There’s nothing edgy about ‘honour killings’

I can’t believe this needs to be said, but the choices of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas suggests it does.

Uthman Badar, spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia, will be speaking at the Festival on the topic “Honour killings are morally justified”.

How clever.

It has been many years since FODI has shown any desire to live up to its name. Their existences hinge on the flow of government grants, directly or indirectly through the units that make up the art establishment. It’s not here to disrupt the status quo. It is here because, as a Facebook friend snarked, “the whole idea of a Festival of Dangerous Ideas [is to be] some white–person wankery for inner–city latte drinkers to indulge themselves in a trip to the opera house and [provoke] the special feeling of belonging to that special part of society that attends ‘cultural’ events.

So whilst I am openly impressed that FODI has actually gone and proposed a dangerous idea in that context, as far as dangerous ideas go this is quite safe… which is what makes it so dangerous.

It is dangerous in the first instance because the material is justifying murder. Violence is generally accepted as dangerous.

For anyone who, say, might like to think of themselves as culturally enlightened, the barest of philosophical forays will lead you to the subjectivity of morality and/or its experience by the individual.

Armed with this, it is totally conceivable that people who commit what we call “honour killings” have reasons for doing so. It’s a scary rejoinder to the idea of monstrosity as other and seemingly perfect for a crowd seeking “danger”.

This makes it a safe bet. It’s destined to light up blogs like this, and papers and talkback tomorrow, and possibly the 6pm news from earlier this evening. Helen Dale – who has lit up the local media a few times, including this week – called the decision to give Badar a platform “the intellectual equivalent of streaking”, which is so right not just because it’s flashy, insubstantive, and guaranteed to get your eyeballs on the dangly bits, but also because it isn’t novel.

We know that attention will be paid because we have had these debates before. We have had these debates before because there are millions of people who believe murder is a prurient respond to the exercise of certain kinds of autonomy – but they’re other, safely ‘over there’, and the unbridled, uncritical acceptance of the other is how the worst sort of unthinking leftist gets their counter-cultural jollies.

It will be controversial. Why millions of people would hold values so far removed from our own always will be.

And thus we have Badar at FODI, surrounded by the latte elite, who have already started falling over themselves to demonstrate their open-mindedness by paying to listen to a man who fronts the national arm of an organisation that opposes the close-mindedness of a Western liberalism that would go back to stoning women if the culture wasn’t so close-minded.

If an open-mind is worth keeping on this issue this is still not a justification for FODI’s decision. The point of keeping an open mind is to think, judge, and close it eventually. If it never closes it is no great feat of mind, but the simple abrogation of critical thought. FODI is, by choosing to give this violent idea a platform, abrogating that responsibility in the name of whoring themselves out for attention. This is not an act without consequences; what we say in public sends a powerful message about (are you ready for this?) what is is acceptable to say and do in public.

They’re not concerned about that, nor are they actually concerned about whether we should kill slutty sluts for slutting. They’re concerned about how they can leverage Uthman Badar and the Hizb ut-Tahrir brand and the white guilt that creates the cultural relativism that baby leftists are injected with when they submit their first protest poster for assessment, in service of painting the Festival and it’s supporters as open-minded, critically engaged and edgy, and getting the attention that gets them paid. With taxpayer dollars.

If open engagement is what we desire there’s an endless supply of literature on the subject that could be privately consumed. Somehow I don’t think that’s what Hizb ut-Tahrir wants.

That is what I find the most dangerous – it’s lovely to have organisations like FODI that self-consciously hike their skirts and whore their stages in the pretence of glorying in liberalism while trying to undermine it. These ideas don’t deserve to be paraded on a platform as flimsy as amusement. There is no honour in giving a microphone to a man who doesn’t want to give the microphone back, when he will use it to promote a ban on microphones.

FODI sets its own agenda. They made a considered choice to offer the stage to a lobbyist for Islamototalitarianism to promote the murder of (mostly) women.

If FODI wants to truly be provocative, there are orthodoxies far better challenged than the secular, liberal, individualist democracy that permits people – including women – to pursue the free thought that allows them to consider and reject the killing women who exercise autonomy could be totally sweet.

FODI has the right to offer the PR flak for totalitarian organisation a space on its platform, and its secular “cultural establishment” type audience is mature enough to consider the idea without accepting it (the way the Murdoch-media-swilling general publicans apparently cannot, no doubt). Minds aren’t likely to slip out from under the warm, prosperous blanket of liberalism for the rock hard reality of whatever backwards logic makes it okay to kill for a contorted derivative of honour. 

The Power of the Parti Quebecois Compels You!

FrontKeith Topolski examines the latest bout of xenophobia to spew forth from Quebec.


The most memorable line from the classic film Forrest Gump was about a box of chocolates being compared to life. The second most famous line, to my mind at least, was ‘Stupid is as Stupid does’.

 The Government of Quebec, headed by the famously anti-anything-that-isn’t-French Pauline Marois, recently demonstrated it’s intellectual bankruptcy by finding a way for a province in one of the strongest Western economies, indeed global economies, to shed 30,000 jobs in a single month.

 Now, the non-stupid response would have been to try and deregulate, maybe cut taxes, open up the economy to business. Nice try, this is the Quebec Government we’re talking about after all.

 No, THEIR response was that the problems are all caused by those evil God-believers, Allah-believers and, well, believers in ANY omnipotent being which has power over us.

 The best way to rescue an economy that makes Greece look stable? “..ban veils, kippas, turbans and other symbols from government offices, hospitals, schools and any other place that receives public funding”! Isn’t it obvious?!

 Of course, Quebec geared up for this attack on freedom of expression by banning the clearly performance enhancing turban from all soccer matches played within Quebec. Well, maybe not performance enhancing, but we can’t have a show of cultural diversity, so there!

 Well, actually, Pauline Marois claims that Quebec is a vibrant, tolerant province and, in order to protect that diversity, it must suppress that diversity from the public square. I kid you not, to protect religion, the Premier of Quebec says it must be suppressed.

 In suppressing religion, some have argued that a discussion needs to be had over the promotion of religion within the public space. This is a legitimate debate, but the Quebec Government decided to skip around that point because, well, the Quebec Government’s house is just a special exemption to this cause, while its employees are not, ok?

 This brainless act by Parti Quebecois has even been attacked by the teacher’s unions, who have stated that they will support any teacher sacked for wearing a religious icon, on the basis mainly that the Government are a bunch of filthy hypocrites. Freedom gets a run in there somewhere, sure, but hypocrisy is the main beef.

 Perhaps the union might like to make the point that, should this law be passed, Quebec might also run into a small problem of having a lack of luxury items like doctors and nurses.

 Whoops, the Government clearly didn’t think of that, so maybe they might allow for a little bit of leniency in some areas of life, like those pesky doctors and nurses who don’t do anything important. However, with all these exceptions, it will be a great way to create an extra 30,000 jobs in the bureaucracy to deal with the ‘administrative chaos’ this would cause.

 This attack on public employees, not because of their performance, but because of their religion smacks of the most flagrant sectarianism one could possibly come across, and it is quite right that people living in Quebec should challenge the Government on the question of whether the Government views certain citizens as being ‘Quebec’ enough.

 Of course, identity is a huge issue for Federal NDP leader, and Quebecer, Thomas Mulcair, whose opposition to these new proposals is due to religious discriminationinfringement on freedomslack of tolerance the possibility of targeting Muslim women.

 Newly elected Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, also from Quebec, also took the chance to condemn the laws. Such condemnation from Non-Quebecers (!?!) led to a demand from Bloc Quebecois leader Daniel Paille (whose party is travelling so well, their own leader doesn’t have a seat in Parliament) to allow Quebecers to have their own discussion on the laws. All those Albertans (commonly referred to as Canada’s answer to America’s deep south) like Trudeau and Mulcair getting in the way must really peeve Quebec.

 Of course, when a real Albertan, like Muslim Mayor of Calgary Naheed Nenshi, calls the charter what it is, it’s all a conspiracy by the ‘pathetic anglo media’ to portray Quebec as a province that is intolerant of the other. Yeah, like the Anglos from outside Quebec are the only people calling this Government on its bigotry.

 However, some are Quebecers are simply giving up. English school enrolments are dropping so fast the system is in danger of collapse, Universities and families of returned soldiers are under attack, and we’ve already touched on the 30,000 jobs gone in July alone.

 What is most galling about this is how, if such an attack on a religious or ethnic minority occurred elsewhere in the Western world, it would be called out for the bigotry it is. And it did and it was.

 The Government of Quebec likes to declare itself a tolerant nation (yes, Quebec is apparently a nation, although how it squares that away with claiming Canadian equalisation payments is beyond me), full of diversity, but it doesn’t like that diversity being on display. However, perhaps we have misjudged Ms Marois’ intentions, so we’ll let her speak for herself. So, what does Ms Marois want to say, directly, to the minorities and believers of Quebec?





I figured as much.

(DISCLOSURE: While baptised a Catholic, I now identify as agnostic).

Keith Topolski is a regular contributor to Menzies House, with a particular focus on Canadian politics.

Of blame deflected


Waleed Aly says our responses to terrorism are not about the loss of innocent life—we only think it is.  He also claims terrorism is just a perpetual irritant. Aly would have us believe that while terrorism is an inconvenient pain in the butt, it kills relatively few people and is not any kind of existential threat. Such thinking conveniently ignores the London bombings, the killing of over 3,000 innocent people at the World Trade Centre, the two Bali bombings and a string of terrorist bombings and thwarted terrorism threats here in Australia.

Aly, is an Austraian-born Muslim who thinks multiculturalism doesn't lead to parallel societies, or isolated sub-cultures, as he calls them.  He doesn't believe there is any link between multiculturalism and terrorism.  This claim, of course, dismisses the experience of countries such as France, Holland, Belgium, Spain, and lately England, all of which are either legislating, or about to legislate, the end of multiculturalism. Aly completely ignores the words of Lee Kuan Yew, the father of modern Singapore, who said that only Muslims refused to be integrated into the Singaporean society.

In light of all we know about radical Islamists it is amazing that Aly can say “the reason that the far enemy is conspiring against the Muslims to keep them divided is because there exists a vast global conspiracy against Muslims everywhere. They just don’t like Muslims.”  Being an apologist for Islam he says that the reason Muslim Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh in a terrorist attack was because Bouyeri didn’t like that way that Dutch politics was finally waking up to Muslims and had deported 20,000 of them back to where they came from.

Aly says that we are intent on punishing illegal immigrants; he calls them asylum seekers. Is that because they are Muslims?  His one-eyed view of Muslims in Australia completely dismisses the fact that they entered this country illegally without documentation, lied to authorities, and have established Muslim enclaves in our major cities.  They refuse to integrate, and some community leaders are demanding Sharia law replace our legal and judicial systems. Aly seems to ignore that 88.5 per cent of illegals are still unemployed after five years in Australia and the so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims make little if any effort to separate themselves from the radicals amongst them. 

Television footage of the Sydney riot did nothing to improve West’s disrespect for Islam. Supporters of thuggish, anti-social behaviour seem to think that respect should be given but provide no hint that they understand respect must be earned.

Efforts to integrate Muslims into the Australian way will stagnate and dry up while we have politicians such as the Attorney General, Mark Dreyfus who defended radical Muslim cleric, Sheik Feiz Mohammad an Australian born Islamic preacher of Lebanese origin whose radical videos inspired the Boston bombers. 

Amon Ross, a concerned resident of Sydney, said of the events and radical elements of the Islamic community within Australia:

“They’ve rioted in our streets and assaulted our police officers. They’ve raped our women and said they deserve it. They laugh at and in our courts. They’re shooting up the southwest of Sydney. They’re advocating for Shariah. Every time we fly on a plane, we’re reminded of what they have done to the world.

“They’ve told us that our culture and way of life is inferior to theirs. We’ve caught home grown Muslims plotting to blow up our military bases and power plants. We now have a special police squad dealing with Middle Eastern Crime. Many make no effort to be Australian or surrender the culture of their old home. … And our politicians refuse to acknowledge there is a problem.”

Recent plans for a special police squad to target Middle East crime gang violence on the basis of escalating shootings in South West Sydney were immediately criticised by Muslim spokesman Keyser Trad on the basis of it being insulting to Muslims because there were bikies involved in the shootings too.  What Trad didn't say was that they are Lebanese bikie gangs and other bikie gangs with a high Middle Eastern membership.

(Name provided but withheld.)

Free speech is a double-edged sword

As Muslims in particular use our anti-hate laws to their best advantage under the orchestral arrangement of multiculturalism, "fools rush in" like Barry O'Farrell and Nicola Roxon to establish a greater Nanny State making it easier to lodge complaint. With The Australian Human Rights Commission adjudicating, and vying for relevance, biased findings are surely a forgone conclusion? GC.Ed.

In the week before the Cronulla riot, Jones described the young Muslim men who for years had been sexually harassing women on the beach as ''vermin'' and ''mongrels'' who ''rape and pillage''. That was the context of his comments, a context which dropped away entirely as a prosecution for hate speech by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal dragged on for seven years. No mention was made in Sunday's news reports of the far more sinister and contemporaneous example of public hate speech on September 15 last year.

During a demonstration that turned violent in Sydney, some protesters carried provocative placards including one infamous message, ''Behead those who insult the Prophet''. Many wore headbands with Arabic script exhorting jihad. Among the chants was, ''Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell''.

 Read more:

Slowly, slowly, catchy monkey

NEIGHBOURS are divided over a proposed "halal housing" development in Sydney's west.

While some feared it would lead to friction with Muslims, others welcomed the plan.

Qartaba Homes is promoting its 145-lot subdivision at Riverstone, near Rouse Hill, as Australia's "very first project of its kind for the Muslim community", The Daily Telegraph revealed yesterday.

The developer yesterday insisted people of any religion were welcome to purchase land.

Read more:

Time to wake-up Australia

The military arm of Hamas has been listed on our books as a criminal organisation since 1995. Dr Mohamed's visit displays his arrogance and contempt for Australians. When will our leaders put end to this divisive attitude by Muslim leaders and "scholars" who then preach against us? GC.Ed. 

Australia's Grand Mufti meets Hamas

"I am pleased to stand on the land of jihad to learn from its sons and I have the honour to be among the people of Gaza where the weakness always becomes strength, the few becomes many and the humiliation turns into pride," he told local news agencies.

"We came here in order to learn from Gaza. As I said in my speech, we will make the stones, trees, and people of Gaza talk, in order to learn steadfastness, sacrifice, and the defence of one's rights from them.

Read more:

Illegal immigrants, open borders, multiculturalism

The once unthinkable is now commonplace. The dross involved in this horror may be brought to justice – where? Their punishment we may never know. But, by some quirk of government rule and whim, it should surprise no one if we finance all costs and they may still enjoy a free house in your neighbourhood.

GC. Ed.

ARREST warrants on charges of attempted murder and robbery have
been issued for 14 asylum seekers on a pirated fishing boat which is
thought to be headed for Australia

Read more:

The father of social destruction


The Grassby Curse.

It depends how you view Al Grassby; was he the genius father
of Australian multiculturalism in or was he a crooked pest whose massive ego
drove him to legislate what has become the nation’s most hated and socially
divisive policy?

To begin with, Grassby did not invent “multiculturalism” as
so many revisionists of history want us to believe; he stole the concept from
then Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau during his visit to Canada in 1973.

Bereft of original ideas, Grassby had no idea of Canada’s
social underpinnings to understand what Pierre Trudeau was trying to do, and
that was to forge a harmony between the English and French. The French
harboured a long festering sore from their defeat by English troops in 1759.
Trudeau’s policy had nothing to do with immigrants settling in Canada.

Ever eager to promote his short political career, Grassby
was encouraged by Gough Whitlam to fly his “new invention” with full fanfare.
Grassby’s concept, however, was totally different from Canada’s as he sought to
eliminate integration and assimilation into the customs of the host nation with
millions in cash grants to remain separate. Three decades later and hundreds of
millions of dollars squandered on social division, Grassby’s goal has been
achieved—although posthumously. His $72,000 statue in Canberra should
advertise: “Behold, the father of government sponsored apartheid.”

Stalwart supporters of the Australian Labor Party pay homage
before his effigy.

Al Grassby oversaw the introduction of the Racial
Discrimination Act of 1975—another social blight used to browbeat good people.

Furthermore, the Whitlam/Grassby government deliberately
increased the level of Third World immigration to Australia, a practice
begun on a smaller scale by the Liberal government of Harold Holt, but continued today by both parties. Labor in particular with an open
door policy run amok.

Polls have shown 70% of Australians would dump
multiculturalism, no doubt more after the recent brawl of coppers versus Muslim
thugs in Sydney. The growing split in our society has much to do with
multiculturalism, a failed policy now denounced by most European countries
including Britain. Here’s what other world leaders are saying:

Multiculturalism has “totally failed,”
said German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

“State multiculturalism has had
disastrous results,” said Britain’s David Cameron.

Is multiculturalism a failure in
France? “My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure,” said President Nicolas
Sarkozy. He would know.

Ex-Prime Minister Jose Maria
Aznar has declared multiculturalism a failure in Spain, saying it divides and
debilitates Western societies.

"We don't want Italy to become a multiethnic,
multicultural country. We are proud of our traditions," Italy’s Berlusconi
said on state-run radio. His government legislated tough immigration policy to
stop illegal immigration.

What will it take for the Gillard Government to understand
multiculturalism is like everything they touch—a bloody disaster?

The common cause cited for Europe’s multicultural policy
failure is the unwillingness of Muslims to embrace the host country’s customs
and it’s no different in Australia. Talkback media and internet blogs are
electric with participants wanting legislation to deal with those who usurp our
generous welfare benefits, spit on our long established customs and abuse decent Australians.

The Dutch government has the right idea. They plan to abandon multiculturalism that
has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the

Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to
parliament on June 16: “The government shares the social dissatisfaction over
the multicultural society model and will shift priority to the values of the
Dutch people. In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society
play a central role. With this change, the government steps away from the model
of a multicultural society.”

Furthermore: “A more obligatory integration is justified
because the government also demands that from its own citizens. It is necessary
because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels
at home anymore in the Netherlands. The integration will not be tailored to
different groups.”

The new integration policy will place more demands on
immigrants. For example, immigrants will be required to learn the Dutch
language, and the government will take a tougher approach to immigrants who
ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law.

If necessary, the government will introduce extra measures
to allow the removal of residence permits from immigrants who fail their
integration course.

Our feeble leaders could adopt the above by replacing
“Dutch” with “Australia.”

Enjoyed this article? Please tick Facebook “like”



Quebec: Where it’s cool to be racist


Keith Topolski explains how Quebec's public discourse is founded on discrimination.

A long time ago, in a land far far away, a red cross and a white flower did battle over a piece of snow covered land.

 In non-fairytale speak, a couple of hundred years ago, England, surprise surprise, handed France another military defeat by taking over what is now Canada.

 However, the English never really finished the job and allowed the little pocket of French resistance to set themselves up as they pleased, provided it was within an acceptable framework. IE accept English dominance, and we won't put your heads on pikes.

 This was a mutually beneficial outcome, and today we have the province of Quebec in the nation of Canada.

 Except Quebec really isn't part of Canada, whether it be culturally or economically speaking.

 With the exception of the genuinely bilingual province of New Brunswick, Canada is split in three: Anglophones, Francophones and migrants.

 Canada has always prided itself on being accepting of migrants. That is, Canada minus Quebec.

 You see, as part of the 2012 provincial election in the dole bludger province of Canada, it seems it is acceptable to deride foreign born candidates for being so, all but demand the eradication of all languages except one and boss around small business owners for having the temerity, the audacity, the sheer arrogance to commit the heinous crime of saying hello in French AND English! Oh the pain, the pain of it all!

 What is most embarrassing about this, however, is not the focus on insignificant issues like language laws when Quebec's economy would have to climb three or four rungs up the ladder to find itself in the toilet, or even the incessant demands from a province which demands more and more Federal money while demanding more and more autonomy.

 No, what is most embarrassing is the double standard in the racial and ethnic bashing that is taking place under the guise of 'cultural protection'.

 The leader of the opposition, Pauline Marois, even had a crack at the horrific news that there were parts of Montreal inhabited by people whose first language was not French.

 Here in Australia we have had a journalist declared a criminal because he dared to ask questions which might have offended some people, in some people's minds, under some interpretation of the law.

 Yet, in Canada, the alternative premier of the nations second largest province can run campaign slogans which make Pauline Hanson look like Malcolm Fraser, and it's all acceptable.

 Oh, and I haven't even got to the banning of all religious icons, save for the crucifix in the 'National' Assembly.

 The tone of the election has become so bitter (unless you're a Francophone, in which case it's a rosy future for you, madame et monseuirs), that premier Jean Charest has led a chorus of non-Parti Quebecois politicians to say that they would never take non-Francophone voters for granted.

 However, when these parties have the opportunity to call Marois out for being a few sandwiches short of a picnic, they instead attack each other. Attacking bigots goes down badly in Quebec if the bigot does, indeed, parlez francais, you see.

 Trivial little things, such as the right to petition the Parliament, are unimportant unless you speak French in Quebec apparently.

 But the exception is made, all because the poor old Quebec Francophones are a minority in Canada.

 The Calgary Herald asked its readers to imagine a scenario:

Imagine if an Alberta politician campaigned on the need to ban French on signs outside of stores in this province, or at least to have English twice the size of French. Imagine also if she demanded that businesses with more than 10 employees enforce English as the lingua franca of the workplace.

For good measure, imagine if the Alberta politician also demanded that new immigrants to the province educate their children in English, and no other language. Then think about the reaction to a proposed “secular charter” bill that would restrict the ability of public servants to wear “conspicuous religious signs,” but would make an exception for the crucifix. Then consider the reaction to a party campaign video that went so far as to highlight a cross to further make the point.

Yes, if the same thing happened anywhere in the western world, we would have an endless array of human rights lawyers wheeled out to campaign for the rights of the oppressed, declaring 'insert offending plan here' to be the greatest injustice since the Spanish Inquisition.

 But it's ok in Quebec, because those evil English speakers are the devil's spawn I tell you!

 Let's pause for a moment. What would happen if it wasn't about those filthy Anglos. What if a party leader urged Quebec residents to conduct themselves more like Asians? You know, work hard, honour the family, etc. Etc.

 Yes, he is accused of, get this, 'junk populism'.

 Junk populism! In a province where whacking those evil foreigners is as common as taking the bus to work in the city! Well, that's when university students aren't protesting a $1 a day fee increase.

 You can't expect too much, though, when the debate over the replacement for the coach of the Montreal Canadiens NHL team didn't centre around whether he could actually get the team to the playoffs or not, but rather whether he spoke French.

 It's not good enough to justify such clear and badly disguised racism as a minority speaking out.

 The irony is that, in a small part of Canada, where the so long picked on minority is now in a majority, they are attempting to disenfranchise, eliminate, remove, expunge those who do not conform with the norms of those with newfound power.

 A wise man once claimed that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And it is hard to imagine a more corrupted public discourse right now than that of Quebec.

Keith Topolski is a former member of the NSW Young Liberal Executive and is studying Communications.

David Cameron: migration threatens our way of life

David Cameron will claim today that uncontrolled immigration has undermined some British communities.

In his most forthright speech on the issue since he became Prime Minister, he will say that mass immigration has led to "discomfort and disjointedness" in neighbourhoods because some migrants have been unwilling to integrate or learn English.

Mr Cameron will say: "When there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods, perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there, on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate, that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods."

It follows a speech by Mr Cameron earlier this year in which he said that British Muslims should subscribe to mainstream values of freedom and equality, and claimed that the doctrine of multi-culturalism had “failed”.

Pop quiz.

Which world leader is in total denial that the doctrine of multi-culturalism had “not failed”?

A: UK PM David Cameron

B: French President Nicolas Sarkozy

C: German Chancellor is Angela Merkel

D: AUST PM Julia Gillard

If 5,000 people were marching in step, Julia Gillard would be the one person out of step.

Out of step on the failure of Multiculturalism, Carbon Tax, Mining Tax, Women in combat roles, NBN, gambling, plain packaging of cigarettes al etc.

More via the Telegraph

Andy Semple