Australia: Multiculti & Diversity Means Islamic Supremacy

Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced her new Multicultural Council.  New council members said they had been told not to speak to the media.

Squeaky wheel gets greased   (Andrew Bolt)

Miranda Devine on being not quite so multicultural:

WITH little fanfare last week Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced her new Multicultural Council. But a curious feature of an advisory body that is supposed to be a “socially inclusive” representation of multi-ethnic Australia was the fact that at least five of its 10 members are Muslims, and not one member has a Chinese or Indian background.

This glaring oversight is despite the fact that China was Australia’s largest source of migrants in 2010-11, comprising 17.5 percent of the total intake. And Indians made up 12.9 percent of migrants. There are no representatives from the indigenous community, either.

The 10 members of the council are: Rauf Soulio (chairman), a South Australian judge active in the Albanian community; Gail Ker, a board member of the Ethnic Communities Council in Queensland; Dr Hass Dellal, Executive director of the Australian Multicultural Foundation; Samina Yasmeen, Director of the Centre for Muslim States and Societies and Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Australia; Talal Yassine, a lawyer and director of the Whitlam Institute; Yassmin Abdel-Magied, a mechanical engineering student at the University of Queensland; Dr Tanveer Ahmed, a psychiatrist, author and newspaper columnist; Dr Tim Soutphommasane, a research fellow at Monash University’s National Centre for Australian Studies, Peter Wertheim, executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, and Carmel Guerra, chief executive officer of the Centre for Multicultural Youth.

New council members said they had been told not to speak to the media. But others in the multicultural community expressed surprise at the heavy Islamic presence, while pointing out the Muslim members could not be said to be monocultural, being drawn from such diverse ethnic backgrounds as Lebanese, Sudanese, Bangladeshi and Turkish.

What an absurd statement “Muslim members could not be said to be monocultural”— Islam is Islam, and that’s it.

7 thoughts on “Australia: Multiculti & Diversity Means Islamic Supremacy”

  1. Equally concerning is that an ex-officio member is Race Discrimination Commissioner Helen Szoke. This knuckle brain was head of the Victorian EE Commision, the body which pursued the two Danny’s through the courts for hate speech after a complaint which her organisation, or rather a Muslim employee there, engineered.

  2. agreed Bronson. People need to make sure that gizzard understands she will loose her p0litical career if she keeps this rubbish up.

  3. This makes me furious and scared. What is wrong with our leaders that they force us to submit to islam, either they are ignorant of the reality of islam or they are so arrogant they believe that what is happening in England & Europe & America & Canada wont happen in Australia or they are traitors happily giving Australia to the caliphate. I despair for the future of Australia but I am also working hard to get the message out to as many people as I can and I am finding that most people have a problem with the islamisation of Australia but are too scared of being accused of racism or bigotry. Australians must begin to believe that it is our right to demand answers from a cult which is already forcing our culture to make allowances for them.

  4. Now don’t jump the gun — if you only look a little closer you find serious diversity on this board: One’s a shiite, one’s a sunni, another is a sufi and then we have a salafi — and if you look hard enough you see even the shaheed.

    Nu? Does it get any more diverse in Julia’s three ring multicult circus? The old headbanger-in-chief in Riad will be proud and nobody in the OIC can call lil’ Kev an islamophobe any longer.

  5. Heard something very briefly on radio this morning but didn’t catch it all. What is happening with Andrew Bolt?

  6. Tanveer Ahmed: Islam must face its uncomfortable truths


    From: The Australian

    THE latest attack in Britain shows how the Islamist threat is being driven by something much grander than mere foreign policy or feelings of grievance. The perpetrators believe they are soldiers in the perceived historical battle between good and evil.

    The methods of attack are becoming more brazen, amateurish and desperate, illustrated most profoundly by the burning terrorist at Glasgow airport shouting “Allah” while struggling with a policeman, but the ideological roots are unchanged.

    As a commentator on Muslim affairs and home-grown terrorism, I am often asked whether there is something in Islam itself that is contributing to terrorist acts. As someone who is not a theological expert, I shy away from strong pronouncements on the issue, preferring to discuss the sociological roots of alienation and the modern symbol of protest that Islam has become.

    But the question is impossible to avoid and I believe that theology is central and not peripheral to the problem. It is grounded in history, but the sparks have been generated by the information age.

    While the images of poverty and war in countries such as Sudan, Palestine or Iraq combined with the relative disadvantage of some Muslim communities in countries such as France or Britain may contribute to radicalisation, the foundation for their acts lies very much in the set of ideas called Islam. I have lost count of the number of occasions disgruntled Muslims have responded to my writings with comments like “Islam is peace” or “You are not a Muslim any more”.

    Truth be told, I was never a practising Muslim, despite growing up in a Bangladeshi community where religiosity was the norm.

    This had more to do with being raised in a secular household and society than any great misgivings about Islam. In fact, I often watched friends who were able to practise a spiritual version of the religion with envy, wishing that I could subscribe to a greater purpose than myself.

    But with hindsight, I can see that what we now call extremism was virtually the norm in the community I grew up in. It was completely normal to view Jews as evil and responsible for the ills of the world. It was normal to see the liberal society around us as morally corrupt, its stains to be avoided at all costs. It was normal to see white girls as cheap and easy and to see the ideal of femininity as its antithesis. These views have been pushed to more private, personal spheres amid the present scrutiny of Muslim communities.

    But they remain widespread, as research in Britain showed earlier this year: up to 50 per cent of British Muslims aged between 15 and 29 want to see sharia law taken up in Britain. This needs to be seen in the light of American data collated by the Pew Research Centre that showed close to 80 per cent of American Muslims believed they could move up the social ladder in the US and had no interest in Islamic laws on a public level. Like most things Australian, it is likely we sit somewhere between our British and American cousins.

    But the threat is very real. It was reported yesterday that up to 3000 young Muslims are at risk of becoming radicalised in Sydney alone, according to research by a member of the now-disbanded Muslim Community Reference Group, Mustapha Kara-Ali. But when these views morph into the violent political act that is terrorism, it is very much based in theology.

    At its core, Islam is deeply sceptical of the idea of a secular state. There is no rendering unto Caesar because state and religion are believed to be inseparable. This idea then interacts with centuries-old edicts of Islamic jurists about how the land of Islam should interact with the world of unbelievers, known as dar ul-kufr. The modern radicals then take it further, declaring that since, with the exception perhaps of Pakistan and Iran, there are no Islamic states, the whole world is effectively the land of the unbelievers. As a result, some radicals believe waging war on the whole world is justified to re-create it as an Islamic state.

    They go as far as reclassifying the globe as dar ul-harb, “land of war”, apparently allowing Muslims to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In dar ul-harb, anything goes, including the killing of civilians.

    While it may appear absurd to most, this nihilistic but exclusivist world view is clearly attracting significant numbers of young Muslims. British police have suggested the latest attacks and foiled plots may have involved teenagers. But the obvious absurdity of the set of ideas is still grounded in Islam, which, regardless of how theological experts argue, can be interpreted in many ways.

    Muslim communities must openly argue precisely what it is they fear and loathe about the West. Much of it centres on sexuality. This is the first step in rooting out any Muslim ambivalence about living in the West. But thereafter, the argument must proceed rapidly to Islamic theology and all its uncomfortable truths – from its repeated glowing references to violence, its obsession with and revulsion at sex and its historical antipathy to the very possibility that reason can exist as separate from God.

    Tanveer Ahmed is a Sydney-based psychiatry registrar and writer.

Comments are closed.