Jacqueline Maley shoots herself in the foot, again…

How anti-Muslim prejudice gets dressed up as feminism

The AGE

“… the fear of causing offence is the glue that holds civil society together.”

Jacqueline Maley is the twat that came to a Q-Society fundraiser to derail the whole purpose of the exercise. Her intention was to smear the Q-Society as a bunch of racist-bigot-Islamophobes and she nearly succeeded.  How? Because of a careless quip by Larry Pickering, a cartoonist who is on the kill list of Mohammedan assassins. He happens to dislike homosexuals because, as a young lad,  he was bashed and gang-raped by 14 of them.

Now here’s a gem from Jacqueline that would make every SJW jump for joy:

“… the fear of causing offence is the glue that holds civil society together.”

Right. We need to fear the speech police otherwise we won’t be civil. Thank you, Jacqueline. You are a beacon of light in a desert of ignorance.

She also accuses us of hiding our  “naked prejudice behind some sort of veil – and the veil of choice has become concern for the rights of women. So runs the line of much anti-Muslim sentiment in this country and abroad”.

Really.

Islam is a medieval religion that oppresses women, provides cover for forced marriages and honour killings, treats female flesh as shameful and allows Muslim men to treat their women as personal property.

But none of us can say so out loud in our so-called pluralistic society because political correctness has made people too scared to offend.

So runs the line of much anti-Muslim sentiment in this country and abroad, among people who are just smart enough to hide their naked prejudice behind some sort of veil – and the veil of choice has become concern for the rights of women.

The “fear of causing offence” has become, we are told, a powerful gag that impedes our freedom of speech and stops people from telling the truth about Islam.

6 thoughts on “Jacqueline Maley shoots herself in the foot, again…”

  1. Those things were hard to square off with the notion that Islam is a religion that treats women equally… So we will just ignore all that since it conflicts with my liberal ‘we are all equal’ religion.

  2. It’s tool late for me. Islam and everything about offends me greatly. You won’t get me to accept a religion that boasts a murdering paedophile as its founder under any circumstances. Now if Islam repudiates Mohammed then I will have no grounds for offence. Yeah, and the moon really is green cheese. Would we accept people who promoted Adolf Hitler as the ideal man? I don’t think so. Mohammed is worse than Hitler.

  3. Jacqueline Maley’s article quotes comments by Wajiha Ahmed.

    “Wajiha Ahmed is a Pakistani-born, Sydney-based lawyer and a non-practising Muslim……..”.

    A non-practicing Muslim is an apostate. Apostasy in Islam is commonly defined as the conscious abandonment of Islam by a Muslim in word or through deed. (Wikipedia)

    Is a non practicing Muslim a Muslim? A true Muslim is one who not only believes in Islam but actually practices it.

    The term Islam means submission to the will of Allah and obedience to His law. Wajiha Ahmed, by being non-practicing is being non-submissive to Allah’s will and also disobedient to Allah’s law. Ergo, Wajiha Ahmed is not a true Muslim.

    Quoting from part-time, faux Muslims is weak reporting from Jacqueline Maley.

    1. In the west, behind enemy lines, she enjoys the luxury of being a “non practising” Muslim. She is still a Muslim. She is practicing taqiyya, obfuscation and is engaged in disseminating Islamoprop.

      If she protects Islam, she is practicing Islam.

  4. Re: “From here:

    http://sheikyermami.com/2016/08/this-is-so-sinister/

    “Offence is always taken, not given. So if you don’t want to be offended, its up to you, don’t be offended, that’s it…”

    “You can call me short, you can me fat, you can call me a Queenslander, you can call me a cane toad,” he said. “Whatever you want to call me, the only person who decides whether I’m upset is me.”

    INDEED! We are never responsible for other people’s hurt subjective feelings.

    If someone tells slanderous lies about one, then sure one can feel offended, but it’s not a requirement for justice – one can just as easily “feel:”

    “I don’t care about what was said, considering the moron who said it. My feelings aren’t hurt, but I am still entitled to legal remedy for their criminal fraud!”

    The stance that “fear of causing offense” is a good thing, reverses the onus of proof to guilty until never proven innocent:

    “Prove you DIDN’T hurt my feelings, or go to JAIL, haters!”

    Only criminal LIARS endorse Submitting to the lies of other criminals, too!

    “We must all GO ALONG (with criminal lies) TO GET ALONG (with all the other lying criminals)! Whee!”

    Someone should probably inform Jacqueline Maley that endorsing extortion slander and fraud is probably a crime.

    😉

Comments are closed.