Yet Another Epic Fail: “It’s A Cowardly Racist Who Hides Behind Cars.”

Well the Australian Protectionist Party have failed miserably again.

‘Mosque Rally Draws Just Four Protesters’

Race Rally Fear Over Elermore Vale Mosque

(See earlier related fails…):

The Australian Protectionist Pathetics Election Results

Two More Epic Fails on the Way

One Big Fat Failure

Another Big Fat Failure

Late Mail on the APP Fail

The Saga of the Sad Little White Clown

The APP’s Views on Aboriginal Australians

Hodge’s Denial

The laughable irony all along is that all of these bigots think they have such massive levels of support for their hatred and intolerance, yet they fail over and over and over again. The consistent election results should be enough to send the message to these clowns that their support will never be more than 1 – 2%. But they went for it, again, and tried to organise an anti-Islam rally in the Newcastle suburb of Elermore Vale. It drew just four people.

The APP went public with their protest over the proposed Mosque, with spokesdummy Nathan Smith saying that thousands of Muslims would move to Elermore Vale and create parking issues. This is despite Elermore Vale having an existing population of a mere 28,000 people and no planned developments of apartment blocks or high rises. This is also despite there being an already existing 72 Mosques/Musallas/Islamic Prayer Rooms in NSW. It must be noted at this point that there was already an existing action group called EV CARES, who opposed the Mosque on the issues of increased parking hassles alone (despite the developers stating on the record that there would be on site parking), and even they wanted to distance themselves from the incredibly inept and unpopular APP.

Also of note – an existing Mosque in nearby Wallsend has been in existence for over a decade, with no bombings, mass suicides, acts of rape or pedophilia, community terrorism or public stonings. In fact, nearby residents affirm that the Muslims who use the Wallsend Mosque are friendly and hospitable, often inviting neighbours to functions, stopping to chat and bringing them food and gifts. This is completely oppositional to ‘information’ within APP brochures distributed around the suburbs stating that Mosques are a ‘focal point’ for the ‘significant’ amount of extremists within Islamic ranks.

Of course, the APP hides their blatant intolerance behind the idea that Islam is not a race, but a religion, and therefore can be the subject of discrimination, despite Australia’s freedom of religion laws. The APP and EV CARES both also hide behind the simplistic focal point of ‘parking issues’ in order to oppose the Mosque. Let’s have a quick look at the proposed Mosque location in Elermore Vale though (click to enlarge):

As you can see – PLENTY of room for the proposal’s on-site parking arrangements. The Mosque will not be even close to being as big as a supermarket, and look – there’s one for you to make your comparisons with right there on the map. In fact, the proposed Mosque is supposed to go in behind the giant Bi-Lo supermarket and carpark.

HERE is a suburb where ‘parking issues’ could be a legitimate argument against a proposed Mosque (click to enlarge):

NEWTOWN, NSW.

So anyway, it all boils down to this:

* People that oppose Mosques don’t give a flying fuck about parking issues, they’re just hate/fearmongers who don’t like Muslims. Hence, “It’s a cowardly racist who hides behind cars.”

* White supremacist groups like the APP are epic failures and do NOT have any public support. This is shown in election results AND in protest attendees.

Fail, fail, fail.

163 thoughts on “Yet Another Epic Fail: “It’s A Cowardly Racist Who Hides Behind Cars.”

    • hmm..this guy again!!! If Australia didn’t have immigration he wouldn’t be here…and I highly doubt his pops fought with the Anzacs

  1. “the APP hides their blatant intolerance behind the idea that Islam is not a race, but a religion”

    Exsqueeze me?
    This is just Dazza’s crazy idea?

    So Islam *is* a race?
    Islam is *not* a religion?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

    “Islam is the monotheistic *religion* articulated by the Qur’an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim.”

    There are Black Muslims, Arab Muslims, White Musliims, Indian Muslims, Indonesian Muslims.
    These are all one ‘race’ now are they?

    Freedom of religion?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Australia#Constitutional_status

    “Section 116 of the 1900 Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Constitution) provides that:

    The Commonwealth of Australia shall not make any law *establishing* any religion, or for *imposing* any religious observance, or for *prohibiting* the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

    Nothing there about constructing buildings.

    http://newcastlemosque.com/

    “With great pleasure, the Newcastle Muslim Association announces the purchase of a property at Elermore Vale for building a new mosque (Alhamdulillah). It is located at less than 5 minutes drive from the existing mosque.”

    Why on Earth would there be any ‘demand’ for a mosque just 5 minutes drive from an existing one?

    • Thanks Shonky, for missing the point ONCE AGAIN. Oh boy, you sure are good at it!

      You harp on about the ‘Islam is not a race, but a religion’ line, but completely miss the point. The APP don’t believe that their opposition to the mosque on religious grounds is discriminatory. The point you MISSED is that it IS discriminatory, even if it doesn’t fit your black and white definition on ‘racism’. In fact, nobody even mentioned racism in this post. Nathan Smith of the APP denied that opposition on religious grounds is discriminatory. You’ll find that the Anti Discrimination Act 1970 says that discrimination on the grounds of religion is still discrimination.

      And while you fire away wikipedia links, thinking you’re teaching us all some grand lesson, you quote Australia’s Constitutional Status.

      Thank you.

      “The Commonwealth of Australia shall not make any law establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion…

      Then you quote:

      “…no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

      The Newcastle Muslim Association are not asking for religious funding from any form of Government… Is that the point you were making? Do you remember who funded World Youth Day? Meh..

      Then you ask why there would be any demand for a mosque anywhere near another one. Why you would ask this question of me in particular is baffling. Did you see the size of the Wallsend Mosque in the Youtube link? That Mosque currently services the Hunter region. For the same reason a shop would close and open up a few doors/blocks away, it has space/size requirements. Got a problem with that? Or are you just opposed to the ‘parking problems’.

      Fuckwit…

  2. Some info.

    Elermore Vale is a quiet residential suburb between Wallsend and New Lambton. A mosque will have zero impact on the neighbourhood. The people in Elermore Vale get more hassles from traffic taking rat runs through there to avoid breathalysers on the main roads than they would from a mosque.

    So given that the Vale is well supplied with parks and reserves, one wonders why the idiots from the APP had their tiny hate fest in Civic Park which is a good few kilometres away and surrounded by trendy inner city suburbs, art galleries and cafes – you know, all those places they abhor so much? And where’s Nick Folkes? Hiding behind the women I guess.

  3. Just watched an insightful doco on the SBS website called ‘migrants go home’ about Europe, especially Italy, trying to push back asylum seekers, sending them back to detention in Libya. Didn’t know how best to share it but someone here might find it interesting. You’ll find it easy.

    I can’t believe Shock referenced the constitution *Facepalm*
    What a fuckwit

  4. Oh man I wish I’d known about this, I might just have made up my own signs and bugged the crap out of them. Ask them to tear down their (insert typical racist haunts here) due to ‘parking hassles’

  5. Will S says: “So, how do you feel about Arabs?”

    Feel?
    Oh, of course. you’re a touchy-feely-lovey-dove-dove.

    So only Arabs are Muslims now, eh?

    How do I feeeeeeel?
    Unrelated civilisation.

    theantibogan says:
    “You harp on about the ‘Islam is not a race, but a religion’ line, but completely miss the point.”

    You said this was just an ‘idea’ (i.e. not a fact). That is the point.
    You can’t turn up to protest ‘racists’ when the issue is a mosque.
    That’s religion, not race.

    “The APP don’t believe that their opposition to the mosque on religious grounds is discriminatory.”

    It doesn’t matter if it is.
    The constitution says nothing about the ‘right to construct buildings’.

    “The point you MISSED is that it IS discriminatory, even if it doesn’t fit your black and white definition on ‘racism’.”

    I don’t care.
    The black and white definition of racism is written into those laws you like to keep quoting. And religion isn’t race.

    “In fact, nobody even mentioned racism in this post.”

    Uh, the TITLE of this article is “It’s A Cowardly *Racist* Who Hides Behind Cars.”
    And you link to “*Race* Rally Fear Over Elermore Vale Mosque”

    Epic Fail.

    “You’ll find that the Anti Discrimination Act 1970 says that discrimination on the grounds of religion is still discrimination.”

    You mean the 1977 NSW act?
    Discrimination is not applicable to everything.
    Only employment, education, provision of goods and services, accommodation and registered clubs.

    And only “ethno-religion”, not religion per se, is included.
    An ethno-religion would be one *specific* to a particular ethnicity/race.
    Islam has no race-specificity.

    There is nothing about non-discrimination for building applications.

    ““…no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
    The Newcastle Muslim Association are not asking for religious funding from any form of Government… Is that the point you were making?”

    No, I didn’t even highlight that section (I merely quoted the whole clause so you couldn’t play Prissy Princess and claim I deliberately left something out).

    Funding is not an “*office* under the commonwealth”.
    Neither is a building permit.

    “For the same reason a shop would close and open up a few doors/blocks away”

    And are they ‘closing’ the old mosque?

    “Got a problem with that?”

    Yes.
    Mosques are architecturally incongruous.
    Muslims are sexist and homophobic (That makes them UnAustralian!).
    Mosques are a foot-in-the-door strategy to take over suburbs.
    They are built not to serve current demand (there already is one five minutes away) but encourage the further infiltration of aliens into Newcastle.

    Novocastrian says:
    “Elermore Vale is a quiet residential suburb”.

    Not for long.

    J says: “I can’t believe Shock referenced the constitution *Facepalm*
    What a fuckwit”

    Why exactly is that a facepalm?

    Jess says: “I might just have made up my own signs and bugged the crap out of them.”

    What kind of pathetic loser ‘protests’ a protest?

    “Ask them to tear down their (insert typical racist haunts here) due to ‘parking hassles’.”

    Please enlighten us. What *is* a typical racist haunt?

    Demolishing an existing building and a constructing new one are hardly comparable.

    • “You can’t turn up to protest ‘racists’ when the issue is a mosque.
      That’s religion, not race.”

      And you can’t turn up to protest parking issues when you hand out brochures telling everyone that a high percentage of Mosque attendees are Islamic extremists and terrorists. Did you even watch Nathan Smith on the video grab? Fuckwit.
      As there is no commonly used word for being discriminatory on the basis of religion, it is generally lumped in with the word ‘racism’, as is the case since the wave of Islamaphobia hit (September, 2001). Generally you will hear people bagging out Muslims as being camel fucking sand niggers, dune coons and Arab scum. The connection is there, and if you’d like to play dumb like the APP mob when you hear racism linked to religious discrimination then go ahead.

      “It doesn’t matter if it is.
      The constitution says nothing about the ‘right to construct buildings’.”

      Ahh the constitution again:

      “The Commonwealth of Australia shall not make any law establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
      “The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) is able to inquire into allegations of discrimination on religious grounds.”

      If a council or residential action group is able to prevent a religious organisation from the freedom of building a place of worship because ‘…a high percentage of Mosque attendees are Islamic extremists and terrorists…’, then the HREOC is able to investigate discrimination on religious grounds. It wouldn’t be too dissimilar from a council or residential action group successfully blocking a Catholic church building proposal under the pretense that a high percentage of Catholic church goers are pedophiles.

      This is where the ‘a cowardly racist hides behind cars’ line comes in. The APP distributed flyers telling local residents that Mosques are bad because they attract Islamic extremists and terrorists, and then confront council about problematic parking situations. Now… you only need to refer back to the several hundred posts on this blog that highlight the link between people’s hatred of a religion and people’s hatred for the Middle East in general. And while you berate ME for creating a post that doesn’t mention racism when it’s in the very title, you fail to realise that I used a third-party quote.

      “Discrimination is not applicable to everything.”

      Yet you provided a link to the religion in Australia status within the constitution of Australia which specifically referred to “…prohibiting the free exercise of any religion…”, which would most definitely include the construction of a place of worship. And such a denial of a democratic right would warrant a case with the HREOC.

      “Mosques are architecturally incongruous.
      Muslims are sexist and homophobic (That makes them UnAustralian!).
      Mosques are a foot-in-the-door strategy to take over suburbs.”

      All subjective comments. Opinionated bullshit.

      “Novocastrian says:
      “Elermore Vale is a quiet residential suburb”.

      Not for long.”

      What evidence do you have to suggest that a suburb of Elermore Vale’s size and population demographics will drastically change after the construction of a Mosque?

  6. Why are anti-religionist/anti-God “atheists” also so pro the building of Mosques in Western countries such as Australia?

    The building of Mosques/Masjids is concurrent with the arrival of enormous numbers of foreign races and nationalities that adhere to Islam in these countries.

    It is not due to any large numbers of Australians converting/reverting to Islam.

    Australia has not been subjected to conquest by an Islamic power, nor capitulated in defeat to such, which was from the outset the precursor to the spread of Islam as the ruling power and eventually in place of or amongst the populace of a nation.

    This is an age old conflict.
    The people of Egypt, Persia, Byzantium, Spain, and Vienna did NOT however open the door to the invader!
    They fought back!

    If, I stress if, Australia was to accept Islam as a spiritual AND political institution, then it would be AS Australians…NOT the situation occuring de-facto via the import of multitudes of Muslim migrants/invaders.

    At least…at least…in earlier centuries the Muslims arrived at the borders of the nations they sought to concur as open invaders…now, they slip in (like the Jews they themselves despise, as parasitic “migrants”) under the guise of “immigration”, with the intent to populate and take over.
    At which point the foolhardy liberals that invited them will realise the error of their ways…one would hope.
    We cannot, absolutely cannot, allow things to get to that point.

    Muslims have attacked and wished to conquer the West for 1500 years. This is an old conflict. Tragic it is, that fools and traitors (barring Shockadelic!) such as yourselves now rush to hand over the keys to the city, throw open your civilisation, stab your people in the back…and set the course for our racial dissolution following our loss of sovereignty.

    Don’t think it’s of your own concoction no! Those that orchestrate “multi-culturalism” utilise Islamic immigration as a key battering ram against the West. It is a gamble for them though, for they rest too much on being able to control such a power.

    This is a racial issue, no doubt about it as well. For whilst adherents of Islam cover all colour/national/cultural/ethnic/racial lines…including Whites…most didn’t come under or go to Islam. Apart from Spain, Southern Italy, and the Balkans, Europe…and vitally Western Europe…did not fall to the armies of Islam.
    Though many Caucasian/Caucasoid peoples (through various means) came to or under Islam…the White people of Western Europe, and thus the people of Australia…did not!

    This IS a social, spiritual, political, cultural, and racial issue!
    Mosques are being built, or planned to be built, in Australia BECAUSE of the recent arrival of large numbers of the races and ethnicities that DID accept or come under Islam!
    With the intended purpose to marginalise and eventually eliminate the native/foundational White/British population of Australia!

    Australia is NOT an Islamic state, nor have we (officially) been conquered by one, and so there should be not “debates” about the building of Mosques here!

    Muslims attacked Europe for centuries! Many MILLIONS of White, European, Christians were captured and made slaves by raiding Muslims over several centuries. They were treated abominably. For you to spitefully want to hand over this country now…as liberal Whites are rushing to do in Europe now as well…is an insult to their memory.
    As it is an insult to your people, culture, nation, and civilisation…and our future!

    There IS massive cultural, political, social…and DEMOGRAPHIC…change being wrought upon many places in the West by this kind of “immigration” and construction now!
    The entire POINT of “multi-culturalism” is radical and total demographic change and replacement in Western countries!

    This here, is an age old conflict!

    • oooohh no…the nasty Muslims are coming to get us. Perhaps they’ll form an alliance with the Jews (let’s call it the Judeo-Islamic alliance) and force feed us whiteys gefilte fish and baba-ganoush until Jesus returns to Earth to save us.

    • Regardless of what you might think about Islam, I don’t see how the actions of the APP are defensible in any way.

      They’re muck raking, hate mongering pond scum. There’s no excuse for dropping leaflets across a whole suburb (I’ve got 2) to stir up hate against a particular group. At best it’s going to encourage people to abuse or even commit crimes against individuals of Middle Eastern appearance who are unrelated to the Mosque, think of Muslim kids at the local school for instance.

      The election results covered by tAB earlier already show pretty much ~no one~ in the Australian community at large agrees with the premises of the APP’s views. Not only that, but they got a total of ZERO votes at the nearest polling place to the mosque (the tally room doesn’t seem to be up anymore but I checked just after the election).

      In fact the mosque could have some positive impacts on the community like bringing more people to the ghost-town of a shopping centre you can see in the shot above.

      The funny thing about the “EV cares” group is they weren’t around when the suburb was getting regular break-ins and a few stabbings (even a murder) in the last few years. They don’t “care” that there’s groups of commission home scum wandering around at night either. Really I’d rather have the Muslims than those guys OR the APP around here.

      • You’ll be pleased to know that APP tragic Nathan Smith has apparently left Newcastle and now resides in Wollongong.

        Great for Newcastle, tragic for the Gong…

        Maybe Norman Gunston can interview him?

    • Hey Snotty I don’t use schools or clubs either but people have the right to set them up so your whining is irrelevant. As is your boring “Race-Mythos”.

      Go away.

  7. This is the leaflet they hand out:
    http://www.protectionists.org/leaflets/3xBuildingAMosque_national.pdf

    There’s a bunch more at
    http://www.protectionists.org/leaflets/index.html including this gem http://www.protectionists.org/leaflets/3xDoYouWantAMuslimAustralia_national.pdf

    does anyone know if these might constitute ethno-reigious vilification?

    The leaflets have been “communicated to the public”, and you could argue they “incite… serious contempt for or severe ridicule of” Muslims, which is illegal under the Anti-Discrimination Act in NSW.

    I’d imagine the APP get their stuff checked over by lawyers, but I thought it might be worth a shot with the Anti-Discrimination Board.

  8. theantibogan says: “when you hand out brochures telling everyone that a high percentage of Mosque attendees are Islamic extremists and terrorists.”

    The flyer didn’t say that from I see in the video.
    It says there is a ‘significant amount of extremists’ within Islam’s ranks.
    Not within Newcastle.

    And that Mosques *can* become a focal point for extremists?
    Do you dispute Mosques “can” become a focal point for Muslim extremists?

    “As there is no commonly used word for being discriminatory on the basis of religion, it is generally lumped in with the word ‘racism’”

    And it’s wrong. Invent a new word.
    Is Anonymous being ‘racist’ in protesting Scientology?

    “and if you’d like to play dumb when you hear racism linked to religious discrimination then go ahead.’

    Okay, I will.

    No need to quote the entire clause of the constitution when I already did.

    HREOC cannot act on violations of NSW legislation.
    They are Federal. Which federal law would be violated here?
    Local council decisions would not be in their jurisdiction, would they?

    Building permits are not a ‘service’.
    Services are things like collecting garbage, or libraries.

    “And while you berate ME for creating a post that doesn’t mention racism when it’s in the very title, you fail to realise that I used a third-party quote.”

    Yes, YOU put the word ‘racist’ in the title, then claimed nobody had mentioned it.
    Yet another Epic Fail, indeed.

    “Yet you provided a link to the religion in Australia status within the constitution of Australia which specifically referred to “…prohibiting the free exercise of any religion…”, which would most definitely include the construction of a place of worship.”

    No, it would not.
    You do not need to *construct* a building to:
    1. believe something.
    2. share you beliefs with others.
    3. read scriptures.
    4. say prayers.
    5. sing hymns.
    6. discuss and debate theology
    7. conduct ceremonies.

    You may *wish* to use a building for some group activities.
    This does not mean you need to *construct* a building.
    You can use an existing building (which looks like the case with the old mosque).

    “And such a denial of a democratic right”

    Democracy is the electoral system.
    You don’t vote for your preferred God.

    “All subjective comments.”

    You asked for my opinion. I responded.

    “What evidence do you have to suggest that a suburb of Elermore Vale’s size and population demographics will drastically change after the construction of a Mosque?”

    Try walking through Lakemba.

    Scott says: “Why are anti-religionist/anti-God “atheists” also so pro the building of Mosques in Western countries such as Australia?”

    Because they don’t know what the hell they want.

    Will S says: “Regardless of what you might think about Islam, I don’t see how the actions of the APP are defensible in any way.”

    Speech doesn’t have to be defensible to be permitted.

    “At best it’s going to encourage people to abuse or even commit crimes”.

    No, at *worst* it would result in crimes.
    At *best* it would result in a piece of crumpled paper in the bin.

    “In fact the mosque could have some positive impacts on the community like bringing more people to the ghost-town of a shopping centre”.

    More Muslims.
    Everyone else will keep moving out.

    “The funny thing about the “EV cares” group is they weren’t around when the suburb was getting regular break-ins and a few stabbings (even a murder) in the last few years.”

    And did that require the construction of murdering facilities?

    Josh says: “I don’t use schools or clubs either but people have the right to set them up”

    In an existing building.
    Nobody has the “right” to construct buildings. Nobody!

    Will S says: “This is the leaflet they hand out”

    That’s not the one in the video.

    “does anyone know if these might constitute ethno-religious vilification?”

    I do. No.
    As I’ve already said an ethno-religion would be one *specific* to a particular ethnic group.

    “I thought it might be worth a shot with the Anti-Discrimination Board.”

    If all else fails, run to Big Brother.

    • “theantibogan says: “when you hand out brochures telling everyone that a high percentage of Mosque attendees are Islamic extremists and terrorists.”

      The flyer didn’t say that from I see in the video.
      It says there is a ‘significant amount of extremists’ within Islam’s ranks.
      Not within Newcastle.”

      The point I’m trying to make here is that the APP is publicly (in the news report) pushing the parking and traffic angle to appear to have some kind of community mindedness, yet their brochures are full of shit about extremism: http://www.protectionists.org/leaflets/3xDoYouWantAMuslimAustralia_national.pdf

      “And it’s wrong. Invent a new word.”

      Even your mate Snott said that Muslims had no right to be here because it wasn’t their country. And this was from one of the APP flyers:

      ‘Should we be “tolerant” of such
      horrible things?
      Australian Protectionists say NO!
      We say that protecting the Australian People and our way of life should be more important’

      ‘Islam is primarily a religion of the Arab race and culture – one that is now spreading throughout the Third World – and its principles and way of life should not be pushed upon Australia.
      To re-establish social cohesion, we need to stop Third World immigration, which has been encour- aged by the big parties.’

      So there you have it. While the APP distances itself from racism by saying that Islam is merely a religion, they distance themselves from accusations of discrimination. Yet then they go on to say that Muslims are primarily Arab and Third-World people and that we should stop immigration in order to stop Muslims from coming to Australia. And it has nothing to do with race?

      “Yes, YOU put the word ‘racist’ in the title, then claimed nobody had mentioned it.
      Yet another Epic Fail, indeed.”

      No, I said that there had been no mention of racism in the post. I was hoping you’d understand that I was referring to my commentary of the issue, and that you would disregard quotes from third parties as being part of my commentary.

      ““Yet you provided a link to the religion in Australia status within the constitution of Australia which specifically referred to “…prohibiting the free exercise of any religion…”, which would most definitely include the construction of a place of worship.”

      No, it would not.”

      Um, yes it would. Telling Muslims that they are not allowed to build a Mosque because they are terrorists and extremists is denying them (on the basis of their religion) ‘free exercise’ of their religion. Free exercise doesn’t discount building places of worship, in includes it. That’s why it’s called ‘free exercise’. Of course ‘free exercise’ doesn’t specifically refer to constructing a place of worship, but it most certainly includes it. Telling Catholics that they couldn’t build a church because they were pedophiles would be a denial of their free exercise of religion based on the actions of Catholics who had abused their positions and betrayed their religion.

      ““And such a denial of a democratic right”

      Democracy is the electoral system.
      You don’t vote for your preferred God.”

      ‘From the earliest days of European settlement, religious diversity has been a fact, and religious freedom has been a part, of Australian life. While Australia is predominantly a Christian country, there are large communities that practise Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism.’

      Democratic Rights & Freedoms – dfat.gov.au

      “You asked for my opinion. I responded.”

      Did I?

      ““What evidence do you have to suggest that a suburb of Elermore Vale’s size and population demographics will drastically change after the construction of a Mosque?”

      Try walking through Lakemba.”

      That’s an example of a suburb with a large Arab community, and hence a large Muslim population. Elermore Vale does not have a large Arab community, and with 28,000 existing residents, it won’t become one with the construction of a 300 person maximum capacity Mosque. It should be noted at this point (seeing though you’ve often cited certain suburbs in implied negativity) that the crime rate in the Bankstown region is actually below the state average and it has been declining.

  9. I can see my house in the Newtown photo! Also, there is a mosque in Erskineville, it’s on Charles St. I live down the street and the muslims who use it are lovely people. In fact, most of them are concious of the low level of parking in the surrounding streets so they take the train or bus to get there.

  10. So what if they’re lovely people?
    Is that the issue?
    No.
    Is this there country? No. Is Australia an Islamic state? No. Is it right for Australian properyt to be taken up, and for Australians to keep taking steps backward so as to fit the building of Mosques to suit a growing number of Muslim immigrants (of a host of ethnicities and nationalities) and their expanding numbers of children. No, it’s not.
    Those are the issues.
    See how ‘lovely’ they are back in their own countries, to religious/ethnic minorities that exist there (often before they themselves invaded and conquered these places) or how ‘lovely’ they are if they grow to large enough numbers that you and other Australians are reduced to dhimmi status in your own country.
    Not as ‘lovely’ as you think.

    NO Churches or Temples being built near Mecca!

    Failing a Mosque that will take the swelling numbers of the faithful, Muslims will pray outside, in the streets, on the paths, wherever.
    This is currently being done in Britain and France, and other European countries, and it also works as a sign and a warning that more is to come.

    Lovely, and some are…or not…and it’s more often not…is not the case, at all. It’s about identity, integrity, and sovereignty. It’s about our country being ours.

    • “So what if they’re lovely people?
      Is that the issue?
      No.”

      Well, yes it is. Muslims can be good, hard working, decent people. Just like Anglos! Fancy that!

      All Muslims shouldn’t be judged on the actions of a few, just like I wouldn’t want your to be judged as an intolerant racist based on your vile beliefs, purely due to my white skin colour.

      “Is Australia an Islamic state? No.”

      We’re a secular state with a Christian background (or a Judeo-Christian history, if you listened to our former PM. What did you think of that, Scott?). We have freedom of religion, which means that if someone wants to pray to Allah they can damn well do so.

  11. Scott, chill the fuck out and have a beer or smoke some weed. No one is coming to get you. No one is coming to overtake this country. You willl never be reduced to ‘”dhimmi” status whilst you live in Australia.

    • Nick, it is because of pot head bogans like you, that Australia is under threat.
      Get off the weed and piss and face up to reality, if it’s not too late.
      Give it a go.

  12. Nick says: “there is a mosque in Erskineville, it’s on Charles St.”

    And it’s a former church, right?
    No construction required.

    [Scott says]: “So what if they’re lovely people? Is that the issue? No.”

    Keith says: “Well, yes it is.”

    No, it’s not.
    There are ‘lovely’ people all over the world, in every culture.
    And none of them are entitle to live here.
    Unless we say so.
    And even if we say so, they still aren’t entitled to construct buildings, unless we say so.

    “All Muslims shouldn’t be judged on the actions of a few”

    Or all White Supremacists?

    “We’re a secular state with a Christian background”.

    And the separation of religion and politics which you take for granted is *not* the norm in the Islamic world.
    WE invented separation of church and state. WE did, White Europeans.
    That is not a universal standard, particularly in the Islamic world.

    “We have freedom of religion, which means that if someone wants to pray to Allah they can damn well do so.”

    Yes.
    But praying doesn’t require constructing huge buildings that clash with the neighbouring architecture and could never be easily converted to some other future use because of their aesthetics.

    Nick says: “Scott, chill the fuck out and have a beer or smoke some weed.”

    The Looney Left solution to everything: stick your head in the sand and get high.

    “You willl never be reduced to ‘”dhimmi” status whilst you live in Australia.”

    It’s all about me, me, me, me, me.
    Who cares about future generations? Not my problem.
    Pass the bong, will ya?

  13. No, I won’t be silenced by beer, I won’t be dulled by weed, and I will definitely NOT chill out! Being told to “chill out” by liberal twits who either cannot fathom the danger we are in, or who eagerly wish it on, makes me do anything but chill out!

    You say that no-one is coming to take over this country, my country?
    Then what the hell is going on on the buses and trains each day???
    On our city streets? In schools etc?
    What the hell do you think is happening as in excess of three hundred thousand foreigners arrive here per annum???
    What do you think is going on???
    What do you think is going on as Australians are reduced to being a mere “citizen” just like the blow-ins, and are being driven rapidly towards minority, and ultimately expendable status, in our own country???
    As with elsewhere in the Western world…just what do you think is going on?

    Those of us that are awake to it, are NOT imagining what is going on! That is why we speak and act against it!

    You think massive numbers of alien races and clashing cultures can be imported by certain power elites into this country and NOTHING happen???

    WAKE UP!!!

    • “What the hell do you think is happening as in excess of three hundred thousand foreigners arrive here per annum???”

      Australia’s current migrant intake is at around 160,000 per year. Australia also loses around 110,000 people who emigrate permanently each year.

  14. Is this what the likes of Scott and Shocky have been reduced to? Arguing about architecture? Hey, the APP will win the next election! Just you watch 😉

  15. theantibogan says: “The point I’m trying to make here is that the APP is publicly (in the news report) pushing the parking and traffic angle to appear to have some kind of community mindedness, yet their brochures are full of shit about extremism”

    The new report also mentions the brochure, which *also* mentions parking/traffic issues.

    “Even your mate Snott said that Muslims had no right to be here because it wasn’t their country.”

    And that’s not “racist”.

    “We say that protecting the Australian People and our way of life should be more important”

    And that’s not “racist”.

    “‘Islam is primarily a religion of the Arab race and culture”

    And that’s not discrimination-of-ethnoreligion unless ‘primarily’ means ‘exclusively’.

    “Arab and Third-World people” are not *a* race.

    “And it has nothing to do with race?”

    Who said ‘nothing to do with’?
    I said describing opposition-to-a-religion as “Racism” is technically wrong.

    Do your attacks on Christianity make you ‘racist’ against Whites (since Christianity is ‘primarily’ a religion of White people)?

    “No, I said that there had been no mention of racism in the post.”

    *I* hadn’t mentioned it EITHER.
    You were the one to first mention “racism” in response to my post, which only referred to ‘race’.
    And my post was a reply to your ridiculous statement “the APP hides their blatant intolerance behind the idea that Islam is not a *race*, but a religion”
    Which it is.

    “disregard quotes from third parties as being part of my commentary.”

    Disregard the title.
    The title you chose to publish.

    You are too rich.

    “Telling Muslims that they are not allowed to build a Mosque because they are terrorists and extremists is denying them (on the basis of their religion [no, that would be on the basis that they’re potential ‘criminals’]) ‘free exercise’ of their religion.’

    It doesn’t matter what you ‘tell them’, the ‘free exercise’ of religion does not include constructing buildings.
    Look up “religion” in a dictionary and show me where it says this requires the *construction* (not use of) of buildings. Show me!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion

    This definition mentions nothing about a right to construct buildings.

    Just because a page is titled “Democratic Rights & Freedoms” doesn’t mean everything on that page is a ‘democratic’ right.

    The page actually says “Australia’s approach to *human rights* and freedoms reflects its liberal democratic ideals”
    Then lists the political (i.e. ‘democratic’) rights and the *human* (including religious) rights.
    Religion is a *human* right, not a democratic one.
    Religion has nothing to do with the electoral system.

    Same page: “the Australian Government practises constant vigilance, through the rigorous investigation of complaints by statutory bodies, to ensure the *human right* to free religious expression is protected for all community members.”

    Yes, human rights ‘reflect’ our democratic ideals, but religion is a human right, not a democratic right. Democracy is politics.

    ““You asked for my opinion. I responded.”
    Did I?”

    “Got a problem with that? Or are you just opposed to the ‘parking problems’.”

    Got a problem? Are you opposed….? = What’s your opinion?

    “Try walking through Lakemba.”

    “That’s an example of a suburb with a large Arab community, and hence a large Muslim population.”

    And hence… Arab = Muslim. Ergo Muslim = Arab. So anti-Muslim must = anti-Arab. Ergo anti-Arab = ‘racism’. It all makes sense now.

    So ‘Bankstown’ (did I mention ‘Bankstown’?) has low crime rates.
    I didn’t ask a local Muslim Arab to walk through Lakemba and survive, I asked YOU.

    “Elermore Vale does not have a large Arab community, and with 28,000 existing residents, it won’t become one with the construction of a 300 person maximum capacity Mosque.”

    Those 28,000 residents may change over time, from what they are today, to a majority Arab (or is that Muslim?) community without any increase from 28,000.

    300 persons *at a time*.
    Do you think they will only have *one* session a week?

    You point before was that it would serve the whole Hunter REGION!
    Don’t you think eventually people will decide to stop traveling miles to get there and just move into the nearby suburbs?

    There may not be many *now*, but build a huge mosque and there will be.
    And the locals will move out (ever heard of ‘White flight’?).
    So yes, *gradually* they will take over the nearby neighbourhood.

    Nick says: “Shocky, I was going to invite you over for a sesh but now you’ve hurt my feelings.”

    Cry into your beer. And then another. And another. And then a toke.

    Keith says: “Shonkydelic, why do you bother? You’re clearly not a man (or woman) of great intellect or insight now, are you?”

    Or woman?

    If you are critiquing something I’ve said, please quote from my actual statement, so I know what the hell you’re referring to.
    Otherwise, save it.

    Rob says: “Ding dong, all aboard the invasion train!”

    Have you *been* on a Sydney train lately?
    Count the White people next time.

    Why why says: “Is this what the likes of Scott and Shocky have been reduced to? Arguing about architecture?”

    In case you haven’t heard, mosques *are* architecture.

    I think we clearly have evidence here that Asians are *not* the smartest cookie in the jar after all.

    • ““Even your mate Snott said that Muslims had no right to be here because it wasn’t their country.”

      And that’s not “racist”.”

      No but it implies that opposing Islam has something to do with race in this context.

      ““We say that protecting the Australian People and our way of life should be more important”

      And that’s not “racist”.”

      No but it implies that opposing Islam has something to do with race in this context.

      ““‘Islam is primarily a religion of the Arab race and culture”

      And that’s not discrimination-of-ethnoreligion unless ‘primarily’ means ‘exclusively’.”

      No but it implies that opposing Islam has something to do with race in this context.

      ““Arab and Third-World people” are not *a* race.

      “And it has nothing to do with race?””

      No but they are not ‘Australian’, right?

      “Who said ‘nothing to do with’?
      I said describing opposition-to-a-religion as “Racism” is technically wrong. ”

      You implied this when you ranted for half a page about Islam not being a race, but a religion. The point (that you missed) was that in most cases of anti-Islam, racism plays a role. And this case is not exception. If the APP wanted to block construction of a Mosque based on parking/traffic issues alone, then they wouldn’t have felt the need to say on their brochure that Islam has a ‘significant amount’ of extremists in its ranks, or that Islam is a religion of the Arab world. Hatred towards Muslims often exists because they are apparently not born and raised in Australia, but come from the depths of the Arab world. This is a shallow view of what it means to be a Muslim. Almost as shallow as implying that Muslims are all terrorists.

      “Do your attacks on Christianity make you ‘racist’ against Whites (since Christianity is ‘primarily’ a religion of White people)?”

      What attacks on Christianity, may I ask? If you’re referring to a short video posted on the lack of reality surrounding not only the story of Noah’s Ark, but also the STORY of how a spirit impregnated a virgin who then gave birth to a child who later grew up to die and then come back to life again, then that’s not an attack at all. It’s rational discussion. I haven’t proposed blocking the construction of any churches, or called all Christians and Catholics pedophiles. There’s a BIG difference.

      “It doesn’t matter what you ‘tell them’, the ‘free exercise’ of religion does not include constructing buildings.”

      Yes it does.

      “Look up “religion” in a dictionary and show me where it says this requires the *construction* (not use of) of buildings. Show me!”

      Can you be any more stupid? Religion doesn’t ‘require’ construction of buildings. The construction of a place of worship is something that will help to “…support[s] the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance”. (from your link). “…freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion…” (also from your link), which indicates that a government cannot prevent the construction of a place of worship based on the religious inclinations or country of origin of its proposers. A government CAN prevent construction projects if they pose legitimate threats on things like parking and traffic in the area, which is why people that oppose Islam and people from the ‘Arab third world’ having the same freedoms as us, ‘HIDE BEHIND CARS’.

      “Religion is a *human* right, not a democratic one.
      Religion has nothing to do with the electoral system.”

      Incorrect. State and Federal legislature prescribe freedom of religion:

      “Australia has no official state religion and people are free to practise any religion they choose, as long they obey the law. Australians are also free not to have a religion.” http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/religion.html
      It is a part of our democracy:

      democracy |diˈmäkrəsē|
      noun ( pl. -cies)

      a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives : capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world.
      • a state governed in such a way : a multiparty democracy.
      • control of an organization or group by the majority of its members : the intended extension of industrial democracy.
      • the practice or principles of social equality : demands for greater democracy.

      Seeing as though our elected representatives have not declared following another (or no) religion as unlawful, it then suggests that freedom of religion is entirely lawful. And because said decisions have come about as a result of the governance of those who have been voted into power through a majority, freedom of religion can be referred to as a democratic right in this country.

      “I didn’t ask a local Muslim Arab to walk through Lakemba and survive, I asked YOU.”

      I do, quite frequently. In fact I used to play football in Punchbowl and currently play cricket in Revesby. I visit Bankstown Shopping Centre on a weekly basis. Are you scared of it? There have been no bombs, child weddings or public stonings there that I know of.

      “Those 28,000 residents may change over time, from what they are today, to a majority Arab (or is that Muslim?) community without any increase from 28,000.”

      Population: 28,861
      Country of Origin: Australian born – 89%
      Born Overseas (Top 5):

      UK – 3%
      Macedonia – 1%
      New Zealand – 1%
      Poland – 1%
      Germany – 1%

      Religion (Top 5):

      Anglican – 31%
      Catholic – 28%
      No Religion – 12%
      Uniting Church – 11%
      Presbyterian and Reformed – 4%

      http://www.domain.com.au/public/suburbprofile.aspx?s_cid=987654&suburb=Elermore%20Vale&postcode=2287

      “300 persons *at a time*.
      Do you think they will only have *one* session a week?”

      How often do trains and cinemas hold their maximum capacity, dumb arse? Just because a venue can hold 300 doesn’t mean it gets 300 every single time it opens its doors. God you’re thick.

      “You point before was that it would serve the whole Hunter REGION!
      Don’t you think eventually people will decide to stop traveling miles to get there and just move into the nearby suburbs?”

      You tell me, brainiac! Wallsend has a Mosque too, and has had it for over a decade. But look at the demographic statistics of Elermore Vale. Even if those *300* people decided to move there – would it really change the landscape? And did you even listen to the Mosque’s neighbours comments about the Muslims that attend that Mosque? She said they were polite and friendly, would stop for chats and bring gifts and invitations to their events. Would 28,000 of those kind of people be that bad?

      “There may not be many *now*, but build a huge mosque and there will be.”

      A huge mosque hey? With a 300 capacity. An average school hall holds around 600 kids. Put it into perspective you fucking retard. And so fucking what if Muslims live in Elermore Vale? Why don’t you oppose the residence of the people who already live in Elermore Vale who have been to jail/been charged with some kind of offense? Those people already live there? Why do you keep talking about the problems associated with Muslims moving to Elermore Vale?

      “So yes, *gradually* they will take over the nearby neighbourhood.”

      Oooh that take over conspiracy again… Get out your pasta strainer hat!

      • theantibogan said “why is the majority of gay hatred in Australia seemingly coming from non-Muslims?”

        Ah, duh! Statistical probability?
        They’re less than 2% of the population.

        “No, they are trying to raise the initial $1.3million from donations.”

        Where’s the rest coming from? Al-Qaeda?

        “I’d pay good money to see you walk up to every Muslim in Australia…. Then we’ll see who has the death wish’

        So you’re admitting they’d KILL you, if you said this.

        Not get upset.
        Not slam the door.
        Not walk away.
        Not punch you.
        Not yell something back.

        No, KILL.
        Kill, kill, kill.

        “There are over 200,000 Muslims living in Australia.”

        Over 340,000.

        “Muslims in Australia go back over a century.”

        Not 340,000 of them.
        Maybe a few hundred have more than 2 generations.

        “Where’s the stonings and beheadings? Where are the child weddings? The suicide bombs? The woman beatings?”

        Tipping point.
        Critical mass.
        Not there yet (with the exception of bashed wives and raped White girls).

        “you believe that you have more entitlement through birthplace”

        We do.
        It’s called Jus soli.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

        “those who have been born into war, poverty, depression, abuse, disability and hardship”

        Ooh, white guilt. Yummy.
        What part of the world *hasn’t* experienced these problems?
        There’s plenty of people suffering right here in Australia already.
        How about we help them first?

        “You are a disgrace to the very idea of humanity”

        And that’s all it is: an idea.
        A false idea.
        We haven’t been ‘one people’ for 70,000 years.

        “Then you sit back and tell me why non-whites shouldn’t enter this country by making generalisation after generalisation”

        And you don’t make generalisation after generalisation?
        You *just did*, claiming any opposition to immigration involves some superior/inferior ‘complex’, even when it’s ‘hidden’ behind environmental concerns.

        “yet never speak about criminals of various ethnicities and economy-sucks like yourself who already live in this country.”

        Native born citizens don’t have to get permission to *enter* and live in their own country.

        “Now, regardless of your opinion on anything, it simply does NOT matter whether or not a person has some kind of racial link to the people who came here back in 1788.”

        And regardless of *your* opinion, it does. To some people.
        Stop making generalisations, Mr Don’t Make Generalisations.

        “I know about history [cough], Scott. I think it’s completely counterproductive to base opinions of people on the actions of the people that came before them.”

        Says Mr White Guilt Trip Over Past Wrongs From Centuries Ago.

        “I take things ‘as is’, because we are discussing the here and now.”

        We are also discussing the *future* of our country.
        A future determined by what we do in the present.

        “The White Australia Policy was abandoned over 40 years ago, yet we still have suburbs that have over 90% of Australian born residents. We still have suburbs that religiously speaking have not changed drastically at all”

        Because the White people move out of the ‘mixed’ suburbs and congregate together in the last remaining strongholds.
        Something you condemn as close-minded.
        And ‘Australian-born’ doesn’t mean ‘White Australian’.

        “And you never take into account the birth/death rate.”

        Because it’s already *included* in the migration statistics.
        Dead people don’t migrate.

        Nor do people who haven’t been born (unless their a foetus in the womb, but then they wouldn’t have a citizenship status yet).

        “I’m showing how an opposition to Islam can have racist elements”

        Can have? Duh!
        No, you *defined* opposition to Islam as ‘racism’.

        “My point was that people assume Muslims can’t be Australian.”

        They assume they’re *unlikely* to be Australian, and they’d be right.
        They also assume they’re Muslim, and they’d be 100% right.

        ““And you shouldn’t be censored and fined if you felt like doing so.”
        Your mere opinion. And it’s unlawful to do so as it is abusive and completely unjustified.”

        Yore meeeer ohpinyurn.
        Give it up! When did I claim I wasn’t expressing *my* opinions?
        It’s unlawful to speak freely because of fascists like you, who want to regulate everything people say and do.

        “Legislation is not going to incorporate all that is included in free exercise.”

        Not even something as obvious and permanent as constructing buildings?

        In other words, THERE IS NO SUCH LAW.

        Have you seen how anally detailed acts of law are?
        “Clause 21 applies to all instances except those in clause 16a part IIII, except on Sundays at 3pm when turtles are breeding, blah blah blah”.
        They include *everything* they can think of.

        “Are you going to show me legislation that shows that free exercise of religion includes being allowed to juggle toasters? Are you going to show me legislation that shows that free exercise of religion includes being allowed to eat bricks?”

        It doesn’t need to.
        There is no religion that incorporates juggling toasters or eating bricks.
        And even if there were, those are not *generic* activities such as praying, singing, reading, preaching, publishing, construction and/or use of buildings. Things that apply to *any* religion.
        You are referring to specific practices/doctrines, not generic ones.

        You are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of ‘negative liberty’.
        You are allowed to do anything you want unless a law specifically *prohibits* it.
        Since there is no law prohibiting the juggling of toasters, you can juggle to your heart’s content and your God’s pleasure.

        “but because it DOESN’T state that the construction of places of worship is in any way unlawful”

        Oh, hang on. You *are* familiar with the concept.

        But that doesn’t make it a ‘legal right’.
        Merely an *absence* of legal prohibition.
        Legal ‘rights’ *are* stated in written law.

        “Non-Muslims not guilty of these things in Australia?”

        Never said they weren’t.
        But we can’t stop native-born people coming into the country.
        We *can* stop the ethnic groups who are frequently responsible for these acts.

        “The common denominator here is MEN. Not religion/culture/ethnicity”

        Middle Eastern Islamic men.

        “No, but you’d need at least 28,861 non-white Muslims to arrive in Elermore Vale BEFORE you even had a chance to say Muslims were the majority”

        ROFL.
        You now need 100% to be ‘the majority’!!!

        I think that could be *the* classic antibogan Epic Fail of all time.

        “What’s it to you, anyway?”

        That sounds like you’re asking for my opinion.

        “Muslims pray 5 times per day. Not once per day [that’s why I said there’d be 5 sessions per day. DUH!], attending different sessions. The majority of those *300* people would be the same people. Not different people you dumb cunt.”

        Really?
        Mostly the *same* 300 people are going to travel to Newcastle from the surrounding Hunter region FIVE times per day?
        They will leave their homes, jobs and studies FIVE times a day to *travel* to the mosque.
        *Not* different people, the same people.
        Uh-huh.

        “And Muslims who are Australian residents are entitled to live in Australia – even in Elermore Vale.”

        Never said anything about legal residents entitlement to *live* in Australia.
        We’re talking building construction.

        “Elermore Vale is NOT a pulsating, crowded metropolis.”

        It is an outer suburb of Greater Newcastle.
        Not a country village.

        “And as for the ‘most ethnic people are poor’ line, have you seen the income/education statistics relating to Elermore Vale?”

        You mean *today’s* majority-White statistics?

        “Was that the case in 1940?
        In 1950?
        In 1960?
        In 1970?
        Have they not ‘taken over’ that neighbourhood?”
        I’m not sure how that’s a problem when the crime rate there is lower than the state average.’

        My point (which you missed) is that suburbs that were once filled with native-born Australians are indeed being ‘taken over’ by immigrants, a claim you disputed (“Oooh that take over conspiracy again”).

        “Chatswood has a shitload of Asians”

        And it smells like it.
        It once had a ‘shitload’ of White Australians.
        But the Asians haven’t ‘taken over’, have they?

        “People kill people. If you want to link it to their religion”

        No, *they* link it to their religion.

        • “Ah, duh! Statistical probability?
          They’re less than 2% of the population.”

          And you’re assuming that people cannot form their own opinions on whether or not gays are decent people without needing to refer to an ancient book.
          ““No, they are trying to raise the initial $1.3million from donations.”

          Where’s the rest coming from? Al-Qaeda?”

          Do you honestly believe that our Government would allow an Al-Qaeda funded projected in Australia?
          ““I’d pay good money to see you walk up to every Muslim in Australia…. Then we’ll see who has the death wish’

          So you’re admitting they’d KILL you, if you said this.”

          Not at all. Apparently I’ve got a death wish because I think we should let Muslims be Muslims. And ‘Cynthia’ doesn’t have a death wish because she’d probably be okay with telling Muslims they’re filth and that their religion is shit. I’m sure if you got around to every dopey fucker that believes in a spirit impregnating a virgin who gives birth to a guy who ends up becoming a zombie that they were filth and that their religion was shit you’d end up getting knocked out or killed somewhere along the line…“So you’re admitting they’d KILL you, if you said this.

          Not get upset.
          Not slam the door.
          Not walk away.
          Not punch you.
          Not yell something back.

          No, KILL.
          Kill, kill, kill.”

          Not ‘they’, but maybe some crazy lunatic fucker who can’t handle having his religion insulted. There are plenty of those kind of people from all religions. Stop trying to generalise.
          ““There are over 200,000 Muslims living in Australia.”

          Over 340,000.”

          I meant to write over 300,000. Typo. I’ve quoted this figure repeatedly around this site so don’t bother trying to call me on it.
          “Tipping point.
          Critical mass.
          Not there yet (with the exception of bashed wives and raped White girls).”

          So if it’s taken over 200 years to get our Muslim population to around 2%, how long will it take for Muslims to make up over 50% of our population? Considering our largest religion is Christianity and it hovers between 30% – 40%, I’d say it will never happen.

        • ““you believe that you have more entitlement through birthplace”

          We do.
          It’s called Jus soli.”

          [Jus soli] is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be recognized to any individual born in the territory of the related state… Nationality and citizenship automatically belongs to those born here? Well that’s fucking obvious isn’t it? LOL! Where does the ideology of Jus Soli imply that those not born here cannot become citizens of our country? Where does it imply that those who have migrated here have less rights or entitlements than those born here?
          “There’s plenty of people suffering right here in Australia already.
          How about we help them first?”

          Yep, let’s stop immigration and help the homeless and disabled. Oh wait – what’s that you say? Immigration is a major contributing factor in our economy and without it we would be less able to fund assistance to these people?

          Immigration boosts our economy through:
          • increased tax revenue
          • contribution of funds from overseas
          • participation in employment
          • bringing skills into the Australian workforce
          • increased consumption of food and household goods and services
          * spending on housing

          “And that’s all it is: an idea.
          A false idea.
          We haven’t been ‘one people’ for 70,000 years.

          How can ‘humanity’ be a ‘false idea’ you shmuck? Humanity is defined as the collective term for all human beings. It has nothing to do with touchy feely let’s all get along ideas. Anyone who favours the privilege and opportunity for one group of people over another because of birth advantage is a disgrace to the idea that we are all human beings. The ‘disgrace’ part applies to this idea of superiority and denial of compassion and care for those in need. The ‘humanity’ part only refers to the collective name for all humans.

          “You *just did*, claiming any opposition to immigration involves some superior/inferior ‘complex’, even when it’s ‘hidden’ behind environmental concerns.”

          No I didn’t, I said that it’s very easy to spot those who hide their xenophobia behind environmental and planning concerns, while there are those that are purely concerned by such issues and are not xenophobic at all.
          “Native born citizens don’t have to get permission to *enter* and live in their own country.”

          So what about the son of an Arab Muslim who was born in Australia? Can we safely call him Australian?
          “And regardless of *your* opinion, it does. To some people.
          Stop making generalisations, Mr Don’t Make Generalisations.”

          The generalisation is based upon the premise that our democratically elected and representative Government have decided that it DOESN’T matter how many generations your family has been in this country.

        • “Says Mr White Guilt Trip Over Past Wrongs From Centuries Ago.”

          You’re calling me ‘Mr White Guilt Trip’ because I empathise with those who were affected by racist and discriminatory policies conceived by previous Governments? Way to go, inbred. Do I then attribute the horrible actions of previous white people to all white people alive today? No, definitely not – especially considering me and the other authors of this blog are white. Do you attribute the actions of previous Muslims (for example) to all Muslims alive today? Yes, frequently.

          “We are also discussing the *future* of our country.
          A future determined by what we do in the present.”

          Any discussion of the future are predictive and subjective. And you call yourself a realist. I’m giving statistics that are available now, if that’s enough realism for you.
          “Because the White people move out of the ‘mixed’ suburbs and congregate together in the last remaining strongholds.
          Something you condemn as close-minded.
          And ‘Australian-born’ doesn’t mean ‘White Australian’.”

          Last remaining strongholds? LOL! You really are a fearful deluded individual, aren’t you? I’m well aware that ‘Australian-born’ doesn’t mean ‘White Australian’, as I said that Australian-born indicates at least second generation Australian – which means that that person has come through our education system and speaks fluent English and has an understanding of Australian culture. Bam. And they aren’t immigrants. And in regards to ‘Jus Soli’, they are entitled to Australian citizenship through birthplace rights.

        • ““And you never take into account the birth/death rate.”

          Because it’s already *included* in the migration statistics.
          Dead people don’t migrate.”

          No it’s not. It’s a separate figure. If 160,000 people migrated here, then they migrated here. If 105,000 people emigrated from here, they emigrated from here. The birth/death rate is a different figure.
          “Can have? Duh!
          No, you *defined* opposition to Islam as ‘racism’.”

          No I didn’t. I said that the word racism is often used in regards to Islamaphobia because of the Arab/Third World assumption, and that there is no existing word for discrimination on the basis of religion.
          “They assume they’re *unlikely* to be Australian, and they’d be right.
          They also assume they’re Muslim, and they’d be 100% right.”

          If the Muslim is born in Australia, they are Australian. If an existing Australian converts to Islam, they are Muslim.
          “It’s unlawful to speak freely because of fascists like you, who want to regulate everything people say and do.”

          I’m not entering into this argument again, because you’re a fuckwit. You seem to think that it’s completely acceptable in our society for a teacher to call a child a fucking retarded brat who stinks like shit and will never have any friends. You said this kind of non-regulated hate speech should be allowed because the parents of the child will most likely find out somehow and harm that teacher, making everything work out harmoniously.
          “Not even something as obvious and permanent as constructing buildings?

          In other words, THERE IS NO SUCH LAW.

          Have you seen how anally detailed acts of law are?
          “Clause 21 applies to all instances except those in clause 16a part IIII, except on Sundays at 3pm when turtles are breeding, blah blah blah”.
          They include *everything* they can think of.”

          Well Shonks, how about you find and show me where the construction of buildings is NOT a facet of freedom of religion then?
          “Since there is no law prohibiting the juggling of toasters, you can juggle to your heart’s content and your God’s pleasure.”

          And because there is no law preventing Muslims from building a Mosque in a secular society, there is no reason to block it on the basis of religion. This is the part where all of the dopey inbreds like you start saying ‘well they won’t let us build a church in Pakistan, so why should they be allowed to build a Mosque here?’.“But that doesn’t make it a ‘legal right’.
          Merely an *absence* of legal prohibition.
          Legal ‘rights’ *are* stated in written law.”

          I have a legal right to eat baked beans on toast for breakfast. Simply because there are no laws preventing me from doing so. It is a legal right because there are no laws preventing it. Freedom of religion is the blanket covering religious practices that adhere to Australian law. Building a place of worship is then defined as a legal right, as there are no laws preventing the construction of buildings based on religious opposition.
          “But we can’t stop native-born people coming into the country.
          We *can* stop the ethnic groups who are frequently responsible for these acts.”

          So you think it’s perfectly acceptable to prevent certain people from entering this country based on the actions of people who have ethnically or religiously represented them decades or centuries ago, even if said people have families, education, money, and no criminal record?

          ““The common denominator here is MEN. Not religion/culture/ethnicity”

          Middle Eastern Islamic men.”

          No fucking way. You are a true fuckwit. Men are the common denominator for crime the world over.

        • ““I’m showing how an opposition to Islam can have racist elements”

          Can have? Duh!
          No, you *defined* opposition to Islam as ‘racism’.”

          No I didn’t. I said it often has elements of racism.
          “They assume they’re *unlikely* to be Australian, and they’d be right.
          They also assume they’re Muslim, and they’d be 100% right.”

          If a Muslim is born in Australia, they are Australian. If an Australian converts to Islam, they are an Australian Muslim.
          “It’s unlawful to speak freely because of fascists like you, who want to regulate everything people say and do.”

          You find it acceptable for a teacher to call a student a fucking retard with no friends and no future because the parents will most likely sort it out by harming the teacher in return. Good policy.

          Re: your refusal to acknowledge that the construction of a Mosque is a right in this country:

          * Australia has freedom of religion, meaning there are no existing laws preventing Muslims from constructing places of worship
          * As there are no laws preventing said construction on the basis of religion, the freedom to build comes under freedom of religion

          I typed out a longer response to this and then lost it, but it’s that simple. Muslims have the legal right to build Mosques in the absence of laws preventing building construction under secularity. I have the legal right to eat toast in the absence of laws designed to deny the consumption of specific foods. You won’t find either written anywhere in any definition of things that you have the right to do. It’s ludicrous for you to expect me to find it written anywhere that building construction is a right in Australia, just as it would be equally ridiculous for you to expect me to find evidence to suggest that cutting my toenails in the kitchen is one of my rights.

          “Legal ‘rights’ *are* stated in written law.”
          Freedom of religion is stated in written law, and you even provided the link to it which described how people from all religious persuasions had the right to practice and worship and promote their religions in any way they saw fit, as long as it adhered with Australian laws. The construction of a Mosque is an example of how Muslims will practice and worship and promote their religion, hence it is a legal right under freedom of religion legislation.
          “But we can’t stop native-born people coming into the country.
          We *can* stop the ethnic groups who are frequently responsible for these acts.”

          So you want to prevent people who have education, money, families, health and clean records from coming to our country because people decades and even centuries ago committed crimes while ethnically or religiously representing them? Good policy.

        • ““The common denominator here is MEN. Not religion/culture/ethnicity”

          Middle Eastern Islamic men.”

          Wow. Keeping this on record for sure. Men are responsible for the large majority of crime the world-over. Race and religious persuasion are completely irrelevant. It’s men. Middle Eastern men, white men, black men, Catholic men, Muslim men, Asian men, Turkish men, Jewish men… MEN. Fucking dolt.

        • ““No, but you’d need at least 28,861 non-white Muslims to arrive in Elermore Vale BEFORE you even had a chance to say Muslims were the majority”

          ROFL.
          You now need 100% to be ‘the majority’!!!

          I think that could be *the* classic antibogan Epic Fail of all time.”

          Ironically, this is just another of YOUR signature epic failures. Note:

          If Elermore Vale currently has over 28,000 residents who are NON-MUSLIM, then over 28,000 MUSLIM people would need to MOVE to Elermore Vale before Muslims could be said to have the majority. This would bring the total population in Elermore Vale to over 56,000, and give Muslims at least a 50% majority, considering the largest religion in Australia is Christianity with around 30% – 40% of the population.

          “Really?
          Mostly the *same* 300 people are going to travel to Newcastle from the surrounding Hunter region FIVE times per day?
          They will leave their homes, jobs and studies FIVE times a day to *travel* to the mosque.
          *Not* different people, the same people.
          Uh-huh.”

          If you read the link you provided, you would see that the current Mosque is inadequate in size. This means a majority of these *new* Muslims would in fact be the *same* Muslims that are already attending the *old* Mosque. While some might move to Elermore Vale and surrounding suburbs, your assumptions of 10,500 new Muslims moving in is absolutely hilarious!

          “Never said anything about legal residents entitlement to *live* in Australia.
          We’re talking building construction.”

          Under your ‘Jus Soli’, Muslims born in Australia are automatically entitled to citizenship. As for construction of buildings, it is a right of Australian citizens to build a place of worship under freedom of religion legislation. As has been covered before…

        • “You mean *today’s* majority-White statistics?”

          As has been covered, Australian-born doesn’t necessarily mean ‘white’. And if you’re going to elude to the fact that people of ethnic background in Elermore Vale are uneducated or poor, you had better come up with some evidence to support such a suggestion.

          “My point (which you missed) is that suburbs that were once filled with native-born Australians are indeed being ‘taken over’ by immigrants, a claim you disputed (“Oooh that take over conspiracy again”).”

          Native-born Australians can be second generation Chinese. When you stop to think for a minute how many people are living and working in these ‘taken over’ suburbs without having Australian citizenship, you can see that they would be an absolute minority.

          “Chatswood has a shitload of Asians”

          And it smells like it.
          It once had a ‘shitload’ of White Australians.
          But the Asians haven’t ‘taken over’, have they?”

          Smells like it??
          As for the Asians: If they were born here, they’re considered Australian citizens. And if they’re abiding by our laws, paying taxes, working and consuming, and speaking our language as a second language at the very least – have they really ‘taken over’? What laws have changed? What freedoms have we lost? What aspects of Australian culture have been eroded? None.

        • ““People kill people. If you want to link it to their religion”

          No, *they* link it to their religion.”

          And a Catholic could link killing gays to “”If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)”.

    • Shockadelic:
      “Why why says: “Is this what the likes of Scott and Shocky have been reduced to? Arguing about architecture?” In case you haven’t heard, mosques *are* architecture.

      And in case you haven’t heard, freedom of religion includes practicing religion, which includes building whatever is necessary to practice. Shockadelic – champion of stupidity.

      Shockadelic:
      “I think we clearly have evidence here that Asians are *not* the smartest cookie in the jar after all.”
      Hey, don’t blame me that it’s not an Asian who’s been referred to by other posters here as a knuckle-dragger, thick, not a man (or woman) of great intellect. But don’t worry – keep deluding yourself that you’re convincing everyone of the veracity of your arguments and persuading people of your opinions. Even as you struggle to make a coherent argument on this post about warning fellow white people that
      a) Muslims and immigrants are taking over (check out the lack of whiteys on trains!) and
      b) the White Australia Policy will return any day now…based on what happened a hundred years ago
      Which is it Shocky? It can’t be both.

  16. “* People that oppose Mosques don’t give a flying fuck about parking issues”

    Wow, quick on the uptake aren’t you?

    The only question you have to ask yourself is: Am I kissing Muslim ass hard enough?

    You bogan.

      • Freedom of religion you support, eh?

        In that case, Islam comes as a complete package.

        So I hope you’re looking forward to sharia.

        Didn’t know this site was a spelling contest.

        • There are over 200,000 Muslims living in Australia. Muslims in Australia go back over a century. Where’s the stonings and beheadings? Where are the child weddings? The suicide bombs? The woman beatings?

      • Cynthia, that should be “I didn’t know this site was a spelling contest.” otherwise the sentence has no subject and is therefore grammatically incorrect.

      • “The suicide bombs? The woman beatings?”

        Want some links bogan?

        Let me know if you do.

        Or do you prefer to bury your head in the sand & blow gas.?

        • Your links mean nothing as long as I’m able to provide links to non-Muslims blowing things up with bombs and beating women.

          Cynthia: waaah but the Koran tells them to!!

          Who gives a shit? The voices in peoples’ heads make them do weird things. My school teachers could have instructed me to go out and kill people but it doesn’t mean that I’m going to, OR that I’m going to ignore the more valuable things I learned at school…

  17. As we know, Islam loves ‘well hung’ gays.

    Go over to Iran & see how long you last while flaunting your well publisized views as you do here.

    And where do you think the funding for this mosque is coming from? all $6.5M of it.

    Now that’s another place you could visit.

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/06/05/gay-bashing-in-amsterdam-goes-unnoticed-in-us/

    Holland, now the gay bashing capitol of the world.

    If you had aquarter of a brain you’d be dangerous.

    • The Mosque is asking members to contribute money.

      And thanks for the enlightening link. I’d forgotten that Muslims were the only people on the planet who bashed people because they were gay.

      • Muslims are the only ones who execute people that are gay as a bona fide part of their religion.

        Nice attempt at relativism though..

        Another epic fail.

        So the members are going to gather $6.5M are they? That would equate to a lot of chook raffles then. Oops I forgot, they don’t gamble.

        Another epic fail.

        • “Muslims are the only ones who execute people that are gay as a bona fide part of their religion.”

          By that logic, we must assume that every single Muslim alive today is hell bent on going out and killing gays. So why is this not happening? And why is the majority of gay hatred in Australia seemingly coming from non-Muslims?

          “So the members are going to gather $6.5M are they? That would equate to a lot of chook raffles then. Oops I forgot, they don’t gamble.”

          No, they are trying to raise the initial $1.3million from donations. They are calling on 1000 people to contribute $1000 each. That’s not an uncommon size donation in religious circles. Have you seen the size of the contributions Hillsong members must put forth?

          From someone so dense you sure like to call us out on ‘epic fails’ a lot.

      • You’d know all about that I guess, you like smoking it.

        But then again, if you’re not opposing Islam & it’s minions you’ve obviously got a death wish.

        • “…if you’re not opposing Islam & it’s minions you’ve obviously got a death wish.”

          Riiight… I’d pay good money to see you spend a few weeks with you as you walk up to every Muslim in Australia and tell them that they’re vile filth and that they have no right to practice their shitty religion in our secular country. Then we’ll see who has the death wish.

      • “You’d know all about that I guess…”

        Oooooooh *gasp* Oh Cyn, sweetie, I have not seen a witty comeback like that since, ohhhhhh, when I watched two preschoolers exchange insults. You just forgot the nyah nyah nyah nyah!

        And please, no ampersands in free prose! You must use “and”. Additionally there is no apostrophe for ownership for “its” when being used as a pronoun. The apostrophe only applies to “it’s” for contracting “it is”.

        I bet you are one of those illiterate bogans who whines about the poor English of immigrants.

        And if you think Islam has the monopoly on theocratic political systems or opposition to secular humanism, I suggest you google Australian religious loons like the “Salt Shakers”, the Endeavour Forum, the Festival of Light, the
        National Civic Council, the Australian Family Association…just to name a few of our own home-grown homophobic, misogynistic and elitist extremists.

        Oh — it would be a good start that you get your head around terms like “theocracy” and “secular humanism”; it is a safe bet that a person who strikes out with your kind of comebacks probably needs a bit of basic education before seeking further enlightenment. There’s a good girl. Now you stay out playing and learn to say “excuse me” before you join a grown-ups’ conversation.

    • Detroit is a rust-belt city whose demise was inevitable the minute Japan and Korea became much better at producing cars the world wanted than the US did.

      That was 40 years ago. Nothing much has changed.

    • Hi Cynthia,
      You should catch up with Scott, you two should get along well & may be Scott can finally lose his virginity, after 41 years.
      You might have to take him to your place though, because he lives with his mum..kinda awkward 😦
      🙂

  18. Another shining example of bogan stupidity.

    Cynthia: “Muslims are the only ones who execute people that are gay as a bona fide part of their religion.”

    So torturing and murdering them as a part of a secular lifestye, or as a non-bona fide part of Christianity, makes it better? Or is that your spectacularly bad attempt at showing how much better you are at moral relativism than the anti-bogan?

    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1

    Grow a brain and try again love.

  19. You actually capture the meaning of your code-name quite chillingly well with what you say, “Anti-Racist”!.
    For ‘Anti-Racism’ is really code for Anti-White…and the gene pool that “anti-racists” wish to see expelled from this planet is the Caucasian, the White one!

    “Disgrace to humanity”? Explain why?
    It’s amazing how trumped up liberals can dish out these little judgements! Oh, but they’re not judgemental, no, no!

    Again, a very vague, ambiguous statement about my being a “disgrace to humanity”, which is somewhat akin to what was claimed about what I’ve said being “vile filth”.
    I’ve spoken the truth, honestly, the absolute truth about these issues…you won’t like that with your current attitude…it won’t fit your “anti-racist” agenda…but it’s the truth.

    Don’t just hand out your trite dismissal, and rashly exhibit your lack of knowledge of history and culture…please…I’m adamant…try and EXPRESS…CLEARLY…how and why you think I am a “disgrace to humanity”…

    • “Disgrace to humanity”? Explain why?
      You’re a dole-bludging racist who lives with his mother and publicly admits to masturbating to fake Asian facebook profiles. Enough said.

    • “For ‘Anti-Racism’ is really code for Anti-White…”

      No it’s not.

      You’re a ‘disgrace to humanity’ because you believe that you have more entitlement through birthplace than those who have been born into war, poverty, depression, abuse, disability and hardship. You believe that democratically elected governments who recognise Australia’s good position should not extend assistance to those who have nothing, even though at the end of the day such assistance causes you minimal disruption or discomfort.
      You claim to be a follower of the way Jesus apparently lived his life, yet are only willing to show compassion to those who have white skin.

      And for someone who is so selfish and unwilling to acknowledge the need for all human beings to show compassion and generosity in the name of harmony, you are a complete failure and a suck on Australia’s welfare dollars. A fat, unemployed virgin loser who lives with his mum and takes Centrelink payments while discussing ‘entitlement’. You are a disgrace to the very idea of humanity, which by definition encompasses all human beings – not just white people.

  20. You, “Anti-Bogan”, with one hand talk about not making issues about race or ethnicity…and about Australians not being allowed to oppose the arrival of foreign groups on the basis of race or ethnicity.
    That’s utterly and mindbendingly contradictory.
    ALL peoples of all nations have opposed the arrival of foreign races BECAUSE they are foreign races and nations!
    That’s the point!

    In this particular issue…the relentless spread of Islam via the arrival of Muslim immigrant nationalities in the West after centuries of trying to do so through invasion and conquest…you state that Australians are not allowed to oppose the arrival of Muslims on the grounds of their race or ethnicity.
    That it’s not allowed (it’s fucking amazing how often people such as yourself, who claim that no-one can tell anyone what they can’t do, busy yourselves with telling us what we can and can’t do in our own country!) that Australians and Whites/Westerners in general make this a racial or ethnic issue.

    However…YOU…make a racial issue…YOU…make an ethnic issue!
    YOU are one of those that arrogantly think that Australia was “no good” being White, that Australia has to be made “less White”…and you adhere to the multi-cultural/multi-racial agenda that pushes to see the foundational race and nationality removed from this society!

    I know that people of your ilk do not see things this way, that you’re extremely blinkered, but the multicult agenda IS a racial and ethnic agenda! It’s purpose IS to see White people reduced within Western society, and the world in general!

    You think you can take a nation founded by Whites (British, and Christians), that was settled by Whites, that was federated by Whites, that for the very most part of it’s history was populated by Whites, and which even a decade ago was populated by well over 90% Whites…and begin mass immigration of radically foreign races and nations, with their cultures…driving the core population toward minority status in their own society…and it NOT be a racial issue? It NOT be extreme racial prejudice???

    Liberals, leftists, socialists, multicultists all love to gloat over how much they are “changing” Australia by encouraging the arrival of foreign races…but that’s not a racial issue…they’re NOT judging Australians , White Australians, as being fit to be eliminated on account of their race? You think the replacement of White populations in Western countries is NOT an extreme racial/ethnic judgement???

    You know that for the longer and better part of it’s history Australia was populated by White Britons and Europeans, who for the very greater part adhered to Christianity, you want that CHANGED, and that is a drastic racial judgement!

    You take grim delight in your racial decision…don’t pretend otherwise!

    This particular conflict here is a religious, theological, spiritual, civilisational, political, cultural…and racial…issue!
    Don’t think, or claim, otherwise.

    Why try this sarcastic angle of the “oh, and Muslims are the only people to…”, for it’s got nothing to do with it! Australia is not an Islamic society, and Australia was NOT founded or populated by any of the extant Muslim nationalities!
    Yes, there’s ills in OUR society…they will not be remedied by the importation of the ills of the Muslim world!

    Your lack of knowledge of history…which is either a result of blind ignorance, or wilful cover-up…is glaring.
    The truth about all of this would INSTANTLY lead to Australians barring the doors of their country to Muslim immigrant/invaders…and I think you know that.

    This is a social, civilisational, political, AND RACIAL confrontation and issue…you have no right to demand that people not use all tools and all facts available to them in the manner it is conducted!

    • “You, “Anti-Bogan”, with one hand talk about not making issues about race or ethnicity…and about Australians not being allowed to oppose the arrival of foreign groups on the basis of race or ethnicity.
      That’s utterly and mindbendingly contradictory.”

      Not when the opposition to foreign races is on the basis of some kind of contrived superiority/inferiority complexes that mindless wankfests like you create. Opposition to immigration on the basis of concerns over environmental/city planning issues is understandable – but so often it is possible to see through those who hide their intolerance/fear of the foreigner behind these arguments.

      “YOU are one of those that arrogantly think that Australia was “no good” being White, that Australia has to be made “less White”…and you adhere to the multi-cultural/multi-racial agenda that pushes to see the foundational race and nationality removed from this society!”

      Not at all, Scott. So many times I’ve bothered engaging with you, and so many times I’ve told you that I don’t care who lives in this country – be they white, or be they non-white. All I want is that people that live here abide by our laws, treat other people with respect and contribute to society by working, paying taxes and being consumers in our economy. The irony of YOU telling ME that I make this an issue of race is FUCKING ABSURD. You’re the one who gets his back every time I say that I don’t care what colour Australian residents are as long as they are good, honest people and you tell me that I WANT white people exterminated or eradicated or whatever else your poor excuse for a brain comes up with. I oppose your very existence in this country not because you are white, but because you don’t contribute a thing to society, yet are more than happy to peddle your intolerance of those who want to come here on the simplistic basis of their skin colour. YOU’RE the one that makes Australian citizenship an issue of colour and race, not me.

      Then you sit back and tell me why non-whites shouldn’t enter this country by making generalisation after generalisation, yet never speak about criminals of various ethnicities and economy-sucks like yourself who already live in this country.

      Now, regardless of your opinion on anything, it simply does NOT matter whether or not a person has some kind of racial link to the people who came here back in 1788. It matters who you are now, and what you can offer to this country. I know about history, Scott. I think it’s completely counterproductive to base opinions of people on the actions of the people that came before them.

      “This is a social, civilisational, political, AND RACIAL confrontation and issue.”

      It’s not. It’s the people who think it is that make it one.

  21. WHY, “Anti-Bogan”, do you persist in trotting out all of these claimed statistics about the demographics of our country, the situation of our country and society???

    Why do you take things “as is”, as though they will remain frozen in time like that?
    As though things will remain, as is, right now, into the future despite how many foreigners arrive?

    Why do you list these current statistics, as though are trapped in amber, and as though the agenda of yourself and multi-culturalism in general is not the absolute change of Australia???

    You delight in listing the (contrived) numbers of immigrants arriving…as though they shall morph off into the distance, as though they’ll not have any children, as though they have no intentions here.

    When, on the other hand, YOU WANT TO SEE AUSTRALIA CHANGE….AND RADICALLY SO!

    You think you can alay the fears and concerns of Australians with a game of smoke and mirrors? By waving around some statistics…”see, there’s nothing to worry about, it’s only 100,000 arriving this year, you’re still the majority”?

    Why do you bandy about these statistics, trying to make it look as though nothing’s gojng on, when you aggressively WANT to see major changes to Australia? When the ruthless agenda of multi-culturalism IS to cause massive and total changes to the demographics of Western nations???

    You think you can play it both ways? You think you can bullshit people until it’s too late for them to do anything about it?

    Those of us that are getting around with our eyes open SEE what is going on! Those of that are aware of what is happening and why don’t like it, and we raise a voice and take a stance against it!

    • “WHY, “Anti-Bogan”, do you persist in trotting out all of these claimed statistics about the demographics of our country, the situation of our country and society???

      Why do you take things “as is”, as though they will remain frozen in time like that?
      As though things will remain, as is, right now, into the future despite how many foreigners arrive?”

      Oh, you are certainly a laugh a minute, Scott. The reason I ‘trot out’ all of these ‘claimed’ statistics about the demographics of our country is because you say that you see things one way, and I prove you wrong by showing you how they aren’t. The statistics aren’t ‘claimed’, they’re fucking evidential. When a suburb is 89% born-in-Australia, it proves that a suburb has at least 89% second generation residents. I take things ‘as is’, because we are discussing the here and now. The White Australia Policy was abandoned over 40 years ago, yet we still have suburbs (including your own) that have over 90% of Australian born residents. We still have suburbs that religiously speaking have not changed drastically at all, other than the fact that ‘non-religion’ is the fastest growing statistic.

      I don’t EVER say that our cultural climate isn’t changing. Australia’s cultural climate has always been diverse, Scott. And with the removal of racist policies it will continue to diversify. I’ve NEVER denied this and I support it 100%. I see people as people, and I value people who come to our country to contribute. I provide statistics when you get on your soapbox and say things like ‘over 300,000 migrants per year’, because that’s just crap. It’s currently at around 160,000 per year, and you have NEVER been able to acknowledge that at LEAST 80,000 people LEAVE here each year. That takes NET IMMIGRATION to around 80,000 per year. And you never take into account the birth/death rate.

      All you want to do is associate non-whites with negativity and that is laughable considering there are literally millions of non-whites in Australia contributing to our society far more than you ever have or will.

  22. No, no, no, “Why Why”, I asked why ‘Anti-Racist’ claimed I was a “disgrace to humanity” in regards this topic, this issue, this conflict!

    Not for more of yout contrite putdowns, or those of anyone else.
    I’m not a dole-bludger, I don’t know where you got that from.
    I live in my home, with my mother, and I live in a room out the back that I built some years ago.
    That’s my home.
    That’s not the issue here, and I also asked that no-one mention my mother ever again.

    I have not masturbated to “fake Asian Facebook profiles” (?!), I have masturbated to totally hot Asian women, and so what of it? They’re gorgeous, and I like them! Enough said!

    You’ve never masturbated “Why Why”???
    What the hell???
    You don’t live somewhere?
    If you are ever out of work, or once you leave university, you won’t think to take recourse to making use of our welfare system?
    What the heck???

    “Racist”? YOU want to see White Australians reduced in number and influence, YOU want to see Australia populated by foreign races and ethnicities…you’re a RACIST just as much, don’t claim otherwise!
    My racism has validity, has a sound point.
    The races, the nations, need and deserve their space.

    You, push for racial annihilation!

    There’s nowhere near enough said about any of this!

    As I’ve asked, drop the trite insults, and discuss the ISSUE!

    • That right there is why you are a disgrace to humanity. You’re in your forties, believe white culture and people to be superior, yet jerk off to Asian facebook profiles who clearly do not belong to anyone who would genuinely be your friend (this is what I mean by fake).

      Jerking off to Facebook? For fuck’s sake. Who does that? And who OPENLY AND PUBLICLY ADMITS TO IT?

      If you can’t see why that makes you a tosspot of the highest order then it’s a blessing that no real woman will ever look in your direction.

  23. “You know that for the longer and better part of it’s history Australia was populated by White Britons and Europeans, who for the very greater part adhered to Christianity, you want that CHANGED, and that is a drastic racial judgement!”

    Are you fucking for real? Seriously. The country has been populated by white Britons for 222 years, and by black people of various idigenous nationalities for the 40,000+ years previously. You are a fucking hyprocrite and an utter freak.

    Do you realise that you and your poisonous opinions are in the minority? Give me a decent, hard working African, Asian, Indian, or whatever nationality over you, any day. You contribute nothing to society but hate and racism and you’re a disgrace to your culture and race.

  24. This is not about the Aboriginals, at all, and you know it!

    We are talking about the Australian nation. The society and infrastructure made here by White Britons.
    You know it, don’t play cute with this talk about Aboriginals.

    The foreigners migrating here do so to come and live in our cities, use our public transport, our schools, our medical facilities, our industries, our roads and railways, to make use of our society.
    They are not coming here to live like Aborigines, nor to erect their own society from scratch in the remote desert.
    No, they are wanting to come and take advantage of our society.
    Don’t play like you’re unaware of that.

    The disparate Aboriginal tribes and nations have no bearing on the foundation of a civilised, sovereign nation here.

    Do you REALLY think that Australians are meant to forget our 222 years here and give our society away to all who want in?
    You think Australians will give their hard won society like it’s nothing at all?

    What, if things do go fully for the worse, do you think that history books in some God-damned future multi-cultural Australia will say about how a society came to exist here?
    That there were Aboriginals peoples…then for 200+ years there is a big white blank space…and somehow an advanced, civil, sophisticated society magically materialised into which masses of different people just appeared like magic?

    The only falsely perceived ace-up-the-sleeve of the left wing multicultist is the Aboriginals.
    That because of them Australians are supposed to kiss goodbye to their society and future, and the rest of the world can come here to live.

    SO much wrong with that!
    Firstly, as I said, we came here and happened a very primitive Aboriginal people with an extremely rudimentry culture….we then proceeded to develop one of the greatest, safest, and most advanced societies in the world here.
    The foreigners coming here are NOT coming here to help the Aboriginals! They could not care less about them, and in a massively multiracial “Australia” there would be NO place for the Aboriginals!
    If you’re so keen on the Aboriginals, then go and live like it’s the stone-age…if you don’t, and persist with living in the civilised nation that White British people built here…then shut your dumb mouth.
    If you’re so keen on the Aboriginals then WHY INVITE IN THe MILLIONS OF THE REST OF THE WORLD???

    Most of the national groups being brought in here now have their own bloody histories of taking the lands of earlier, of Aboriginal, peoples.

    This particular post and column of comments is about Muslims coming to Australia.
    You talk about White British people and the Australian nation that we forged here…and the earlier Aboriginals.
    Well, there is ONLY Islam in any region outside of the Arabian peninsula because Muslim armies attacked, conquered, and subjugated those regions and nations, and the people already existent there. North Africa, The Near and Middle East, Central Asia, India, Africa, The Balkans, and on…Islam only exists in all of these regions because Muslims invaded them!
    So, by course of logic, you should be demanding they leave all of those lands. You should be calling for a halt to them invading here!

    The early Muslims often conquered age-old civilisations and peoples. we came here and found a profoundly primitive people.

    You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You CANNOT live every day enjoying the many perks of a civil, White, Western, civilised nation…AND claim to be against how that very nation came to be.

    It’s shocking that some young Australians have been led to hate their own people and society so much, that they’ll bite the hand that feeds, that they take for granted their society, whilst presuming to give it away and imagine that it could exist otherwise.

    If you’re so concerned about the Aboriginals then you should be as keen as mustard to see White Australian society continue to thrive here in which the Aboriginals will be entitled to a small place!

    We are NOT talking about the Aboriginals here! We are talking about the civilised, highly developed, White/Western nation that we made here!
    THAT is what the rest of the world wants into, that is what you arrogantly wish to give away, THAT is what concerned Australians strive to protect!

    If those Africans, Asians, and Indians are so decent and hard working then WHY ARE THEY SO EAGER TO RUN AWAY FROM THEIR OWN COUNTRIES AND LIVE HERE?????

    If they are so decent and hard working then why are their own countries such failures??? See what they have made of their own countries!

    You’re being terribly vague as well! Which Asians? Japanese? THEY pursue a policy of racial purity in their own country…AND there was an Aboriginal people in those islands before them! Malays? THEY pursue a strict ethnic policy in their country…AND mistreat Aboriginal peoples that lived in Malaya and Indonesia before them!
    WHICH Africans??? There’s MANY different Africans!
    WHICH hard working Indians? High caste brahmins, or low caste untouchables?
    Do you have any inkling of an idea about what you’re talking about???

    If you’re so impressed with them then go and live in THEIR countries!!!

    They intend to still have their countries and identities as well! Don’t think otherwise! They intend Asia to remain populated by Asians, India by Indians, and Africa by Africans!
    There is NO migration into Asia, India, or Africa!
    They will insist on preserving their own seperate national, cultural, and racial identities here as well!

    You sap, you FOOL!
    Do you even realise what you’re saying???

    Are these people so hard working or decent anyway?
    For 200 years White, British people here worked VERY HARD to create on of the most decent societies on Earth!!!
    How do you THINK the great society you grew up in came to be???

    For goodness’ sake, WAKE UP!

    I hate what is hateable! If you and other liberals don’t want hate, then STOP saying and doing hateable things…simple!
    YOU HATE the White race, YOU HATE Australians…if not then you would not call for us to die out as a race, you would NOT demand that we lose our countries!
    You HATE! For NO good reason!
    Liberalism is nothing bu infernal hatred…tarted up as being “good”!

    Racism, true racism is the knowledge of different races, and of their differences…and that they need and deserve their space!
    What you demand, either that Whites doe out in their own countries, or that we all disolve into an ugly, formless, ambiguous brown mess…IS RACISM!
    You and other trumped up multicultists take it upon yourselves to declare that White nations should no longer be such, but should be lost under an avalanche of multi-racial immigration…that IS racism!
    Of the worst kind!

    For Christ’s sake! How obvious are the bizarre word games played by liberals! Soooo, people that cherish their culture are a “digrace” to it?
    You think that Tibetans that cherish and defend their culture are a “disgrace” to it???
    You think that people who cherish and defend their race from it’s loss are a disgrace to it???
    So, Blacks or Asians that want to preserve their racial identities are actually a”disgrace” to their races???
    By your logic that Aboriginals that wish to protect and preserve their race and cultures are a “disgrace” to them then???
    No, of course, ONLY Whites that wish to protect their race and culture are a “disgrace”, right???

    Gosh, you could not be more wrong about things if you tried to be!

    I’m about defending my culture and race…it’s my duty and birthright!

  25. Scott, what an ignorant cunt you really are. Playing ‘cute’ by bringing up the Aborigines!! What a comment. So their 50,000 odd year tenancy of this country means NOTHING!! Have you asked an Aborigine about this? Oh, of course, but they’re black and don’t count.

    I would honestly say that the ‘British’ culture in this country deserves to be annihiliated if that’s the prevailing view. Thankfully it isn’t; you’re views are held by a very small minority and always will be.

    Go back to wanking and watching trash TV you fucking narcisistic twat.

    Fuck the Queen. Fuck God and his bastard son and fuck you.

  26. Observer:

    “National Civic Council, the Australian Family Association…just to name a few of our own home-grown homophobic, misogynistic and elitist extremists”

    No Observer you just don’t like them because they oppose alternate lifestylers. But no, although you may dislike them, none of them call for execution of gays. Well done in your little relativism monologue, you’re not cutting it pal.

    You are the extremist, because you are siding with extremists.

    Another epic fail.

    You’re are quite a little grammar freak as well. Wow, I’m impressed. A condescending grammar freak at that. This site I thought, was anti-bogan’s anti racism hobby horse, not a grammar freak show. Maybe you should change the name to “anti bad grammar”

    Stay on topic. Another epic fail.

    • Cynthia: “although you may dislike them, none of them call for execution of gays. Well done in your little relativism monologue, you’re not cutting it pal. ”

      None of them may call for execution of gays, but gays ARE murdered in non-Muslim countries for being gay.

      http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/41-60/rpp43.aspx
      http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/19-94-5.pdf

      And your offensive claim that it’s worse when Muslims do it because it’s part of their religion makes not a single atom of sense or logic. I’m sure it makes the victims’ families feel a lot better. I’m sure they love the fact that their personal tragedies are used by bogans like you to try and score points on a website that exposes the bigoted freaks who stupidly make racist comments publicly then whinge when they are mocked for their inadequate abilities to be human beings. So your own attempt at moral relativism fails.

      As does your complaint about grammar: you missed the point, bogan racist trash, which is that your fellow bogans who call for immigrants to “learn English” often display complete ignorance of English themselves. If they didn’t constantly call for immigrants to “learn English” and then stupidly spout their ill informed beliefs on Facebook for the world to see in BAD ENGLISH then this site would not be mocking them.

      • “And your offensive claim that it’s worse when Muslims do it because it’s part of their religion makes not a single atom of sense or logic”

        Where did I make that claim , bogan?

        You condescending leftist freak. While the bogans like big four wheel drives & Mc mansions, you like top prove your ‘superiority’ with your ‘superior’ spelling skills. The pot calling the kettle black.

        An epic fail you latte sipping bogan.

  27. I don’t know if you missed it or ignored it Rob!
    What do you think that Australians were doing in Australia for all these years, with protectionist policies, serving in war, and all?
    Beyond that even, what do you think that races and ethnicities and tribes and nations and cultures and peoples have been doing for millenia as they strive to protect, defend, and further themselves???

    For the first time ever, in history, a generation of (young, white) people have been taught that they’ve no right to defend themselves, and that they’ve nothing worth defending anyway!

    The “memo” should be sounding clearly and disctinctly, in your mind and heart, in your conscience!

  28. I don’t know if anyone else has mentioned this, but looking at the screen grab of the blond woman in the video at the beginning of this post, I automatically thought to myself ‘bloody ignorant racist idiot’. But in fact, she’s a decent, tolerant person and not at all racist.

    Shows that you can’t judge a book by its cover.

    • Many of the locals in the area appear to not have the brain-dead paranoid thoughts of the APP minority – and they’re an extreme minority – who are trying to rustle up support for their anti-immigration cause. Funny how it’s the supremacist loonies who are trying to decry the mosque as detrimental to the area, and the locals themselves don’t mind. This is why the APP is out of touch and out of sync with the rest of Australia and will never get the widespread support they dream of and brag about.

  29. Cynthia says: “You’re are quite a little grammar freak as well. Wow, I’m impressed. A condescending grammar freak at that. This site I thought, was anti-bogan’s anti racism hobby horse, not a grammar freak show. Maybe you should change the name to “anti bad grammar””

    That should be ‘anti-bad grammar”. Loser.

    Your commas are all out of whack too, but I guess they match your opinions.

    • Cynthia clearly doesn’t understand the concept of hypocrisy.

      eg complaining that people are condescending, and then… condescending to other people “you’re quite the little grammar freak! you’re not cutting it pal! oh…and you’re condescending too! boo hoo!”

      eg not getting that bogans call for migrants to learn English… while demonstrating appalling knowledge of English

  30. Did I say anything about the Aboriginals being here (for anything up to 100,000 years actually) means nothing Keith?
    No, I didn’t.

    If this was left at the level of the Aboriginals as a domestic issue, that would be one thing…but people are trying to use the Aboriginals as an excuse as to why the Australian nation and society should be given away to the rest of the world.

    It then becomes a totally different situation!

    Have YOU asked the Aboriginals if they wish to see this land given away to multitudes of Arabs, Turks, Chinese, Indonesians, Filipinos, Indians, Pakistanis, Samoans, Sudanese, Somalis, etc etc etc?
    Have YOU asked the Aboriginals if they wish to get lost in a multi-racial tidal wave???

    The Aboriginals had the land. The land. For ten’s of thousands of years. They burned much of it to desert. We found them here in a state that had changed little in millenia.
    We then proceeded to create a first-class state here, and THAT’S what’s in danger of being lost here, that’s the issue!

    I am entirely far from being ignorant!
    In fact, ignorance is what is COUNTED on by liberals as they move to get their demented multi-cultural plans of racial dissolution over on Western societies!
    I’m not ignorant, of anything, and that is WHY I take notice and speak up!

    The British culture IS the culture of this country, this nation!
    From the population itself to the roads and railways that people use, and all levels between!
    A society did not drop out of the clear blue sky here, nor was it brought by aliens from outer space!
    No. Until only a matter of a couple of years ago there was NO doubt about who and what the population and culture of OUR COUNTRY is!

    The majority of Australians still know their country is their own…and even IF it came to the point that only one Australian remembered their heritage, THEY would be the one in the right!

    The destruction of a people starts with making them forget who they are. You’ve done that, and curse any attempts of yours to do that to others!

    Do you realise that you are claiming that the majority of Australians do not wish to remain the majority population of their own country? Do you realise you’re claiming that the “majority” of Australians spit on their ancestors legacy, want to give up their country without a fight, and want to give their society and future away?

    You should REALLY watch what you say, especially about God.
    For the Muslims that you rashly welcome here would NEVER “tolerate” such!

    It’s truly shocking that some Australians have been taught to hate themselves and their own so much! Do you think the immigrant groups are saying similar about their own distant countries and cultures? NO they’re NOT!

    Wake up you dolt!

    • “The Aboriginals had the land. The land. For ten’s of thousands of years. They burned much of it to desert. We found them here in a state that had changed little in millenia.”

      I find “(t)hey burned much of it to desert” an interesting addition, actually so is “(w)e found them here in a state that had changed little in millenia.”

      Yes, you can probably find some Wikipedia or Windschuttle text to support this “notion”. But Aborigines on a domestic level isn’t the topic of conversation, as you pointed out.

      Anyway, I’m not trying to be negative, but statements like the two above don’t help your case.

  31. Keith, you want to see the foundational White/British Australian population reduced or eliminated…tell me how that’s not racism?
    You’re ready to judge any Australian that speaks up against the gradual loss of their country to foreign races and nations…tell me how you’re not racist?

    Just for interest’s sake…how do you think that a White person can ask that their society remain White, and not be labelled a “racist” by liberals?

    Why do Australians and Westerners in general have to “tolerate” everything that’s happening, while the other races and nations are NOT ‘tolerating’ the same?

    G.K Chesterton wrote that “tolerance is the virtue of the man that lacks conviction”, and a truer word couldn’t be spoken!

    Since when did a society thrive on “tolerating” it’s own racial and social destruction?

    Tolerance, to be blunt, is for suckers!

    You do judge a book by it’s cover!

  32. “Have YOU asked the Aboriginals if they wish to see this land given away to multitudes of Arabs, Turks, Chinese, Indonesians, Filipinos, Indians, Pakistanis, Samoans, Sudanese, Somalis, etc etc etc?
    Have YOU asked the Aboriginals if they wish to get lost in a multi-racial tidal wave???”

    Did the British ask them if they were happy to have genocide committed on them by the Brits in the first place?

  33. “Keith, you want to see the foundational White/British Australian population reduced or eliminated…tell me how that’s not racism?”

    I don’t remember calling for the elimination of white people in Australia. No, actually I don’t think I did say that.

    And hey, what about the other early foundation members of Australian society (post invasion) such as the Chinese on the goldfields, the Afghans in the desert, and the Irish (who despised the Brits, and vice versa)? ‘Twas a little bit multi cultural back then, wouldn’t you say?

    Scott, even your own (ex?) friends reject your intolerance. Suckers too I presume.

  34. Keith said “what about the other early foundation members of Australian society, such as the Chinese on the goldfields, the Afghans in the desert, and the Irish (who despised the Brits, and vice versa)? ‘Twas a little bit multi cultural back then, wouldn’t you say?”

    Foundation members?

    Australians wanted the Chinese *out* of the goldfields. There were *riots* about it!
    A few camel drivers were hardly Founding Fathers.
    And the Irish were subjects of the British Crown, just like the other Celtic peoples of the British Isles (and all those people with the exception of most, but not *all*, Irish, are still today).

    You’d despise people who took over your ancestral homeland too.
    Oh, no that’s right, you wouldn’t.

    “Twas a little bit multi cultural back then”.
    A little tiny, itsy-bitsy bit, and all were expected to adopt Australian ways or go home.

    “Did the British ask them if they were happy to have genocide committed on them by the Brits in the first place?”

    And yet again, the libtard can’t see their own contradiction.
    If the Brits *should* have asked permission in 1788, why doesn’t anyone have to ask them, or other Australians, *today* if they want floods of aliens coming into this land?
    If it was wrong then, why is it okay now?

    “you’re a disgrace to your culture and race.”

    I thought there was no such thing as race?

    “So their 50,000 odd year tenancy of this country means NOTHING!”

    To you apparently.
    You want to make them just another ‘minority’, essentially no different to ‘Turks’ or ‘Vietnamese’.
    You *insult* them by doing this.
    They are the one and *only* non-British ethnic group who has any right to live here.

    “Fuck the Queen [our legal sovereign]. Fuck God [walk through Lakemba and say that] and his bastard son [Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet] and fuck you.”

    You’ll definitely win friends and influence people with that charming personality.

    “I automatically thought to myself ‘bloody ignorant racist idiot’.”

    Automatically. Because she’s White.
    That revelation just says sooooooo much about you. Thanks.

    Cynthia “A condescending grammar freak at that.”

    They even have a *page* specifically focused on spelling and grammar mistakes.
    It’s just too pathetic for words.

    Scott says: “I’m about defending my culture and race”

    Somehow, libtards think ‘defence’ is ‘attack’.
    They’d make great soldiers.

    Why Why says: “So torturing and murdering them as a part of a secular lifestyle, or as a non-bona fide part of Christianity, makes it better?”

    No, killing gays because they’re gay is never okay.
    But only Muslims have it as *official* policy.

    You then link to a crime report which actually states:
    “But Shepard’s killers tell “20/20’s” Elizabeth Vargas that money and drugs motivated their actions that night, *not* hatred of gays.”

    Not hatred of gays.
    Just because a murder victim is gay, doesn’t mean that’s why they were murdered.

    When Muslims kill gays though, it *is* because they’re gay.
    They don’t even consider it ‘murder’, but a just punishment under Sharia law.

    Grow a brain and try again, yourself.

    “But our tax dollars go towards supporting this imbecile”

    Your tax dollars also go towards supporting ethnic organisations that couldn’t exist without public funding. Got a problem with that? [That’s asking for an opinion, antibogan]

    “And in case you haven’t heard, freedom of religion includes practicing religion, which includes building whatever is necessary to practice.”

    No, it doesn’t.
    Even if you think a building may be desirable to use for certain activities, this doesn’t mean you must *construct* a building.
    You can use an existing one (as seems to be the case with the old mosque).

    Why Why – champion of stupidity.

    Josh said “Detroit is a rust-belt city whose demise was inevitable [Was it? You couldn’t use the city for some other purpose besides making cars?] the minute Japan and Korea became much better at producing cars the world wanted than the US did [and globalist economic policies stopped protecting American industry].

    “That was 40 years ago. Nothing much has changed.”

    No, Detroit’s ruins appeared only recently. 40 years ago, it was Snazzy City.
    And I doubt it would be lying in ruins if the population had been 81% White.

    Observer said “And if you think Islam has the monopoly on theocratic political systems or opposition to secular humanism,….”

    And do those Christian groups run the country?
    Islamic theocracy has *ruled* nations in the 20th and 21st centuries.

    theantibogan said: “No but it implies that opposing Islam has something to do with race in this context.”

    No, *you* are the one ‘implying’ opposition to Islam has something to do with race.
    People may oppose it for all kinds of reasons.
    I, for one, because they would kill me!
    And that has nothing to do with my race or theirs!

    ““Arab and Third-World people” are not *a* race.
    “And it has nothing to do with race?””
    No but they are not ‘Australian’, right?”

    Ah, yeah.
    They’re not ‘Australian’.

    They’re Arabs, Egyptians, Indonesians, Turks, Pakistanis, etc.
    DUH!

    “If the APP wanted to block construction of a Mosque based on parking/traffic issues alone”

    Alone?
    Who said alone?
    They never claimed ‘alone’.

    “This is a shallow view of what it means to be a Muslim.’

    It’s not illegal to be shallow.
    Or you’d be in gaol.

    “What attacks on Christianity, may I ask?’

    Give me a break!

    “I haven’t proposed blocking the construction of any churches, or called all Christians and Catholics pedophiles.”

    But you should be *able* to.
    And you shouldn’t be censored and fined if you felt like doing so.

    “It doesn’t matter what you ‘tell them’, the ‘free exercise’ of religion does not include constructing buildings.”
    Yes it does.”

    No, it doesn’t,
    Show me the *legislation* (if this is a ‘democratic’ right) that defines ‘free exercise of religion’ as *including* building construction.

    “Religion doesn’t ‘require’ construction of buildings”

    I’m glad we agree.

    “The construction of a place of worship is something that will help to…”

    Oh, it will *help*?
    Well, that’s all that matters then.
    It will HELP.

    Therefore it’s a legal right.
    Tying my neighbour to the back fence for 3 weeks will *help* her lose weight.
    So that makes it all okay.

    “…freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion…”

    Constructing a building is not a ‘religious practice’.
    Ask the brickies.

    “which indicates that a government cannot prevent the construction of a place of worship based on the religious inclinations or country of origin of its proposers.”

    No,*you* are ‘indicating’ that. Not the link.
    Show me the legislation.

    “State and Federal legislature prescribe freedom of religion”

    Show me the legislation that includes building construction as a ‘religious right’.

    “it then suggests that freedom of religion is entirely lawful”

    It is.

    “And because said decisions have come about as a result of the governance of those who have been voted into power through a majority, freedom of religion can be referred to as a democratic right in this country.”

    So when the *democratically* elected governments in Australia criminalised sodomy, you had no ‘human right’ to choose your sexual behaviour?

    “I do, quite frequently. In fact I used to play football in Punchbowl and currently play cricket in Revesby. I visit Bankstown Shopping Centre on a weekly basis.”

    You haven’t revealed your own ethnicity yet.
    If you’re ‘one of them’, you wouldn’t be threatened.

    You visit Bankstown Shopping Centre every week?
    You poor thing.
    I visited once in my lifetime and never, EVER want to go back.
    (You can tell so much about a suburb by the shopping mall toilets’ level of cleanliness).

    “There have been no bombs, child weddings or public stonings there that I know of.”

    Just lots of plots to blow stuff up.
    Oh, and gang rapes.
    And the riots that damaged Maroubra.
    Lovely people!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Australia#Militant_Islamist_Incidents
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_gang_rapes

    “Population: 28,861”

    Thanks for the profile.
    Of *today’s* residents.
    Pointless!
    That’s not the future, daarrling.

    If Muslims don’t even make it onto the list of popular religions, why do they need to build a huge mosque there?

    If there are just a few Jehovah’s Witnesses, would you need to *build* a Kingdom Hall?

    “Just because a venue can hold 300 doesn’t mean it gets 300 every single time it opens its doors. God you’re think.”

    Nor does it mean *only* 300 people will ever go there.
    (“Even if those *300* people decided to move there”).
    God, you’re thicker.

    “Wallsend has a Mosque too, and has had it for over a decade.”

    Yes, the old one.
    In an *existing* building by the looks of it.
    No construction required.

    “And did you even listen to the Mosque’s neighbours comments”

    You mean the *one* person they could find who had something nice to say?
    One person.
    You can bet your boots the station deleted any footage of the local people opposed to it.

    “An average school hall holds around 600 kids.”

    And the *same* kids go there every day.
    How many people go to *every* service at their local church?

    A 300-person mosque with five sessions a day, could accommodate 10,500 people each week.

    Not 300.
    *10,500*!!!

    “Put it into perspective you fucking retard.” indeed.

    “Why don’t you oppose the residence of the people who already live in Elermore Vale who have been to jail/been charged with some kind of offense?”

    If they’ve been released, they’ve served their time.
    Australians are entitled to live in Australia, even criminals.

    I am opposed to public housing projects that congregate large numbers of poor people into one neighbourhood. That’s asking for trouble.
    Most ethnic immigrants are poor (particluarly Middle Eastern ones).

    “Oooh that take over conspiracy again”

    Conspiracy?
    You’ve already admitted the Bankstown/Lakemba area is highly populated with Arabs (or was it Muslims?).

    Was that the case in 1940?
    In 1950?
    In 1960?
    In 1970?

    Have they not ‘taken over’ that neighbourhood?

    “I’d forgotten that Muslims were the only people on the planet who bashed people because they were gay.”

    You’ve forgotten they’re the only people who still *kill* gay people because its “divine law”.

    • “No, *you* are the one ‘implying’ opposition to Islam has something to do with race.
      People may oppose it for all kinds of reasons.
      I, for one, because they would kill me!
      And that has nothing to do with my race or theirs!”

      I’m showing how an opposition to Islam can have racist elements. I can’t believe how poor your comprehension skills are.

      “Ah, yeah.
      They’re not ‘Australian’.

      They’re Arabs, Egyptians, Indonesians, Turks, Pakistanis, etc.
      DUH!”

      DUH??? Are you serious? As you’ve been saying, Islam is a religion. Therefore pure white Anglo Australians can be Muslims. My point (that you missed) was that people assume Muslims can’t be Australian.

      ““I haven’t proposed blocking the construction of any churches, or called all Christians and Catholics pedophiles.”

      But you should be *able* to.
      And you shouldn’t be censored and fined if you felt like doing so.”

      Your mere opinion. And it’s unlawful to do so as it is abusive and completely unjustified.

      ““It doesn’t matter what you ‘tell them’, the ‘free exercise’ of religion does not include constructing buildings.”
      Yes it does.”

      No, it doesn’t,
      Show me the *legislation* (if this is a ‘democratic’ right) that defines ‘free exercise of religion’ as *including* building construction.

      “Religion doesn’t ‘require’ construction of buildings”

      I’m glad we agree.”

      My goodness you are so DUMB. Legislation is not going to incorporate all that is included in free exercise. Are you going to show me legislation that shows that free exercise of religion includes being allowed to juggle toasters? Are you going to show me legislation that shows that free exercise of religion includes being allowed to eat bricks? You fucking IDIOT. Freedom of religion includes the construction of buildings, not because it states it so – but because it DOESN’T state that the construction of places of worship is in any way unlawful. The construction of a place of worship is a RIGHT under freedom of religion, as freedom of religion does not propose that the construction of a place of worship is unlawful. This is possibly the most stupid argument you’ve ever brought to this forum.

      “You haven’t revealed your own ethnicity yet.
      If you’re ‘one of them’, you wouldn’t be threatened.”

      All three authors of this blog are white. https://theantibogan.wordpress.com/disclaimer/

      “You visit Bankstown Shopping Centre every week?
      You poor thing.
      I visited once in my lifetime and never, EVER want to go back.”

      Yeah, because you shit your pants whenever you see someone from another country or cultural background. Chicken shit xenophobe.

      “Just lots of plots to blow stuff up.
      Oh, and gang rapes.
      And the riots that damaged Maroubra.
      Lovely people!”

      Non-Muslims not guilty of these things in Australia? Are you still that fucking blinded? The common denominator here is MEN. Not religion/culture/ethnicity.

      ““Population: 28,861”

      Thanks for the profile.
      Of *today’s* residents.
      Pointless!
      That’s not the future, daarrling.”

      No, but you’d need at least 28,861 non-white Muslims to arrive in Elermore Vale BEFORE you even had a chance to say Muslims were the majority. Dopey arse-clown.

      “If Muslims don’t even make it onto the list of popular religions, why do they need to build a huge mosque there?”

      Because they can, and they want to. And the Mosque they currently use has inadequate space. What’s it to you, anyway??

      “If there are just a few Jehovah’s Witnesses, would you need to *build* a Kingdom Hall?”

      No, I wouldn’t need to. But they might want to. Don’t forget – the proposed Mosque has a proposed capacity of 300. Half the size of an average school hall. Kingdom hall?

      ““Just because a venue can hold 300 doesn’t mean it gets 300 every single time it opens its doors. God you’re think.”

      Nor does it mean *only* 300 people will ever go there.
      (“Even if those *300* people decided to move there”).
      God, you’re thicker.”

      Your implications were that with 5 services per day, with 300 people each time, we were looking at 1500 different Muslims per day. Therein lies the fail. You stated the figures in order to highlight a problematic amount of Muslims.

      “A 300-person mosque with five sessions a day, could accommodate 10,500 people each week.

      Not 300.
      *10,500*!!!”

      Muslims pray 5 times per day. Not once per day, attending different sessions. The majority of those *300* people would be the same people. Not different people you dumb cunt. 10,500? Fuck you’re a ‘fraidy cat!

      “If they’ve been released, they’ve served their time.
      Australians are entitled to live in Australia, even criminals.”

      And Muslims who are Australian residents are entitled to live in Australia – even in Elermore Vale.

      “I am opposed to public housing projects that congregate large numbers of poor people into one neighbourhood. That’s asking for trouble.
      Most ethnic immigrants are poor (particluarly Middle Eastern ones).”

      Why would it be trouble? Because Muslims are rapists/terrorists/murderers/pedophiles? Or because of the number of Muslims. Elermore Vale is NOT a pulsating, crowded metropolis. And as for the ‘most ethnic people are poor’ line, have you seen the income/education statistics relating to Elermore Vale? http://www.domain.com.au/public/suburbprofile.aspx?s_cid=987654&suburb=Elermore%20Vale&postcode=2287

      “Conspiracy?
      You’ve already admitted the Bankstown/Lakemba area is highly populated with Arabs (or was it Muslims?).

      Was that the case in 1940?
      In 1950?
      In 1960?
      In 1970?

      Have they not ‘taken over’ that neighbourhood?”

      I’m not sure how that’s a problem when the crime rate there is lower than the state average. Chatswood has a shitload of Asians. It’s a thriving, relatively safe suburb. Where’s the problem? That not enough people look white?

      “You’ve forgotten they’re the only people who still *kill* gay people because its “divine law”.”

      If it was something that was strictly adhered to in modernity, then every single Muslim alive would have killed a gay person by now. And regardless of a book of scriptures – there’s no excusing any person who kills another person – for whatever reason, and from whatever background. People kill people. If you want to link it to their religion, and then denigrate all people belonging to that religion, you really are too thick and thoughtless for words.

  35. Shockadelic, I got through about the first 5 lines of your tedious and idiotic retort. Give it up dude, you have the intellect of an ant.

  36. Keith says: “Shockadelic, I got through about the first 5 lines of your tedious and idiotic retort. Give it up dude, you have the intellect of an ant.”

    And if you’re not going to read the whole thing, then SHUT THE FUCK UP!!

  37. When Muslims kill gays though, it *is* because they’re gay.
    They don’t even consider it ‘murder’, but a just punishment under Sharia law.

    Grow a brain and try again, yourself.
    Shockadelic: “And in case you haven’t heard, freedom of religion includes practicing religion, which includes building whatever is necessary to practice.”
    No, it doesn’t.

    You wish, Shocky, you wish. Mosques will continue to be built – there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.

    Shockadelic: “Even if you think a building may be desirable to use for certain activities, this doesn’t mean you must *construct* a building.”
    No, it means you *can* provided the local council agrees. I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again – when you have to resort to debating architecture, there’s a fundamental flaw with your argument.

    Shockadelic: “No, killing gays because they’re gay is never okay.
    But only Muslims have it as *official* policy.”
    Are you retarded? What you are suggesting is that having it as part of a religion makes a HUGE difference to gay men killed because they’re gay and their muders were not part of official policy. It makes NO DIFFERENCE. Anti-gay murders such as those in NSW http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/41-60/rpp43.aspx must be infinitely better than those in Muslim countries because it wasn’t part of any organised religion – that’s your argument and yet you self-profess to be gay.

    And have a high IQ. Funny, you’re the only one claiming that. What do others say about you hmmmm?

    Keith (not Kenny): “you have the intellect of an ant”
    Josh: “You’ve converted no one to neo-Nazism. The only “issues” you present is pus from your diseased brains.”
    Josh: “Your “race brothers” Shocky are universally inadequate specimens intellectually, psychologically and physically who generally don’t score women anyway. That’s why they need to become boneheads.”
    Terror Australis: “I enjoy the fact that you cannot respond to me – your silence speaks volumes sunshine.”
    theantibogan: “you’re a fucking IDIOT.”
    Terror Australis: “it’s bad enough that you are immoral, an abomination and an all-round idiot but you are then hypocritical about it. It’s hilarious!”
    Terror Australis: “your logic is below that of a seriously retarded inbred four year old”
    theantibogan: “Shockadelic: g) Omigod! h) Yummy!” Hail the king of debating…

    What Shockadelic says about himself: “I am a Realist. My IQ is 125”

    Ladies and gentlemen presenting the Champion of Stupidity, Shockadelic.

  38. “If it was something that was strictly adhered to in modernity, then every single Muslim alive would have killed a gay person by now. And regardless of a book of scriptures – there’s no excusing any person who kills another person – for whatever reason, and from whatever background. People kill people. If you want to link it to their religion, and then denigrate all people belonging to that religion, you really are too thick and thoughtless for words”

    It is linked to their religion.
    It is an integral part of their religion.
    It is part of sharia. Iran?
    Holland, now the gay bashing capitol of the world?
    How many mosquers in Australia have repudiated sharia?

    • And this from the Bible:

      “”If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

      Your point may have legitimacy because of words written in the Koran, but you’re suggesting that all Muslims are incapable of ignoring sections of ancient scripts that talk about death being a reasonable punishment for simple things like being gay. Do you know any Muslims? I know plenty of Muslims living here in Australia, and none of them would ever think of killing another human being. And yes, these Muslims attend Mosques, where you think Muslims are being instructed to go out into the world and kill non-believers and homosexuals and rape women etc etc.

    • ynthia: “And your offensive claim that it’s worse when Muslims do it because it’s part of their religion makes not a single atom of sense or logic” Where did I make that claim , bogan? You condescending leftist freak. While the bogans like big four wheel drives & Mc mansions, you like top prove your ‘superiority’ with your ‘superior’ spelling skills. The pot calling the kettle black.”

      A little confused are we, Cynthia? FIRST you call me a bogan. THEN you say I’m not a bogan (because “the bogans like big four wheel drives & Mc mansions, you like top prove your ‘superiority’ with your ‘superior’ spelling skills)”.

      You can accuse someone of being a bogan OR being a leftist who hates bogans, but if you do both at the same time (or if you call me a bogan then try to state how I’m different to a bogan) you are demonstrating stupidity of the highest order.

      The spelling? Way to miss the point again and again, bogan trash. You’ve been told this repeatedly but don’t seem to be able to understand it – this site makes fun of stupid bogans who make racist comments on publicly accessible websites. These comments often allude to migrants needing to speak English. The bogans demonstrate a complete inability to show even the most basic grasp of the English language while doing so. That’s the point, and it’s not that difficult to grasp. Hope your head doesn’t explode trying to get it.

      I’m right wing economically. Anti-boganism doesn’t claim one side of the political spectrum. Yes, I do condescend to racist bogans. Get over it.

      “Where did I make that claim , bogan?” Are you fucking serious or genuinely that stupid?

      Here:
      https://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/yet-another-epic-fail-its-a-cowardly-racist-who-hides-behind-cars/#comment-5971

      And here:
      https://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/yet-another-epic-fail-its-a-cowardly-racist-who-hides-behind-cars/#comment-5931

      You’ve missed the point AGAIN. You tried to claim that Observer failed in his relativism when you’ve done the exact same thing – your attempt at debating skills on an anti-bogan website consists of “Hello I’m Cynthia I know anti-gay crimes take place everywhere but Muslims actually do it because it’s part of their religion. Never mind that other gays get murdered for non-religious reasons! And you know what I’m an expert in relativism! Yeah!”

  39. “No, they are trying to raise the initial $1.3million from donations. They are calling on 1000 people to contribute $1000 each. That’s not an uncommon size donation in religious circles. Have you seen the size of the contributions Hillsong members must put forth?”

    That’s a million bucks pal, where’s the rest of it coming from?

      • Islam is a crock of shit too but that hasn’t stopped you making excuses for it.

        Try the Saudi’s my friend. If u don’t care, you should. What will be preached there? Will the Saudi’s influence this?

        • When have I made excuses for Islam? I’m advocating the protection of secularism in Australia.
          As for your other comment about Saudis (you will notice that I didn’t use an inappropriate apostrophe) funding the Mosque – you don’t know that for sure, and it makes no difference at all to me. Muslims from Saudi Arabia are not all terrorists and extremists. Hopefully you understand this.

      • “Who cares? Where did the money come from to fund World Youth Day?”

        Answer: the same place that the funding for the Gay Mardi Gras came from. And thats a crock of shit & I paid for it.

        “Muslims from Saudi Arabia are not all terrorists and extremists. Hopefully you understand this.”
        I do. Just financing the spread of the ‘religion of peace’ and funding terrorists (nothing to see here, go back to sleep)

        • Our Government also funds many asexual events. What’s your point?

          As for your opinions regarding Islam as the only religion that has had war-driven nutbags amongst its ranks, they have been disregarded, as you in general have been.

          Goodnight.

  40. Why Why said “You wish, Shocky, you wish. Mosques will continue to be built – there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.”

    I didn’t say there was.

    Shockadelic: “this doesn’t mean you must *construct* a building.”

    “No, it means you *can*”

    But it doesn’t mean you *must*.

    “What you are suggesting is that having it as part of a religion makes a HUGE difference to gay men killed because they’re gay”

    No, I’m ‘suggesting’ *only* Islam has this as part of their contemporary religion.

    “What do others say about you hmmm?”

    Who cares?

    “but gays ARE murdered in non-Muslim countries for being gay.”

    But not because the Koran says so.

    “I’m sure they love the fact that their personal tragedies are used by bogans like you to try and score points on a website”

    WHO is trying to score ‘points’ off gay murders?!!!!
    You are insulting. YOU!
    Denying that there’s anything for *gays* to worry about with Muslim immigration.
    We have enough on our plate already, thanks.

    • Shocky: “but it doesn’t mean you must”

      Law is not about what you must do – it’s about whether you can do it. If the council agrees to this mosque then they can build it. Get over it.

      Shocky: ““but gays ARE murdered in non-Muslim countries for being gay.” But not because the Koran says so.”

      And that makes it so much better doesn’t it?
      And that is why you’re trying to score cheap political points from gay men being murdered.
      And that is why you’re using gay men being murdered by Muslims in other countries to support your white supremacist views.

    • Shockadelic: ““What do others say about you hmmm?” Who cares?

      Let’s see. You’re the one whose stated aim is to influence people “diretcly” (sic). So you should care. Unless that aim is another one of your hypocritical, blatant lies or “one-off” mistakes. Heh.

      I also listed these contributions from other commenters to prove a simple point. You constantly insult others on this site as dumb, naive, libtards yet – funnily enough – more than one person doesn’t have anything flattering to say about your oh-so-fantastic debating skills and your supposedly high IQ. You’re a disgrace to white Australians and a disgrace to the gay community.

      Shockadelic: “WHO is trying to score ‘points’ off gay murders?!!!!
      You are insulting. YOU!”

      Boo hoo. Cry me a river. Cry me a fucking river, darling.

  41. “Rob says: Dude, no one reads the whole thing. I could write write your posts off the back of my hand.”

    He didn’t need to read the whole thing.
    Just the part responding to his own comments, which was conveniently at the very beginning.
    The rest was in response to *other* people’s comments.

    And if you’re not going to bother adding anything either, you can shut the fuck up too.

  42. Cynthia: “And your offensive claim that it’s worse when Muslims do it because it’s part of their religion makes not a single atom of sense or logic” Where did I make that claim , bogan? You condescending leftist freak. While the bogans like big four wheel drives & Mc mansions, you like top prove your ‘superiority’ with your ‘superior’ spelling skills. The pot calling the kettle black.”

    A little confused are we, Cynthia? FIRST you call me a bogan. THEN you say I’m not a bogan (because “the bogans like big four wheel drives & Mc mansions, you like top prove your ‘superiority’ with your ‘superior’ spelling skills)”.

    You can accuse someone of being a bogan OR being a leftist who hates bogans, but if you do both at the same time (or if you call me a bogan then try to state how I’m different to a bogan) you are demonstrating stupidity of the highest order.

    The spelling? Way to miss the point again and again, bogan trash. You’ve been told this repeatedly but don’t seem to be able to understand it – this site makes fun of stupid bogans who make racist comments on publicly accessible websites. These comments often allude to migrants needing to speak English. The bogans demonstrate a complete inability to show even the most basic grasp of the English language while doing so. That’s the point, and it’s not that difficult to grasp. Hope your head doesn’t explode trying to get it.

    I’m right wing economically. Anti-boganism doesn’t claim one side of the political spectrum. Yes, I do condescend to racist bogans. Get over it.

  43. Cynthia: “And your offensive claim that it’s worse when Muslims do it because it’s part of their religion makes not a single atom of sense or logic” Where did I make that claim , bogan?

    Are you fucking serious? Here:
    https://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/yet-another-epic-fail-its-a-cowardly-racist-who-hides-behind-cars/#comment-5971

    And here:
    https://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/yet-another-epic-fail-its-a-cowardly-racist-who-hides-behind-cars/#comment-5931

    You’ve missed the point AGAIN. You tried to claim that Observer failed in his relativism when you’ve done the exact same thing – your attempt at debating skills on an anti-bogan website consists of “Hello I’m Cynthia I know anti-gay crimes take place everywhere but Muslims actually do it because it’s part of their religion. Never mind that other gays get murdered for non-religious reasons! And you know what I’m an expert in relativism! Yeah!”

  44. antibogan: “And you’re assuming that people cannot form their own opinions on whether or not gays are decent people without needing to refer to an ancient book.”

    Muslims can think for themselves to the same degree Jehovah’s Witnesses can.
    Only Witnesses have never invaded anyone’s country and imposed their religion on anyone. Yet.

    “Do you honestly believe that our Government would allow an Al-Qaeda funded projected in Australia?”

    How would they know?

    “she’d probably be okay with telling Muslims they’re filth and that their religion is shit.”

    Would she? Is this what she said?
    You wouldn’t have to use extreme terms to upset a Muslim.
    ANY criticism is heresy to them, however mildly worded.

    “So if it’s taken over 200 years to get our Muslim population to around 2%, how long will it take for Muslims to make up over 50% of our population?”

    The 1971 Census recorded 22,311 Muslims.
    2006 had 340,400.

    That’s over FIFTEEN times what it was in 1971.

    Did the *Australian* population increase 15 times in 35 years?

    1971: 12,755,638
    2006: 19,855,288

    So total 2006 population is 1.55 times 1971.

    But 2006 Muslims are 15.25 times 1971.

    Muslims are increasing at 9.8 times the rate of the general population.
    Sooner or later they *have* to become the majority. I don’t care *when*!

    “Where does the ideology of Jus Soli imply that those not born here cannot become citizens of our country?”

    Nobody said that.
    You questioned why Scott was saying Australians have ‘more entitlement’ to live here.
    It’s because of Jus soli.
    We *automatically* have the right to live here.
    Others must *apply*.
    Ergo, we have a greater ‘entitlement’ since it is automatic, unconditional.

    “Yep, let’s stop immigration and help the homeless and disabled.”

    Good idea.

    “Oh wait – what’s that you say? Immigration is a major contributing factor in our economy and without it we would be less able to fund assistance to these people?’

    No, I didn’t say that at all.
    That’s a load of crock.

    Training and hiring *our own unemployed citizens* would:
    • increase tax revenue
    • participation in employment
    • bring skills into the workforce
    • increase consumption of goods and services

    “How can ‘humanity’ be a ‘false idea’ you shmuck?”

    Nobody can even *prove* we all came from the same ancestors. Yet.
    Therefore it is just an ‘idea’ until they can.

    “Anyone who favours the privilege and opportunity for one group of people over another because of birth advantage is a disgrace to the idea that we are all human beings.”

    And anyone who claims native-born Australians *don’t* deserve any preferential treatment in their own homeland is a disgrace to the idea of ‘ethnicity’.

    “No I didn’t, I said that it’s very easy to spot those who hide their xenophobia behind environmental and planning concerns.”

    But that’s not making a generalisation.

    “Native born citizens don’t have to get permission to *enter* and live in their own country.”
    So what about the son of an Arab Muslim who was born in Australia? Can we safely call him Australian?”

    Born in Australia. Jus soli.
    You can safely call him a citizen.
    You can never call him ethnically ‘Australian’.

    “Do I then attribute the horrible actions of previous white people to all white people alive today?”

    Attribute? No. Constantly try to use it as a trump card to stop debate? Yes.

    “Because it’s already *included* in the migration statistics.
    Dead people don’t migrate.”
    No it’s not. It’s a separate figure.”

    Yes, it’s a different statistic. DUH!

    But dead and not-yet-existent people *don’t* migrate.
    Therefore the birth/death rate is *incorporated* automatically into migration statistics.

    “If the Muslim is born in Australia, they are Australian […citizens]. If an existing Australian converts to Islam, they are Muslim [but still White].”

    “I’m not entering into this argument again….”

    And then you enter the argument again.

    “Well Shonks, how about you find and show me where the construction of buildings is NOT a facet of freedom of religion then?”

    Laws don’t need to define what they’re not.
    What they are not is ‘negative liberty’.

    “And because there is no law preventing Muslims from building a Mosque in a secular society, there is no reason to block it on the basis of religion.”

    Yes, you can.
    Because there’s no law preventing you doing this either.

    “I have a legal right to eat baked beans on toast for breakfast.”

    No, that’s not a ‘legal right’.
    That is the natural state of *negative liberty* you were born into.
    To have a ‘*legal right’ it would be written in law.

    The reason everything you can do is *not* written in law is precisely because of the acceptance of the concept of negative liberty in our civilization.

    There is no need to specifically stipulate in written law that you can eat baked beans. This is automatically presumed.

    “So you think it’s perfectly acceptable to prevent certain people from entering this country based on….?”

    No, because they’re unrelated to us.

    “Men are the common denominator for crime the world over.”

    So what?
    Male Lebanese gang rapists are not yelling ‘white slut’ at the girl they’re raping just because they’re “men”.

    “You are SERIOUSLY BRAIN DAMAGED AND DELUDED if you think that the majority of crimes in every city and country in the world is committed by Middle Eastern Islamic men. I’m never going to let you forget this one pal.”

    Never forget what? I didn’t even say that.
    I was referring the specific crimes I’d referred to, not ALL crime.

    “Freedom of religion is stated in written law[ which says nothing about building construction], and you even provided the link to it which described how people from all religious persuasions had the right to *practice and worship and promote* their religions in any way they saw fit, as long as it adhered with Australian laws. The construction of a Mosque is an example of how Muslims will *practice and worship and promote* their religion, hence it is a legal right under freedom of religion legislation”

    No, it’s not.
    Constructing a building might *enable* you to practice or promote your religion, but it is not a *requirement* of religious practice.

    And actually *building* the building is not a religious practice (there’s nothing ‘religious’ about bricklaying) and therefore not covered by legal ‘rights’ to free exercise of religion.

    “Ironically, this is just another of your signature epic failures. Note:
    If Elermore Vale currently has over 28,000 residents who are NON-MUSLIM, then over 28,000 MUSLIM people would need to MOVE to Elermore Vale before Muslims could be said to have the majority. This would bring the total population in Elermore Vale to over 56,000”

    Right.
    The current housing of the suburb only accommodates the existing population.
    You couldn’t just add *another* 28,000 people.
    And meanwhile *none* of the existing population would move out.
    For Muslims to be the majority in Elermore Vale would require just over 14,000 Muslims, not another 28,000.
    As I said the mosque could cater to 10,500 people weekly.

    “This means a majority of these *new* Muslims would in fact be the *same* Muslims that are already attending the *old* Mosque.”

    You said the majority attending *each service* would be mostly the same, to refute my suggestion it could be up to 10,500 different people.

    “And if you’re going to elude to the fact that people of ethnic background in Elermore Vale are uneducated or poor,”

    I did?
    No, I said some immigrants have worse statistics in these matters, not the “residents of Elemore Vale”.

    “And a Catholic could link killing gays to Leviticus 20:13”.

    Don’t you mean a Jew?

    “Native-born Australians can be second generation Chinese.”

    And are still Chinese.

    They’re not *ethnically* Australian.
    And they’ve taken over suburbs previously occupied by ‘ethnic-Australians’ (i.e. “White” Australians).

    “And if they’re abiding by our laws, paying taxes, working and consuming, and speaking our language – have they really ‘taken over’?”

    Yes, because the White Australians have moved out.

    “What laws have changed? What freedoms have we lost? What aspects of Australian culture have been eroded? None”.

    So as long as taxes are paid and laws are obeyed, it doesn’t matter if the ETHNIC GROUP historically referred to as ‘Australians’/’White Australians’/’Anglo Australians’ are reduced to a *footnote* of their own society?!!

    “Australian” is not just citizenship. It is an ETHNICITY.
    What right do native-born White Australians have to their own history, culture, genetics, homeland? None? We have no right even exist?
    Have *can we continue to exist, when our space is constantly encroached upon by alien peoples?

    • “Muslims can think for themselves to the same degree Jehovah’s Witnesses can.”

      Untrue. If the Koran so strongly tells Muslims to kill non-believers and homosexuals etc, then any Muslim who hasn’t is clearly demonstrating an ability to think for themselves, correct?

      “Muslims are increasing at 9.8 times the rate of the general population.
      Sooner or later they *have* to become the majority. I don’t care *when*!”

      You will note of course that the population of MANY other cultures has increased since the demolition of the White Australia Policy. So now you need to take a look at the country of origin and religion of those migrating here. http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/culturally_diverse.pdf. You will note that out of the top 10 countries contributing to Australia’s immigration total, NONE are Islamic countries, and NONE have Islam as the number one religion in that country. As well as that, seeing as though Muslims make up less than 2% of our current population, you would have to assume that their procreation is much lower than the 98+% non-Islam procreation in our country. So when will Muslims make up 50+% of our population Shonky?

      “We *automatically* have the right to live here.
      Others must *apply*.
      Ergo, we have a greater ‘entitlement’ since it is automatic, unconditional.”

      Then what of 2nd generation Australians? Jus Soli says that a child born here of parents who migrated here from China has the same level of entitlement as a child born here of 8th generation parents. Correct? Thank you for this admittance.

      ““Yep, let’s stop immigration and help the homeless and disabled.”

      Good idea.

      “Oh wait – what’s that you say? Immigration is a major contributing factor in our economy and without it we would be less able to fund assistance to these people?’

      No, I didn’t say that at all.
      That’s a load of crock.

      Training and hiring *our own unemployed citizens* would:
      • increase tax revenue
      • participation in employment
      • bring skills into the workforce
      • increase consumption of goods and services”

      You don’t cease to amaze us with your simplicity. The number one reason for youth unemployment is job termination. Behind that is a lack of participation in education. Behind that are factors such as unwillingness to be employed, vice addiction and extended family histories of unemployment and lack of education. The homeless and unemployed are not ignored in this country. But canceling skilled immigration programs that bring already skilled, educated people to our country to continue to learn and work in place of hiring people who have already been fired, people who are not educated, people who lack the skills and motivation, people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol and people who have come from families with no solid role models is ludicrous.

      http://www.missionaustralia.com.au/search/unemployed/
      http://www.homelessnessaustralia.org.au/site/index.php
      http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/work_payments.htm

      There are countless organisations that exist to assist unemployed people look for work, find housing, gain education and skills and enter the workforce. Simply hiring these people into positions that do not exist is just STUPID. As are you.

    • ““Anyone who favours the privilege and opportunity for one group of people over another because of birth advantage is a disgrace to the idea that we are all human beings.”

      And anyone who claims native-born Australians *don’t* deserve any preferential treatment in their own homeland is a disgrace to the idea of ‘ethnicity’.”

      This is merely your opinion. Australia is my homeland, and I strongly believe that Australia can be the homeland of any person who wants to come here and positively contribute to our communities and societies. As for preferential treatment – please show me where any native-born Australians DON’T already receive preferential treatment.

      ““No I didn’t, I said that it’s very easy to spot those who hide their xenophobia behind environmental and planning concerns.”

      But that’s not making a generalisation.”

      No. It’s not. It’s saying that there are people who legitimately have concerns over environmental and planning, and there are those who are just xenophobic and hide behind environmental and planning concerns because it’s easier for the general public to swallow that.

      ““Because it’s already *included* in the migration statistics.
      Dead people don’t migrate.”
      No it’s not. It’s a separate figure.”

      Yes, it’s a different statistic. DUH!

      But dead and not-yet-existent people *don’t* migrate.
      Therefore the birth/death rate is *incorporated* automatically into migration statistics. ”

      Ha ha no they aren’t!!! The birth/death rate is a SEPARATE STATISTIC. Jeez… How dumb can you be? There are migration statistics, AND there are birth/death rate statistics! There is NO *incorporation* of birth/death rate statistics into migration statistics!

      ““And because there is no law preventing Muslims from building a Mosque in a secular society, there is no reason to block it on the basis of religion.”

      Yes, you can.
      Because there’s no law preventing you doing this either.”

      http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/about_race.html
      http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/guide_to_rda/index.html

      ‘Under the Act, it is against the law for people to discriminate against you in:

      ….access to premises such as shops, libraries or hospitals and other buildings used by the public…accommodation, such as renting a unit or house or buying and selling land…buying goods and using services, such as being served in a restaurant or using taxis, banks and legal services…’

      So if a Mosque is blocked on the basis of religion, there are fair grounds to take an appeal to the HREOC for discrimination.

      ““I have a legal right to eat baked beans on toast for breakfast.”

      No, that’s not a ‘legal right’.
      That is the natural state of *negative liberty* you were born into.
      To have a ‘*legal right’ it would be written in law.”

      Negative Liberty is an ideology that is not formally recognised in Australia, but its existence is acknowledged. A legal right to do something can ALSO be defined as the right to do something without being prosecuted by the law. Two different perspectives, two different interpretations of the law. Both relatively correct. Hence, Muslims have the legal right to build a Mosque in Australia BECAUSE there are no legal limitations preventing them from doing so, and more directly, there are avenues of legal support surrounding any prevention of use of this right on the grounds of discrimination.

      ““So you think it’s perfectly acceptable to prevent certain people from entering this country based on….?”

      No, because they’re unrelated to us.”

      BUT you think it’s perfectly acceptable for a Chinese person who is already here to give birth to a child who under Jus Soli is then assumed to be Australian and is entitled to all rights and opportunities granted to all Australian residents. Right? I am not related to you Shonky, yet I enjoy all the freedoms that this country has to offer. We have no relation whatsoever, other than the fact that we are both white. Yet, my cousin is half American because her mother (my Aunt) emigrated from Australia and married an American man. Upon re-entry to Australia, she gave birth to my cousin who was then considered to be fully Australian, despite having an American father. Do you really want to get complicated with this simplistic notion of yours?

      ““Men are the common denominator for crime the world over.”

      So what?
      Male Lebanese gang rapists are not yelling ‘white slut’ at the girl they’re raping just because they’re “men”.”

      So what you ask! Well let’s prevent migration of men to our country! Seeing as though they are responsible for the large majority of crime that is associated to their various ethnicities and religions and cultures… Male Lebanese gang rapists are breaking laws and quite probably being foul fucked up racists while yelling out ‘white slut’… But white men rape as well. So let’s continue to allow Lebanese women and white women to migrate here, but prevent men in general. This seems FAR more rational.

    • ““You are SERIOUSLY BRAIN DAMAGED AND DELUDED if you think that the majority of crimes in every city and country in the world is committed by Middle Eastern Islamic men. I’m never going to let you forget this one pal.”

      Never forget what? I didn’t even say that.
      I was referring the specific crimes I’d referred to, not ALL crime.”

      Thank you for admitting that you (and your ilk) are only interested in highlighting specific examples of race-related crime in order to push your agenda that such groups (eg. Middle Easterners) are only committing crimes. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to also acknowledge the criminal acts that are being committed by those who you imply are more moral and ethical, such as white people.

      ““Freedom of religion is stated in written law[ which says nothing about building construction], and you even provided the link to it which described how people from all religious persuasions had the right to *practice and worship and promote* their religions in any way they saw fit, as long as it adhered with Australian laws. The construction of a Mosque is an example of how Muslims will *practice and worship and promote* their religion, hence it is a legal right under freedom of religion legislation”

      No, it’s not.
      Constructing a building might *enable* you to practice or promote your religion, but it is not a *requirement* of religious practice.

      And actually *building* the building is not a religious practice (there’s nothing ‘religious’ about bricklaying) and therefore not covered by legal ‘rights’ to free exercise of religion.”

      Huh?

      I said: “The construction of a Mosque is an example of how Muslims will *practice and worship and promote* their religion…”

      You said: “No, it’s not.”

      Then you said: “Constructing a building might *enable* you to practice or promote your religion…”

      Fail.

      The conversation wasn’t about religious requirement, it was about religious freedom in Australia. Muslims are allowed to build Mosques, because they enable Muslims to practice, worship and promote their religion. End of story.

      “And actually *building* the building is not a religious practice (there’s nothing ‘religious’ about bricklaying)…”

      No there’s nothing religious about bricklaying, but you’re splaying rapidly from the point.

      “Right.
      The current housing of the suburb only accommodates the existing population.
      You couldn’t just add *another* 28,000 people.
      And meanwhile *none* of the existing population would move out.
      For Muslims to be the majority in Elermore Vale would require just over 14,000 Muslims, not another 28,000.
      As I said the mosque could cater to 10,500 people weekly.”

      There are currently 28,000 non-Muslims in Elermore Vale. Noted. None of the existing population would move out. Noted. Therefore, you would need over 28,000 Muslims to move into Elermore Vale for there to be any form of Islamic majority. You fail again.

      ““This means a majority of these *new* Muslims would in fact be the *same* Muslims that are already attending the *old* Mosque.”

      You said the majority attending *each service* would be mostly the same, to refute my suggestion it could be up to 10,500 different people.”

      Yes I did. Because if a Muslim person is going to go to the extreme of moving their entire family to the suburb of Elermore Vale for the sole purpose of visiting the Mosque, then they will be dedicated Muslims, who must pray 5 times per day. Currently, there are Muslims in Elermore Vale who are using the existing Mosque to pray 5 times per day, but the current Mosque (which appears to be able to hold 50 people max.) is too small. Who even knows where you got this 10,500 figure from?! And you think you’ve got a point when you say that when a 300 person capacity Mosque is to be built for Muslims who want to pray 5 times per day, with at least 60 of them already living in the area, you’re going to somehow get 10,500 (and up to a possible 14,000) new Muslims moving to a suburb where there are no proposed building developments? Another fail.

      ““Native-born Australians can be second generation Chinese.”

      And are still Chinese.

      They’re not *ethnically* Australian.
      And they’ve taken over suburbs previously occupied by ‘ethnic-Australians’ (i.e. “White” Australians).”

      They can call themselves Chinese if they want, but they also have the right to call themselves Australian. White Australians are not ethnically Australian either – only the Aboriginals can call themselves ethnically Australian you dope. And please define ‘taken over’. My friend is a teacher. There are 30 children in the classroom, and one of her. The children have not taken over the classroom, but they outnumber the teacher. All of her students are well behaved and want to adhere to the ethos and way of life defined by the school. At no point do any of the children desire to kill the teacher and run things their own way, as she is a kind teacher who believes that all children in her class are equal and should have the same opportunities as the next child.

      ““What laws have changed? What freedoms have we lost? What aspects of Australian culture have been eroded? None”.

      So as long as taxes are paid and laws are obeyed, it doesn’t matter if the ETHNIC GROUP historically referred to as ‘Australians’/’White Australians’/’Anglo Australians’ are reduced to a *footnote* of their own society?!!”

      Answering a (many times asked) question with a question? Great debating skills. As I’ve said a million times already – I don’t care what an Australian looks like as long as they work to make our country a great place. You, on the other hand do not care what an Australian does or says or how he or she acts, as long as she is white. THAT is the real error in your ideology.

      ““Australian” is not just citizenship. It is an ETHNICITY.
      What right do native-born White Australians have to their own history, culture, genetics, homeland? None? We have no right even exist?
      Have *can we continue to exist, when our space is constantly encroached upon by alien peoples?”

      All your opinion. My care factor is zero. The APP and the AFP etc share your views and they can’t even get over a thousand Australians to vote for them.

  45. Why Why said: “Law is not about what you must do – it’s about whether you can do it.”

    Actually, some laws *are* about what you must do (you must attend school, you must wear a bike helmet, you must enrol to vote).

    I didn’t say the law said you must build a house of worship.
    I said nobody must build one in order to practice their religion. Pay attention.

    “If the council agrees to this mosque then they can build it. Get over it.”

    And if they refuse it, they can’t. Get over it.

    “Shocky: ““but gays ARE murdered in non-Muslim countries for being gay.” But not because the Koran says so.”
    And that makes it so much better doesn’t it?
    And that is why you’re trying to score cheap political points from gay men being murdered.”

    I never said it was ever ‘better’ to kill anyone.
    It is *always* wrong to kill gays for being gay.

    Who’s trivialising gay murder, Ms Flippant Boo-Hoo?

    You’re the one implying Muslim motivations, inspired by their scriptural directives, are somehow *irrelevant superficialities*, when they’re the CAUSE.

    “You’re a disgrace to white Australians [I thought there was no such thing as race]
    and a disgrace to the gay community [thanks for speaking on their behalf, gay-murder trivialiser].”

    You are a disgrace to a people you deny an ethnic reality to, who gave you a home.
    You are a disgrace to people who’s deaths you cheapen, by denying the very real threat that Islam poses to them.

  46. Shockadelic:
    “And if they refuse it, they can’t. Get over it.”

    Are you that thick Shocky? You have an IQ of 126, remember – could you make it slightly harder to dismantle your pathetic attempts at a debate?

    I don’t know whether you’ve noticed, sunshine, but I’m not the one protesting the mosque – you, and your buddies at the APP are. The residents of the suburb are not. But you are.

    So no, I don’t need to get over it. But you do. You’re making the fuss, remember.

    Shockadelic:
    “I never said it was ever ‘better’ to kill anyone. It is *always* wrong to kill gays for being gay.”

    Who cares? You added a qualifier. “It’s always wrong to kill gays for being gay BUT Muslims do it because of this…” It’s not that hard to understand, Shocky. By your “logic” if there were no Muslims in Australia no gays would be murdered. Plain and simply, you are using anti-gay murders to justify your anti-immigration stance which, I’m afraid, does qualify you for using anti-gay homicides to score politicial points, and which DOES make you a disgrace to the people whose sexuality you claim to identify with.

    “You are a disgrace to a people you deny an ethnic reality to, who gave you a home.”
    Uhm, no, I’ve never denied ethnic reality – perhaps you’re getting me mixed up with another person you’ve tried to have an argument with? Have you had a debate with someone else on this site about whether race exists? You have, haven’t you Shocky? And you’re confusing whoever that person is – Josh, or the antibogan I believe – with me. What excuse are you going to put forward this time? Last time it was Keith and Kenny, and you said it was easy to get them mixed up because they both started with K! What excuse are you going to come up with for confusing Why Why with Josh?

    Oh and yes you think white people gave me a home. (You mean like your friend Scott, who thinks your sexuality is immoral and whose lifestyle is funded by my taxes?) Is this what you have to resort to, to feel superior to anyone whose skin is darker than yours? “Hi I’m Shocky and just because I’m white I’ll feel entitled to saying I provided for every migrant, none of them worked or anything, I gave them their homes, I maintain their streets, I do it all!” I pay for my own cost of living. No one, white or not, owes me anything – don’t you ever forget it.

    Shockadelic: “You’re the one implying Muslim motivations, inspired by their scriptural directives…”
    See above. Far out, you REALLY have a problem with mistaking people on this website, don’t you? FYI, you’re having an argument with theantibogan about Muslim scripture. Pay attention.

  47. Why Why said “I don’t know whether you’ve noticed, sunshine, but I’m not the one protesting the mosque”

    But you are pathetically protesting the protesters.
    And you need to get over THAT.

    Shockadelic:
    “I never said it was ever ‘better’ to kill anyone. It is *always* wrong to kill gays for being gay.”

    Why why says: “Who cares?”

    WHO CARES??!!!!!

    “You added a qualifier. “It’s always wrong to kill gays for being gay BUT Muslims do it because of this…”

    That’s not ‘qualifying’ their behaviour. That’s descriptive, explanatory.

    If Valerie Solanis shoots Andy Warhol *because* of her feminist beliefs, simply *pointing this out* is not diminishing any other non-feminist attempted murders.

    “By your “logic” if there were no Muslims in Australia no gays would be murdered.’

    No, none would be murdered by Muslims, because of the Koran.

    “Plain and simply, you are using anti-gay murders to justify your anti-immigration stance”

    It is justified.
    You are *dismissing* the threat as inconsequential (Who cares? Boo hoo!).
    You have no moral soapbox to stand on, my dear.

    “You are a disgrace to a people you deny an ethnic reality to, who gave you a home.”
    Uhm, no, I’ve never denied ethnic reality”

    I’m talking about White Australians as an ethnic group.
    You deny us a ‘reality’ by denying is a right to a home of our own.
    A home that is *ours*, not yours.

    Realities are material, living experiences.
    You negate ours with your perpetual disrespect.

    You don’t have to specifically say “I deny blah, blah, blah”.
    *Everything* you say is an attack on the historical ethnic group “Australians” and their right to their *own* self-determined reality.

    “Oh and yes you think white people gave me a home.”

    Yes, we did “Asian Australian”.
    Because ‘Asians’ didn’t create this society.

    Your home is Asia.
    Or more accurately, the particular part of Asia your ancestors come from (you haven’t declared your actual ethnicity yet)

    • Shockadelic: “But you are pathetically protesting the protesters.
      And you need to get over THAT.”

      Only in your dreams. Try looking at the reality – they managed to get four people to their little anti-immigration fest. Four people. That speaks for itself. No one is “protesting the protesters” – that’s your pathetic attempt at rationalising the failure of the APP. And the fact that you are trying to rationalise this epic failure by drawing on the murders of your fellow homosexuals to justify a political stance is sickening.

      Shockadelic: “You negate ours with your perpetual disrespect. You don’t have to specifically say “I deny blah, blah, blah”.
      Yeah, actually, I do. In order to successfully accuse me of denying X Y or Z ethnic reality, you have to point out exactly where I specified “I deny X Y or Z ethnic reality”. Claiming that I am perpetually disrespecting your ethnic reality is
      a) a weak attempt to hide the fact that you did in fact mistake me for whoever it was you were having an argument with about the existence of race;
      b) another attempt to change the topic;
      c) another attempt by you to speak on behalf of all Australians – a tendency you’ve been called up on again and again on this site by other commenters, and a tendency without any basis in reality or fact (I don’t disrespect white Australians, in fact I applaud all the white Australians on this website except for Scott for distancing themselves as much as possible from the likes of you, HA HA HA, but yes I freely admit to disrespecting racist bogans) and
      c) screaming hypocrisy given your continual disrespect of anyone who isn’t white. Like this:

      Shockadelic: “Yes, we did “Asian Australian”. Because ‘Asians’ didn’t create this society.”

      And neither did you.

      You whinge like a child (“you can shut the fuck up boo hoo hoo!”) when people like Keith tell you they don’t read your posts. Yet like the pathetic hypocrite that you are, you don’t seem to read anything on this site. Your ignorance of the purpose of this site (“if it’s not to change people’s minds then what’s the bloody point?”) is one example. Another is the fact that you don’t know how many times the authors of this site have repeatedly (to your buddy Scott, for example) pointed out the fallacy and stupidity of relying on claims to land, ownership and superiority based on stuff that other people did a hundred years ago. That’s stuff that you as a racist bogan white supremacist living today have no right in the world to claim credit for.

      Until you show exactly how you specifically contribute to my mortgage, to my job, to my taxes, to my school fees, to my food, to my council rates, your claim to have given all the darkies a home is revealed for what it is: a pathetic attempt at self-glorification. If you can show me how you’ve contributed to my lifestyle (YOU, not a white Australian two hundred years ago; YOU – not an Afghan camel driver a hundred and fifty years ago; YOU – not a Chinese person during the Gold Rush) I will gladly accept your claim that out of the generosity of your soul, you have given me a home. Until then, you can cry into a box of tissues about how you are being disrespected. So cop that Shockadelic, Scott and all you knuckle draggers.

      • Shockadelic: “You deny us a ‘reality’ by denying is a right to a home of our own.”

        Boo hoo, feeling a bit persecuted and oppressed are we, bogan trash? See this idiocy is why you will never get it. No one is denying you the right to a home of your own. To claim that there is this big conspiracy by all non-whites which is preventing you from owning a home is nothing but paranoid stupidity.

        You may not like it but the fact remains that Australia belongs to anyone who has the legal right to be here, irrespective of their skin colour. Your dislike of or disagreement with this fact is irrelevant. As long as he or she works and contributes to society and pays for their own cost of living, without demanding that taxpayers do so (like your buddy Scott), Australia is his or her home. You have an issue with anyone who does this, and isn’t white but you don’t have the mental capacity to understand that the majority of people who share your level of melanin don’t actually agree with your views. Other white Australians don’t care about your paranoid rants. They don’t agree with you and they don’t give a shit about your views. That’s why parties like the APP manage fuck all at elections, and get four people to attend an anti-mosque protest. You do not have a greater claim to this country merely on the basis of your skin colour. Most people in this country agree with this statement and do not share your views no matter how many times you try to convince us that you are speaking on behalf of “all Australians”.

  48. I’d like to ask antibogan a question, and I’d like a serious answer.

    What kind of future do you want for Australia?
    What do you want to see here in 100 years’ time?

    You are an atheist and want a secular society, free of sexism and homophobia, yes?
    Is that the future we’ll get?

    http://www.australiancollaboration.com.au/_factsheets/Religion_FactSheet.pdf

    This link (from a multifaith organization, quoting Census statistics) shows the Census results for religion since 1901.

    Christianity has clearly been falling in Australia, as it has in most Western (i.e. White) countries.
    Non-religious/not-stated has clearly been rising, as it also has in most Western (i.e. White) countries.

    Had immigration remained limited to White/Western countries this trend would have continued, until there would be a minority Christian and majority non-religious. Antibogan’s wet dream?

    But the end of the White Australia policy threw a big divine spanner in the works, didn’t it?

    ‘Other religions’ hovered around 0.4-0.8% for most of the 20th century.
    It would likely have remained that way.

    The last time Australia had a ‘typical’ Census was 1971. After that things changed dramatically.
    So using 1971 as a starting point:

    Non-religion/not stated increased from 12.9% in 1971 to 30.6% in 2006.
    That’s a 2.37 times increase. (the whole population increased 1.55 times, so Non-religious are increasing at 1.52 times the rate of the whole population).

    But ‘Other religions’ increased from 0.8% to 5.6%.
    That’s a 7 times increase. SEVEN TIMES!!

    They are increasing at 4.5 times the rate of the whole population.
    And 2.95 times the rate of Non-religious.

    So while non-religion is increasing, ‘Other religions’ are increasing even faster.

    And why? Because Australians are converting en masse to Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism?
    No, because of immigration only. Non-White immigration.

    So what’s the likelihood that you’ll get your dream future of an irreligious, secular, non-sexist, non-homophobic future?

    Had immigration remained *restricted to Europeans*, it would probably have been inevitable.
    If current immigration trends continue, it’s virtually *impossible*.

    Your ‘principles’ are going to create the exact opposite of what you want.
    What’s the good in having ‘principles’ if, long after you and your principles are six feet under, they end up creating just the kind of society you don’t want?: one dominated by religion.

    So antibogan, is multicultural immigration going to create the future you want, or destroy it?

    • What I want to see will never be seen. I’m anti-religion, and that will never happen.

      Islam is the fastest growing religion in Australia, and it’s up to 1.7%. Closely behind it is non-religion, and I’m cheering for that crowd as I stand with them at 18.7%. At 63.9% of Australia’s population are the various denominations of Christianity – people who believe that a spirit impregnated a virgin who then gave birth to a guy who grew up being able to perform magic tricks and then came back from the dead after being stuffed covered in his own blood into a cave for more than three days.

      Religion is the root of all evil because religious people can often have the capacity to vehemently reject people who follow other religions. So when our country solidly states secularity, or freedom of religion, it’s something I will always speak in support of. Why? Because even though I hate all religions, I am an atheist, and I have the ability to respect the right of other people to be part of non-atheist religions. This is something that is so difficult for most people to do.

      As for your document co-written by an Anglican priest, I’ll admit that I didn’t read it other than skimming through the part that showed that the destruction of the White Australia Policy was the main contributing factor for the religious diversity we see in our country today. And had it not been for religious diversity, people would not be questioning their own faith so frequently? And if rational people weren’t honestly questioning their religion, we wouldn’t see such a rapid rise in atheism.

      So I’ll leave you with that one, God boy, and leave you with a quote from Jesus himself:

      “For we walk by faith, not by sight.’ II Corinthians 5:7”

  49. Why Why said “Try looking at the reality – they managed to get four people to their little anti-immigration fest. Four people.”

    And how many people turned up to ‘protest the protesters’? Seven?

    “No one is “protesting the protesters””

    Ah, yes you are by having this article on the website, and ‘protesting’ what APP did. That’s ‘protesting the protesters’. Duh!

    “drawing on the murders of your fellow homosexuals to justify a political stance is sickening.”

    What happened to “Who cares? Boo hoo.”

    “You don’t have to specifically say “I deny blah, blah, blah”.
    Yeah, actually, I do.”

    No, you don’t.
    Look up ‘implicit’ in the dictionary.

    “Claiming that I am perpetually disrespecting your ethnic reality is”

    a) true
    b) correct
    c) accurate
    c)(not d, c again) observant.

    “Shockadelic: “Asians didn’t create this society.”
    And neither did you.”

    Ah, yeah.
    But my ancestors did.
    My ancestors didn’t create China, India or Japan, and the Chinese, Indians and Japanese didn’t create Australia.
    That’s not ‘disrespect’. That’s simply fact.
    A fact you don’t want to accept, because it leaves you out of the picture. Boo hoo.

    “Yet like the pathetic hypocrite that you are, you don’t seem to read anything on this site.”

    Unfortunately, I read everything on the articles I’ve commented on.
    And it’s tiresome in the extreme.

    “Another is the fact that you don’t know how many times the authors of this site have repeatedly pointed out the fallacy and stupidity of relying on claims to land, ownership and superiority based on stuff that other people did a hundred years ago.”

    If there’s no such thing as inherited sovereignty, then there’s no such thing as law, as nobody would have any ‘right’ to impose laws on ‘citizens’.
    Therefore, any references to people’s ‘legal right’ to build mosques is redundant, as there’s no legitimacy to those laws.
    No sovereignty = no law.

    “Until you show exactly how you specifically contribute to my mortgage, to my job, to my taxes, … your claim to have given all the darkies a home is revealed for what it is: a pathetic attempt at self-glorification.”

    I didn’t claim “I” did anything. I said “we”, communal plural.
    And “We” have you a home, because “you” (Asians, communal plural) didn’t create it.
    “You” arrived after it was already built by “us”.

    Shockadelic: “You deny us a ‘reality’ by denying is a right to a home of our own.”

    “Boo hoo, feeling a bit persecuted and oppressed are we”

    Would say “Boo hoo feeling persecuted and oppressed” to the Tibetans?
    The Palestinians? The Aborigines?
    No, only White people are not permitted to have a place of their own. Anywhere on Earth.

    “To claim that there is this big conspiracy by all non-whites which is preventing you from owning a home is nothing but paranoid stupidity.”

    If you think I’m talking about a house of brick and concrete, you are an idiot.
    I’m talking about a living space, territory, homeland.
    How can my people maintain a territory/homeland of their own, if a flood of aliens is constantly taking over street after street after street?

    “You may not like it but the fact remains that Australia belongs to anyone who has the legal right to be here, irrespective of their skin colour.”

    Under current law.
    Those laws were different in the past, and they can change again. They are not eternal.

    “You have an issue with anyone who does this, and isn’t white but you don’t have the mental capacity to understand that the majority of people who share your level of melanin don’t actually agree with your views.”

    Prove it.
    Have a plebiscite.
    Not important enough? It’s only the very nature of the population we’re talking about.
    That’s not an important enough ‘reform’ to have a vote on?

    In 1951 we had a referendum to ban the Communist Party!
    In 1977, we had a plebiscite on the national song!
    Those were “really important” issues, but dramatically changing our ethnic demographics after nearly 2 centuries *isn’t* important enough to ask the people?

    There was no grassroots demand to change the White Australia policy.
    The change was imposed, top-down.
    Australians were *told* they must, just like you’re doing today.
    They never asked for it, or gave their consent.

    “You do not have a greater claim to this country merely on the basis of your skin colour.”

    No, my ancestry.
    Japanese people have a greater claim to Japan than me, not because of their skin colour, but because their *ancestors* created Japanese society!

    • “Prove it. Have a plebiscite.”
      Democratic elections not good enough for you? There is nothing to prove. Again and again and again and again – the polls prove that people with your views do not speak for the majority of Australians. Suck it up.

      “Would say “Boo hoo feeling persecuted and oppressed” to the Tibetans?
      The Palestinians? The Aborigines?
      No, only White people are not permitted to have a place of their own. Anywhere on Earth.”
      Another red herring. I’m not saying it to white people, am I? Just to you 😀 Your “I speak on behalf of all white Australians” act is pathetic – especially given that most white Australians don’t agree with you. If they did, the APP would be able to garner a lot more support than four people at an anti-mosque protest. Stop speaking on their behalf.

      “I didn’t claim “I” did anything. I said “we”, communal plural.
      And “We” have you a home, because “you” (Asians, communal plural) didn’t create it. “You” arrived after it was already built by “us”.
      You mean built by someone other than you. So your entire argument rests on quotation marks and a claim to something someone else did, rather than facts. Here’s a fact. I pay taxes. I subsidise the lifestyle of your buddy and fellow bogan trash white supremacist, Scott. Until you can come back with a fact (not quotation marks, not something based on something someone else did a hundred years ago that you are claiming credit for, but a fact) as to how you contribute to my lifestyle your claim to be giving me a home is nothing but self-glorification from a poor little oppressed white supremacist bogan.

      “Ah, yes you are by having this article on the website”
      It’s not my website, and I’m not the antibogan. Stop getting confused again.

  50. antibogan said: “You will note of course that the population of MANY other cultures has increased since the demolition of the White Australia Policy. So now you need to take a look at the country of origin and religion of those migrating here.”

    The statistics I quoted are from the *census*.
    Country of origin doesn’t tell you religion. Religion tells you religion.

    “You will note that out of the top 10 countries” from your irrelevant link, are about the *total* immigrants.

    My statistics showed the change *over time*, the recent *rate of increase*, not just totals.

    The total of non-White and non-Christian immigrants are small. Duh!
    But they are increasing at much higher *rates* than the general population, gradually becoming a larger proportion of the population.

    “you would have to assume that their procreation is much lower than the 98+% non-Islam procreation in our country.”

    You can ‘assume’ that, but you’d be wrong. There’s no automatic correlation.

    “So when will Muslims make up 50+% of our population Shonky?”

    I already stated it’s irrelevant *when*. I don’t want them to reach 5%.
    They may never be 50%.
    With current trends, you’ll probably find in 100 years that the population is roughly split five ways: Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Non-religious.
    There won’t be another 100 years after that. We’ll all die in the inevitable civil war.

    “Jus Soli says that a child born here of parents who migrated here from China has the same level of entitlement as a child born here of 8th generation parents. Correct? Thank you for this admittance.”

    When did I deny it?
    That doesn’t mean the Chinese have a right to migrate in the first place.

    “The number one reason for youth unemployment is job termination.”

    Really?! And the number one reason for death is mortality.

    “The homeless and unemployed are not ignored in this country.”

    No, that’s why they’re homeless and unemployed. Because they’re *not* ignored.

    “But canceling skilled immigration programs that bring already skilled, educated people to our country to continue to learn and work in place of hiring people who have already been fired, people who are not educated, people who lack the skills and motivation, people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol and people who have come from families with no solid role models is ludicrous”

    So fuck the lazy junkies from bad homes (now who’s generalising!).
    Fuck ’em! Let ’em die in the gutter where they belong. They’re only our kin.
    We’ll take alien people who can’t speak English who resent White people instead, leaving their homelands lacking in the same skills!

    “There are countless organisations that exist to assist unemployed people. Simply hiring these people into positions that do not exist is just STUPID.”

    As if you’d be hiring them for non-existent work. Who’s making stupid statements?
    If these organisations are helping, why aren’t people being trained in the skills we *need*?

    “Australia is my homeland, and I strongly believe that Australia can be the homeland of any person who wants to come here and positively contribute to our communities and societies.’

    This is merely your opinion.

    “The birth/death rate is a SEPARATE STATISTIC [that’s what I said]. Jeez… How dumb can you be? There are migration statistics, AND there are birth/death rate statistics! [that’s what I said] There is NO *incorporation* of birth/death rate statistics into migration statistics!”

    Yes, they’re different statistics. I said that.
    But the rate of birth and deaths would effect the migration statistics.
    Dead people don’t migrate, moron.
    Only born, living people migrate. Got it?

    If 30,000 people die, they can’t migrate, can they, honey bunny? They can only migrate *before* they die.
    If 30,000 people haven’t been born yet, they can’t migrate, can they, honey bunny? They can only migrate *after* they’re born.

    More racial discrimination links?
    We’re talking about religion.
    When are you going to get it through your thick skull that Islam is not a ‘race’ or even an ‘ethnoreligion’ which are the things covered by the anti-discrimination laws.

    “….access to premises such as shops, libraries or hospitals and other buildings used by the public…accommodation, such as renting a unit or house or buying and selling land…buying goods and using services, such as being served in a restaurant or using taxis, banks and legal services…’
    So if a Mosque is blocked on the basis of religion, there are fair grounds to take an appeal to the HREOC for discrimination.”

    Access to *existing* buildings!!!
    Buying land is not building on it.

    “Negative Liberty is an ideology that is not formally recognised in Australia”

    What????!!!!!!

    You are beyond dumb.
    That’s the whole point: it doesn’t have to be *FORMALLY* recognised.
    It is a fundamental concept of modern liberal society.
    It doesn’t need to be written down anywhere.

    “Hence, Muslims have the legal right to build a Mosque in Australia BECAUSE there are no legal limitations preventing them from doing so [no, that’s not a ‘legal right’, it is merely an absence of prohibition], and more directly, there are avenues of legal support surrounding any prevention of use of this right on the grounds of discrimination [no, Islam is not a race or ethnoreligion and therefore *not* covered by anti-discrimination law].

    “BUT you think it’s perfectly acceptable for a Chinese person who is already here to give birth to a child who under Jus Soli is then assumed to be Australian and is entitled to all rights and opportunities granted to all Australian residents. Right?”

    Jus soli is jus soli, whether I “think it’s perfectly acceptable” or not.

    “We have no relation whatsoever, other than the fact that we are both white. Yet, my cousin is half American because her mother (my Aunt) emigrated from Australia and married an American man. Upon re-entry to Australia, she gave birth to my cousin who was then considered to be fully Australian, despite having an American father.”

    So? Did they all live happily ever after?

    “Do you really want to get complicated with this simplistic notion of yours?”

    It’s not *my* notion, dimwit.
    It’s not complicated actually. Your cousin was born here. The rest of the story is irrelevant.

    “Well let’s prevent migration of men to our country! Seeing as though they are responsible for the large majority of crime”

    That’s *your* pathetic attempt at rhetoric, darling, not mine.

    “So let’s continue to allow Lebanese women and white women to migrate here, but prevent men in general. This seems FAR more rational.”

    Oh, you’re so clever. Yawn.

    “If you want to be taken seriously, you need to also acknowledge the criminal acts that are being committed by those who you imply are more moral and ethical, such as white people.”

    Crimes are committed by all types.
    But only Lebanese come from Lebanon.
    They don’t come from Sweden.
    If we know there’s a higher crime rate among Lebanese compared to Swedes, why can’t we reflect a preference (or lack of it) in our immigrant selection?

    “The conversation wasn’t about religious requirement, it was about religious freedom in Australia.”

    No, if something is not a requirement of your faith, then not permitting it cannot be said to be restricting free exercise of your faith, as it is not a *requirement* of your faith!!

    “Muslims are allowed to build Mosques, because they enable Muslims to practice, worship and promote their religion. End of story.”

    Oh, if I end my delusion with “End of story”, that makes it so.
    I’ll have to end all my posts that way from now on. Then you can’t refute anything I say.
    End of story.

    “No there’s nothing religious about bricklaying, but you’re splaying rapidly from the point.”

    No, that *is* the point, bitch.

    “There are currently 28,000 non-Muslims in Elermore Vale. Noted. None of the existing population would move out. Noted. Therefore, you would need over 28,000 Muslims to move into Elermore Vale for there to be any form of Islamic majority. You fail again.”

    Nobody would move out?
    Why would nobody move out, as thousands of Muslims start moving in?
    Now who’s being unrealistic?

    “Who even knows where you got this 10,500 figure from?!”

    5 sessions x 7 days x 300 persons.
    Who’s a dumb arse?

    “And you think you’ve got a point …. you’re going to somehow get 10,500 (and up to a possible 14,000) new Muslims moving to a suburb where there are no proposed building developments? Another fail”

    Another fail for you.
    That was *my* point. The population *doesn’t* need to double!
    You claimed 28,000 Muslims would have to *move in* to become the “majority”.
    You don’t need *another* 28,000 people.
    Only the demographic composition of the *existing* number needs to change.
    Existing residents move out, Muslims move in. *Same* population size, not double.

    “They can call themselves Chinese if they want, but they also have the right to call themselves Australian”

    *Citizens* of Australia, not ethnically “Australian”. You don’t seem to understand there’s a difference.

    “White Australians are not ethnically Australian either”

    WHAAAAAAAAAAT!!!!!!
    That’s what “White Australian” MEANS!!
    White Australians = “Australian” ethnicity

    “only the Aboriginals can call themselves ethnically Australian you dope.”

    You’re the dope.
    The ethnicities of Aborigines are their *tribes* (Koori, Ngunnawal, Murri, Yamatji, etc).

    The ethnic identity “Australian” didn’t even exist until White settlers created it.

    “My friend is a teacher. The children have not taken over the classroom”

    Oh, you’re so clever.

    “As I’ve said a million times already – I don’t care what an Australian looks like as long as they work to make our country a great place. You, on the other hand do not care what an Australian does or says or how he or she acts, as long as she is white. THAT is the real error in your ideology.”

    Wrong.
    I do care what White people do and say.
    The difference is they are *my* people. I *have* to put up with them.
    That doesn’t excuse any wrongdoing, but they have a right to live in our society because they are our *kin*.
    You may think your brother is a twit, but he’s still your brother.

    “My care factor is zero.”

    I know that.

    “What I want to see will never be seen. I’m anti-religion, and that will never happen.”

    But you can voice your desire for it.
    So why are you so threatened by other people voicing their unattainable desires?

    What I asked you was whether your principles are not helping create the *opposite* of what you want.

    “And had it not been for religious diversity, people would not be questioning their own faith so frequently?”

    You can see from the link that Christianity declined almost 10% between 1921 and 1933.
    What did that have to do with abolishing the White Australia policy (which hadn’t happened yet)?

    People question their faith not because of another’s convictions, but because of their own doubts.
    If they were so convinced by another faith, they’d convert, not just disbelieve.

    “So I’ll leave you with that one, God boy”

    God boy?
    You’re the one helping “God” take over Australia.
    Again you seem to be arguing with Mr Who-You-Think-I-Am.

    “and leave you with a quote from Jesus himself.
    “For we walk by faith, not by sight.’ II Corinthians 5:7”

    Okey-dokey.
    Thanks for sharing.
    Whatever.

    Here’s one for you:
    Matthew 15:14 “they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

    • “The statistics I quoted are from the *census*.
      Country of origin doesn’t tell you religion. Religion tells you religion.”

      So are all my statistics. Your point? Find some statistics that suggest that Muslims are migrating here at a faster rate than other religions then. Because isn’t that what you’re eluding to? An Islamic majority within the next 100 years? I would suggest that when our top ten contributing migration countries all hold Islam in the minority that Muslims would be in a minority in terms of migration. Isn’t that a fair assumption? Also, seeing as though said countries have been our major contributors over the past 40 years, they cannot have contributed too much of a percentage of Muslims if we still only have 1.7% Islamic population.

      ““you would have to assume that their procreation is much lower than the 98+% non-Islam procreation in our country.”

      You can ‘assume’ that, but you’d be wrong. There’s no automatic correlation.”

      So out of every 100 females in Australia, 98 are non-Muslim and 2 are Muslim. In terms of a birth rate, those 2 Muslims would have to be procreating at a rate that outweighs the rate of the other 98 women combined. We will discuss the percentage of Muslims in our annual migration intake when you find the statistics that show what percentage are Muslim vs non-Muslim.

      “I already stated it’s irrelevant *when*. I don’t want them to reach 5%.
      They may never be 50%.
      With current trends, you’ll probably find in 100 years that the population is roughly split five ways: Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Non-religious.
      There won’t be another 100 years after that. We’ll all die in the inevitable civil war.”

      You don’t want them to reach 5%. Boo hoo to you. And an inevitable civil war in a secular society? Do you have any historical references to refer to here? Any that relate to the demographics, cultural freedom, landscape and standard of living seen in our country?

      “When did I deny it?
      That doesn’t mean the Chinese have a right to migrate in the first place.”

      Ah but our immigration laws state that they do very much have the right. And they are already here, old man. What would you like to do? Introduce genocide to all first generation migrants?

      ““The number one reason for youth unemployment is job termination.”

      Really?! And the number one reason for death is mortality.”

      Huh? The number one reason for employment is education and skills.

      ““The homeless and unemployed are not ignored in this country.”

      No, that’s why they’re homeless and unemployed. Because they’re *not* ignored.”

      Oh my. It seems your debating skills have now completely deteriorated. Logically, if unemployed and homeless people were completely ignored because there were no institutions or organisations in existence to help them, they would *not* be unemployed and homeless? You’re getting lazy Shonkyderelict.

      “So fuck the lazy junkies from bad homes (now who’s generalising!).
      Fuck ‘em! Let ‘em die in the gutter where they belong. They’re only our kin.
      We’ll take alien people who can’t speak English who resent White people instead, leaving their homelands lacking in the same skills!”

      Not at all! I just pointed you to a handful of major organisations that work towards educating, housing and employing the homeless and unemployed. And at no point did I say that ALL unemployed and homeless people were that way because they had been fired or were junkies. I was stating the main reasons. Reasons you chose to ignore when you said that these people were worth employing into roles that did not exist at the expense of a skilled migration program. As for your comments regarding migrants who can’t speak English and resent white people – you’re truly showing your shades of complete fuckwit. Migrants to this country need to demonstrate a proficiency in English and are usually coming here because they want to – not because of an aversion to white people. Gronk.

      “As if you’d be hiring them for non-existent work. Who’s making stupid statements?
      If these organisations are helping, why aren’t people being trained in the skills we *need*?”

      Did you pay attention when I showed you the three main areas covered by skilled migration? How much do you think it’s going to cost to pick a homeless man off the streets, feed him, clothe him, house him and put him through 5 years of medical school in order to work as a professional in our healthcare system? What kind of difficulties are you going to face when you try to get the heroin addicted junkie living in housing commission accommodation to attend 4 years of IT training? These organisations are putting people into low risk jobs as they are available. These organisations are not capable of assisting people into the far more advanced roles that are filled by our skilled migration program:

      http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/_pdf/sol-schedule4.pdf
      http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/_pdf/sol-schedule1.pdf
      http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/_pdf/sol-schedule2.pdf

      ““Australia is my homeland, and I strongly believe that Australia can be the homeland of any person who wants to come here and positively contribute to our communities and societies.’

      This is merely your opinion. ”

      It is also the opinion of successive democratically elected Governments over the past 40 years.

      “Yes, they’re different statistics. I said that.
      But the rate of birth and deaths would effect the migration statistics.
      Dead people don’t migrate, moron.
      Only born, living people migrate. Got it?”

      Did you mean that birth and death rates AFFECT migration statistics? Yes. Dead people don’t migrate – you’re right. But we aren’t referring to FOREIGN dead people in AUSTRALIAN birth/death rates you dumb fuck. How can a dead Australian migrate TO Australia? Born, living people migrating TO Australia aren’t included in AUSTRALIAN birth/death rates as they are BORN and LIVING in foreign countries, hence they aren’t included in AUSTRALIAN birth/death rate statistics. GOT IT?

      “If 30,000 people die, they can’t migrate, can they, honey bunny? They can only migrate *before* they die.”

      That’s true sugar puss. If they migrate to Australia before they die, they are included in our MIGRATION statistics. If they die BEFORE migrating to Australia, they AREN’T included in our birth/death rate statistics.

      “If 30,000 people haven’t been born yet, they can’t migrate, can they, honey bunny? They can only migrate *after* they’re born.”

      That’s true sugar puss. If they aren’t born, then they aren’t included in Australia’s migration statistics, OR Australia’s birth/death rate statistics.

      The condescending tone makes you look even more stupid!

    • “When are you going to get it through your thick skull that Islam is not a ‘race’ or even an ‘ethnoreligion’ which are the things covered by the anti-discrimination laws.”

      How is the right to religious freedom addressed in the HREOCA?

      One of the Commission’s functions under section 11(1)(f) of the HREOCA is to inquire into and attempt to conciliate allegations that an act or practice of the Commonwealth is inconsistent with any human right. In furtherance of this, Part II Division 3 provides that a complaint may be made alleging that an act or practice is inconsistent or contrary to any human right (s.20(1)(b)). “Human rights” are defined in s.3 of HREOCA to mean the rights and freedoms recognised in the international Instruments which are declared or scheduled to the HREOCA(5).

      Two of the international instruments which are scheduled to the HREOCA have special relevance o the freedom of religion and belief:

      * the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) (‘the ICCPR”) and

      * the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981) (“the Religion Declaration”).(6)

      The ICCPR provides in article 18 that:

      1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion(7). This right shall include freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
      2. No one shall be subject to coercion which shall impair his freedom to have or adopt a religion of his belief or choice.
      3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.(8)
      4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

      The ICCPR also provides that:

      * advocacy of religious hatred which amounts to incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence must be prohibited by law (article 20);

      * everyone is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the law without discrimination on the ground of religion among other grounds (article 26); and

      * minority groups are entitled to profess and practise their own religion (article 27).

      The Religion Declaration prohibits unintentional and intentional acts of discrimination and defines discrimination in article 3 as:

      Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.

      Article 6 of the Religion Declaration stipulates that the religious community’s joint or shared expression of its beliefs is protected equally with the individual’s right and protects manifestation of religion or belief including, but not limited to,

      * worshipping and assembling, and maintaining places for this purpose
      * establishing and maintaining charitable or humanitarian institutions
      * practising religious rites and customs
      * writing and disseminating religious publications
      * teaching of religion and belief
      * soliciting voluntary financial support
      * training and appointment of religions leaders in accordance with the requirements and standards of the religion or belief
      * observing religious holidays and ceremonies
      * communicating with individuals and communities on matters of religion and belief.

      The complaint mechanism under section 20(1) could be utilized, for example, when an individual or group complains that the Commonwealth, or an agency of the Commonwealth performed an act or practice which was somehow inconsistent with or contrary to their right to (for example) freedom of religious expression, solicit financial support, build and/or maintain places of worship etc.,
      3. How is the right to freedom from discrimination in employment on the basis of religion addressed in the HREOCA?

      The rights of individuals and religious groups to act in accordance with their beliefs free from interference by the government have often been balanced against prohibitions on discrimination in employment based on religion or belief. Australia’s international obligations in this regard are grounded in the International Labour Organisation Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 1958 (“ILO Convention 111”)(9) which is scheduled to the HREOCA.

      ILO 111 specifically prohibits discrimination on the ground of religion in employment and occupation (article 1.1). It also provides that discrimination on the ground of religion may be exempt in relation to employment of people by religious institutions where such discrimination is required by the tenets and doctrines of the religion, is not arbitrary and is consistently applied or where religion is “an inherent requirement of a particular job” (article 1.2). The terms “Employment or occupation” include access to vocational training, access to employment and to particular occupations, and terms and conditions of employment (article 1.3).

      In addition, in relation to the freedom from religious discrimination in employment, the ICCPR:

      * guarantees the enjoyment of human rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (article 2.1)

      * provides that everyone is equal before the law. It requires that everyone be guaranteed equal and effective protection against discrimination (article 26).

      Part II Division 4 of the HREOCA confers functions on the Commission in relation to the investigation of complaints of discrimination in employment or occupation on a prescribed ground (including religion) in pursuance of ILO 111.

      For the purpose of Part II Division 4, “discrimination” is defined in s.3 of HREOCA as follows:

      “Discrimination, except in Part IIB, means:

      (a) any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin that has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation; and

      (b) any other distinction, exclusion or preference that;

      (i) that has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation; and
      (ii) has been declared by the regulations to constitute discrimination for the purposes of this Act; but does not include any distinction, exclusion or preference:

      (c) in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements of the job; or

      (d) in connection with employment as a member of the staff of an institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, being a distinction, exclusion or preference made in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or that creed.”

      Unlike the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) does not contain separate prohibitions on direct and indirect discrimination. However, Justice Katz of the Federal Court held in Commonwealth of Australia v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and Hamilton [2000] FCA 1854 that the definition of discrimination in section 3 of the HREOCA encompassed both direct and indirect discrimination, notwithstanding that it does not expressly refer to the distinction.

      An example of what is commonly understood as “direct discrimination” would be where religion is the reason for refusing to hire an applicant (and neither the inherent requirement or religious susceptibilities exception applies).

      Example: A manufacturer advertised for a new storeman. One suitable job applicant was refused employment when the interviewing manager discovered he was a Jehovah’s Witness.

      An example of what is commonly understood as “indirect discrimination” would be where there is a requirement, rule, policy or practice that appears to be the same for everyone but has an unequal and disproportionate effect on one particular group and is not a reasonable requirement even if there is no intention to discriminate. This sort of discrimination may occur when employers are inflexible about making appropriate adjustments to allow for employees’ religious practices which do not conform to the pattern of most employees and neither the inherent requirement or religious susceptibilities exception applies.

      Example: A rule that no employee may leave work before 5 pm. This rule affects Orthodox Jews in winter because they must leave work with enough time to reach home before sundown to observe the Sabbath. Orthodox Jews who are refused flexible scheduling could be forced to choose between their religion and their jobs.

      • The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) is able to inquire into allegations of discrimination on religious grounds.

        HREOC’s 1998 addressing the human right to freedom of religion and belief in Australia against article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stated that despite the legal protections that apply in different jurisdictions, many Australians suffer discrimination on the basis of religious belief or non-belief, including members of both mainstream and non-mainstream religions, and those of no religious persuasion.

    • ““Negative Liberty is an ideology that is not formally recognised in Australia”

      What????!!!!!!

      You are beyond dumb.
      That’s the whole point: it doesn’t have to be *FORMALLY* recognised.
      It is a fundamental concept of modern liberal society.
      It doesn’t need to be written down anywhere.

      “Hence, Muslims have the legal right to build a Mosque in Australia BECAUSE there are no legal limitations preventing them from doing so [no, that’s not a ‘legal right’, it is merely an absence of prohibition], and more directly, there are avenues of legal support surrounding any prevention of use of this right on the grounds of discrimination [no, Islam is not a race or ethnoreligion and therefore *not* covered by anti-discrimination law].”

      An absence of prohibition constitutes a legal right in the same informal recognition as negative liberty. There are most definitely legal avenues preventing religious discrimination. If a Hindu man is fired from his job because he is Hindu, he has grounds to sue.

      “Jus soli is jus soli, whether I “think it’s perfectly acceptable” or not.”

      If you find the concept of Jus Soli to be acceptable, then you will find it acceptable that a second generation Australian-born Chinese person has the same rights and entitlements as a 9th generation Australian.

      “It’s not *my* notion, dimwit.
      It’s not complicated actually. Your cousin was born here. The rest of the story is irrelevant.”

      Thank you for admitting that under the informally recognised system of Jus Soli, an Indian born in Australia to parents who migrated here has the same rights and entitlements as an Australian whose ancestors came here on the First Fleet.

      “That’s *your* pathetic attempt at rhetoric, darling, not mine.”

      Ah but it’s derived from your attempts to draw our attention to Middle Eastern crime as a reason for not allowing people from the Middle East to migrate here. Crime linked to a race, religion or a sex should then prevent that race or sex from migrating to our country, correct?

      ““So let’s continue to allow Lebanese women and white women to migrate here, but prevent men in general. This seems FAR more rational.”

      Oh, you’re so clever. Yawn.”

      Haven’t you been abusing Why Why and others for yawning at your dimwitted arguments? Please judge the following in order of rationality:

      1. Preventing Pacific Islanders from migrating here because there has been crimes committed in Australia and in the Pacific Islands;
      2. Preventing men from the Pacific Islands from migrating here because they have been responsible for over 90% of said criminal activity.

      “Crimes are committed by all types.
      But only Lebanese come from Lebanon.
      They don’t come from Sweden.
      If we know there’s a higher crime rate among Lebanese compared to Swedes, why can’t we reflect a preference (or lack of it) in our immigrant selection?”

      Then why can’t you respond to my preference of preventing MEN from migrating to Australia from ‘all types’ of countries, as it is statistically evident that they are responsible for the vast majority of worldwide crime? As for your comparison with Lebanese and Swedish people – you cannot possibly relate criminal activity to an ethnicity without addressing social factors, societal demonisation, employment and educational opportunity, wealth, aesthetic adhesion etc etc etc.

    • ““The conversation wasn’t about religious requirement, it was about religious freedom in Australia.”

      No, if something is not a requirement of your faith, then not permitting it cannot be said to be restricting free exercise of your faith, as it is not a *requirement* of your faith!!”

      Yes it can if the grounds for denying it are on RELIGIOUS GROUNDS you stupid, stupid clown. Let’s say a Christian wants to buy a car. The salesman tells him he will not sell him the car because he is a Christian. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians are required to own cars. But it is a restriction of freedom of exercise of faith if your activities are prevented on the grounds of your religion, especially if the car’s intended use was for driving people to and from church. Building a Mosque is something that can be considered an exercise of freedom of religion. When it is prevented on the grounds of religion, it can be said that it is a restriction of the exercise of freedom of religion, seeing as though it is being built for religious reasons.

      “Oh, if I end my delusion with “End of story”, that makes it so.
      I’ll have to end all my posts that way from now on. Then you can’t refute anything I say.
      End of story.”

      Why not? You already end your arguments with ‘yawn’ and ‘oh you’re so clever’ when you have nothing else to say.

      ““No there’s nothing religious about bricklaying, but you’re splaying rapidly from the point.”

      No, that *is* the point, bitch.”

      Not that’s NOT the point, slut. The point is that Muslims can build Mosques because Australia doesn’t impose religious restrictions on how people practice or promote their religions. You can’t build a Catholic Church in Pakistan, as they don’t have freedom of exercise of religion.
      It has nothing to do with whether or not bricklaying is in holy scriptures.

      “Nobody would move out?
      Why would nobody move out, as thousands of Muslims start moving in?
      Now who’s being unrealistic?”

      They were your words. And it’s definitely an irrational assumption as you are assuming that 28,000 people share your Islamaphobia. It’s also unrealistic seeing as though in order for Muslims to move IN in the first place, people would need to have already moved out.

      ““Who even knows where you got this 10,500 figure from?!”

      5 sessions x 7 days x 300 persons.
      Who’s a dumb arse?”

      Seeing as though you continue to ignore the fact that Muslims who have dedicated moving to an area simply so they can visit the Mosque will in all probability attend this Mosque 5 times a day for prayer. They are the same people. Not 10,500 new people, each attending one prayer session on one day of the week. MORON.

      “Another fail for you.
      That was *my* point. The population *doesn’t* need to double!
      You claimed 28,000 Muslims would have to *move in* to become the “majority”.
      You don’t need *another* 28,000 people.
      Only the demographic composition of the *existing* number needs to change.
      Existing residents move out, Muslims move in. *Same* population size, not double.”

      1. Your figure of 10,500 has serious flaws, and they’ve been pointed out.
      2. You’re assuming that 28,000 people share your Islamaphobia, yet only 4 people turned up to oppose the Mosque – 2 of whom were from out of the area.
      3. Muslims would need to move in FIRST, in order for residents to move OUT. Seeing as though there are no mass development proposals, residents would remain in their homes, preventing any form of mass influx of Muslims into homes that didn’t exist.

      I’ll pass the fail back onto you at this point, and await your silly, irrational, unreasonable and unrealistic projections of the Muslim population in a town with a proposed (and unopposed) Mosque that will hold less than half the people a regular school hall.

    • ““White Australians are not ethnically Australian either”

      WHAAAAAAAAAAT!!!!!!
      That’s what “White Australian” MEANS!!
      White Australians = “Australian” ethnicity”

      And Aboriginal Australian = Indigenous Australian ethnicity.

      indigenous |inˈdijənəs|
      adjective
      originating or occurring naturally in a particular place;

      “You’re the dope.
      The ethnicities of Aborigines are their *tribes* (Koori, Ngunnawal, Murri, Yamatji, etc).

      The ethnic identity “Australian” didn’t even exist until White settlers created it.”

      Just because white settlers came up with the name Australia doesn’t mean that they are the first Australians! ‘White’ ethnicity will remain secondary despite its prevalence!

      ““My friend is a teacher. The children have not taken over the classroom”

      Oh, you’re so clever.”

      We’ve heard that line twice now. Unwilling to engage? The children outnumber the teacher 30 to 1!! Yet no school rules have been changed, and in no way has the school ethos been affected. The students know their place, and appreciate the opportunity to learn at the school. The students (with a few exceptions) respect the authorities and management of the school and work towards being active members within the school. I cannot see how this analogy is in any way irrelevant.

      “Wrong.
      I do care what White people do and say.
      The difference is they are *my* people. I *have* to put up with them.
      That doesn’t excuse any wrongdoing, but they have a right to live in our society because they are our *kin*.
      You may think your brother is a twit, but he’s still your brother.”

      Well that’s probably the first I’ve heard you make that admittance. Surely after all your allusions to rights and opportunity going to those born here you would have realised by now that the ideology of Jus Soli is non-discriminatory towards those who look different to us. There is absolutely no solid ground that you can stand on when you say that only white people should have the right to live here. White settlers arrived here 222 years ago, and none of them were born here. They came here and made a life and society for themselves, and it’s incredibly naive to assume that those coming here to make a life automatically want to destroy the laws and way of of life that currently exists. Especially when you’ve consistently been unable to describe how our freedoms and rights have been eroded, or how our laws have changed, or how we no longer have the same way of life that we had 50 years ago.

      ““What I want to see will never be seen. I’m anti-religion, and that will never happen.”

      But you can voice your desire for it.
      So why are you so threatened by other people voicing their unattainable desires?”

      I voice my desire for a decrease in religious participation all the time. As for how that differs to the flippant comments that denigrate entire races and cultures and communities of people – I strongly support the right for all Australians to practice their own religion, no matter how ridiculous I find all religions. Racists do not support the right for people to come here and contribute to our society and they crudely abuse and denigrate people who are truly affected by comments and actions. My view is inclusive while the racist view is generally exclusionary. Both are intolerant but only one suggests a diminishing of human rights for masses of human beings.

      “People question their faith not because of another’s convictions, but because of their own doubts.
      If they were so convinced by another faith, they’d convert, not just disbelieve.”

      I was strongly convinced that there was no God, hence I became an atheist. I wasn’t ‘so convinced’ by any other faiths.

      “God boy?
      You’re the one helping “God” take over Australia.
      Again you seem to be arguing with Mr Who-You-Think-I-Am.”

      Do you believe in God? And Jesus and his reincarnation? And the Virgin Mary’s impregnation by a spirit who hand built the entire world and Universe? I thought that by defending religion against my reasonable doubt, you were a God boy. Are you not?

      “Here’s one for you:
      Matthew 15:14 “they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.””

      Cheers. Faith is sightless. Science is visionary.

  51. theantibogan said “Find some statistics that suggest that Muslims are migrating here at a faster rate than other religions then.”

    I just GAVE you statistics on the rate of increase, moron!

    “Because isn’t that what you’re eluding to? An Islamic majority within the next 100 years?”

    No I didn’t.
    Pay attention, bitch.
    I actually said the future population would probably be split between 5 different groups.

    “I would suggest that when our top ten contributing migration countries [of PAST immigrants, going back half a century or more, not CURRENT trends] all hold Islam in the minority that Muslims would be in a minority in terms of migration. Isn’t that a fair assumption?”

    No, because you’re just looking at totals, and not the recent *rate of increase*.

    “Also, seeing as though said countries have been our major contributors over the past 40 years”

    Past, past, past. What’s happening NOW?

    “You don’t want them to reach 5%. Boo hoo to you.”

    And you do, Mr God-is-a-load-of-shit?

    “And an inevitable civil war in a secular society?’

    It won’t be a secular society.
    Thanks to millions of Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus welcomed by *your* “principles”.
    From societies that never underwent the same social evolution we did.

    You seem to think separation-of-church-and-state and personal/private-liberty are *universal* concepts.
    NO! Those are the values of **OUR** society.

    And there have been a number of wars in Western ‘secular/democratic/liberal’ societies in the past few centuries, in case you didn’t notice.

    “And they are already here, old man.”

    Old man? 43 is “old” now? Then where’s my Pensioner Card!
    The problem isn’t the people already here, per se.
    It’s what/who *will* be here, if current trends continue.

    “What would you like to do? Introduce genocide to all first generation migrants?”

    I was wondering when that would come up.
    The old accusation-of-genocidal-intent trick. (Shakes head and sighs).

    “The number one reason for employment is education and skills.’

    So why aren’t we *doing* that?

    Why are we relying on *other* countries to spend time and money training people, and then lure them away, leaving our own citizens unemployed, and other countries lacking the skills they just spent a fortune training people to have?
    This is the more ethical solution, eh?

    “Reasons you chose to ignore when you said that these people were worth employing into roles that did not exist at the expense of a skilled migration program.”

    If the roles do not exist, then *immigrants* can’t fill them either.
    You’re not making any sense.
    I never said anything about people filling non-existent jobs. Where on Earth did you get that from?!!

    “How much do you think it’s going to cost to pick a homeless man off the streets, feed him, clothe him, house him and put him through 5 years of medical school?”

    *He* doesn’t have to be a doctor.

    He can do a job some other person is doing.
    And that other second person can do another job that some third person is doing.
    And THAT (third) person can be a doctor.

    The homeless and unemployed can do less-skilled work, which will free the more-qualified people *currently* filling those positions to pursue more skilled work.
    Trickle-up.

    “It is also the opinion of successive democratically elected Governments over the past 40 years.”

    And *wasn’t* the opinion of democratically elected governments in the preceding 40 years.
    Opinions, opinions, opinions. There are no absolutes, no eternals.

    “Born, living people migrating TO Australia aren’t included in AUSTRALIAN birth/death rates as they are BORN and LIVING in foreign countries, hence they aren’t included in AUSTRALIAN birth/death rate statistics.”

    You the one always going on about NET migration, bitch.
    Dead Australians can’t *emigrate* either. GOT IT?

    So next time you start going on about Australians leaving the country, I’ll expect a statistical analysis that takes into account the birth/death rates, otherwise your statistics will be wrong.
    You won’t be able to just say “100,000 Australians leave every year”.
    No, no, no. But what’s the birth rate? What’s the death rate?
    You can’t just ignore them!

    See what I mean?
    Births and deaths are irrelevant, because immigration/emigration statistics *already* incorporate them.

    “The condescending tone makes you look even more stupid!”

    Hello Pot, It’s me, Kettle. You’re black.

    • “theantibogan said “Find some statistics that suggest that Muslims are migrating here at a faster rate than other religions then.”

      I just GAVE you statistics on the rate of increase, moron!”

      2009-2010 Census statistics? I think not…

      ““I would suggest that when our top ten contributing migration countries [of PAST immigrants, going back half a century or more, not CURRENT trends] all hold Islam in the minority that Muslims would be in a minority in terms of migration. Isn’t that a fair assumption?”

      No, because you’re just looking at totals, and not the recent *rate of increase*.”

      Past immigrants? The top ten contributing countries are taken from the 2009-10 Census data. As for your argument regarding migration – you haven’t factored in conversion rates. It is possible for 9th generation white Australians to convert to Islam.

      ““You don’t want them to reach 5%. Boo hoo to you.”

      And you do, Mr God-is-a-load-of-shit?”

      I don’t care if people come here worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as long as they contribute to our society in a positive way. We have plenty of Catholics in our gaols – not because they’re Catholic, but because they’re criminals.

      “It won’t be a secular society.
      Thanks to millions of Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus welcomed by *your* “principles”.
      From societies that never underwent the same social evolution we did.”

      Then it will be a multifaith society. I have no problem with that. We already have that.

      ““And they are already here, old man.”

      Old man? 43 is “old” now? Then where’s my Pensioner Card!
      The problem isn’t the people already here, per se.
      It’s what/who *will* be here, if current trends continue.”

      You are more than half-dead. The average male doesn’t live longer than 75 years. You won’t even be around to see what happens. You’re attributing criminality and unemployment and lack of education to people based on their religions alone. So you don’t want them here, even though you won’t be around to see them. Don’t you just love calling me a generalist?

      ““What would you like to do? Introduce genocide to all first generation migrants?”

      I was wondering when that would come up.
      The old accusation-of-genocidal-intent trick. (Shakes head and sighs).”

      So how do you propose we get rid of the 50%+ migrants and relatives of migrants already in Australia, breeding away? You can shake your head and sigh all you like but if there weren’t Australian-born Chinese people, then your beloved Chatswood wouldn’t have any Australian-born Chinese people living there. Even if immigration was cancelled they’d still be here.

      ““The number one reason for employment is education and skills.’

      So why aren’t we *doing* that?”

      We are. It cannot be our only focus however.

      “If the roles do not exist, then *immigrants* can’t fill them either.
      You’re not making any sense.
      I never said anything about people filling non-existent jobs. Where on Earth did you get that from?!!”

      The roles exist now. They are positions that require skills that take between 3 – 7 years to learn. They are filled by skilled migrants and University graduates. You cannot slot an uneducated homeless man into an IT position you idiot.

      ““How much do you think it’s going to cost to pick a homeless man off the streets, feed him, clothe him, house him and put him through 5 years of medical school?”

      *He* doesn’t have to be a doctor.”

      ‘He’ was the subject of a scenario. He doesn’t have to be a doctor, no. But there are doctor positions needing to be filled. So if we cancel skilled migration, how do we fill them if Universities aren’t providing graduates at a fast enough rate? Approximately 40,000 school teachers are set to retire in the next three years. Would you like to place an uneducated homeless *woman* into a school teacher position? Fuck you’re thick.

      “The homeless and unemployed can do less-skilled work, which will free the more-qualified people *currently* filling those positions to pursue more skilled work.
      Trickle-up.”

      LOL at your simplistic understanding of unemployment and the job market.

      ““Born, living people migrating TO Australia aren’t included in AUSTRALIAN birth/death rates as they are BORN and LIVING in foreign countries, hence they aren’t included in AUSTRALIAN birth/death rate statistics.”

      You the one always going on about NET migration, bitch.
      Dead Australians can’t *emigrate* either. GOT IT?”

      NET migration is immigration vs emigration you fucking retard. 180,000 in, 80,000-100,000 out. Birth/death rate is a separate statistic.

      “So next time you start going on about Australians leaving the country, I’ll expect a statistical analysis that takes into account the birth/death rates, otherwise your statistics will be wrong.
      You won’t be able to just say “100,000 Australians leave every year”.
      No, no, no. But what’s the birth rate? What’s the death rate?
      You can’t just ignore them!”

      My God you’re just so fucking dumb. 80,000 Australians leave Australia permanently each year. None of them are dead. That’s why the birth/death rate is a separate statistic. Once again for the slow, NET migration is immigration vs emigration.

      http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/net_migration_rate.html
      http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/birth_rate.html
      http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/death_rate.html

      “See what I mean?
      Births and deaths are irrelevant, because immigration/emigration statistics *already* incorporate them.”

      No, they DON’T.

  52. antibogan, you quote all these detailed laws about religious discrimination, yet again fail to see that *nowhere* is there a reference to the *construction* of buildings being considered a part of the free exercise of religion. NOWHERE.

    Even if a judge made a ruling that the *use* of a building was required for religious activities, that still wouldn’t mean the *construction* of a building was required.
    Do… you…. understand?

    “An absence of prohibition constitutes a legal right in the same informal recognition as negative liberty.”

    No, an absence of prohibition *is* negative liberty.

    “If a Hindu man is fired from his job because he is Hindu, he has grounds to sue.”

    Yes, because it’s specifically written in law. That’s not negative liberty.

    “If you find the concept of Jus Soli to be acceptable, then you will find it acceptable that a second generation Australian-born Chinese person has the same rights and entitlements as a 9th generation Australian.”

    Duh!
    What I don’t find acceptable is Chinese immigration. Got it?

    “Thank you for admitting that under the informally recognised system of Jus Soli”

    Informally?
    the AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 2007 is not informal.

    “an Indian born in Australia to parents who migrated here has the same rights and entitlements as an Australian whose ancestors came here on the First Fleet.”

    But they’re not *ethnically* “Australian”.

    “Crime linked to a race, religion or a sex should then prevent that race or sex from migrating to our country, correct?”

    So you agree now Muslim crimes would warrant Muslim immigration restriction?
    Black African crime would warrant Black African immigration restriction?

    “1. Preventing Pacific Islanders from migrating here because there has been crimes committed in Australia and in the Pacific Islands;
    2. Preventing men from the Pacific Islands from migrating here because they have been responsible for over 90% of said criminal activity.”

    So you would support sexist immigration restrictions?
    Your cleverness is drifting off into the stratosphere.
    No society could have just women.

    “Then why can’t you respond to my preference of preventing MEN from migrating to Australia from ‘all types’ of countries”

    Because it’s ridiculous.

    “As for your comparison with Lebanese and Swedish people – you cannot possibly relate criminal activity to an ethnicity without addressing social factors, societal demonisation, employment and educational opportunity, wealth, aesthetic adhesion etc etc etc.”

    You are addressing those factors by noting the crime statistics.
    A country with high-crime rates compared to Australia would be an undesirable source of immigrants.
    A country with low-crime rates indicates a better society with more educated, intelligent people. The kind of people we’d want, yes?
    Why would you *want* immigrants from crime-prone ethnic groups?!!

    • “antibogan, you quote all these detailed laws about religious discrimination, yet again fail to see that *nowhere* is there a reference to the *construction* of buildings being considered a part of the free exercise of religion. NOWHERE.

      Even if a judge made a ruling that the *use* of a building was required for religious activities, that still wouldn’t mean the *construction* of a building was required.
      Do… you…. understand?”

      Oh jeez… By your own reasoning, negative liberty would state that any non-illegal activity such as the building of a building would be included in the free exercise of religion. As soon as a council moves to block said building based on the religion of the organisation wanting said building, it becomes religious discrimination, because it prevents the free exercise of religion. Similarly, the Constitution states that any activity that promotes or encourages the practice of a religion; building and attending a Mosque is part of the free exercise of religion. So while the construction of a structure made of bricks and mortar are not strictly enforced by any specific religion, the discrimination occurs as soon as BLOCKING the construction happens because of the RELIGION of those wishing to USE the building.

      ““An absence of prohibition constitutes a legal right in the same informal recognition as negative liberty.”

      No, an absence of prohibition *is* negative liberty.”

      Yes – the same informal recognition.

      ““If a Hindu man is fired from his job because he is Hindu, he has grounds to sue.”

      Yes, because it’s specifically written in law. That’s not negative liberty.”

      Because the discrimination was on the basis of the Hindu man’s religion. If a person is denied the right to construct a building (for whatever purpose), because they subscribe to a certain religion, it is discrimination.

      ““If you find the concept of Jus Soli to be acceptable, then you will find it acceptable that a second generation Australian-born Chinese person has the same rights and entitlements as a 9th generation Australian.”

      Duh!
      What I don’t find acceptable is Chinese immigration. Got it?”

      Then what’s your problem with Chatswood? There’s lots of Australian-born Chinese people there. They’ve been here since the Gold Rush and beyond. As I said earlier – the only way to get rid of these people is to kill them. Second generation (Australian-born) people are considered Australian and hence do not have a home country to go home to.

      ““Thank you for admitting that under the informally recognised system of Jus Soli”

      Informally?
      the AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 2007 is not informal.”

      It’s informally recognised because if it was formally recognised it wouldn’t be called something else, eg. Australian Nationality Law, which is based on the principle of Jus Soli.

      ““an Indian born in Australia to parents who migrated here has the same rights and entitlements as an Australian whose ancestors came here on the First Fleet.”

      But they’re not *ethnically* “Australian”.”

      And neither is a white Australian. And neither is a white migrant. The Indigenous ethnicity of Australia is Aboriginal.

      ““Crime linked to a race, religion or a sex should then prevent that race or sex from migrating to our country, correct?”

      So you agree now Muslim crimes would warrant Muslim immigration restriction?
      Black African crime would warrant Black African immigration restriction?”

      Your words not mine. I’m not into banning entire races and cultures of people based on the actions of a few. But by your reasoning (and you keep avoiding this), we should be. And if we should be banning people because of the actions of people that are racially attributed to them, then shouldn’t we be banning people because of the actions of people who are sexually attributed to them? There is FAR more evidence to suggest that the genetic make-up of a testosterone driven male is a factor in criminal activity, and partially explains why males commit 4 out of every 5 crimes, regardless of where they come from.

      “So you would support sexist immigration restrictions?
      Your cleverness is drifting off into the stratosphere.
      No society could have just women.”

      God you’re an idiot. I don’t support ANY discrimination you jackass! I don’t call for migration control based on negatively generalising stereotyping. Sexist immigration restrictions are far more reasonable than racist immigration restrictions because there is FAR more evidence pointing to males as perpetrators of 4 out of every 5 crimes. Our birth/death rate is a larger factor in population growth than immigration anyway – DESPITE you thinking they are one and the same statistic.

      ““Then why can’t you respond to my preference of preventing MEN from migrating to Australia from ‘all types’ of countries”

      Because it’s ridiculous.”

      So is preventing Indians from migrating to Australia because some of them commit crimes. If crime is our sore point, shouldn’t we emigrate Australian-born white people when they commit crime? Crime is going to happen, regardless of who is here. And it will nearly always be committed by men.

      “You are addressing those factors by noting the crime statistics.
      A country with high-crime rates compared to Australia would be an undesirable source of immigrants.”

      So a person commits a crime in a country where unemployment is at 30%, and moves to Australia where the unemployment rate hovers at 5%. Is that person still inclined to commit crime?

      “A country with low-crime rates indicates a better society with more educated, intelligent people. The kind of people we’d want, yes?
      Why would you *want* immigrants from crime-prone ethnic groups?!!”

      Remember the links you provided addressing ‘third world’ countries? Do you recall noting that even countries that have low GDP have educated people with decent incomes. Crime isn’t always committed by uneducated, unintelligent people. In Australia, it generally is because the standard of living is high, the unemployment rate is low, the median wage is high and there is a good supply of the basics of food, water, shelter/housing and social security.

  53. “Let’s say a Christian wants to buy a car. The salesman tells him he will not sell him the car because he is a Christian.”

    No, that is a restriction on the purchasing of *goods and services*.
    Not a restriction on your exercise of religion.

    Now regarding the mosque, if a construction company refused to supply *bricks*, that would be discrimination.
    Constructing buildings is “goods and services”.
    But *permission* to construct buildings is *not* “goods and services”, which is what the law covers.

    “The point is that Muslims can build Mosques because Australia doesn’t impose religious restrictions on how people practice or promote their religions.”

    No, the *point* is that building construction is not an act of faith.

    “They were your words.”

    Quote me.
    Where did I say the population would have to double and nobody would move out. *You* said that.

    “Seeing as though you continue to ignore the fact that Muslims who have dedicated moving to an area simply so they can visit the Mosque will in all probability attend this Mosque 5 times a day for prayer. They are the same people.”

    So the same 300 people are going to interrupt their work, studies, shopping, housework to travel from all over the hunter Region to the Mosque. The same 300 people. Over and over again.

    Not 300 people in the first session, who then go about their business, followed by *another* 300 at the next session, who will then go about their business.
    No, the *same* 300 people will keep interrupting their daily chores to keep going back to the mosque every few hours, every day of the week.

    “1. Your figure of 10,500 has serious flaws, and they’ve been pointed out.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    “2. You’re assuming that 28,000 people share your Islamaphobia, yet only 4 people turned up to oppose the Mosque – 2 of whom were from out of the area.”

    No, only *14,000* would have to move out, for there to be a ‘majority’ of Muslims, not 28,000.
    Didn’t we just do this?

    “3. Muslims would need to move in FIRST, in order for residents to move OUT.”

    People move in and out of accommodation all the time.
    Are you telling me there are *never* (never = at no time) any rental vacancies or house sales in this suburb?
    Vacancy? Muslims move in. Sale? Muslims move in.
    You are just being a prissy pedantic princess.

    You’re so clever. Yawn.

    • ““Let’s say a Christian wants to buy a car. The salesman tells him he will not sell him the car because he is a Christian.”

      No, that is a restriction on the purchasing of *goods and services*.
      Not a restriction on your exercise of religion.”

      It would be a restriction on your exercise of religion if the car was intended to be used for church related events. Either way it is religious discrimination because the decision to deny goods or services to the person has been based on their religion.

      “Now regarding the mosque, if a construction company refused to supply *bricks*, that would be discrimination.
      Constructing buildings is “goods and services”.
      But *permission* to construct buildings is *not* “goods and services”, which is what the law covers.”

      But it prevents the promotion/worship/practice of religion, which is defined as freedom of religion. You don’t need to acknowledge the words of the Koran in Constitutional Law to realise that Mosques are a part of Islam. And if they are prevented from being built because the people who wish to use it are Muslims, then it is religious discrimination as it defies free exercise of religion.

      ““The point is that Muslims can build Mosques because Australia doesn’t impose religious restrictions on how people practice or promote their religions.”

      No, the *point* is that building construction is not an act of faith.”

      There is an authentic Hadith (agreed upon):
      “Whoever builds a mosque for Allah’s cause , Allah will, in return, make a house for him in Jannah.”

      “Where did I say the population would have to double and nobody would move out. *You* said that.”

      Where did I say that you said that?

      “So the same 300 people are going to interrupt their work, studies, shopping, housework to travel from all over the hunter Region to the Mosque. The same 300 people. Over and over again.

      Not 300 people in the first session, who then go about their business, followed by *another* 300 at the next session, who will then go about their business.
      No, the *same* 300 people will keep interrupting their daily chores to keep going back to the mosque every few hours, every day of the week.”

      Prayers are said 5 times per day, Shonky. If a person has uprooted their family and moved to a suburb primarily for a mosque, there is a solid chance that they are of the age or position to attend the mosque more than once per week. Why would an entire family move for a half hour session in a mosque once per week? Muslims can pray anywhere they want, as long as they pray at dawn, noon, mid-afternoon, sunset and nightfall. Even a working Muslim will be able to attend dawn, sunset and nightfall prayer sessions.

      ““2. You’re assuming that 28,000 people share your Islamaphobia, yet only 4 people turned up to oppose the Mosque – 2 of whom were from out of the area.”

      No, only *14,000* would have to move out, for there to be a ‘majority’ of Muslims, not 28,000.
      Didn’t we just do this?”

      And you STILL honestly believe this to be a reasonable prediction? Your density knows no bounds.

      “People move in and out of accommodation all the time.”

      At a rate of 50% of an entire city per day/week/month/year? You continue to be irrational, and you continue to look like an idiot.

      “Are you telling me there are *never* (never = at no time) any rental vacancies or house sales in this suburb?”

      At this point in time, there are 37 vacancies. Not 14,000.

      “Vacancy? Muslims move in. Sale? Muslims move in.
      You are just being a prissy pedantic princess.

      You’re so clever. Yawn.”

      Shonkyderelict’s assumptions so far:

      * Mosque users in Elermore Vale will consist only of one-time-per-week full time workers, 100% of whom have moved to Elermore Vale from other regions of the Hunter;
      * 10,500 new Muslims will purchase homes filling a rough average of 37 vacant houses per month;
      * Residents vacating properties in Elermore Vale are moving out of their homes because of a Mosque that they are not opposed to;
      * Residents vacating properties in Elermore Vale will not want to move to other properties in Elermore Vale, but will leave the city completely;
      * 14,000 Muslims will displace 14,000 non-Muslim residents of Elermore Vale in order to use a Mosque that can hold less than half the capacity of an average sized school hall;
      * Elermore Vale will become some kind of third world despite the 10+ year existence of another Mosque half an hour away which residents have shown no opposition to.

      You’re so clever. Yawn.

  54. White Australians = “Australian” ethnicity”

    antibogan responds: “And Aboriginal Australian = Indigenous Australian ethnicity.”

    And your point is?

    “Indigenous Australian” clearly identifies the person/group as Aboriginal, as that term is used for *nobody else*.

    The ethnic label “Australian” (without any qualifiers/hyphens) would apply to the Traditional White Australian population.

    If you asked a Swede, a German or an American what an “Australian” is, would they say they’re a dark-skinned people who play digeridoos?
    Would they say they’re Islamic?
    Would they say they speak Turkic languages?
    Would they say they really like their Kabuki theatre?

    “Just because white settlers came up with the name Australia doesn’t mean that they are the first Australians! ‘White’ ethnicity will remain secondary despite its prevalence!”

    The name *is* the point.
    You keep saying anyone can be “Australian”, using THAT label.

    So the 2% Aboriginal population, whose religion nobody follows, whose languages nobody speaks, whose food nobody eats, is the *primary* definition of what “Australian” is?

    “The children outnumber the teacher 30 to 1!!”

    Yes, and this is not an equivalent parallel of regular society.
    This is a structured environment, whether one person has authority and the rest are powerless.
    This is not the equivalent of a suburban neighbourhood.

    “Surely after all your allusions to rights and opportunity going to those born here you would have realised by now that the ideology of Jus Soli is non-discriminatory towards those who look different to us. There is absolutely no solid ground that you can stand on when you say that only white people should have the right to live here.”

    No, they only created the society you see around you.
    And that society didn’t begin 222 years ago.
    It began 6000 years ago, with a little tribe living near the Black Sea.
    And those buggers put a hell of a lot of effort into buidling the civilisation you see around you, the one you mistakenly think belongs to anyone and everyone.

    “or how we no longer have the same way of life that we had 50 years ago.”

    So nothing’s changed?
    Look out the window occasionally.

    “I voice my desire for a decrease in religious participation all the time. As for how that differs to the flippant comments that denigrate entire races and cultures and communities of people..”

    It’s called free speech.

    “Racists do not support the right for people to come here”

    They don’t deny the reality that there are different people.
    That’s precisely the *point*: they’re different.

    “My view is inclusive [“God is a load of shit”] while the racist view is generally exclusionary [Duh!].
    Both are intolerant but only one suggests a diminishing of human rights for masses of human beings.”

    Only the “right” (which they don’t have as citizens of other countries) to be *here*.
    Not their right to be themselves!
    Not their right to their own culture, territory and genetics!
    Of course they have the right to those things, and SO DO WE.

    “I was strongly convinced that there was no God, hence I became an atheist. I wasn’t ‘so convinced’ by any other faiths”

    But you weren’t convinced to become an atheist because Muslims moved into your neighbourhood.
    You claimed the introduction of ‘other religions’ was *why* so many people are non-religious lately.
    Absurd!

    “Do you believe in God? And Jesus and his reincarnation? And the Virgin Mary’s impregnation by a spirit who hand built the entire world and Universe? I thought that by defending religion against my reasonable doubt, you were a God boy. Are you not?”

    I think we already did this.
    I’ve already clearly stated I’m not a Christian (or are you one of those people who don’t read my posts before commenting on them?).
    I merely pointed out some people’s misunderstandings of Christian concepts.
    I don’t defend the history of Christianity in Western Civilisation because I believe it, but because it (and not ‘other religions’) are part of its very nature.

    “Faith is sightless. Science is visionary.”

    They’re not building an observatory in Elemore Vale.

    • “White Australians = “Australian” ethnicity”

      antibogan responds: “And Aboriginal Australian = Indigenous Australian ethnicity.”

      And your point is?”

      You said that Australian-born Chinese people are not ethnically Australian. Neither are white Australians, as the only people capable of having indigenous ethnicity are the Aboriginal people, REGARDLESS of the name given to the country by European invaders/settlers, and REGARDLESS of the current size of the Indigenous population. You want to say that white is the ‘traditional’ ethnicity of this land when we’ve been here 222 years, while Aboriginals have been here 40,000+ years?

      “If you asked a Swede, a German or an American what an “Australian” is, would they say they’re a dark-skinned people who play digeridoos?
      Would they say they’re Islamic?
      Would they say they speak Turkic languages?
      Would they say they really like their Kabuki theatre?”

      What if you asked them 20,000 years ago? Do you know what the word ‘indigenous’ means?

      “The name *is* the point.
      You keep saying anyone can be “Australian”, using THAT label.”

      Because it’s the name that I’ve grown up using, as I wasn’t living here prior to 1788. The word Aboriginal was GIVEN to the Aboriginals by white settlers, and its Latin translation is ‘first or earliest known, indigenous’! And anyone can be called Australian, as that is word we use nowadays. But nobody other than the Aboriginals can be called Indigenous. Hence, the Aboriginals (name we gave to them) are the original inhabitants and thus the primary ethnicity. The ethnic tradition of this land may have moved far beyond the ways and means of our Indigenous people, but such white ethnicity is still, and always will be a secondary ethnicity, despite its current prevalence!

      “So the 2% Aboriginal population, whose religion nobody follows, whose languages nobody speaks, whose food nobody eats, is the *primary* definition of what “Australian” is?”

      No, it’s the primary definition of what Indigenous is. We are talking about primary ethnicities here – not who qualifies to be called a name that we made up after moving here.

      ““The children outnumber the teacher 30 to 1!!”

      Yes, and this is not an equivalent parallel of regular society.
      This is a structured environment, whether one person has authority and the rest are powerless.
      This is not the equivalent of a suburban neighbourhood.”

      It damn well is. Those in governance and power in Australia would be outnumbered by far more than 30 to 1. Australian society is a structured environment with laws and consequences, enforced by those in governance and power. Most residents/children follow the rules and respect the laws outlined by society/the school. Some choose to step out of rank and they face the consequences.

      “No, they only created the society you see around you.”

      And they continue to create the society I see around me, and that society legislates that any person from any country can come here and call Australia home. Society is NOT static, and all that we see around us today is NOT the result of those who were here in 1788, but those that have lived here between 1788 to today. And this doesn’t even take into account the contributions our Indigenous peoples have made to our society. How many suburbs are derived from Aboriginal words and meanings…?

      “And that society didn’t begin 222 years ago.”

      We are talking about Australia only.

      ““or how we no longer have the same way of life that we had 50 years ago.”

      So nothing’s changed?
      Look out the window occasionally.”

      How many times have I now asked you to provide me with a list of freedoms you’ve lost, laws that have changed, opportunities that have been taken away from us, things that we are unable to do today that we could do 50 years ago etc. Always avoiding this one, aren’t you?

      ““I voice my desire for a decrease in religious participation all the time. As for how that differs to the flippant comments that denigrate entire races and cultures and communities of people..”

      It’s called free speech.”

      No, what you’re referring to is called hate speech and it’s unlawful.

      ““Racists do not support the right for people to come here”

      They don’t deny the reality that there are different people.
      That’s precisely the *point*: they’re different.”

      Yes, and racists deny the right of ‘different’ people to come here.

      ““My view is inclusive [“God is a load of shit”] while the racist view is generally exclusionary [Duh!].
      Both are intolerant but only one suggests a diminishing of human rights for masses of human beings.””

      My view is inclusive because although I believe all religions are crap, I still respect the right of people to practice their own religions.

      inclusive |inˈkloōsiv|
      adjective
      not excluding any section of society or any party involved in something : only an inclusive peace process will end the conflict.

      “Only the “right” (which they don’t have as citizens of other countries) to be *here*.
      Not their right to be themselves!
      Not their right to their own culture, territory and genetics!
      Of course they have the right to those things, and SO DO WE.”

      AND YOU STILL HAVE THEM YOU STUPID, STUPID FUCK. NOBODY HAS TAKEN ANYTHING FROM YOU! NOT ONE OPPORTUNITY! NOT ONE FREEDOM! NOT ONE ASPECT OF OUR ‘WAY OF LIFE’. NOTHING!!!

      “But you weren’t convinced to become an atheist because Muslims moved into your neighbourhood.
      You claimed the introduction of ‘other religions’ was *why* so many people are non-religious lately.
      Absurd!”

      I didn’t claim that it was the only reason you turd burger.

      ““Do you believe in God? And Jesus and his reincarnation? And the Virgin Mary’s impregnation by a spirit who hand built the entire world and Universe? I thought that by defending religion against my reasonable doubt, you were a God boy. Are you not?”

      I think we already did this.
      I’ve already clearly stated I’m not a Christian ”

      Ah but you said that the story of Noah and his Ark was not to be taken literally – noted – but failed to acknowledge that the whole basis of Christianity was that the aforementioned events WERE taken quite literally. And you have failed to defend this, instead moving into defending the definitions of ‘zombie’, and picking up on literal linguistic citations such as ‘she gave birth to a zombie’. You’re a failure and you continue to avoid topics you cannot debate.

      ““Faith is sightless. Science is visionary.”

      They’re not building an observatory in Elemore Vale.”

      I’m not defending FAITH, you FUCKWIT! I’m defending the right of people to practice their own religion! And when a Mosque is blocked, it is a violation of the rights of people to participate in activities that promote and practice their religions.

  55. I think I’ve figured it out.
    Antibogan isn’t actually human.
    Antibogan is an Artificial (Un)Intelligence program.

    The program spiders your comment, using algorithms to determine the probability of political correctness.
    If PC, the program lets you say anything. It may even ‘applaud’.

    If deemed un-PC, the program attacks.
    The ID of the offender is placed on an Automatic Harassment List.

    All comments from that ID are scanned for any statement that could easily be misquoted/misinterpreted.
    The program will obsessively pretend you said something you didn’t say.
    When you try to refute this, the program just spits out a few more insults.

    Obscenities are liberally applied, along with the occasional allusion to Nazism.

    The same exceedingly convoluted ‘red herring’ arguments will be repeated over and over, along with cliched catchphrases/slogans and links to irrelevant but apparently important reports, so you will waste your time reading them.

    The program will note any phrases the offender uses multiple times and repeat these back ‘sarcastically’, like it’s being clever.

    The program will frequently end its abusive messages with a claim the offender has been “owned” or “schooled”, or committed a “Fail”, *especially* when it has been the program itself that has made an error.

    The prime directives, which can never be overruled, are to never admit the offender is right, and never admit the program is wrong (even when a 5-year old could detect the bullshit).

  56. “I just GAVE you statistics on the rate of increase, moron!”

    theantibogan said “2009-2010 Census statistics? I think not…”

    Pay attention, dumbarse.
    I linked to statistics from ALL censuses since 1901.

    And *compared* the rates of increase since 1971 (the last census before significant demographic changes occurred).
    There was no Census for 2009-10. The last one was in 2006.

    “It is possible for 9th generation white Australians to convert to Islam.”

    Possible, yes. But that wouldn’t account for the rapid rise, especially when you know immigration from the Middle East has increased in recent decades.

    “Then it will be a multifaith society. I have no problem with that. We already have that.”

    No problem, says Mr God-is-a-load-of-shit-and-I-want-a-secular-society.
    We don’t already have a multifaith pie split into 5 equal pieces though.

    We have a predominant, but declining Christian majority.
    A significant and rising non-religious group.
    And a minuscule, but rising at a *much higher rate*, of ‘others’.

    The potential problem of a equal-split future are quite different to the current majority/minority ratio.

    When religious groups only constitute 1 or 2%, they don’t make waves (unless they’re Muslim, and they always make waves).
    Wait till each of these groups is 20% each. Then you’ll see the battle-of-self-interest in full glory.

    “You are more than half-dead. The average male doesn’t live longer than 75 years.”

    You are either 100% alive or 100% dead.
    I am certainly still alive.
    And you, Mr New Generation, could die in an accident tomorrow.

    “You won’t even be around to see what happens.’

    So I shouldn’t care?

    I said: The old accusation-of-genocidal-intent trick. (Shakes head and sighs).

    “So how do you propose we get rid of the 50%+ migrants and relatives of migrants already in Australia, breeding away?”

    Most of those migrants/relatives are White.

    Get rid of?
    When did I suggest this?
    The numbers at present are not necessarily problematic, *if the influx stops*.

    Past records indicate that about a quarter of immigrants return home eventually.
    That means if immigration stopped, the current migrant population would probably still decline by a quarter anyway (when they leave).

    Those that remain will eventually die (they may already be ‘half-dead’), leaving only a small remnant population of non-Whites who were *born* here.
    They will grow up knowing no other reality but Australia. They won’t act like they’re “from” China or India or Lebanon.

    If they feel an instinctual allegiance to their ancestral people, they may leave themselves (I wonder how many of those 80,000-per-year emigrating ‘Australians’ are actually ethnic people born here, but moving to their ancestral lands?)

    The few that don’t leave will probably eventually interbreed with the general population, so over time any identifiable differences would fade with each generation.
    This is what happened with the Finno-Ugric peoples in Europe, who are now virtually indistinguishable from their neighbours.

    To automatically presume people like me advocate genocide is childish, insulting and irresponsible.

    This is why commie protesters think they have the right to bash nationalists’ skulls in, because of statements like this one, that equate questioning of immigration policy with genocide.
    The message: Anti-immigration = “Hatred” of others = Murderous intent = Nazi = justification in bashing Nazi to death.

    “The roles exist now. They are positions that require skills that take between 3 – 7 years to learn.”

    Then why can’t those roles, which are the roles of *workers*, not citizens, be *temporarily* filled by foreigners, on the understanding that they will leave in 3-7 years.
    You don’t have to become a *citizen* to be a doctor, temporarily.

    “NET migration is immigration vs emigration you fucking retard. 180,000 in, 80,000-100,000 out. Birth/death rate is a separate statistic.”

    Yes,we’ve done this already.
    But immigrants *and* emigrants are both (a) born and (b) alive.

    Therefore, births and deaths have no *additional* effect of migration statistics, and *don’t* need to be ‘taken into account’ as you claimed.
    https://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/yet-another-epic-fail-its-a-cowardly-racist-who-hides-behind-cars/#comment-5968

  57. theantibogan said “oh jeez… By your own reasoning, negative liberty would state that any non-illegal activity such as the building of a building would be included in the free exercise of religion.”

    But there *are* legal rules regarding the construction of buildings, so that is not covered by ‘negative liberty’.
    Negative liberty applies where there are *no* laws or regulations.

    “it becomes religious discrimination, because it prevents the free exercise of religion.”

    *Prohibiting* the free exercise of religion would mean you had somehow made the religious practice impossible, not difficult.

    Inability to *construct* a building does not prevent any group from
    (a) meeting in their homes.
    (b) buying an existing building.
    (c) renting an existing building.

    Therefore, the absence of ‘mosque-construction’ does not ‘prohibit’ (Do you know what ‘prohibit’ means? It doesn’t mean ‘make difficult’.) Muslims from gathering together in *other places*.

    “Similarly, the Constitution states that any activity that promotes or encourages the practice of a religion”

    It says no such thing.
    It says nothing about ‘promoting or encouraging’.
    Please don’t just make stuff up, if you expect to have any *credibility*.

    “Because the discrimination was on the basis of the Hindu man’s religion.’

    No, because the discrimination related to *employment*, which is covered by law.

    Only areas specifically mentioned in anti-discrimination LAW are illegal.
    If you discriminate in any way *not* specified in law, it’s not illegal.

    You can ‘discriminate’ against Hindus in not allowing them to attend your birthday party, or pat your dog, or rim you.

    “As I said earlier – the only way to get rid of these people is to kill them.”

    The *only* way?
    Are you sure?

    How about financial incentives?
    Leave Australia in 2011 and we pay you $10,000.
    Leave in 2012 and we pay you $9,000.
    Leave in 2013 and we pay you $8,000.
    Get the picture? The longer you wait, the less money you get.
    As Riff Raff would say: “Go. Now!”

    “Second generation (Australian-born) people are considered Australian and hence do not have a home country to go home to.”

    They have *ancestral* homelands, who are often quite happy to see them (Japan and Israel both have ‘right of return’ policies for *descendants* of their respective peoples)

    “It’s informally recognised because if it was formally recognised it wouldn’t be called something else”

    The Act formally refers to people ‘born’ in Australia.
    It doesn’t have to state the exact phrase ‘Jus soli’, as ‘born here’ is what that means!
    Law = Formal.
    Citizenship based on ‘Born in Australia’ = Jus soli
    Why does everything have to be explained to you like you’re 3 years old?

    I said “But they’re [Indians] not *ethnically* “Australian”.”

    “And neither is a white Australian [no, that’s what the *ethnicity* “Australian” is]. And neither is a white migrant. The Indigenous ethnicity of Australia is Aboriginal”

    No, the ethnicity of Aborigines is “Aboriginal/Indigenous”.
    Native-born Australians were never called “Indigenous” or “Aboriginal”, but they were called “Native Australians”, because they were born here, and the word “Australian” referred to the White population, who created the society known as “Australia”.

    The ‘indigenous’ people of Japan are the Ainu.
    The Ainu are *not* “Japanese”.
    They do *not* define what “Japanese” is.
    The majority population, descended from invading mainlanders, are called “Japanese” and define “Japanese” ethnicity.
    When people refer to “Japanese”, they are not referring to the Ainu.

    There was no “Japan” when the Ainu were it’s only occupants.
    And there was no “Australia” before White settlement, just a land, with people in it called Koori, Ngunnawal, Murri, Yamatji, etc.

    “Australia” is the total social concept/reality built by the White settlers, not just a piece of land.
    Therefore “Australians” are those White settlers and their decedents.

    If “Australian” only referred to people within the geographical continent, then “Australians” who leave the country could not be called “Australians” anymore.

    Just as you say Chinese people in Australia can call themselves “Chinese”, even though they don’t live in the geographical region of “China”.

    “Australians” are the *people* themselves.
    “Australians” would still be “Australians” even if they moved to a colony on Mars.

    “I’m not into banning entire races and cultures of people based on the actions of a few.
    But by your reasoning (and you keep avoiding this), we should be.”

    Actually my ‘reasoning’, as I’ve already said a million times, is that these ethnicities are *unrelated* to us, or so weakly related as to be virtually unrelated.
    Whether they commit crimes or pay taxes or help little old ladies across the street is irrelevant!

    “There is FAR more evidence to suggest that the genetic make-up of a testosterone driven male is a factor in criminal activity”

    While your ‘logic’ makes sense, the hypothesis itself is absurd (women-only immigration), and therefore not analogous with an actually *feasible* policy of limiting certain ethnicities.

    “If crime is our sore point, shouldn’t we emigrate Australian-born white people when they commit crime?”

    Jus soli.

    “So a person commits a crime in a country where unemployment is at 30%, and moves to Australia where the unemployment rate hovers at 5%. Is that person still inclined to commit crime?”

    Who knows? If that’s the only way he’s lived, quite possibly.

    The point is statistical probability.
    If a country has 30% unemployment, it means the people who live there are stupid fucked-up losers.
    We don’t need any more of those, thanks.

  58. theantibogan said “It would be a restriction on your exercise of religion if the car was intended to be used for church related events.”

    And did you tell that to the salesman?
    If you didn’t, then his decision was made without any awareness of your intended use of the car.

    If you were purchasing in your own name, you could make all kinds of unverifiable claims about your intended use of the car.
    The salesman cannot verify any of these claims.
    And you cannot prove them either, as you don’t have the car yet.
    Conundrum.

    “Either way it is religious discrimination because the decision to deny goods or services to the person has been based on their religion.”

    Yes, it’s discrimination in the provision if *goods and services*.
    It is not prohibiting your ‘free exercise of religion’.

    “But it prevents the promotion/worship/practice of religion, which is defined as freedom of religion.”

    No it is not.
    The constitution says nothing about *promotion* of religion.
    Driving a car is not ‘practicing’ a religion. Constructing a building is not ‘practicing’ a religion.

    “There is an authentic Hadith (agreed upon):
    “Whoever builds a mosque for Allah’s cause , Allah will, in return, make a house for him in Jannah.”

    i.e. YOU have to build a mosque.
    Not pay Joe’s Construction Company to build it.

    And Joe won’t go to heaven either, because he didn’t do it for Allah.
    He did it for money. And he’s an atheist.
    Are we now making hadith legal statutes in Australia, are we?

    Me: “Where did I say the population would have to double and nobody would move out. *You* said that.”

    antibogan: Where did I say that you said that?

    “They were your words”. You are claiming I was the one who said nobody would move out, which would mean the population would have to double for Muslims to be the majority (which is what *you* claimed).
    I never claimed this. I wouldn’t be that stupid.

    “Prayers are said 5 times per day, Shonky [that’s right, so 35 per week, times 300 people = 10,500].
    If a person has uprooted their family and moved to a suburb primarily for a mosque, there is a solid chance that they are of the age or position to attend the mosque more than once per week.”

    They might. But what is the likelihood *most* people at *most* sessions [your claim] would be the same 300 people?

    “Why would an entire family move for a half hour session in a mosque once per week?”

    Maybe they might occasionally like to bump into *another* Muslim.

    “Muslims can pray anywhere they want”

    So why do they need a mosque?

    Me: “No, only *14,000* would have to move out, for there to be a ‘majority’ of Muslims, not 28,000.”

    antibogan: “And you STILL honestly believe this to be a reasonable prediction?

    I never made a “prediction”.
    People would come from more than just one suburb to attend the sessions.
    I merely disputed your ridiculous statement that the population would have to *double*.

    “At a rate of 50% of an entire city per day/week/month/year?”

    I never said that.
    You are the one who “continues to look like an idiot”.

    “At this point in time, there are 37 vacancies. Not 14,000.”

    And next month there’ll be a few more. And then more. And then more.
    And also in all the nearby suburbs too.

    “Shonkyderelict’s assumptions [or antibogan’s deliberately twisted contortions] so far:

    * Mosque users in Elermore Vale will consist only of one-time-per-week full time workers, 100% of whom have moved to Elermore Vale from other regions of the Hunter;
    [no, I contradicted your statement that most people at most sessions would be the *same* people. And they could have moved from anywhere, even overseas.]

    * 10,500 new Muslims will purchase homes filling a rough average of 37 vacant houses per month;
    [even if I had said this, which I didn’t, with families of four, it would take just 6 years. That’s right Novocastrians. Six years. 10,500 Muslims]

    * Residents vacating properties in Elermore Vale are moving out of their homes because of a Mosque that they are not opposed to;
    [said no such thing]

    * Residents vacating properties in Elermore Vale will not want to move to other properties in Elermore Vale, but will leave the city completely;
    [said no such thing]

    * 14,000 Muslims will displace 14,000 non-Muslim residents of Elermore Vale in order to use a Mosque that can hold less than half the capacity of an average sized school hall;
    [It could cater to 10,500 people per week.
    So they’ll have to build another one, because its ‘too small’. And then another, and another, and another!]

    * Elermore Vale will become some kind of third world despite the 10+ year existence of another Mosque half an hour away which residents have shown no opposition to.
    [The current mosque is too small, remember?
    A bigger mosque will *encourage* Muslims to move there.
    Elemore Vale doesn’t currently look like the Third World because of *who* currently lives there. But change the people…..]

  59. theantibogan said “You said that Australian-born Chinese people are not ethnically Australian [correct].

    Neither are white Australians, as the only people capable of having indigenous ethnicity are the Aboriginal people [indigenous and native are not the same thing. A land can have more than one ethnicity],

    REGARDLESS of the name given to the country by European invaders/settlers [a name is a label is a definition is what it is],

    and REGARDLESS of the current size of the Indigenous population.
    [minorities don’t *define* the ethnicity of the majority]

    You want to say that white is the ‘traditional’ ethnicity of this land [not the land, the people, moron. Pieces of land don’t have ethnicities, people do. The ethnicity might be *related* to a land, but that’s indirect]

    When we’ve been here 222 years, while Aboriginals have been here 40,000+ years?
    [Maori were only in New Zealand for about 500 years before Whites.
    Are they ‘indigenous’ to those islands? They came from Polynesia.
    Everyone came from somewhere, sometime.]

    “If you asked a Swede, a German or an American what an “Australian” is?”

    “What if you asked them 20,000 years ago?”

    We aren’t living 20,000 years ago.

    20,000 years ago there were no Maori in New Zealand.
    No Indic people in India.
    No Irish people in Ireland.

    “Do you know what the word ‘indigenous’ means?”

    Do you know what the word ‘native’ means?
    Do you know what the word ‘traditional’ means?
    Do you know what the word ‘predominant’ means?
    Do you know what the word ‘historical’ means?
    Do you know what the word ‘ETHNICITY’ means?

    “Hence, the Aboriginals (name we gave to them) are the original inhabitants and thus the primary ethnicity [thus not].”

    The “first” is not the definition of anything.
    Who were the first “Japanese”? The Ainu.
    Does that have any bearing whatsoever on who “Japanese” are today?

    “No, it’s the primary definition of what Indigenous is.”

    Yes, but not the *primary* definition of what “Australian” is.

    “We are talking about primary ethnicities here – not who qualifies to be called a name that we made up after moving here.”

    No, that’s EXACTLY what we are talking about.
    Names are identifiers and definers.
    Who can be “Russian”?
    Who can be “Zulu”?
    Who can be “Maori”?
    Anyone? Everyone? Ridiculous!

    “Society is NOT static, and all that we see around us today is NOT the result of those who were here in 1788 [or before that], but those that have lived here between 1788 to today.”

    Most of whom were, and still are, White.

    “And this doesn’t even take into account the contributions our Indigenous peoples have made to our society. How many suburbs are derived from Aboriginal words and meanings…?”

    Wow.
    They didn’t decide the official names, though.
    Some White toff in a top hat and cravat did.

    Me: “And that society didn’t begin 222 years ago.”

    antibogan: “We are talking about Australia only.”

    *And* the influx to Australia of people from other countries!!

    Therefore the history of the rest of the world is *relevant*.
    “Australia” did not appear out of thin air, nor did today’s immigrants.

    “It’s called free speech.”

    “No, what you’re referring to is called hate speech and it’s unlawful.”

    Because of Thought Police like you.

    “Yes, and racists deny the right of ‘different’ people to come here.”

    Duh!

    Why are there ‘different’ peoples in the world, anibogan?
    Because…….. they all live in different places.

    If they had all lived *together*, they wouldn’t be different, they’d be the same.

    And that’s exactly how they’ll end up if you mix them all together.
    The same, not different.

    It might take a long time. But mix all these ‘different’ people together, and ‘difference’ will eventually disappear.
    You love difference so much, but your policies will destroy it.

    “AND YOU STILL HAVE THEM YOU STUPID, STUPID FUCK. NOBODY HAS TAKEN ANYTHING FROM YOU! NOT ONE OPPORTUNITY! NOT ONE FREEDOM! NOT ONE ASPECT OF OUR ‘WAY OF LIFE’. NOTHING!!!”

    A people can’t remain “a people” if other “peoples” are becoming a higher and higher percentage of their territory’s populace.

    Nothing had to be overtly ‘taken’ from them.
    They will simply be outnumbered.

    The ‘other peoples’ will hold no attachments to the history of the local people.

    To survive as a people requires living space, shared as a people, not just individuals going about their individual lives.

    The ‘other peoples’ don’t share the same culture, the same history.
    They don’t understand our cultural references. They have different aesthetic tastes.

    They will want to introduce their own alien cultural elements, which will inevitably *change* the character of the *shared experience of life* in that land.
    In ways the locals may not want, but have no power to stop (they can’t even say anything, that would be “hate speech”).

    “Ah but you said that the story of Noah and his Ark was not to be taken literally – noted – but failed to acknowledge that the whole basis of Christianity was that the aforementioned events WERE taken quite literally.”

    And that makes *me* a Christian?

    I couldn’t care less whether people take the bible literally or symbolically.
    I do care that people who know nothing about Christianity attack it, and make nasty rude comments about Christians, while ‘defending’ the construction of a mosque for sexist, homophobic aliens.

    • He’s really made a difference to the prevailing paradigm as he hunts and pecks his way across the keys. I can see Australia sitting up and taking notice.

      Peter Singer, Tim Flannery, Michael Kirby, take note!

      Move over fellas, Shockadelic, failed Internet entrepreneur and $2 shop Nazi fanboy is here.

      • I have no proof, theory or knowledge what so ever on this one, just like Shocky himself on many things, I just picture shocky to be an over weight chump. 🙂

        Does anyone know what he looks like in real life?
        If he is the over weight chump I imagine him to be I’m buying a tatts lotto. 🙂

    • He’s too busy telling himself that he addresses everything in detail, that he is a Realist, that he Doubts, that he has a high IQ, that he knows something about the Enlgish (sic) language that no one else does, that the world is out to get him and deprive him of his culture and heritage, and that he convinces everyone passing by on this site diretcly (sic) that failed anti-immigration parties will one day take power.

  60. cynthia, scott and schockadelic are as stupid as fuck. first of all, for anyone who knows anything about islam they know that sharia does not exist in the qu’ran. neither does the burqa. the burqa and sharia are actually arab customs that existed BEFORE islam (during the time period when arabs practiced pagan religions). after a while they became ‘an integral part of islam’ which is btw crap. another example of culture being used as religion is in Sikhism – guru nanek tried to establish many rights for women (in vain) but at the end of the day the pre existing punjbai culture that adopted sikhism which was very sexist refused to accept nanek’s new rules so even though Sikhis is very egalitarian if you went to a sikh community you’d see the women are very disadvantaged.

    tell me how was the spanish inquisiton christian? or all those christian missionaries who killed native americans and native south americans unless they converted? does this sound ‘christian’ too?

    australia is a secular country. turkey, a muslim majority country is also secular and they have churches there.
    as for wife beating thousands of wifebeaters are white.oh all white people must be wifebeaters. as for gay bashers ever heard of the westboro baptist church or uganda?
    uganda is CHRISTIAN COUNTRY the CHRSITIAN priests of uganda want the law in uganda passed that gives military to right anyone suspected of being gay. i think they succeeded in passing it. and by the way america is not a gay friendly country at all. wonder where the hatred comes from? whites.
    the pope; it has found has covered up rape of little boys on purpose. ohhh and lets not forget how many little boys have been raped by catholic priests. stay away from all catholic priests. theres not a single good one amongst them.
    lets not also forget how christians brought forced slaves from africa into america. gulps.all white christians are evil.

    go read about the bosnian war. gasps ALL serbian people or those who follow eastern orthodoxy are genocidal serial rapists.

    also in regards to Aboriginals, its now considered agreed amongst anthropologists that Aboriginals had higher living standards and were happier then the invading britons.

    do yourself a favor and read about the islamic golden age, then read the constitution of medina which was the first constitution that provided freedom of religion. islam was ridiculously liberal for its time so liberal that the qureshi (mohammad’stribesmen) didnt like it because they were desperate to hold on to their warlike status. the very first university? morocco. the very first female physicians? muslim women.
    \women in the islamic world during the golden age had far more rights than european women all the way up into the 18th century.

    after the golden age of islam fell; the qu’ran fell into hands of interwarring warlords who used the qu’ran to satisfy their own needs; and gve it a conservative stripe because it helped them do away with anyone who didnt agree with them. it helped them fight their wars and win – in case you havent noticed any extremist ideas are usually military succesufl (think nazis – germany was forced to strip down its armed forces and faced over 100% inflation how did they manage to raise such a powerful force in so little time; then think Stalin and Mao – again extremist left wingers; militarily highly succesful)

    do you think that jesus would have approved of the murder of jewish people during the crusades? the spanish inquisition? the acts of the christian missionaries?
    hell no. least not wat ive read about the guy.

    some other day itll be another religion youre picking on;
    but seeing as today you are displacing your ignorance about islam
    read:
    islamic golden age
    and
    constitution of medina
    and understand,that today islam is interpreted in some extremist fashion which exists to serve the needs of dictators- just like how christianity was interpreted extremely during the crusades so the Vatican could win back some catholics

  61. Pingback: The APP Fail Again « anti-discrimination

  62. Pingback: The APP and the ADL: Working Together to Fail at a Whole New Level « anti-discrimination

What do YOU think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s