Home » Islamist Terror threats

Category Archives: Islamist Terror threats

Muslim anti-Semitic hatred


Sadly Pat is 110% correct here

Sigh Comrades


Helen Dale posted in Australian Libertarian Society (ALS) ” Why Australians can’t be Charlie”

I was quite taken by Helen Dale’s argument here:

Helen Dale

Helen Dale 23 January 11:08

“I hate to break it to you, but we are not all Charlie.

The reason is simple: Charlie Hebdo was consistent in its support for freedom of speech. Its editors were not just targeted by Islamists: they’d been hauled through the French courts (where they won) and were figures of hate to both the French extreme right and conservative Catholics.

Charlie Hebdo had been out on a limb for years, true to the freewheeling anti-clericalism that owes its origins to the protests of 1968. Charb, its editor, refused to buckle.

The rest of us – with the partial exception of the United States – have buckled. There are widespread restrictions on speech, in France and elsewhere. Australia has 18C, among many others.

“Hate speech” laws are frequently based on the supposition that hate speech has the same effect as the common law offence of incitement. Incitement requires a demonstrable effect on the intended audience. Burning a cross on a black family’s front lawn, for example, amounts to incitement to commit acts of violence against that family.

It’s also important to remember hate speech laws are akin to the definition of “advocating terrorism” in the national security legislation. Because – as George Brandis told me last year – incitement is difficult to prove, governments look for other ways to restrict speech. “Advocating terrorism” in the Foreign Fighters legislation removes the requirement for demonstrable impact.

At the heart of criminalising “hate speech” is an empirical claim: that what an individual consumes in the media has a direct effect on his or her subsequent behaviour. That is, words will lead directly to deeds.

But because this is untrue – playing Grand Theft Auto and watching porn hasn’t led to an epidemic of car thefts and sexual assault – justifications for laws such as 18C and hate speech laws now turn on the notion that offence harms “dignity” and “inclusion”. Obviously, dignity and inclusion can’t be measured, while crime rates can.

Support for dignity and inclusion produces weird arguments – white people are not supposed to satirise minorities, for example. Sometimes, legislation is used – bluntly – to define what is funny.

Allowing what is “hateful” or “offensive” to be defined subjectively, as 18C does – and not according to the law’s usual objective standard (the reasonable person) – means “offence” is in the eye of the beholder. It enables people who are vexatious litigants and professional victims to complain about comments the rest of us would laugh off.

Tim Wilson, Australia’s Freedom Commissioner, has already argued18C ensures an Australian Charlie Hebdo would be litigated to death. Despite the fact 18C refers only to race, Tony Abbott’s justification for backing down on repeal was to preserve “national unity” with Australia’s Muslim community. This conflates religion with race in the crudest possible way.

This conflation is what leads to the coining of nonsense terms such as “Islamophobia”. “Homophobia” actually means something, because being homosexual is an inherent characteristic, not a choice. Islam is an idea, and it is perfectly reasonable to be afraid of an idea.

18C is far from the only potential constraint. The equivalent Victorian legislation explicitly takes in religion as well as race. A smart lawyer would bring suit in Victoria, because Charlie Hebdo would probably be caught there.

The confusion of religion for race is so pervasive – even in the US, where people ought to know better – that French people across the political spectrum have been forced to point out – while France does indeed have “hate speech” laws – they are used to protect characteristics that people cannot change, such as being black or gay.

“We do not conflate religion and race. We are the country of Voltaire and Diderot: religion is fair game” French left radical Olivier Tonneau wrote in response to repeated claims that attacking Muhammad or Islam was racist.

Apart from being unsupported by anything approaching evidence, hate speech laws have serious unintended consequences. Recently, British polling firm YouGov surveyed British attitudes to Muslims and discovered Britons see Islam negatively, but are unwilling to say so.

In other words, governments and law enforcement have to rely on anonymised polls conducted by private firms to find out what people really think.

It’s not maintainable to have partial freedom of speech. The fact that most Western countries now do makes what little freedom we still have harder to defend. Muslims who respect arguments for free speech can’t help but notice our inconsistencies. Anyone who thinks they don’t notice is guilty of treating people who profess a certain faith like children.

We won’t be Charlie until we have purged 18C, its state-based equivalents and the illiberal national security legislation from the nation’s statute books.”

Why Australians can’t be Charlie

So what do my readers think about this?
Cheers Comrades

Nothing to be Islam, or the power of sarcasm

Pat on the money yet again…

As is David Wood

“I am Charlie Hebdo”

Two gunmen in balaclavas and bullet-proof vests, armed with a pump-action shotgun and an automatic rifle, stormed into the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo at about 11.30am as about 15 journalists had gathered for the weekly editorial conference. They called for the editor by name and then murdered him before spraying the room with gunfire, killing nine more and wounding others. Laurent Léger, a Charlie Hebdo writer, managed to sound the alarm, calling a friend and telling him: “Call the police. It’s carnage, a bloodbath. Everyone is dead.”

As they made their getaway, the gunmen shot dead two policemen, including one who they shot in the head at close range as he lay injured on the pavement.

The two attackers then jumped into a small black Citroën that they had apparently arrived in and drove off. Police said there was a third man involved in the attack, who had driven the car to the magazine offices, on rue Nicolas Appert in the 11th arrondissement in eastern Paris, and it is not clear whether he fled the scene during the attack.

The gunmen abandoned the Citroën in the 19th arrondissement, in the north-east of the capital before hijacking another car. Police said the attackers had then had gone to ground, leaving a nation in shock.

The attack was the bloody culmination of a long-simmering struggle between France’s libertarian traditions of free speech and an increasingly extreme strand of Islamism. Witnesses described hearing the attackers shout “Allahu Akbar” as well as “We have avenged the Prophet.” Two eyewitnesses said they claimed to be from al-Qaida. One of them specified al-Qaida in Yemen, a group also known as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.


The French are often despised by the English for being “cheese eating surrender monkeys” as a consequence of their capitulation to the invading Nazis during the second world war so It is heartening to see that they are on this occasion not being at all meek in their response to this outrage. To be frank there is no reason to make excuses for Islam after this assault upon every writer’s freedom of speech. Yet I am certain that there will be elements of the left who will do just that. Without the right to treat the totalitarian religion of our age with the utter contempt that it so clearly deserves we are all slaves to its propagators and as someone observed on twitter “It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees” (who said that before?) maybe its time for all of the fourth estate to stop pussy footing around with the followers of Islam, to tell them that they are not going to win and that theirs is a religion that is totally unacceptable in a modern world. maybe its time for all of us who have a presence in the public media discourse to stand up and say “I am Charlie Hebdo” just as the slaves in revolt against Rome all stood up and said “I am Spartacus”*

Angry again Comrades


*well according to the film anyway

Gearboxes and Pizza boxes that do not face Mecca

I have been rather slack about posting to this blog of late, for a couple a reasons, firstly its the season for spending more time with the family , secondly I have been far more focused on my car projects , in particular getting my sports car sorted and fitted with a new manual transmission because the auto I had in it was sounding like a bag of nails and running very badly. having to make a clutch peddle and ensure it works properly took longer than I expected and then I also had to alter the gearshift so that I falls conveniently to hand. The wrenching gods even made the speedo cable a problem as the corolla cable had an incomparable fitting for my Smiths speedo. I solved that one with a short length of  fuel line and some hose claps to splice the last  inches of my existing cable outer to the end of the Corolla cable.

Any way its time to get back too it but I just feel compelled to share this picture that was posted to my face book time line:


Cadbury have apparently closed production to see if they can ride out being boycotted. Removing the halal extortion tax (fee) may not only reduce the cost of some food, but may prevent the unaccounted channeling of funds to overseas groups of questionable religious motives.

Its nice to see that companies are waking up the the “halal” scam and not letting the politically correct ninnies extort them into endorsing the pernicious ideology of Islam.

Cheers Comrades


Sydney Siege, why was there no use of a sniper?

If a scumbag claims to be actiung in the Name of Allah then why does the Australian media keep insisting on pretending otherwise?

If a scumbag claims to be acting in the Name of Allah then why does the Australian media keep insisting on pretending otherwise?

I don’t sleep very well at the bets of times but I have spent most of last night listening to the rolling coverage of the siege in Sydney and I am both desperately saddened by the death of two hostages and annoyed that a sniper did not take the scumbag out before any hostages could be killed. Further I can not comprehend why he was out on bail after being changed with murdering his wife and how he was able to get hold of a hand gun.

Finally I have been utterly sickened by all of the obsequious excuse making for Islam We, as a society well understand that the the majority of this in this country who follow that religion are decent people who mean their fellow Australians no harm so we do not need the sort of endless excuse making for the religion that has been so evident in the Media coverage for this atrocity done in the name of Allah. Simply put, if this was not an act based upon an “Islamic” motivation then why was it clothed in Islamist vestments?

Sadly nothing  to cheer about on this one Comrades

Sydney siege

If channel 7 could get this image then why did the police not have a sniper to “take the shot”?

Ottawa, roses and avoiding the thorns

With the reports of the attack on the Canadian parliament still echoing around  the mainstream media it seems that this is, surprise surprise another Jihadist attack :

780592-54ff733e-5a37-11e4-bb41-d2d878d2a380THE gunman who killed a soldier and launched a terror attack on the Canadian parliament in Ottawa was on the country’s terror watchlist and had his passport confiscated, it has emerged.

Ottawa was put into lockdown overnight Australian time after Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, 32, shot to death a Canadian soldier standing guard at the nation’s war memorial on Wednesday, then stormed Parliament in a hail of gunfire before he was killed by the sergeant-at-arms.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared the act a “terror attack” as he said that Canadians would not be intimidated by such actions.


I do think that I may be re reading a rather well worn sermon if I say that this is yet another proof that allowing ourselves to be blind to the religious affiliations of the immigrants that have flooded into the western countries after the second world war. To some extent this is the truth that dare not speak its name. You see if anyone dares to say that there is a problem with so many of those who follow the religion invented by Mohammad we are shouted down as if we are advocating under age buggery. just look at the sort of panicked tweet from from the deputy leader of the Greens:

The far left are altogether too keen to make excuses  for Muslim migrants and one of the big ways they do this is to denounce anyone who even implicitly  questions the bonafides of any Muslim . However I think that there have been enough instances of Jihadists emerging form the western communities of the Muslim Diaspora for us to at least question the wisdom of allowing the importation of further Muslim immigrants.

No matter how many virtues that we may find in multiculturalism, like the  things that have clearly enriched our society, we can’t pretend that it is a rose without thorns and our task as a culture is to find a way that we can enjoy the blossoms without bleeding profusely from the thorns, and that may require some very tough decisions, decisions that sir Humphrey would describe as “very courageous”

Cheers Comrades


The all sneer no substance academic

After recent exchanges with University of Canberra Academic Jason Wilson, I have formed the view that there is a wide gulf between his own esteem of his knowledge and intellect and the far less impressive reality.

There is no doubt that Wilson fancies himself – this is evident from his sneering during twitter debates and his presumptuous claim to know more about the Middle East than the experienced journalists at The Australian.

One of our debates concerned whether the terrorist threat in Australia was real or whether it was just a beat up. Strangely, Wilson believed that the number of non-terror related homicides was relevant to this question:

Never mind the terrorist threat. Look at the number of men killing their partners!

Never mind the terrorist threat. Look at the number of men killing their partners!

So according to Wilson’s logic, we should not be concerned about men killing their partners either, because this number is dwarfed by the number of people who die every year in motor vehicle accidents.

Moreover, there are a couple of other problems with Wilson’s argument, as I pointed out:

To pointiout the social effects of terrorism is to engage in nationalist fantasies.

“To point out the social effects of terrorism is to engage in nationalist fantasies.”

According to Jason Wilson, there is no unity in Australian society. For a fellow who deems himself to have a very sound knowledge of international affairs, this appears to show that Wilson does not understand that compared to many other countries, Australia is one of the most harmonious.

However, in spite of his pompous demeanor, the exchange shows that Wilson does not really think through the issues at all. It is plain that he has not considered that some terrorist attacks have killed thousands, and that a successful terrorist attack in Australia could well drive a wedge between mainstream Australian society and certain parts of the Muslim community. His only response is to accuse me of believing in a “nationalist fantasy”.

Finally, just today Wilson accused me of making up the fact that he supported some form of media regulation. Whilst I could not find the tweet where Wilson indicated as such to me, I was able to find an article he wrote for the Drum in 2012. Whilst the article does not endorse the  recommendations of the Finkelstein Report, the following comments reveal that Wilson does consider a free media market to be unsatisfactory and would support some form of media regulation:

It’s a shame that most of the Finkelstein Independent Media Inquiry Report will go unread by many of those who are damning it…. The problems it identifies are real enough, and pressing.

Australia has the worst concentration of media ownership in the developed world – no other country has, or likely would have, allowed things to get to this point… There are no truly effective remedies for ordinary people with few resources, whom the news media prints lies about, whose privacy is invaded, or whose careers are ruined by baseless reporting.

It is a shame that, rather than seeing the online space as cacophonous and unruly, Finkelstein didn’t instead offer ways in which diversity and sustainability might be promoted for a better media future.

As you can see, I did not “make it up”. I was right. Wilson does want media regulation.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 263 other followers

%d bloggers like this: