Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » World Events » Pakistan

Category Archives: Pakistan

Some thoughts about mooted changes to Media ownership law in Australia



People are creatures of habit and it is only that so many people are habituated to buying the news papers that any are still being sold at all. Just take any kind of commute on public transport and consider how many people are reading a paper and how many are staring at a screen instead. Some certainly may be playing games or even watching video but I expect that they will be out numbering those who are still reading dead tree editions of the MSM.

Then there is the things in the paper that people buy them for, most papers are not exclusively about politics and current affairs anyway, so some readers will be buying the paper for its coverage of sport, lifestyle or even just for the crossword puzzles.  My point is that the political classes (in particular those from the left ) just look at the raw sales figured and they think that every reader of the Herald Sun is in the thrall of Rupert Murdoch and that the owners dictate to their readers directing their opinions. The reality is that all media entities write to their audience. If they don’t their audience wither away quite quickly.  With the coming of the internet this is even more how things work Online entities are even more in an endless quest for readers so you have to play to what your readers want rather than thinking that you can manipulate their thinking. I have been writing a blog for nearly a decade now and I have noticed just how quickly particular readers flit in and out its the same now with the way that people read things online from the likes of Murdoch, Fairfax or even the Guardian People don’t just get their news from one source any more no matter what the subject is they will read what several sources say about it and then make up their mind. This behaviour is the same when it comes to broadcast TV people flit form one channel to another seeking different perspectives. My argument is simple, if the media  consumers have changed their habits then perhaps there is something in the notion that media diversity laws from the last century should perhaps reflect those changes as well.

Cheers Comrades


One for Richard

I dedicate this vid to Richard Ryan, our resident Islamic fan boy who takes great delight at the prospect of the global caliphate.

Cheers Comrades


Waleed Aly and The Game of Drones

Like a lot of minions of the left Waleed Aly has a rather warped view of the morality of war and he is very clearly bemoaning the fact that in the age of the drone the Jihadists really have no where to hide. The sadly amusing part of his argument against drones is that that he whines about the prospect of non combatants being killed when Jihadists are taken out yet he does not say a single word about just why the strikes are both necessary and justified.  Like a lot of people who follow the religion of peace he seems incapable of enunciating any sort of criticism of the Jihadists and their “struggle” with modern secular society.  Without their ever present ideology of death to unbelievers and the establishment of a global caliphate not a single helfire missile would need to be fired from a drone.

Then in his conclusion Waleed gives us the “lack of honour ” argument about the use of drones:

click for source

click for source

Pardon me Waleed but your argument begs the question of the morality of the deliberate  targeting of civilians by the Jihadists that you are implicitly defending here.  They have killed many thousands of civilians in the name of your Prophet and your God  and yet you whine a bout the possibility of a “non combatant” being killed while in the company of a Jihadist? Call me mad if you like but when it comes to the relative virtue of each side in the war against the Jihadists the Americans come out orders of magnitude better. None the less war in all of its guises is a dirty and bloody business where nothing matters if you don’t win.  Its not a game where each side will  respect a set of rules invented by the arm chair moralists its always about that final move that will make your side prevail.

Waleed has obviously been reading too much King Arthur and not enough Game of Thrones if he thinks that you can defeat a dishonourable enemy like the Jihadists by treating war against them like a sporting competition. The currency of the Jihadists is that anything goes against the unbelievers and before the development of the killer drone the only way to destroy them required  many boots on foreign soil, now it doesn’t and I for one fully endorse the use of technology  that makes every big league Jihadist tremble with fear every time he steps out into the open, or drives from one spider hole to the next, The Jihadists started the “war on terror” so its only justice that now they should live in the terror of the unannounced death from above.

Cheers Comrades

sadly too true

Waleed needs to look at the Jihadists before he condemns the use of drones

Is it the love of beer that prevents Damian Doyle from converting to Islam?


Damian Doyle has always struck me as a strange individual, so sanctimonious and so judgemental of yours truly and so full of condescension for anyone who does not hold beliefs concurrent  with his own. He is an avid consumer of what I call “disaster porn” and if there is some natural disaster in the third world he is onto it like a flash tweeting about it or decrying the tardy response of the west to said disasters. Anyway  our Damian has written a rather wordy piece about the way that Islam is perceived in this country and in it he sneers at  any and all criticism of that faith.

During the question and answer session it became clear that many members of the audience were genuinely curious about Islam. Having heard so many terrible things about the religion – not just at the forum but elsewhere too – they wanted to understand its core teachings and central texts. One woman commented she had attempted to read the Qur’an but found it unintelligible and confusing. That’s a pretty normal response as it’s a very different book to, say, the New Testament. “So where can we learn more about Islam?”

The response at that forum, naturally enough under the circumstances, was not all that helpful. The conveners were unanimous in their advice, “There’s an excellent website called Jihad Watch, which is run by an organisation that we’re linked with. Its main author, Robert Spencer, has also written a lot of books that are essential reading”.

Of course, you don’t need to attend a meeting of the Q Society, a fringe group fighting the good fight against the ‘Islamisation of Australia’ and the implementation of sharia law in our school tuckshops, to meet people who see Islam as a baffling unknown. Through conversations in pubs and coffee shops, by reading letters in tabloid newspapers and on blogs, or by listening to commentary on television or radio, it’s easy to see that Islam is a poorly understood religion in Australia.


Notice the way that Doyle frames his barely concealed contempt for anyone who is critical of Islam? The reference to Tuck-shops is clearly an allusion   to the cruelty concerns of the issue of the conversion of institutional food sources to halal even when only a very tiny number of the consumers are Muslim. It seems to me that Doyle is suggesting that only very favourable discussion of Islam should ever be listened to and considered and that anything that is at all critical of Islam is haram.

  Please dear readers go to his piece and you will find a great example of quisling rhetoric in full flight, an essay that even tries to play down the significance of Female Genital Mutilation Note his choice of words to describe the practice:

A sad example of this is the issue of female genital cutting. The attendees at the Q Society forum would have been left with the impression that female genital cutting is an Islamic practice as an example of the religion’s repression and abuse of women. By contrast, the conference attendees heard an account of a pre-Islamic cultural practice being eliminated from a community as a result of a local imam’s leadership during the 1950s.


Yes Damian we have all heard  that line and although it may be true in the most pedantic sense for every Muslim society that abhors and rejects the practice there are many others who are at best indifferent to the vile practice..

It seems to me that for Damian   dreams about is an uncritical acceptance of Islam   and the practice of the faith, both here and elsewhere in the world, and a substantive deference to the sensitivities of those who follow that faith. Thus he wants no criticism of the hot heads who call for the beheading of  unbelievers   and he wants to see nothing but positive  PR for the faith within the Australian community.:

And so I’ve decided to start small. To think about the things I can influence, rather than those I can’t. People will decide for themselves what to believe about Islam and its role in society, both in Australia and globally. Some will continue to reach out to sources of information that, in my view, are toxic and uninformed. I need to remember that a simple thing I can do is to let them know there are other sources, that those sources can be trusted, and that obtaining information from a range of sources is the best way to become informed.


The trouble with this exercise in parsimony, as readers of this blog will know, is that Damian  considers any sort of criticism of Islam at all is an example of “bigotry” and I can’t help thinking that the only thing that is preventing Damian from going the whole hog to making the declaration ” There is no god but Allah and Mohamed is his prophet” must be  Mr Doyle’s love of beer.

Cheers Comrades


click to read Damian’s tweets

Pat nails all of the important questions about Osama Bin Laden

Cheers Comrades

Natural Justice and arrogant latte-sipping lawyers

It is of course understandable that those in the legal profession would think that justice actually requires the performance in their own  theatre, with appropriate posturing  from their own stars of that stage. They truly think that the courts and the legal profession have an absolute monopoly upon the dispensing of justice. Personally I think that the claim for justice being the exclusive business of lawyers and judges is  flawed. Firstly  I shall give you the  example of   Geoffrey Robertson who says this in the Age and was very quick of the mark at the ABC making essentially  the same argument:

I do not minimise the security problems of holding a trial or overlook the danger of it ending up as a squalid circus like that of Saddam Hussein. But the notion that any legal process would have been too hard must be rejected. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – also alleged to be an architect of September 11 – will go on trial shortly. Had bin Laden been captured he should have been in the dock alongside him, so that their shared responsibility could have been properly examined.

Bin Laden could not have been tried for the attacks on the twin towers at the International Criminal Court, since its jurisdiction only came into existence nine months later. But the United Nations Security Council could have set up an ad hoc tribunal in The Hague, with international judges (including Muslim jurists), to provide a fair trial and a reasoned verdict that would have convinced the Arab street of his guilt.

This would have been the best way of demystifying this man, debunking his cause and de-brainwashing his followers. In the dock he would have been reduced in stature – never more to be remembered as the tall, soulful figure on the mountain, but as a hateful and hate-filled old man. Since his videos exult in the killing of innocent civilians, any cross-examination would have emphasised his inhumanity. These benefits that flow from real justice have been forgone.

The obsessive belief of the US in capital punishment – alone among advanced nations – is reflected in its rejoicing at the manner of bin Laden’s demise. Barack Obama has most likely secured re-election by approving the execution. This may be welcome, given the alternatives of Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee (who have both urged that Julian Assange be hunted down in similar fashion) or Donald Trump. But it is a sad reflection on the continuing attraction of summary execution.

There seems to be a great deal of post facto suggestions that Bin laden should/could have been taken alive but this is absolutely unrealistic. So many of Bin Laden’s acolytes have been willing to detonate explosives when they faced capture that the police and military just do not give the the benefit of the doubt a head shot is the best way to ensure that a cornered Jihadist is the only one sent to meet their maker, it is only later when they have been neutralised can anyone be sure if they posed a real threat to those sent to capture or kill them. In that very short time between entering the room and firing the fatal shots with a full on adrenaline rush there would have been no scope for the arrest of Bin laden. firing the fatal shots would have been a split second decision and fully consistent with the reputation of the target and the expectations of those commandos that the target would not “come quietly”.  When one side does not acknowledge any limits to their behaviour (as the Jihadists have proven so many times by deliberately  killing innocents) and they think that dying for their cause buys them a place in paradise it is unreasonable to expect that they should be captured as a first preference rather than the safest option of them being killed
At its heart the notion of justice requires that someone who acts in an unacceptable manner receives a sanction that is an appropriate recompense for their crimes. What we consider to be a crime in the first place is essentially decided by social consensus and we rely upon the same sort  social consensus to decide if someone accused of a crime is guilty by the use of a jury. Thus it is that the courts and Lawyers like Robertson are really just the proxies for  the people. However there are times when we just do not need such proxies. The man was guilty and his death was just, the fact that there was no convoluted legal ritual preceding his well deserved demise is a blessing because we have been spared the same sort of  evil court room grandstanding  we saw when the Bali Bombers were tried and eventually executed. We all think that there is a justice of sorts evident when bad things happen to bad people. There is merit in this belief because we see that sort of happen-stance as a balancing of the books which is after all what we understand justice to be isn’t it?
The arrogance of the legal profession here is breath taking. Is there really any doubt that Bin Laden was guilty of the crimes that he boasted about to the world?  What sentence would Robertson deem appropriate given his oft stated objection to capital punishment? Anyway this raise the question what precisely is Justice and does it require the theatre that made Robertson a star?
So I’ argue that the killing of Bin laden is just, he got what he deserved, and that would have been the judgement of a reasonable court anyway so in terms of natural justice there is no problem here at all.
Cheers Comrades

The top contender

Those of us who are concerned about the issue of the endless stream of unauthorised arrivals of asylum seekers  illegal immigrants have long known that the most attractive carrot that draws them here is the easy route to getting permanent residency and the right to sponsor their family members once that get that desired migration outcome. I am not alone in being disgusted to discover that even those who have been convicted of the destruction of commonwealth property have thus far not been “bad enough” for the minister to refuse them a visa on “character grounds”.   The fact that the Labor government has finally decided to “Toughen up” and change the law so that any offence will be enough to refuse residency is a good start. But the obvious question that comes to mind is why the hell has it taken the partial  destruction of  not one but two detention centres for them to act?

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said that if the laws were passed they would come into force from today and cover any troublemakers convicted over acts of violence and riots at Broadmeadows, Villawood and Christmas Island.

As protests continued at four detention centres around the country yesterday, Mr Bowen said: “These changes send a clear message to anyone considering engaging in unacceptable behaviour in immigration detention that this will only increase their chances of not being granted a visa.

“The Government believes the powers under the Migration Act can be strengthened to create a more significant disincentive for this sort of destructive behaviour.

This will apply to all people in immigration detention: onshore and offshore arrivals, asylum seekers, or otherwise,” he said.

Under the Migration Act, Mr Bowen already has the power to refuse visas, but it is easy for him to do so only where a person has a substantial criminal record, or where someone has been sentenced to jail for a year or more.

The changes will mean that, if a convicted criminal faces persecution in their own country, they will most probably be granted only a provisional visa, which does not permit refugees to bring their families to Australia.

Once the threat in their home country is over, they can be sent back.

Along with the ridiculous reluctance to forcefully  deport those who have failed in their claim for asylum (they and their country of origin has to agree that they be deported 🙄  ) the lack of any meaningful sanction for unacceptable behaviour while their claims are being determined is the underlying cause of the unrest in the detention centres at present. Further I find the naivete of the protests from asylum seeker activists almost breathtaking. If ever there was an issue where a protest is beyond futile it is this one . They certainly will get a chorus of “right on ” from the Uber-left loopy Greens but Labor have no wriggle room to give even the tiniest part of a millimetre to their noisy demands lest they lose even more of their base vote. And the general public are just not prepared to believe the narrative that “asylum seekers” are the “worthy of our concern  victims of  oppression” narrative since both Christmas Island  and Villawood have burned.

So in true Labor party tradition what we can see here is an example of policy over reach followed by a  ridiculous denial of the negative consequences  of their changes and then finally a partial restoration of that which they changed.

Is it any wonder that the Gillard government is the top  contender for the “Worst Labor government of all time?

Cheers Comrades

The nature of the warming faith and the warning of another alarmist book to come…

With the amusing knowledge that one of my favourite Waminista journalist, the Ages’s Jo Chandler , has written a book about climate change (called Feeling the heat ) due out in May. I can’t help wondering just what qualifies her to write on this subject?

Nothing in her biography  suggests a scientific background, and her earlier suggestion that AGW was responsible for last year’s flood event in Pakistan utterly destroys her credibility  about any discussion of the climate further  as a self confessed Luddite* one has to wonder just what she could possibly bring to the debate on “climate change”.  You can be sure that it won’t be an objective mind or sound reasoning. Maybe there is still a quid in it.

My best guess is that it will be more of the leaps of faith that were so evident in her piece about the floods in Pakistan where she will look at every dramatic weather event and make some claim about just how it proves  “climate change” is real and all the fault of  Western industrial society. As the cute animation above suggests Climate alarmists will grab hold of any thing that fits the tenants of their faith and just ignore any “inconvenient truths” that contradict their climate liturgy just as Chandler has in relation to floods in Pakistan.

Anyway I’ll keep my eyes pealed for the release of the  book which will undoubtedly take a rather short time to be remaindered and then relegated to the “humorous pseudo-science” category right alongside such credible greats like Erich von Däniken None the less it  may be good for a laugh because I’m rather sure that it will be very far from useful to understanding  any of the scientific issues at hand if her previous sycophantic writings on the subject are anything to go by.

Cheers Comrades

*She confessed to being a Luddite in an email to yours truly
Hat tip to Andrew Bolt for the vid BTW
%d bloggers like this: