Stolen land? Tell that to the Berbers


“Dr” Mehreen Faruqi was inflicted on us by the treacherous Watermelons. Faruqi, a Paki Moslem tard loaded with more mental baggage than the worst Islamic supremacist, promptly attacked every red blooded Aussie in her maiden speech. Among a host of grievances, she  claimed “opposition to Islam is racism”.

Please explain to Senator Mehreen Faruqi what constitutes a race.

She and her son, Osman Faruqi, are vicious racists with inferior complexes bigger than parliament house.

Sherry Sufi The Spectator Australia 15 September 2018

Last month, Greens Senator Dr Mehreen Faruqi spoke some of the most misguided and divisive words heard in parliament in recent times. She said: ‘We are subject to rules that white people never are’ and claimed that a ‘culture of online harassment, bullying and toxicity now targets everyone who is not a straight white man’.

As Carl Sagan put it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Following his inaugural speech only days before hers, Senator Fraser Anning copped disproportionate amounts of flak from the media and from Liberal and Labor MPs with lengthy condemnation speeches in both houses of parliament followed by censure motions.

Being a ‘straight white man’ clearly didn’t help him. If anything, it worked against him. By contrast, Dr Faruqi, a self-proclaimed ‘brown, Muslim, migrant’ has copped nothing of the sort for her own divisive words. And that, of itself, is the proof that her portrayal of ‘white privilege’ is dubious at best.

Her speech begins with: ‘We are gathered here today on stolen land’. Wrong. Australia was lawfully conquered and settled by the British Empire in accordance with the international norms of the old world order. That was a ‘might makes right’ world. Whoever could raise an army and conquer land did so. Muslim Arabs and Turks have had their fair share of conquests, as have Christian Europeans. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 sowed the seeds for the modern concept of territorial sovereignty within demarcated borders. Though it wasn’t until 1928 under the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy that territorial acquisition by force was first attempted to be outlawed through consensus among international signatories.

Otherwise known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact (after its authors US Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand), this 1928 pact of course didn’t succeed in immediately putting an end to all war. In fact, World War II, the most destructive of all conflicts still managed to occur only a decade later. Yet the importance of the pact came in its aftermath.

Shortly after the emergence of the United Nations, its Charter went on to guaranteeing ‘territorial integrity’ to member states. In the process, any territory acquired before the 1928 pact was deemed lawfully conquered under a ‘right of conquest’. Borders essentially became frozen in place and future conquests were made unlawful.

This prohibition was not applied retroactively. Doing so would have thrown the entire world into turmoil since virtually every piece of land has, at some point, been conquered by outside forces – or to use Dr Faruqi’s rhetoric, ‘stolen’.

Since Australia was settled in 1788 – a century and four decades prior to the cut-off point for lawful conquests in 1928 – its territorial legitimacy has never been in doubt. Hence, there are no legal or historical grounds to think of Australia’s founding as land ‘theft’.

As someone who identifies as a Muslim, Dr Faruqi should know of Islamic civilisation’s own territorial conquests far beyond the outskirts of Mecca in the 7th century stretching all the way to Spain in the west and China in the east.

Does she believe the Arabic-speaking Islamic countries that today stretch across North Africa, having conquered and replaced the indigenous Egyptian, Carthaginian, Berber and Nubian civilisations are all ‘stolen lands’? Does she believe that Iran, once home to an indigenous Avestan-speaking Zoroastrian culture, is ‘stolen land’?

There was once an indigenous Hindu civilisation in Dr Faruqi’s own country of origin, Pakistan. Islam was first introduced in the region by Umayyad conqueror Muhammad Bin Qasim in 711. Does she believe that Pakistan is built on ‘stolen land’? One wonders, was Dr Faruqi not aware of Australia’s colonial history prior to her arrival? If so, why bother choosing to migrate to a country whose historical foundations fill you with such moral dread?

It is hypocritical to refer to something as ‘stolen’ while continuing to benefit from its use. It is literally the equivalent of driving around in a stolen Rolls Royce while simultaneously complaining that it is stolen. Since she has a problem with British colonialism, it defies logic why she would leave her country of origin, that was freed from British rule in 1947, to then end up in Australia which still carries the Union Jack on its flag and has Queen Elizabeth II as its Head of State.

Worse yet, she goes on to declare: ‘I bring to this chamber my track record on shaking things up and shifting the agenda on issues as diverse as decriminalising abortion, drug law reform, LGBTQI rights, the right to die with dignity and protecting our environment.’

With the exception of protecting the environment, literally everything else on her list is at complete odds with Islam. There isn’t one credible scholar of mainstream Islamic jurisprudence from any one of the four Sunni (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali) and three Shi’ite (Ithna Ashari, Isma’ili and Zaidi) schools of thought that has ruled in favour of abortion, drugs, same-sex marriage, gender fluidity and euthanasia.

What Dr Faruqi seems to be following isn’t exactly ‘Islam’. It’s her own ideological fusion tinged with cultural Marxism, third-wave feminism and post-colonialism which she thinks is Islam when she boasts in her speech of being ‘unapologetically… a brown, Muslim, migrant’. This alliance between secular Muslim activists and the far-Left isn’t one based on strict theological, jurisprudential or moral consistency. They’re not united by common values so much as they’re united against a common enemy; that is, Anglo-Celtic, Judeo-Christian Western civilisation.

As long as secular Muslim activists are provided a platform by the far-Left to fight imaginary ‘racism’, ‘white privilege’ and ‘colonialism’, they will continue to appropriate the values of the far-Left into their political goals without shame even if that means deviating from established Islamic jurisprudence.

The radicals are easy enough to identify. It’s their secular counterparts that are often more dangerous in the long run, because they’re the ones who end up being elected to parliament and then use the institution as a vehicle to advance their goals. By her own admission, Dr Faruqi’s speech was precisely that.

Image may contain: sky, cloud, twilight and outdoor

Pauline Hanson is a fraud:

3 thoughts on “Stolen land? Tell that to the Berbers”

  1. You paid WHAT for THAT …
    (any you think you own your multi-million dollar mansion) …

    Sunday, January 10, 2010
    An Overview of the Brigalow Corp Takeover of Australia
    The Queensland Constitution 2001 / The Brigalow Corporation /
    The Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD & all other states of Australia.


    1. Queensland Constitution 1867 was reframed with 114 Changes, 131 Additions and 116 Deletions.
    2. January 1998, QLD National Party documented a move to place the QLD Governor in the Government as a Parliamentary Secretary under the QLD Constitution 1867 / Constitution (Parliamentary Secretaries) Act ©The State of QLD 1996.
    3. This became official January 29 1999, the same day the QLD Constitution 1867 was reprinted.
    4. Thus the Governor was no longer a sworn representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, but a Public Servant of the QLD Government.
    5. He was still using the Public Seal of the State on behalf of the Premier and Parliament of QLD and maintained the appearance of the Governor to the Sovereign People of the State.


    1. In 1973, Gough Whitlam brought in the Queen of Australia through the adoption of the Royal & Parliamentary Titles Act 1927
    2. This removed Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Assigns as enshrined in the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act (UK) 1900 and replaced the Crown with the Queen of Australia.
    3. On the 19 December 1973, the Whitlam Government also removed the Great Seal of Britain from use and replaced it with the Great Seal of Australia.
    4. In 1986, Bob Hawke brought in the Australia Act.
    5. This is the Constitution of the new Parliament of Australia.
    6. This is not the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900 of the People.
    7. This act removed the ability of the UK Parliament to make laws for Australia, making Britain a foreign country. This was defined by the High Court in the case Sue v Hill 1999.


    1. During the early 1990’s all important and relevant Acts were changed and framed, but were adjourned without a definite date of reprinting.
    2. On 3 December 2001, the Queensland Constitution 2001 came into being.
    3. On this day, this ACT became the “Fundamental Law of QLD”.
    4. 7 June 2002, all the framed Acts were reprinted and became law.
    5. QLD then became, at the completion of these matters, without the assent of any of the laws by the Crown or Her Representative, an independent sovereign State and fractured the common law and the separation of powers in that state.
    6. 15 July 2002, The Corporations (Q) Act 1990 (Q) Reprint No 3 created in QLD a Corporate Government.
    The State of Queensland Australia is registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commissions under No. 0001244818.
    7. The Queensland Treasury Corp is registered under No. 0000852555.
    8. The old crowns lands act (Qld) was converted to the Land Act 1994 (Qld), and at section 4(1) the Land Administration Commission was renamed Brigalow Corporation.
    9. The Land Act 1994 – Reprint No 10c, Part 7A, Section 506C states that the Corporation (Brigalow Corp) represents the Crown.
    10. Culminating in the Beattie Govt introduction of the QLD Constitution 2001, QLD government administrations had reworked backward every piece of Federal and state legislation, removing any connection to and mention of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, British law and the Royal Seal of England.
    11. These acts were then reworked forward, replacing the removed elements with the Queen of Australia (as created by the Whitlam Govt in 1973) and the Great Seal of both Australia and QLD.
    12. This means that the legislation contained in those acts are now “governed” by the government of those Seals, not the government of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900.
    13. The Australia Waste Lands Act 1855 was reprinted in 1996 under the Seal of QLD, and because the Queen of Australia was also now sealed with the Seal of QLD, this effectively created a QLD “ownership” of all Crown land in Australia.
    14. And as the introduction of the Corporations (Q) Act 1900 (Q) Reprint No 3 had created a Corporate Govt, this effectively meant all Crown land “ownership” was now under the control of the Qld Corporation, known as the Brigalow Corp.
    15. All Crown land, assets and infrastructure in Australia including schools, hospitals, roads, etc are subject to and responsible to the Ministers of the State of QLD as cited at Chapter III of the QLD Constitution 2001.
    16. All Sovereign People are now persons under the Corporation, All persons are chattel ( a piece of property that is moveable).
    17. Their land, bank accounts and all items of ownership are now assets under the Brigalow Corporation.
    18. The Supreme Court, the District Courts and the Magistrate’s Courts are now inside the Parliament of the State of QLD, and as such must obey the QLD Constitution 2001.
    19. The Australian Constitution, the Common Law & Equity, the High Court and the Federal Government no longer have any superior governance over the State of QLD.
    20. The State of QLD and the Sovereign People of QLD have only Civil and Statute Law in this state.
    21. As private ownership can not exist under Civil and Statute Law, all private equity and inheritance in the State is now the property of “the State”.


    1. Under the civil law system, which is now subject to the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules of the Supreme Court Act 1991(Qld), every person is guilty until they prove their innocence.
    2. The Common Law has been repealed from the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Q), Reprint No. 2, reprinted as in force 2 March 2001 © State of Q 2001
    3. This states that the Governor in Council may make rules of court under this act for the Supreme Court, District court, Magistrates Court, registries and other matters mentioned in Schedule 1
    4. Schedule 1 has jurisdiction over the civil, criminal and appellate courts, Parties & Proceedings, Defence, Service of Documents, Pleadings, Disclosure, Preservation of Rights & Property, Ending Proceedings Early, Court Supervision, Evidence, Jurisdiction of Judicial Registrars, Trails & Other Hearings, Particular Proceedings, probate, Contempt of Court, Vexatious Proceedings, Trusts, Costs, Appeals etc, Money Orders Enforcement, Foreign Judgment Enforcements, Corporations, Miscellaneous.
    5. Therefore the Governor in Council now makes all the Rules of the Court for these matters.
    6. The Queensland Constitution 2001 Chapters 1 & 2 refer to the Legislative Assembly and the Governor. In Chapter 3, Part 1, sect 27 – “The Governor in Council is the Governor acting with the advice of Executive Council.”
    7. Sect 30 – “The Constitution Act 1867 contains provisions about the office of Governor. At Chapter 3, Part 4, sect 48, those “appointed as members…by the Governor…..”
    8. This Executive council is given separate law makings Powers of the State at Chapter 3, Part 5, Sect 51, where is states, the Executive Government of the State of QLD (the “State) = The State may exercise its powers……
    9. In Chapter 3, Part 5, Sect 55 (1) – “A minister may delegate a power of the State to an appropriately qualified officer of the State.” (“officer of the state” means – a chief executive………………….)
    10. Therefore the Premier of QLD must always be the leader of the Executive Body and is now the Executive Leader of the Parliament of QLD.
    11. Simply put – the Premier is delegated the power through his role as Chief Executive. This power controls the Executive Government of QLD. The Governor acts on the advice of the Executive Government.
    12. Therefore the Premier is now the “Crown” in Queensland.


    1. All government tiers, including Local Council are now inside the Parliament of the State of QLD.
    2. The public officials are not public officials of “the Crown” but public officials of “the State” of QLD


    1. The British colonies in Australia were all independent, under military law.
    2. In 1885, the independent states had interstate agreements for trade, etc under the Federal Councils of Australasia Act 1855.
    3. As free settlers began to grow, the People decided to unite under 1 form of government.
    4. 10 years of conventions and referendums culminated in the Draft Constitution of the People which went to England for ratification.
    5. On July 9 1900, Queen Victoria signed the amended draft Constitution and returned it to Australia.
    6. At this point a final referendum was required to acquire the agreement of the people to this amended Constitution.
    7. This was not done, the heads of each independent colony instead agreed FOR AND ON BEHALF of the People.
    8. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was the result, brought into Australian law on 1 January 1901.
    9. The first 8 clauses are British law.
    10. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution starts at clause 9.
    11. The Constitution lays out the rules and regulations under which Parliament may administer government to the People.
    12. There are no entities known as a Prime Minister or a Premier to be found in the Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK).
    13. As the Preamble states, the People agreed to be united under one indissoluble Commonwealth.
    14. Therefore the people are the Commonwealth.
    15. The Commonwealth is defined in the Constitution as a State.
    16. Therefore the People of the Commonwealth are their “own” state.
    17. Section 117 states, verbatim, that the People governed by the Queen (of the Constitution), and members of a state (of the Commonwealth), cannot have their rights removed by another state (that perhaps being the state they physically live in), WITHOUT
    18. Section 128 – A REFERENDUM
    19. There has been no Referendum of the Sovereign People to approve any of these moves. This means they are Ultra vires, an act beyond the powers or authority of the government.

    It appears that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900, ratified on 1 January 1901 is an act of the heads of the independent colonies of the Australian dominion, which means that the Constitution of the People is still a draft document.

    As the people had formally agreed to this document, all state and federal government in Australia are in fact, a foreign entity to the rights of the people of the Commonwealth.

    As our land ownership is a Deed in Trust and Equity with the Queen of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution (UK) 1900, a foreign government has no lawful right to step inside that Deed and remove rights inherent in it.

    In order to do so, government have created registration processes that manipulate our agreement. They have also created a new jurisdiction known as the Environment, with which they have enslaved the People as a plural, thereby creating legislation which enforces the People as an individual.

    However, they have not asked our permission to create the form of government under which they now legislate OVER the People.

  2. PAKISTAN is stolen land. The Mohammedan Mob stole it from the non-Islamic inhabitants of India.
    Egypt is stolen land – the Muslims stole it from the – non-Arab – indigenous Copts.
    Turkey is stolen land – the Muslims stole it from the Byzantine Greeks and from the Armenians.
    Many are the lands stolen by the Empire of Islam, the Ummah, the Allah Gang, the Mohammedan Mob.
    And the Mohammedan Mob fully intends to steal the *whole* of planet earth and enslave – whether as Muslim or as humiliated, degraded, and terrorised Dhimmis – every human being alive.
    Oh, for an MP that would stand up and make a speech containing those very points I have just listed, by way of riposte to Ms Faruqi (who doesn’t, I’ll bet, give a DAMN about the Australian Aborigines, many of whom are Christians; *qua Christians* they would be offered the choice of Islam or Dhimmitude – a miserable condition ten times worse than living ‘Under the Act’ – if Australia were to be Islamised. Those who were not Christians but followed the old beliefs – or had embraced modern Aussie nonreligion – would be given the choice of Islam or death). And orthodox Muslims don’t respect ANY kuffar person’s land rights: they view all property and persons on earth as ordained by Allah to be seized and used by themselves, the Muslims.
    Might be interesting to see what would happen if Ms Faruqi could be publicly questioned about 1/ the apostasy law and 2/ the blasphemy law (one might mention Asia Bibi; would Ms Faruqi be prepared to publicly call for Asia Bibi, in prison on death row in Pakistan after having been accused of ‘blasphemy!’ by Muslim women, to be exonerated, and released? would she be prepared to publicly tell the government of Pakistan that they should rescind their hideous ‘blasphemy law’ altogether?
    Also: I wonder what answer she would give, if someone brought up, in conversation, the topic of the Hagia Sophia, ands suggested that, in the name of historic justice, Turkey should give it back to the Greek Christians (and other Orthodox) to be rededicated and used for Christian worship henceforward. And that Turkey should pay compensation to Armenia for all those Armenians who were slaughtered by Muslim Turks in 1915-1917.

Comments are closed.