Hanson’s first speech: ban Muslim immigration, mosques, burkas

The Greens demonstrated that they do not wish to hear any voice or opinion but their own. They do not believe in democracy and take every chance to attack it. 


-walking out of Parliament when alternative opinion is giving their views.

– calling for the cancellation of a people’s vote on homo ‘marriage’ so they can decide, because the people’s view might be counter to their agenda. You could cancel general elections using this excuse, I mean why ask the people anything if they are so unworthy?

All dangerous stuff and does not bode well for the future of a democratic Australia.

Andrew Bolt

Pauline Hanson in her first Senate speech has blown up politics as usual and made Malcolm Turnbull seem even weaker. She has called for a ban on Muslim immigration, new mosques, the burqa and halal certification payments.

She says Islam and its “hyper-masculine culture” is incompatible with our society, and claims Muslims “bear a culture and ideology which is incompatible with our own”.

Too many Australians are afraid to work alone at night. They are afraid of terrorism.

She notes high rates of imprisonment and welfare in Muslim communities. She claims that if we do not resist Islam we will live under sharia law, since Islam demands Muslims live in a theocracy.

The Greens have walked out in protest. So did Labor’s Pat Dodson and Nick Xenophon’s Senators.

Many Liberals are sitting glued to their seats.

When Hanson gave her maiden speech in the House of Representatives 20 years and four days ago, Liberals boycotted it. This time they do not dare. Hanson is too powerful, with her four Senate votes and huge popularity – not to mention her scars.

Turnbull’s nightmare has a new chapter. How can he repudiate what she says, other than to say it is not wise to say what in many respects is either the truth or the sentiment of so many Australians, most of them too scared until now to say so?

Where she is vulnerable is in not distinguishing between Islam’s teaching and the actual conduct of many “moderate” Muslims. Yet there is a truth that her critics will refuse again to even acknowledge, let alone debate.

That’s where Hanson is absolutely spot on. We have no way of sorting the ‘moderates’ from the true believers.

Hanson will be the guest of Steve’s and my radio show at 8pm.


Many Liberal Senators, and Labor, too, congratulate Hanson afterwards.

Again, we are being told that  Muslims make only 2.2% of the population, (“tiny minority of excremists” anyone?) This is entirely wrong and foolish. Muslims are well connected to the worlds 1.5 billion umma, 56 nations in the UN dominate the agenda under the flag of the OIC, their lobby power is enormous. And everywhere where Muslims are in the majority, the life of infidels has become very dangerous, very miserable and costly. There is no reason at all why we should have more of this in Australia.

The most absurd statement comes from the Greens, who never seem to get past sloganeering:

Richard Di Natale Retweeted BuzzFeedOz Politics

We’ve got an obligation to call out hate speech, to call out racism, to call out bigotry whenever we see it.

9 thoughts on “Hanson’s first speech: ban Muslim immigration, mosques, burkas”

  1. If Richard Di Natale can make such a statement then is it ok for us to call him out for being stupid, mindless, moronic, political correct bonehead?

    1. One could send him the links for, oh, about a dozen utterly-typical mohammedan sermons as translated by MEMRI. Or send him the original youtube links to such sermons. I’m sure they’re a dime a dozen. Maybe 1000 links to hair-raising ‘sermons’ full of hate speech, racism, bigotry, and frenzied incitement to all manner of atrocities – ‘sermons’ in which the ‘preacher’ hops up and down and shrieks and froths at the mouth and even waves weapons around – a knife, a sword – with the note that there is plenty, plenty more where that came from, all tumbling into his inbox at once, might crack even his carapace of denial.

  2. The Greens have walked out in protest.
    So did Labor’s Pat Dodson and Nick Xenophon’s Senators.
    Many Liberals are sitting glued to their seats. … inadequate majority numbers w/o Pauline ”

    Splendid … “These” Senators have exposed themselves as islam Appeasers … we (non-islams) NEED TO KNOW who they are !

    islam appeasers are to be INCARCERATED for Treason !!!

  3. DiNatale Greens:

    = A congaline of suck holes (Keating)
    = Non representative swill (Keating)

    collective noun for a congaline of Di Natale Greens:

    “A vomit of Greens”

    1. His Greek forebears, who endured the misery of dhimmitude for centuries before rising up and fighting like tigers to throw it off and kick out the Muslim invaders who had ruled, and ruined, their country, would be *furious* with him for his wilful ignorance of history and his cowardly grovelling to and appeasement of Muslims, the same Muslims who oppressed and abused, raped and robbed and tortured his Greek ancestors and mass-murdered thousands upon thousands. He is dishonouring all those Greek Christians who *fought* for their spiritual and political freedom, *fought* to liberate their homeland from Muslim imperialists and occupiers.

  4. It might be a good idea to send Ms Hanson – and Ms Lambie, too – and also George Christensen – copies of the Barnabas Fund’s excellent, informative, well-referenced booklet “What is Sharia?” Because in the course of its five pages of clear, simply-written background-briefing – stating, plainly and in a non-polemical style, what the sharia is – it includes a series of points explaining the five main areas where sharia contradicts human rights (hudud punishments, treatment of Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims, the treatment of Muslim heretics and apostates, the ‘holy war’ or jihad – “Sharia lays down jihad as one of the most basic religious duties, clearly indicating … that jihad is understood as physical warfare”, and the status of women).

    It would be interesting to see the reaction if one of our few Islamocritical politicians, in the lower house or the upper house, were to give a speech in the course of which they simply read out aloud, in measured tones, several of the most telling paragraphs from that booklet… and mentioned its bibliography, which includes Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s “The Lawful and the Prohibited”, one of *the* most commonly used, widespread, and authoritative discussions of the sharia among Sunni Muslims today.

    I would also suggest sending all our Islamocritical pollies and journalists copies of Irish intellectual Conor Cruise O’Brien’s brilliant article, “The Lesson of Algeria: Islam is Indivisible” which appeared in the 1990s, and contains *this* – “Fundamentalist Islam’ is a misnomer which dulls our perception in a dangerous way. It does so by implying that there is some other kind of Islam, which is well disposed to those who reject the Koran. There isn’t.”. and then, further on in the article, this: “The Prophet Mohamed did not offer his followers a chance to live in harmony with their neighbours. He taught them to fight their neighbours, if they were unbelievers, and kill them, or beat them into submission. And it is futile to say of those Muslims who faithfully follow those teachings today, that their actions are not ‘intrinsically related to Islam’. We are facing an Islamic revival..”.

    Another great resource is the lapidary essay on Jihad by Jacques Ellul, written as foreword – in 1994 – for Bat Yeor’s “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam”. Ellul – whom people can hardly dismiss as a ‘right-wing extremist’ or ‘fascist’ or anything else of the kind, given his credentials as a member of the French resistance during WWII and as author of many books – notably “Propaganda” and “The Technological Society” – that are generally beloved by the ‘left-ish’ side of the intelligentsia – says flatly, in that very brief but tightly-argued foreword, that Islam is “fundamentally warlike”. He was wearing his sociologist’s hat at the time. If a man who spent his career studying law and sociology and history says, at the very end of his long and distinguished life, that Islam is “fundamentally warlike” then that should surely carry some weight.

    Those who *are* stepping up to the plate need resourcing. They need simple, clear and solidly factual material that will allow them to keep hammering on a few basic points that just cannot be ignored or denied forever.

    Personally, I’d advise them to use two phrases – “playing Muslim roulette”and “Got Muslims? Got Jihad” – and repeat and repeat and repeat at every opportunity.

    The line about ‘playing Muslim roulette’ is intended to sum up the unsettling fact that we just can’t tell who is and who isn’t dangerous, amongst the general ruck of the Ummah, and also the fact that a Muslim who initially is or seems non-dangerous – like the Muslim who murdered the backpackers at Home Hill; *prior* to that attack he was considered a friend by his male victim, and had been dubbed ‘Smiley’ by the other backpackers because he was, well, friendly and smiling…- can suddenly ‘flip’ and Go Jihad, with deadly results.

    I am *tired* of playing Muslim roulette. “Will they or won’t they? Will she or won’t she? Will he or won’t he?” all that is certain is that *some* WILL. Probability and statistics. And the high stakes involved – Orlando, Nice, Bataclan, Mumbai, Westgate Nairobi, Beslan – are such that another aphorism “Better safe than sorry” or, the precautionary principle, is way overdue to be applied.

    NO immigrants – or ‘refugees’ – or ‘students’ – or ‘tourists’ – or ‘businesspeople’ – from OIC countries. Only exception? – persons who, by legit organisations such as Barnabas Fund, can be vouched for as bona fide members of the atrociously-persecuted, threatened-with-genocide non-Islamic minorities eking out a wretched existence in those countries. Copts from Egypt; Christians from Syria and Iraq and the Yazidis and Mandaeans; yes, if their identity as such is verifiable (and it can be, quite readily, by groups such as Barnabas who have a long baseline of involvement with these suffering communities and know who is who, and by their emigre kin already in the West, who are *not* going to knowingly import a Muslim!). But Muslims? no, no, no and again NO. The ones we’ve got already are proving an expensive and insupportable homeland-security headache.

    We have Muslims in Australia. We have Jihad: ritual murder of infidels at Home Hill, attempted murder of a dog-walking infidel at Minto, hostage-taking and cold-blooded murder [of Tori Johnson] at the Lindt Cafe, murder of Curtis Cheng, attempted murder of two cops, and a slew of jihad plots that didn’t kill lots of people *only* because our law enforcement managed to nip them in the bud. Right now, I guarantee there are going to be more attacks, and more plots. And the cost of trying to ‘monitor’ all of those on the ‘radar screen’ already must be astronomical; a horrible drain on man-hours and money that, in the absence of Muslims, could be deployed elsewhere.

Comments are closed.