Festival of Dangerous Ideas. I expect I'm going to be dumped on by many for saying what I'm about to say. But as we still believe in free speech (or at least I thought we did) I'll say it any way.
Uthman Badar should never have been asked to speak at the FODI event not because of the topic but because of who he represents; the organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir.
The core international aim of Hizb-ut-Tahir is the re-creation of a unified and centrally administered Islamic state ruled under strict Islamic law. Hizb-it-Tahir claims to restrict their desire to create a Caliphate to existing Muslim countries which begs the question why are they so active in western countries including Australia. A question I have been asking for some years.
Hizb ut-Tahrirs’ interpretation of Islamic Law results in numerous extreme positions as laid out in their draft constitution. Their views are highly misogynist. They most strongly advocate that “the primary role of a woman is that of a mother and wife,” and they are not allowed to “take control of ruling” which bars women from becoming the Khaleefah or a judge. They also demand the segregation and the covering up of women. They are also sympathetic to such issues as under age marriage as recently expressed here. A recent discussion on their website talks of women being allowed to leave only with their husbands permission.
They call for homosexuality to be made illegal and strongly oppose same sex marriage. As they are totally committed to Sharia Law there's no need to spell out what this means for those charged with those offences. They also outspoken opponents of Western style democracy and instead favor a single elected Khaleefah with suffrage being restricted to Muslims only. Totally suppressing the rights of non-Muslims.
Whilst members of the organisation are committed to non-violent methods, they have been marred by continual criticism over the group’s voiced extremism; and while it does not engage in terrorist acts itself, it has been justifiably accused of being a “conveyor belt for terrorists. In the past it has supported violent groups such as Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Jama’ah Islamiyyah and a read of their website highlights their support of organisations such as ISIS.
So back to my original point. The discussion on honour killings is valid and should have been allowed if only to highlight the abhorrent nature of the practice and because we believe in free speech. Uthman Badar had he not been a member of Hizb-ut-Tahir should have been allowed to deliver the address so we can openly condemn it (and those who condone it and practice it) for what it is, murder.
As for Hizb-ut-Tahir Tony Abbott stated prior to the election he would ban them. We need to hold him to that now.
http://www.hizb-australia.orgHizb-ut-Tahir Australia
Wednesday 25 June 2014
Monday 23 June 2014
The Yield Point - Have We Passed The Point Of No Return
It's easy to condemn but not so easy at times to control.
Y es, it is easy to condemn those we perceive as weak (or
worse complicit) who we 'believe' are part of the problem (without any proof
mind you), when in reality often they are not. I learnt that lesson when the
drug problem impacted on my family. Up to that point I had been critical of
parents for letting their children 'fall by the wayside' so to speak. I
couldn't understand why they didn't control them. I understand now why they often can't.
Many parents in western societies struggle daily with
children who are habitual drug takers. I know from personal experience, having
a nephew who has battled drug addiction for many years just how powerless
parents can be. Many of these kids come from good homes, have great parents but
they have an addiction that is more powerful.
This got me thinking about the parents of kids and young
men who are seduced by radical Islam. They also often have no control over the
lives of their kids. They aren't necessarily all bad parents, but their
children are seduced by a different drug, the drug of hate. The drug of
religious ideology. Like drug addicts, hate often takes time to fully take
hold, but once you are conditioned breaking away is almost impossible.
Jafar "Jeff" Siddiqui is an American Muslim
blogger. He wrote an article recently From Kuffar To Slaughters where he
mentioned the science of something known as Yield Point. After a certain amount
of stress is applied to an object, it loses the resilience to return to its
original shape and becomes more and more deformed on a permanent basis.
He goes on to say this is true for the environment as
well and for communities of people too. I would add, individuals to the mix as
well.
This theory is particularly interesting when applied to
the 'brainwashing' or the changing of Muslim youth by the teachings of hatred
by radical Muslim imams.
I have posted the link to this article here. It's a very interesting read and it's a
message that I hope many; Muslim parents and us non-Muslims read.
For that reason I'm not so swift to just automatically
brand everyone whose families are impacted by their children becoming
radicalised. As we found out recently
from a couple of incidents in the UK, the parents had no idea their sons were
off fighting in the ME. Just like parents of drug users often have no idea
where their children are. Sadly, both a
very likely to receive a knock on the door at some time with the news their
children have been killed or indeed harmed others.
Lastly we have those on social media who openly state we
should kill all Muslims. They are suggesting we wipe out 23% of the world's
population; every man, woman and child. That
is 1.6billion people. Unbelievable.
So yes to condemn is easy but to control is at times
very, very hard, if not impossible. By
all means we should be alarmed over what we see happening. And certainly over
what we see happening on our own doorstep. But let's be fair. Let's not brand
everyone. I believe to hate everyone based on the behaviour of some makes us no
better than those we criticise. Perhaps it signifies we also have surpassed our own Yield Point. I do hope not.
Monday 16 June 2014
Calling Out Twitter Bullies
I committed to speaking out against twitter bullying and journalists. Having been on the receiving end of a bizarre assault by @vanonselenp last night, I'm doing just that. I apologise if this is a bit long but context is important. If you take the time to read this, thank you. I appreciate your interest.
I responded to a tweet posted by someone I follow that was directed to van Onselen. It read.
"You can't be serious, means testing Dr visits > @vanOnselenP
It's none of the doctor's business how much the patient does or doesn't earn!"
I replied. "@AyesHavit @vanOnselenP That has to rank amongst the 'dumbest' suggestions of all time. True, not their business & how do you administer it".
Now, in the context of doctors doing this which is how it read, it is a dumb suggestion. That's my opinion. Note I didn't call Mr van Onselen dumb, merely the suggestion.
That in turn generated at a reply from Mr van Onselen. "@Kate3015 @AyesHavit it was a reference to who would qualify for a Medicare card. Pretty simple really, not done by doctors individually. @Kate3015 @AyesHavit ...and it was the Drs suggestion anyway, not mine. It would be no different to any other means testing Coalition wants"
Fine. Clarification. But then he went on. "@Kate3015 @AyesHavit but agree or disagree with it, that's fine. Calling his idea dumb is knee jerk thoughtless frankly."
OK. I concede it was perhaps a tad knee jerk but thoughtless? Remember I was addressing the idea, not the person. We are adults, or so I thought. But I did reply.
"@vanOnselenP @AyesHavit If people pay for Medicare &; have private insurance as well why should they be penalised? @vanOnselenP @AyesHavit I'm over the 'assaults' on certain groups. So if you think that's knee jerk thoughtlessness fine. It's how I feel."
It could have ended there, but that in response I received this. "@Kate3015 @AyesHavit exactly what I said to him...the levy would need to be baked into the tax system. Now u are debating like an adult. @Kate3015 @AyesHavit sadly I won't see further adult tweets bc I've blocked so as not to read your other rubbish, sorry. Bye." ..
I responded to a tweet posted by someone I follow that was directed to van Onselen. It read.
"You can't be serious, means testing Dr visits > @vanOnselenP
It's none of the doctor's business how much the patient does or doesn't earn!"
I replied. "@AyesHavit @vanOnselenP That has to rank amongst the 'dumbest' suggestions of all time. True, not their business & how do you administer it".
Now, in the context of doctors doing this which is how it read, it is a dumb suggestion. That's my opinion. Note I didn't call Mr van Onselen dumb, merely the suggestion.
That in turn generated at a reply from Mr van Onselen. "@Kate3015 @AyesHavit it was a reference to who would qualify for a Medicare card. Pretty simple really, not done by doctors individually. @Kate3015 @AyesHavit ...and it was the Drs suggestion anyway, not mine. It would be no different to any other means testing Coalition wants"
Fine. Clarification. But then he went on. "@Kate3015 @AyesHavit but agree or disagree with it, that's fine. Calling his idea dumb is knee jerk thoughtless frankly."
OK. I concede it was perhaps a tad knee jerk but thoughtless? Remember I was addressing the idea, not the person. We are adults, or so I thought. But I did reply.
"@vanOnselenP @AyesHavit If people pay for Medicare &; have private insurance as well why should they be penalised? @vanOnselenP @AyesHavit I'm over the 'assaults' on certain groups. So if you think that's knee jerk thoughtlessness fine. It's how I feel."
It could have ended there, but that in response I received this. "@Kate3015 @AyesHavit exactly what I said to him...the levy would need to be baked into the tax system. Now u are debating like an adult. @Kate3015 @AyesHavit sadly I won't see further adult tweets bc I've blocked so as not to read your other rubbish, sorry. Bye." ..
What an attempt to belittle that is. "Now U are debating like an adult." Hopefully I always try and debate like an adult. Blocking me so as not to read "my other rubbish!!!"
I should have left it that point, told him to take a flying leap and just walked away. I didn't.....I replied.
"@vanOnselenP @AyesHavit Oh dear Peter you R a bit sensitive &; a tad pompous to block me for what I said. lol hopefully someone will RT 2him."
Well some people did defend me & RT'd. They were also threatened with blocking. Sad.
If Mr van Onselen blocks me. I'm can live with that lol. I'm not a follower, I don't regularly watch his show & I occasionally read his column. But Mr vP didn't block me. But he went on to label me a 'nut-job', accused me of constantly demeaning him (that one stumped me), of belittling journalists (didn't say who) and even condemning JG (not sure where that came from)..my last post on JG referred to whether she'll regret her verbal assault on Ralph Blewitt given the RC. He labelled me a troll and even mentioned to some else who spoke up for me (when he blocked them) that associating with xyz (referring to me I assume) you pick up their bile. Now this is pretty nasty stuff.
I did suggest he had me confused with someone else. You see the last three exchanges I've had with Mr vP were. One earlier this month in response to a question he asked about that vile Abbott T-shirt. Only picked that because of @WDallasBrooks. Unfortunately as a part of that reply I picked up a rather nasty little individual ASSASSINS. Despite the foul language directed at me I thought my replies were fair. They were directed at ASSASSINS not vanOnselen.
"@vanOnselenP @AyesHavit Oh dear Peter you R a bit sensitive &; a tad pompous to block me for what I said. lol hopefully someone will RT 2him."
Well some people did defend me & RT'd. They were also threatened with blocking. Sad.
If Mr van Onselen blocks me. I'm can live with that lol. I'm not a follower, I don't regularly watch his show & I occasionally read his column. But Mr vP didn't block me. But he went on to label me a 'nut-job', accused me of constantly demeaning him (that one stumped me), of belittling journalists (didn't say who) and even condemning JG (not sure where that came from)..my last post on JG referred to whether she'll regret her verbal assault on Ralph Blewitt given the RC. He labelled me a troll and even mentioned to some else who spoke up for me (when he blocked them) that associating with xyz (referring to me I assume) you pick up their bile. Now this is pretty nasty stuff.
I did suggest he had me confused with someone else. You see the last three exchanges I've had with Mr vP were. One earlier this month in response to a question he asked about that vile Abbott T-shirt. Only picked that because of @WDallasBrooks. Unfortunately as a part of that reply I picked up a rather nasty little individual ASSASSINS. Despite the foul language directed at me I thought my replies were fair. They were directed at ASSASSINS not vanOnselen.
They read:
"A comment like that is not worthy of a reply"
"If you are going to comment at least try to sound intelligent. Is that to mush to ask"
Kate3015 @ASSASSINS_OY @vanOnselenP If you are going to comment at least try to sound intelligent. Is that too much to ask..- Kate3015 @ASSASSINS_OY @vanOnselenP A comment like that is not worthy of a reply. Goodbye
So there you have it. People do object to what I say at times. That's to be expected. I have strong opinions on many things. However, I try to be professional when expressing them. I wasn't the one labelling people 'nut-jobs'etc. Thank you for reading if you made it this far. As far as Mr vanOnselen goes, I suggest he takes a good look in the mirror. But he's blocked me so he won't get to read this. Please don't copy to him with this or like others he'll probably block you as well.
Now it's time for me to move on.
Wednesday 4 June 2014
Work Related Payments vs Welfare Payments
I find it fascinating that those so resoundingly condemning the PPL which is a work related payment, aimed at getting experienced women back into the workforce, are generally those who are most vocal about maintaining unsustainable levels of welfare which contribute nothing to the ongoing betterment of the country.
It's important that our population grows. Particularly so with an ageing population. We want women to have the opportunity to have children and to contribute to society through workplace participation. We also want them to have the security of knowing they have jobs to go back to. Often jobs that many love. And we must not overlook the fact that as employers we have often made substantial investments in these people; training, education, coaching and development. We don't want to lose that investment in having them leave, have their children and then go work for someone else.
I haven't always be a fan of PPL. Heading up a large workforce with young executives off on maternity leave can be difficult under existing arrangements. Particularly so if the person in question works in a specialist area or is exceedingly good at their job. However, in my experience the people in question never completely 'deserted' their post. I found that my female executives still actively participated in many ways. They would call in for strategic meetings, review proposals along with my management team (their colleagues). They often came into the office (baby in tow) to complete performance reviews and the like. I would be surprised if most women in management level positions didn't do this.
The only question that I have with regards to Tony Abbott's proposal is, can we afford NOW. If not when can we. Let's be more accommodating of proposals that are work related and perhaps a bit less accommodating of ones that are just simply about handouts. And let's stop the 'welfare' for the rich bull. Women at all levels will benefit not just the so called rich..
It's important that our population grows. Particularly so with an ageing population. We want women to have the opportunity to have children and to contribute to society through workplace participation. We also want them to have the security of knowing they have jobs to go back to. Often jobs that many love. And we must not overlook the fact that as employers we have often made substantial investments in these people; training, education, coaching and development. We don't want to lose that investment in having them leave, have their children and then go work for someone else.
I haven't always be a fan of PPL. Heading up a large workforce with young executives off on maternity leave can be difficult under existing arrangements. Particularly so if the person in question works in a specialist area or is exceedingly good at their job. However, in my experience the people in question never completely 'deserted' their post. I found that my female executives still actively participated in many ways. They would call in for strategic meetings, review proposals along with my management team (their colleagues). They often came into the office (baby in tow) to complete performance reviews and the like. I would be surprised if most women in management level positions didn't do this.
The only question that I have with regards to Tony Abbott's proposal is, can we afford NOW. If not when can we. Let's be more accommodating of proposals that are work related and perhaps a bit less accommodating of ones that are just simply about handouts. And let's stop the 'welfare' for the rich bull. Women at all levels will benefit not just the so called rich..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)