BLOG: Why Obama is a Muslim abortionist ...

I always thought easter was a time for piece and love, when Christians share the joy of salvation. But when it comes to America's Christian President, all the peace and love disappears from some allegedly Christian quarters.

On Planet Bolt, you can hear all kinds of theories about the President of the United States. Bolt is upset with Obama for appointing Vatican ambassadors who allegedly support a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.

Fair enough. Bolt perhaps subscribes to a wacky insistence in an absolute prohibition in abortion that would see a 9 year old girl raped by her stepfather forced to give birth to the child. But what does all this say about Obama? Let's take a peak at the conversation on Bolt's blog:

The bizarre thing about this, is that Turkey is not an islamic state - it is in fact a secular democracy (and a successful one at that) - which actually has a HUGE problem with islam and islamic militancy - (armed gards at shopping cenres are not uncommon)
tony of coburg (Reply)
Fri 10 Apr 09 (07:12am)

So having armed guards at shopping centres is a sure sign of the existence of a huge problem with Islam. I've seen a fair few armed guards at shopping centres in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Brazil. Imagine the world's future caliphs who drink beer and/or do the haka and/or enjoy ice hockey and/or samba.

Chris M replied to tony
Fri 10 Apr 09 (07:57am)
He claims to be a Christian but acts rather like a Moslem; well I guess that’s reasonable given that is how he was brought up. A good proportion of Americans believe BO is a Moslem and I tend to agree with them.

Bolt's true believers believe Obama is a Muslim. I wonder what Andrew thinks. Care to share that with us, Mr Bolt?

Now criticising the US President was once a sign of anti-Americanism in some circles. Bolt certainly subscribed to this view once. Not anymore.

nilk replied to txjohn
Fri 10 Apr 09 (08:00am)
The man is a disgrace to his office.

Mick Gold Coast QLD replied to txjohn
Fri 10 Apr 09 (01:21pm)
I would add “transparent” and very, very un-clever ...
This clown will self destruct sooner rather than later.

Indeed, Bolt's cyber-Nazis are now looking for masonic conspiracies in all this. Yep, whoever wins, the masons always win!

barney fife replied to Pete
Fri 10 Apr 09 (02:16pm)
pete
america is a masonic nation, the one dollar bill alone should reveal that to you if your not into studying history.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6534861207969567641

Aah, the love Bolt's buddies feel for the United States of America ...

The gall of the man, to offer people who believe in killing off the unborn. It’s either that or incredible stupidity on his part.
Would be nice if the Pope would refuse to meet with the most pro-death president in America’s history. Such a man deserves neither respect nor time, imho.
MK (Reply)
Fri 10 Apr 09 (08:16am)

mike of cnbra replied to MK
Fri 10 Apr 09 (11:47am)
I don’t think its possible to despise a man as much as obama ...

The moron is still campaigning, sucking up to one and all. Maybe running for king of the world or something.
He is also an incredibly nieve twit with no understanding or respect for reality and thousands of years of tradition.
It’s all about him.
Zog (Reply)
Fri 10 Apr 09 (08:34am)

This clown is a total disaster.
Peter of Chadstone Vic (Reply)
Fri 10 Apr 09 (08:45am)

Obama seems to be stacking the White House with dark-skinned evil people. We all know how scared the far-Right (especially the Dutch Right) are about darkies.

he’s quite happy to employ Muslims though. I read a very disturbing article the other day how Obama has appointed a large number of muslims to work in the White House - sorry can’t find the source.
lethal of WA (Reply)
Fri 10 Apr 09 (10:43am)

Pfft. Poor Andrew. Even at Easter time, he is surrounded with fruitloops.

UPDATE I: Here's Jon Stewart's take on this nonsense ...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Faith the Nation
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

HATEWATCH: Stereotyping is bad but murder and racial vilification is perfectly OK ...

Today is Good Friday. A time when Christians remember God's mercy.

But for Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt, Good Friday is as good an opportunity as any to incite racial and religious vilification, to engage in hate-speech and to publish incitement to murder and violence.

Under the heading "Stereotyping is bad", Bolt writes a few words to encourage his regulars to leave messages inciting violence against ... well ... "them". And who are "them"? Well, take your pick. It could be Muslims. It could be Pakistanis. It could be British Pakistanis or British Muslims. It could be people from the Middle East living in Auburn or Bankstown. Plenty of comments about Enoch Powell's infamous rivers of blood speech.

Wake up Australia replied to Alan of Sydney
Fri 10 Apr 09 (10:12am)
... If Hitler had actually succeeded in his invasion it is hard to imagine the UK having any of the race/religion problems it has today - problems that will ultimately destroy its heritage totally. But I suppose are a lot of people who will not mourn the passing - and of course what is left today of the traditional ‘Aussie’ way of life?

Yep, only Nazism can save "our" way of life. These are Andrew Bolt's Nazis, and the Herald Sun has become a place where they can vent their spleen.

... Australia should learn a lesson from this and ban any Pakistani muslim from entering Australia, for any reason whatsoever.The risk is not worth the university fee.Let them get on with their primitivism, where they belong,back home.
nigel of richmond (Reply)
Fri 10 Apr 09 (09:36am)

And who needs trials? After all, such luxuries should only be reserved for "our" criminals, not for "them".

The Special forces should be used to eliminate these miscrants. The cost of trials in these days of GFC would be a complete waste of time and money. They want to die in their warped jihadist way, let them die but in a cost effective way.
Howzat of Sydney (Reply)
Fri 10 Apr 09 (09:37am)

I grew up near Bankstown, Auban, Punchbowl, Lakemba, and they were nice little Aussie towns; now they look like scenes from the middle east. Multiculturism we thought would add something to our Aussie culture, but instead it is destroying our culture. The majority of Muslims cannot become like us and have no desire to do so, it would be “un-Islamic”. No, we must give ground to them; and that’s the truth. It’s like a cancer, invading every cell of our traditional way of lif, until it takes over the whole body. Our experience of Islam will not be any different to Englands.
Kerry of Brisbane (Reply)
Fri 10 Apr 09 (02:36pm)

Andrew would say this himself if he had half a chance. He has said it a fair few times on national television. Who knows how many times he's said it on radio?

Maybe he says stuff like this dude ...



By now, many readers will be rather upset and angry that this kind of stuff is being published. Who can we contact to complain?

Well, you can start with the man himself:

Andrew Bolt
BoltA@heraldsun.com.au

Then there is his Editor:

Matthew Pinkney
Editor
Herald-Sun
PinkneyM@heraldsun.com.au

Also feel free to contact any of the major advertisers for the Herald Sun website.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

MEDIA: Getting cross over the cross ...

The Daily Telegraph ran a front page story on the eve of Easter about a hospital chapel being stripped of its crosses and bibles.

WORSHIPPERS at one of the state's largest hospital chapels have been ordered to get rid of crucifixes and Bibles and pull down religious pictures and symbols for fear of offending other religions ...

Hospital managers ordered the ban on symbols of any kind because the chapel was increasingly being used by a number of different faiths.

The Mayor of Mosman has stepped in by issuing this fatwa.

But Mosman Mayor Dominic Lopez said angry patients were offended that the chapel no longer represented a holy place.

"I used to sit there and pray when my wife was dying of breast cancer and look at that cross," he said. "Now it is just a hall and the decision is bulls ... You either have a chapel or you don't. It's offensive to have a church or chapel and not have a cross in it." ...

"Some two-bit bob bureaucrat has made the decision, just like when someone decided we couldn't sing Christmas carols anymore in schools," Mr Lopez said.

"You walk in to the chapel now and it's like walking into a backyard shed.

"It's offensive."

We hope Clr Lopez's prayers were answered. Seeing his wife in such a condition must have been a terrible ordeal for him. But seriously, suggesting that only a place of worship with a cross can be considered "a holy place" would surely be offensive to Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons, let alone Jews, Sikhs and followers of other faiths.

And so why did the board of one hospital make this decision?

The hospital defended its decision to ban all Christian and non-Christian symbols, saying it was appropriate to appease all religions. Each faith is allowed to display their symbols during services but they must be taken down and stored out of sight afterwards ...

The hospital defended its decision to ban all Christian and non-Christian symbols, saying it was appropriate to appease all religions. Each faith is allowed to display their symbols during services but they must be taken down and stored out of sight afterwards ...

A hospital spokeswoman said it was appropriate to "move with the times".

"The chapel is now best described as a multi-faith chapel where people of all faiths feel welcome," the spokeswoman said.

"The decision was made to display the symbols of each faith, for example the chapel's cross and Bible, during specific services and ceremonies only.

"These important religious symbols are appropriately stored and used regularly."

The Tele also ran an editorial on the story which expressed a particular viewpoint without apparently trying to offend anyone.

The non-religious are more inclined simply not to care about Christian images or documents. Likewise, followers of other faiths are more concerned with their own religious icons.

Yet Royal North Shore Hospital management is so concerned that people may take offence at the display of bibles and crucifixes, among other Christian totems, at the hospital's chapel that they have been removed. This is imbecilic. And, moreover, absolutely unnecessary.

A quick check with other faiths revealed no particular concern at the presence of Jesus-based items at the hospital chapel.

It's true. No one was really all that offended. No one felt terribly strongly about it. Apart from the folk at the Daily Telegraph. How so? Simple - it was a slow news day. Nothing like a manufactured controversy.

UPDATE I: The Tele's Opinion Editor blogs on the issue here. As usual, Mr Blair has his regular array of neo-Nazis, far-Right fruitloops and white-supremacists leaving paranoid and unmedicated comments about how "the West" has "caved into minorities" thanks to a conspiracy between those two nebulous groups known as "the Left" and "the Muslims". Tim's buddy, Daniel "Irf is stalking me by mentioning my suburb despite the fact that I mention in letters to the editor I get published at least weekly!!" Lewis goes troppo about how nasty Muslims are:

Keysar Trad, from the Islamic Friendship Society, said Muslims would not be offended to use a multi-faith chapel and see images of the cross.

Tell that to the Muslim Students at RMIT, who have indicated precisely that.
Dan Lewis (Reply)
Thu 09 Apr 09 (08:52am)

Daniel, of course, doesn't seem to realise that the RNSH board's decision to remove crucifixes and bibles was supported by a young Christian chap who works for the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council. How did I know that? Because on page 2 of the April 9 edition of the Daily Telegraph appears the following words:

The Australian/Jewish Affairs Council [sic.] supported the hospital, saying more people would be likely to use the chapel.

Bren Carlill, a policy analyst, said some from other religions might be offended.

"The fact that they are willing to go to such lengths to encourage religious communities to worship is great,: he said. "There are people from lots of different groups who almost like getting offended - and then there are the other people who fon't get offended."

I couldn't find AIJAC's support for the Hospital board's decision mentioned anywhere on the Tele website. I could, however, find a fair few comments insinuating that suc decisions are all the fault of the families of Muslim patients who are deemed to be programmed to mimic the behaviour of some wackos overseas.

Should I go to Blair's blog and remind his online morons about a prominent Jewish organisation supporting the hospital decision to "De-Jesus" (as Blair puts it) the hospital chapel? Perhaps not. It might unleash more unmedicated comments about how Christian Australia is caving into the multiculturalist agenda of those nasty Jews.

Let's be frank about this. Nazis may have Muslims. But Nazis hate Jews more. And they proved it at least 6 million times during the last world war.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

BLOG: Andrew travels far and wide ...

Andrew Bolt reminds his readers why he is so tolerant:

A further thought: I’ve lived in or visited some 50 countries now ... My observations confirmed my suspicions that in fact Australia was not half as racist as [some] people ... believe. Not in comparison to others, that is.

True. But why do Australia's few remaining racists and bigots congregate around Andrew Bolt's section of the blogosphere?

Let's look at a story from March 29 2009. Now under normal circulstances, if you met someone of overseas origin who had lived in Australia for some 34 years, you’d hardly describe them as a new migrant. You’d hardly describe Australia as their “new home”.

Unless, of course, your name was Andrew Bolt and you worked for the Herald Sun.

For some reason, Andrew sees a group of 600 thugs belonging to a violent homophobic vigilante group as somehow representative of all persons who migrated from Beirut in 1975. The Sydney Morning Herald reported the group calling itself the “Muslim Brotherhood Movement”.

So who are these 600-odd men? How old are they? When did they arrive in Australia? Where do they come from? Bolt claims they’re from Beirut, though the Herald describes them as being

... young street fighters of Middle Eastern descent.

The last time I checked, the Middle East extended well beyond the city limited of Lebanon’s capital. A large number of Lebanese Muslims come from places outside Beirut such as Tripoli, Tyre and Balbeck. A large number of Lebanese Christians still live in Beirut.

But that doesn’t stop Andrew Bolt from trying to turn bikie and similar gangland phenomena as having racial and religious overtones. But he needn’t say too much. His commenters will say it all for him, even if it means endorsing other forms of thuggery.

mareeS replied to Shebs
Sun 29 Mar 09 (10:34am)
This is what Cronulla 2005 was about, but the softhearts chose to paint it as racism.
A group of young Australians drew a line in the sand and said “We’ve had enough of this.” They were smeared by media and the apologists as rednecks and haters.

MattR replied to Shebs
Sun 29 Mar 09 (01:36pm)
... Exactly, Cronulla was a reaction to these Muslim criminals. However, the media decided to portray the rioters as racists and bigots. They were simply acting out of frustration ...

Nevillew replied to Andrew
Sun 29 Mar 09 (05:37pm)
They bring their baggage with them and then pass it on to their children. It takes many generations to get it out.
I have been watching it for 65 years.

65 years of Lebanese Muslims living in Australia since 1975?

It must be wonderful for Andrew Bolt and the Herald Sun to be able to live in a bubble where they aren’t bound by racial vilification laws applying to their advertisers.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

BLOGS/RACISM: Thank God my father doesn't live anywhere near the Herald Sun Taliban ...

My parents’ eyes have been glued to the TV screen watching Pakistani cable TV reports about the gruesome so-called “punishment” of a 17 year old girl being publically lashed in the Swat region of northern Pakistan, currently ruled by the Taliban. The Sydney Morning Herald (via the LA Times) reports the incident “has galvanised the nation, drawing protests from human rights groups, denunciations from the Government and expressions of revulsion from Pakistanis” (including overseas Pakistanis like my Dad).

Yet this awful Taliban action has galvanised an unequal and opposite reaction from certain sick and demented folk whose comments are regarded as perfectly fit for publication by moderators of one Herald Sun blog:

The whole place should be nuked.
Just start again.
Then Pakistan.
Don’t laugh. Think about it for a second- what hope has the free world
got against radical islamists?
Mrs Robinson (Reply)
Sun 05 Apr 09 (01:44pm)

JayGee replied to Mrs Robinson
Sun 05 Apr 09 (02:43pm)
I agree. This is just ANOTHER manifestation of the savagery that is tolerated by this mob.

AussieTraveller replied to Mrs Robinson
Sun 05 Apr 09 (03:11pm)
Amen to that sister!!

Futureproof replied to Mrs Robinson
Sun 05 Apr 09 (03:34pm)
As seen on a T-Shirt, “Nuke ‘em all and let God decide”

How dare you draw attention to the brutal plight of women in Afghanistan, Andrew.
I’m off to tell Scott Bridges and Jeremy Sears so they can publish another blog entry condemning you.
Abu Chowdah (Reply)
Sun 05 Apr 09 (02:51pm)

And this blog boasts one million hits per month. If these comments are any indication of the Herald-Sun readership, Dad should be happy he’s not living in Victoria, let alone the Swat valley!

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

BLOGS: Bolt's brain-dead buddies ...

After following Andrew Bolt's blog commenters for some months, it's clear to me that a prerequisite for commenting on minority ethnic or religious groups is failing an IQ test. There are some seriously stupid people leaving comments on Bolt's blog. Why does he entertain them? Is he hoping to feel more sensible by surrounding himself with stupid people?

Bolt's least favourite minority group is ... well ... it's hard to say. I've never read him say anything nice about Somalis, Sudanese, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and/or Muslims. So in a typical post about nasty Muslims allegedly accusing Christians of being racist, Bolt allows the following beauties to pass his moderation test:

A ‘phobia” is having an irrational fear of something.
When you look around the globe and see that the majority of atrocities involve muslims and someone else, having a fear of muslims is entirely “rational”.

So Christians, Hindus, Buddhists etc are NOT Islamophobic!
Even in predominantly muslim countries like Pakistan, there are daily atrocities of muslims killing other muslims. Look at the ethnic cleansing of black african muslims who aren’t on the same scale as other muslims.
Islam IS the PROBLEM.
geoff from the west (Reply) Sun 05 Apr 09 (03:43pm)

Those wretched Muslim suicide bombers controlling the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam. And what about the FARC Islamic militia? Islam is the problem. Not violence. Not terror. Not extremism. Believing in one God and praying 5 times a day (something many Muslims don't do) is the problem.

But here's my favourite. Nothing like an injection of some good old-fashioned bestiality.

Koran justified beheadings, suicide explosive murderers and clerical rules for fornication with livestock.....but Who Cares?

You have a PR problem, dhimmi.
TT (Reply) Sun 05 Apr 09 (04:04pm)

Is this TT fellow accusing Muslims of being a bunch of Kiwis? Anyway, as it's the season for economic meltdowns, try this for sensible economic analysis:

Nick Charles replied to winston
Sun 05 Apr 09 (08:52pm)

There are no impoverished Western countries, you dork. That’s because they were all founded on Christian principles. They’re only becoming poor - both spiritually and economically - now they’re post-Christian. But they at least still have strong armies, that’s why they don’t get invaded (except via multicultural immigration).

No, brainstrust, Muslims invade weak impoverished countries such as Somalia and Ethiopia. Recent enough for you? ...

You really need to get out more ...

Yes, we need to get out more. As in outside the Milky Way and onto whichever planet Nick Charles is living in. Christian countries all rich? I could start by asking what on earth is a Christian country, but let's assume Nick refers to countries the majority of whose occupants see themselves as belonging to a Christian denomination.

The last time I checked, Central and South America were not regarded as part of the Third World. Neither were the Philippines, East Timor, Haiti, Iceland, Ethiopia, Armenia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Croatia or Georgia. Israel has a very strong currency, but it isn't exactly a Christian country.

But why are we even talking about this stuff anyway? Who cares about whether following a particular religion brings prosperity or not? What kind of imbecilic forum would host such an imbecilic discussion?

Why, Andrew Bolt's online forum, of course.



Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

MEDIA: Herald Sun slaps a face-veil on Tanveer Ahmed ...

Today Andrew Blot has written a completely new article. He’s never written anything on this topic before, whether on Monday or last Friday. It’s a fresh change for his regular readers who relish his exercise of free speech (including readers like me who are banned from commenting on his blog).

Today Andrew Blot writes on why a certain minority refuses to integrate. Take your pick as to which minority it could be – Somali, Sudanese, African, Aboriginal, Muslim, Torres Strait Islander – they’re all the bloody same.

These friggin minorities simply refuse to behave. Allow me to illustrate using Dutch conservatives. Look at their record overseas – establishing apartheid in South Africa and establishing colonial rule in Indonesia so nasty that the Indonesians preferred Japanese occupation during WWII. And these days, these Dutch conservatives recruit Somalis who lie and queue-jump to get visas.

(At least there's one Somali Blot doesn't hate.)

And what about Australia? Well, there’s that nasty Dutch conservative columnist Andrew Blot who cannot spell simple names like Tanveer Ahmed. For some reason Bolt (okay, I’ll spell it correctly now) spells Dr Ahmed's name as “Tanver”.

Heck, the rest of us true-blue Australians make an effort to spell people’s names correctly. Why can’t Bolt learn to assimilate?

Normal Aussies try not to draw conclusions about entire groups on the basis of completely non-related incidents. Then again, if you’re like Andrew and determined to hate a group, Professor Google can provide you with lots of examples of the dirty deeds which the preferred objects of your hate engage in.

It’s completely ridiculous to claim that 360,000 people from 60 different countries living in different parts of Australia could all have “poor English, poor skills, poor assimilation, poor education of women or a rejection of our society”. On what basis does Bolt write in this crap? After appearing on an ABC TV show with a white-skinned half-Aussie half-Kiwi academic? And after reading just one media report about one Queensland University of Technology researcher? And after comparing these two with the experience of one Bangladeshi-burn psychiatric registrar whose name Bolt cannot spell properly?

(And after supporting an employer's alleged right to discriminate against a Muslim trainee?)

And so we have the ridiculous spectacle of a former sports writer for The Age trying to prove a “group” of 360,000 people are uneducated and have poor English skill using evidence of encounters with a psychiatric registrar and two academics from that same “group”. And what graphic does the Herald Sun's online editor believes best represents all these people?

Yep, Dr Tanveer Ahmed regularly wears one of those.

So who funds this hate-speech? The last time I checked, Bolt’s blog featured a banner advertisement from ANZ. Perhaps it’s time Australians of Lebanese, Muslim, Somali, Aboriginal, Sudanese, Torres Strait Islander etc etc extraction (and those Aussies who find xenophobia offensive) switched banks.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

BLOGS: Imagine a dinner party at Andrew Bolt's place ...

I always dreaded dinner parties when I was growing up. My parents would invite their Indian friends (Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Parsees etc), and I'd have to put up with boring discussions about politics, religion and cricket. Or my father would invite his academia friends and/or postgrad students, in which case the talk would be about this symposium or that academic journal.

I wonder what they talk about at dinner parties hosted by the Bolts. If his blog is anything to go by, Bolt's dinner time discussions would revolve around why white Aussies are victims of nasty Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander and/or Muslim and/or African and/or Sudanese and/or Somali victimhood/crime/lack of assimilation etc.

It's hard to find Bolt saying anything nice about anyone. His blog seems to attract an assortment of whingers whingeing about how little they whinge compared to other whingers of a slightly darker skin pigmentation.

In Bolt's world, the white man lives in fear of imminent attack. Everything is black and white, especially in terms of skin colour. Imagine a dinner at the Bolt household with this kind of (allegedly reasoned) discussion:

I would say that most Australians have a healthy dose of Islamophobia simply because they fear being either…

a. Blown up
b. Shot
c. Raped
d. Assulted
e. Intimidated
f. Spat-upon
g. Insulted

Rosemary of Queensland (Reply)
Mon 30 Mar 09 (07:12am)

I never knew Patricia Ilhan engaged in all that nasty stuff. Anyway, here's more from dinner guest Rosemary.

Rosemary replied to Rosemary
Mon 30 Mar 09 (10:45am)

I would also like to add that as far as I am concerned, the Islamophobia that is present is entirely the fault of the Muslim community both here and overseas.

By not controlling, civilizing and moderating their young males, and by not casting out the radicals in their midst they have, by their silence and shameful inaction brought upon their heads the consequences of being mistrusted by the general community.

She's right. Let's look at the young males in my family. One studying medicine, the other dentistry. Both teetotallers, though not teetotalitarians. And then there is this disgraceful example of uncivilised and unmoderated Muslim manhood.

Bolt's dinner guests have some fascinating insights into the legal and political systems of other nations.

lethal replied to David Mon 30 Mar 09 (10:37am)
... in Muslim nations there is no separation of church(mosque) and state (and islamic (sharia) law often prevails) ...

Yep, plenty of sharia law in action in Turkey, Bosnia and Albania. And Pakistan is known for its strict Islamic code, especially on TV.

And, of course, lawlessness and violence can only be met with lawlessness and violence.

These cowards as we all know are only brave when there’s 20 of them on one. They go to s#%t when faced with equal numbers.Look what happened at Cronulla, That kept em quiet for a while. The law needs to evolve to deal with this ...
Des Lyxic of Oak Flats (Reply) Mon 30 Mar 09 (09:52am)

What drives Bolt's guests to spew forth such rabid nonsense? One wonders whether Bolt's dinner party might descend into something resembling this ...



Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

BLOG: Bolt gets freaky ...

You have to admire Andrew Bolt. He genuinely believes in freedom of speech. Including on the internet.

Well, I thought he believed in freedom of speech. But on Q&A last night, Bolt was caught out badly on the ongoing debate on internet censorship. Bolt was caught out trying to push for legislation to extend internet censorship beyond child pornography and onto politics.

Andrew Bolt said last night that the government should also go after "jihadist" material.

ANDREW BOLT: ...should anyone be able to watch and publish and distribute anything at all they like? Anything at all. Like, I don't know, a father having sex with his children. Fritzl, the guy in Austria, videos of him having sex with his daughter. Anything like that, you think there should be absolutely no barrier. Jihadist material. Anything.

An audience member caught Bolt out:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Andrew you really raise my ire with your comment about jihadists, because that's my worry. When does - we don't see the list. We don't know what's on the list and when do we know what's going to get added to the list? And the next thing is not just kids at Monash getting arrested for reading books, it's somebody who goes to a - the issue of paedophilia, reprehensible, yeah, we're in agreement but you just said jihadist. Now, why can't somebody under the ideas of democracy and freedom of speech visit a jihadist site? If it's racial vilification, if it's an incitement to genocide, there's issues in Australia, but we're still talking about freedom of speech--

At this point the Minister Stephen Conroy, whom Bolt was up until this point defending, rejected any call for political censorship on the internet.

Bolt wants political censorship on the internet. Yet Bolt's own blogging practices show to what extent Bolt cannot even comply with existing laws in such areas as racial vilification. Bolt cannot even comply with his employer's Publication Guidelines. How would he comply with political censorship? Unless he wanted to censor everyone else but not himself.

Bolt came out of the episode looking like a goose, and he knew it. He needed to take out his frustration on someone. But he did he choose? A politician?

No. True to form, Bolt blew the dog whistle. His usual gang of racists and bigots are always ready to say what Bolt would like to so (and so often does). Bolt accuses Susan Carland, a descendant of the First Fleet, for allegedly not coming clean with the ABC audience about an allegedly dominant "rejectionist strand" within Australian Muslim circles. Bolt tried to pin Carland into a corner and allege that her comments to a Malaysian newspaper concerning her conversion experiences were somehow identical to Bolt's fear-mongering and hate-speech.

Bolt's attempt to put forward his "Muslims are different" argument (which is virtually identical to the rhetoric of European far-Right parties) failed miderably. He even dragged his father into the discussion.

ANDREW BOLT: Susan, can I just point out when my father came here from Europe as a migrant and then he started teaching immigrants like the Italians and Greeks, I think you're wrong. The suspicion that you say was - this is just what we're seeing a similar version of what those immigrants faced - I think it's completely wrong. That's ahistorical. It's not my experience of it. I'd also point out there are, in fact, more Buddhists in Australian than there are Muslims and we don't hear anything about that. We don't invite Buddhists onto this panel - or Tony doesn't invite Buddhists onto this panel to...

MALE SPEAKER: Next week.

ANDREW BOLT: He's invited you and your husband and, you know, Miss Australia and people like that, but he doesn't do it with Buddhists. There's specifically something in the community itself, as well, and I think, to be honest, you mentioned this yourself in an interview with the Malaysian Star Newspaper only a couple of years ago, where you said within the community, being a new convert from Christianity, you face the calls, from within the community, you shouldn't do this and you shouldn't do that and you shouldn't make friends with people who weren't Muslim and you should withdraw from society and everything that was haram and you said this was a problem for you and I think that's an acknowledgement there is, in fact, a problem within the Muslim community, a rejectionist strand, which is what makes this different. And I hate to be blunt, I hate to foster - you know, have all these people jeering...

SUSAN CARLAND: No, you don't. No, you don't.

Somehow I could detect some sarcasm from Susan there. Like many of us, Susan will have read the comments on Mr Bolt's blog and read exactly what Bolt fosters.

Bolt must have felt so distraught at his flimsy performance last night that he decided to post not one but two posts attacking fellow panellists. The first, of course, was against Ms Carland whom he claims had contradicted herself. On the show, she said that the rejectionist strand represented a minority among ordinary Muslims.

SUSAN CARLAND: The quick response would be absolutely there are people, a very small minority of people, within the Muslim community that are reluctant to engage with the wider community, but this is more...

ANDREW BOLT: You put it as a majority in this interview and ...

Andrew writes on his blog:

And when I pointed out that in her interview ...

Interview? Did Ms Carland do an interview with the Malaysia Star newspaper? Nowhere in the report did Star reporter Shahanaaz Habib talk about any interview.

Speaking at a dinner talk during the conference, organised by the Muslim Professionals Forum and the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry, Carland, who was named Australian Muslim of the Year in 2004, was brutally honest about the treatment of converts at the hands of “born” Muslims.

The reporter was at a function where Ms Carland was speaking. This was no interview. But what about the allegedly dominant "rejectionist strand"? Ms Carland spoke about the treatment converts often get at the hands of "born" Muslims. This was a discussion about relations between cultural Muslims and those who adopt the faith of their own free will.

The list of unreasonable pressures on converts includes telling converts to leave their so-called haram jobs immediately, even if the person had no other source of income.

The newbies are asked to give up hobbies like painting, photography, dancing or playing instruments. They’re advised to move out and sever ties with their kafir (infidel) family and non-Muslim friends, while female converts are urged to get married as soon as possible.

They are often expected to give up their own cultures and take on Arab, sub-continental, Malay or other cultures because these are deemed to be more “Islamic”.

Carland, a lecturer at Monash University in Melbourne, described these demands as not only unreasonable but also “very dangerous” as they made things unnecessarily hard for the convert.

The English language used in both the article and in Ms Carland's quoted statements is fairly straight forward. Apart from the non-Muslim families of converts who choose to follow such absurd rules, how does all this affect non-Muslims? How on earth could Bolt read this as some kind of reflection on an alleged monolithic Muslim mass that allegedly refuses to integrate into mainstream society? What kind of English did Bolt learn at school?

Bolt encourages his readers to judge Ms Carland's alleged dishonesty and double-speak. And as always, Bolt always ensures that the discussion never becomes personal.

I’d like to see her in the full black bee-hive hat instead of the glittery silver number she had on last night. After all, complete submission to the beliefs is what it takes to be a good Muslim. At the moment, she’s just a mouthpiece...for herself. She represents very little other than the new face of opportunism. A real muslim woman living a real life should’ve been on the panel, not her ...

I wonder who’s funding her efforts.
Little Ted of Qld (Reply)
Fri 27 Mar 09 (12:39pm)


I was extremely thankful that Mr Bolt was there and cut straight through the bullshit rhetoric spewed by the Islamic community and their apologists ...
Guffman of Coffs Harbour (Reply)
Fri 27 Mar 09 (12:39pm)

And is so often the case with hate speech, threats of violence raise their ugly head.

Habib replied to nigel
Fri 27 Mar 09 (03:36pm)
... Islam is a backward regressive religion for ignorant and cruel individuals - I will never understand why we let the violent stone age peasants that practise it into Australia ... I believe a jihad should be declared on muslims as they are non believers in our way of life ... they have been the enemy of civilizations like ours for centuries yet we let them here in their hordes - such weakness of mind will surely cost us dearly until we learn to treat such threats with the force they require.

Charming. Nice of Bolt to moderate this remark. Anyway, let's get back to the extraordinary reasoning and logic behind Bolt's supporters:

I watched her on the Q and A web site this morning and wasn’t impressed at all by her but I suspect she thinks she looks pretty good in that hijab and a very fashionable hijab it was, too ...
doc molloy of brisbane (Reply)
Fri 27 Mar 09 (01:08pm)

Lin replied to FOEHN
Fri 27 Mar 09 (04:55pm)
How on earth would Carland know what it was like to grow up in a group discriminated against - she is a white Australian? Did she become a Muslim just so that she could be part of a marginalised group, feeling a little left out?

And Bolt allows a Nazi-era slur used commonly against European Jews to now be recycled against Muslims.

Perhaps Carland was practicing Al-taqiyya - the practice of Muslims blatantly lying to non-Muslims. Al-taqiyya means that infidels cannot believe anything told to them by any Muslim ...
Annabelle of Sydney (Reply)
Fri 27 Mar 09 (01:54pm)

I always wondered whether the close association between the Dutch Right and the Nazis could have survived the Second World War. Anyway, some interesting observations were made about those nasty lefties ...

As for Susan Carland - you exposed her as naive and/or intellectually dishonest. The patent fact that the West needs to acknowledge about Islam is that it is the only religion (in fact it is a social and political system first and religion second) that has a developed doctrine and theology that mandates violence against unbelievers. Furthermore, violent jihad is and has been a defining characteristic of Islam since its beginnings in the seventh century ... The whole ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ movement that is propagated by leftist academics, politicians and journalists needs to be exposed for the intellectual fraud that it is.
Petey of Highett (Reply)
Fri 27 Mar 09 (02:51pm)

Those blasted leftwing politicians. One commenter got to the heart of the matter and summarised Bolt's rather paranoid argument.

Why is it that when you ask somebody who they are they usually will say australian, Italian etc. When you ask a muslim the same question they never say they are Australian or Turkish etc, only that they a muslim. This is the problem, muslims think they are special and don’t want to mix with mainstream society. Being muslim is the only identity they know.
John of Vic (Reply)
Fri 27 Mar 09 (03:13pm)

Muslims are one huge monolith, and they're all out to invade our countries, eat our children, kill our pets, sh*t in our toilets and wipe their backsides with our copy of the Herald Sun so that it makes more sense.

The thing that Australians have to understand is that for a muslim, Islam is their family, their past, their identity and their culture. As such Islam and Allah will ALWAYS come before friends, non-muslims, Australia, Australian laws, non-Islamic laws ... The majority, MAJORITY of muslims will not being overtly fundamentalistic jihadists do accept or quietly condone the true integrity of their fellow brothers who have taken Allah’s word to where they themselves are unable to ... I have worked with muslims and for a muslim-owned company ... I have NEVER met any muslim that represents the best of us humans.
green of sydney (Reply)
Fri 27 Mar 09 (04:35pm)

But by far the freakiest bit of Bolt's blogpost is where he cites comments left on Ms Carland's Facebook address.

UPDATE
Susan Carland’s Facebook community isn’t doing much to prove me wrong, or her the face of a religion of peace:

So now Andrew is obsessed not just with Ms Carland's religious choices. He is also obsessed with finding out who Ms Carland's friends are and what they post on her Facebook page. This is seriously scary stuff.

Poor Andrew Bolt seemd to have completely lost it.

UPDATE I: Bolt believes in freedom of speech, unless you disagree with him. Here is something that appeared on the right hand column of his blog recently ...

Irfan says: Watch out, everyone. Andrew wants to politically censor the internet. Seriously, though, you did come out looking like a prize goose. That explains why you’ve…

But when you go to the actual blog in question, this is what you see ...

SNIP - BANNED
Irfan
(Reply)Fri 27 Mar 09 (07:38pm)

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

BLOGS: Those RMIT almost-suicide-bombers ...

Andrew Bolt generally doesn't directly cast aspersions or makes insinuations about entire groups. He generally poses questions and leaves it to his commenters to take things furthsr. But on this occasion, Bolt just couldn't help himself.

Is this about faith - or about power?

Yep, Muslim students and staff who want a private space to perform their prayers are seeking to take over RMIT and turn it into a caliphate.

RMIT University’s acting pro vice-chancellor (students), Maddy McMaster, explains why this secular university won’t cave in to demands for yet more ...

(... emphasis mine.) Selfish cretins these Muslims are. They just keep demanding. They're never content.

... the Muslim students are demanding the university build them the de-facto mosque that Melbourne-city Muslims won’t build themselves.

Bolt knows this is a complete lie and fabrication. The students and staff are only asking for a dedicated room. They aren't asking for a huge building with minarets and a dome. But what's wrong with telling lies if it generates hatred against an undesirable group?

Can’t share. Won’t share. Demanding more than their share. Is this the authentic face of young Muslims in Australia?

Can vilify. Will vilify. Thinking himself above all human rights and anti-vilification legislation. Is this Andrew Bolt the authentic face of columnists at the Herald Sun?

If Andrew Bolt's blog is anything to go by, it certainly is. Here's what one commenter wrote about overseas students coming to Australia:

uptothebackteeth replied to George P
Mon 23 Mar 09 (02:51pm)
Commercial realities.. my foot!!I’ll see them in hell first.You don’t pander to zealots at any time. You keep giving an inch and they’ll keep taking the miles, and the demands will never end. What’s next on their agenda...Deny some other race they don’t like an education or some other extreme position. I could care less how much money they import each year.

A fairly mild start. But it gets better.

Terry replied to George P
Mon 23 Mar 09 (03:23pm)
I really don’t care how much they are paying, if their presence undermines civilised values in Autralia, let them go somewhere else. In case you don’t get that - these are racist bigots, and we don’t need them in our places of learning. Period, end of story. We certainly don’t need to feed from their pockets.

And of course, it doesn't matter if you were born and brought up in Australia. Your motives must necessarily be interpreted in light of the actions and attitudes of overseas actors over which you have absolutely no control.

Gerry Murphy replied to Sasha
Mon 23 Mar 09 (02:01pm)
They do unlike the reception a Christian would receive in an Islamic country. It’s about the perception that their demands are unreasonable, and they are. It fits a tiresome pattern of incessant grievance mongering and special pleading that will never be satisfied.

Still, at least we can be grateful that these nasty foreign beedy-eyed protestors aren't doing what their kind do overseas.

Hey, at least they are protesting and not using Suicide Bombings.
Nathan (Reply)
Mon 23 Mar 09 (12:43pm)

Hey, at least Andrew Bolt is just moderating racist comments and not imposing apartheid in Australia in the manner some other consevatives of Dutch origin had done in South Africa and Indonesia. Woops, was that offensive? Moving right along ...

These blasted people don't belong in our country.

john n replied to scotty
Mon 23 Mar 09 (01:58pm)
Yes and there are lots more and many mosques -right back where they belong ,in their Islamic countries ...

lethal replied to DALTS
Mon 23 Mar 09 (01:12pm)
... They say we discriminate against them then turn around and ask for special treatment that keeps them separate from the rest of us dirty infidels. Trouble is, Muslims see themselves as superior to the rest of us filthy infidels - they really want to be treated as better than us.

Daniel Lewis (of Rushcutters Bay fame) then decides to inject some prejudice from another blog ...

Daniel Lewis replied to DALTS
Mon 23 Mar 09 (02:36pm)
... Vexnews has more (note my comments).

Yes, the in-house counsel at Herald and Weekly Times Pty Limited should note these comments.
Perhaps long-time employees may recall a time when other minorities were baited in this fashion. Or maybe not. Andrew Bolt's friends certainly don't.

frank replied to Susan of Victoria
Mon 23 Mar 09 (04:24pm)
Unlike other migrant groups who want to share their culture this lot are different,in that they seem to want to come in and tell us how we should be living,eating drinking,dressing, worshipping and not only get offended but get even aggressive if we dont conform to their ways.

They really don't belong in our country, do they Andrew?

They can find all the Muslim prayer spaces they’d need in an Islamic country where, I’m sure, they’d be happier, May Allah speed them on their way.

Bob Up of Beaumaris, Vic (Reply)
Mon 23 Mar 09 (12:58pm)

I could go on and on. It must have been like this for German Jews reading newspapers during the 1920's and '30's. This is the level of discourse from Australia's biggest selling newspaper.

Also, in case you are wondering, one of the Herald Sun's advertisers is the World Society for the Protection of Animals. Feel free to forward any racist and xenophobic comments moderated by Bolt and his minions to their e-mail address: wspa@wspa.org.au. Ask them whether they are happy for their advertisement to be placed on the same page as this xenophobic filth.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious