. And let us support Muslims – and especially the suppressed Muslim women – who want to free themselves from the yoke of Islam.
Let them join the worldwide community of freedom, renounce Sharia and Islam. And be free, as we are free.
It would be good if Muslims leave Islam for Christianity or atheism or whatever they want, as long as it is not Islam.
Friends, though we live thousands of miles apart, we – Australians and Europeans – belong to a common civilization. We share the ideas and ideals of our common Judeo-Christian and humanist heritage. We must help each other in the struggle for this heritage, because Islam is a threat to Europe as well as to Australia.
If we want to preserve our nations – our homes – and our freedoms and pass them on to our children, we must stand together, shoulder to shoulder, with Israel and the other nations in the West.
We have to rely upon each other and help each other in the struggle against a common adversary. We must stand together. Otherwise we will be swept away by Islam.
I believe, my friends, that we will stand together, that we will stand firm, that we will not submit, and that we will survive. Why?
Because we stand for the truth.
And the truth will prevail.
I am particularly interested to hear what those who usually provide excuses and apologia for Islam have to say about this speech, though sadly I do have some idea what they will say.
- Anonymous Is Unhappy with Anti-Islamic Dutch MP’s Visit to Australia (news.softpedia.com)
- Abbott rubbishes Wilders’s views on Islam (abc.net.au)
- Dutch MP entitled to Islam opinion: Abbott (news.theage.com.au)
- Protestors, police clash at Dutch MP Geert Wilders anti-Islam speech (australiantimes.co.uk)
- Islam ‘dangerous and totalitarian’ (smh.com.au)
- Geert Up! Geert Down! Geert Wilders! (iainhall.wordpress.com)
- What’s with our Islamophobe-ophobia? (abc.net.au)
- Dutch MP warns for Muslims whilst on holiday in Australia (tempmuse.wordpress.com)
- Geert Wilders In Australia – If You Need This Much Security For Criticising Islam… (papundits.wordpress.com)
Ah those loveable Greenies have blood upon the hands once again as the stories of how they made hazard reduction burns for all intents and purposes impossible to get at the time when they could have been carried out safely:
Mr Arnold applied in August 2011 for a permit to spring burn some of the build-up of weeds and scrub undergrowth beneath blue gums covering Steele’s Hill that runs the length of his now-blackened 1000ha property.
He said it would have been a nice and steady little fire after winter that slowly crept through the bush, destroying the high fuel load.
He was knocked back because Steele’s Hill and its blue gums contained a wedgetail eagle’s nest and was classed as foraging habitat for the endangered swift parrot.
“I took that to mean that the bird might call in for lunch occasionally,” a frustrated Mr Arnold said yesterday.
“But I look at the devastation there today and ask where the Greens are? But they are more concerned about the pattern on their cappuccino in Salamanca than what has happened here on our farms this week.”
Mr Arnold said he could not say for sure that if he had been allowed to burn off Steele’s Hill in the springs of 2011 and 2012, that the bushfire could have been stopped on his farm before it roared down into the small Connelly’s Marsh beach community destroying more than 15 homes.
Its a story that we have heard before in relation to the terrible fires in Victoria a couple of years ago and I expect the very same lily livered counter arguments this time as we that were so unconvincingly mouthed then . We live in a nation that is covered with very flammable eucalyptus trees and we very clearly have a price to pay if we don’t have a fire management regime that acknowledges that the only way to keep our homes and our lives safe in the burning time is to reduce the fuel loads when it is safe to do so.
Maybe the only way we can do this is to throw another Greenie on the barbecue so that they will know what the people on the fire-fronts have experienced…. Hmm what is the best barbecue sauce for long pig again?
- Eucalyptus grove dying off (mercedsunstar.com)
- Australian heatwave: weather bureau upgrades temperature scale with new colours (telegraph.co.uk)
- Back-burning around Vic plantation fire (bigpondnews.com)
- Burning ‘Deep Purple’: Australia So Hot New Color Added to Index (stuartwilde.com)
- School? Forgot about that! – Salamanca, Spain (travelpod.com)
- Bushfire missing located, say police (dailytelegraph.com.au)
- Bushfires: NSW told to prepare for the worst (stuff.co.nz)
- Fresh emergency declared in bushfire-hit Tasmania (abc.net.au)
- Thousands stranded as crews continue to battle Tasmania bushfires (sott.net)