Prev
Next

We should have a debate on population and immigration

Bronwyn Bishop

by Bronwyn Bishop

10 Mar 05:30am

Must Reads

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future… - this is a caption

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future…

73

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips” - this is a caption

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips”

47

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou - this is a caption

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou

184

Filed under: Election 2010, Immigration, Kevin Rudd, Population Policy

67 comments

Kevin Rudd likes to trumpet his wish to end the blame game. But in reality he rips it up, particularly in health.

What are the implications of Kevin Rudd's 36 million population estimate?

First he blames senior Australians for living longer and healthier lives, and uses the Intergenerational Report to belt up on them, labelling seniors a ‘burden’, a ‘problem’ needing a solution.

Second, he blames the Senate for not allowing him to break his promise not to reduce (or abolish for some) the Private Health Insurance Rebate. He even seems to blame his failed ETS ‘tax on everything’ on the Liberal Party, because we changed our leader to reflect the wishes of the Party and the electorate more generally.

And now he blames the states for daring to ask questions and challenge his assertions that they and hospitals will be better off if he takes back 1/3 of the GST they presently receive and give it back as 60% of efficiently priced episodes of care. This would, as the Daily Telegraph pointed out, mean the closure of many small country hospitals.

Well they might ask 60% of what, and well we might ask will patients be better off. One resident of a small country town stated at a Forum I attended this week that this would necessitate every resident of the town having 3 operations a year to attract enough money to keep their hospital open!

The reality is that health costs rise mainly because of new drugs and technologies and an increasing population, including increased migration. The changing demographic, with senior Australians, already one third of all Australians being over 50 years of age, contributes at most 20% of cost increases.

The number of migrants last year grew to a stunning 172,000, up from what had been considered normal intake of 120,000 per year.

If we relied on natural growth, ie children born to Australian citizens/residents we would have a population of 26 million by 2050 – but with a very high migration intake as accepted by Mr Rudd, we will reach 36 million people.

While Mr Rudd accepts that we can handle a population of 36 million people by 2050, this must be debated by all Australians.

And on the question of immigration I was shocked at reports of a blatant attack on Australia’s legal system at the weekend by the President of the Australia Islamic Mission, Dr Zachariah Matthews, speaking at an open day at the Lakemba Mosque.

This man advocated that parts of Sharia Law be recognised as a ‘secondary legal system’ in Australia. He tried to assure people that he wasn’t calling for ‘cutting off hands’.

We are not assured.

There is no place in Australia for a ‘secondary legal system’.

Australia has welcomed hundreds of thousands of migrants to this country and are pleased they have added their culture to the Australian mix – the result is uniquely Australian.

But there are three things not welcome in that mix. First, anyone who does not recognise men and women as being equal; second, prejudice on the basis of race; and third, prejudice on the basis of religion.

People who do not recognise the equality of men and women and are biased on the basis of race and/or religion are not welcome.

The push to undermine Australian law with any religious law is totally and utterly unacceptable.

The push for Sharia Law by the President of the Australian Islamic Mission so that ‘Muslims are not forced to act contrary to their beliefs’, is totally unacceptable.

When migrants become citizens of this country, they swear an oath of allegiance to Australia by pledging loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs they share, whose rights and liberties they respect, and whose laws they will uphold and obey.

The Islamic Mission President must learn and understand that his proposition that there is room for Sharia Law in Australia is totally and utterly wrong.

There is no room for Sharia Law giving the father of children of a divorced couple the ultimate decision about with whom the children will live with. We have Australian laws that deal with divorce and custody.

This wonderful country of ours offers equal opportunity to all of our people. To give any man in Australia a position of authority over a woman undermines the freedom and equality of every woman in Australia.

There is no room for Sharia Law in Australia – none.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

343Is it sexist? We've got nothing to compare it to
306It takes selective memory to call Howard era a golden age
249Gillard's mapping a route but will probably still be routed
216Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
204La dole cheque vita is not so sweet on $16 a day
201The sun is shining but storms lie ahead for the surplus
184The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou
153What happens to us if we collide with GFC 2.0?

67 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:58am | 10/03/10

      We should have had a debate on immigration and population thirty years ago, but political correctness prevented it. Collusion between politicians and the media ensured that any questioning voices were silenced or shouted down.

      Better late than never, I suppose. Oh, and “You’re all raaaaacists!!1!”

      Reply

    • cats says:

      05:02pm | 23/03/10

      Well i wasn’t alive 30 years ago, but from what i’ve learned, the world is waaaay more PC now than then..

    • DT says:

      07:27am | 10/03/10

      Yes there most definitely is a need for a debate on population and immigration. Starting with why the prime minister changed the rules and encouraged people smugglers. Their passengers are receiving priority treatment over the genuine refugees awaiting places our resettlement programme, why?

      Reply

    • Alex says:

      02:11pm | 10/03/10

      Are you suggesting that because they arrive by boat they are not genuine Refugees? The fact is that well over 90% of boat arrivals assessed on Christmas Island have been found to be genuine Refugees or Asylum seekers. The rules where not changed to encourage people smugglers but rather to deal with asylum seekers in a more humane way. Mandatory detention times have been sped up and refugees and asylum seekers are now given a guaranteed chance to stay, settle and make a home in Australia, which was something they where not given under the previous governments temporary protection visa rules. Add to that that Australia is one of the few countries to have signed the refugee convention between here and most of Asia and the middle East meaning that most people come here feeling they will be safe from the terrors and atrocities they are fleeing from.

    • Wombat says:

      07:39am | 10/03/10

      Bronwyn
      Before the 1996 election, John Howard talked often about immigration, playing on people’s fears. Then he went on to run the highest level of immigration in this country’s history. The highest levels as a percentage of population since the post WW2 boom. 300 000 foreign students a year (and opened a backdoor immigration loophole that Julia Gillard is now closing). 100 000 foreign workers on 457 visas.
      Now suddenly you and Scott Morrison and any other Liberal who can get a word in are all anti-immigration again.
      And what a surprise! You manage to link this rubbish to some ridiculous statements by a Muslim bloke that nobody else is taking seriously.
      Keep blowing that dog whistle, Bronwyn.

      Reply

    • Dylan says:

      11:42am | 10/03/10

      Right on, Wombat.  I keep seeing articles by this addled old windbag trying to do the same thing - say ‘let’s have an open debate’ in the first paragraph, and then engage in shameless dog-whistling.  That Sharia law rant verges on being a nonsequitur!

      For heaven’s sake, it there anything more disingenuous than saying ‘let’s have an open debate about sustainable population levels’ then leaping headlong into gratuitous commentary about how all those Muslims are out of step with Bronnie’s community values.

      On a separate topic (see, Bronwyn, that’s how to do it!): why is it that our esteemed federal politicians are only too happy to sink the boot into whatever moronic pronouncement has issued from the latest attention-seeking, self-appointed Muslim community leader; but Stephen “Young-Earth Creationist” Fielding gets treated like he is actually in possession of a functioning brain? 

      Granted, believing six impossible things before breakfast is probably less alarming than calling for Sharia law, but my goodness there’s a deathly silence when the Christian lobby calls for yet another bit of special treatment - whether it’s on discrimination, shoe-horning yet more of their myths into the science curriculum…

    • The Dove says:

      04:20pm | 10/03/10

      Spot on Wombat? Its always those who allow fear to drive them that can’t see the forest for the trees. The Coalition play the race card every time they are behind the eight ball. The problem is Bronwyn you are an outdated dinosaur who is preaching to a base that is ever diminishing,Do you believe that any Australian male or female would allow any particular portion of its society to dictate to the majority? Oh and by the way can you at least refrain from wearing those pompous outfits every day the 50’s were half a century ago and while your at it tell Sophie Mirrabella the same,oh and I almost forgot the love of every Liberal leaders life Julie Bishop.

    • Eric says:

      07:02pm | 10/03/10

      Dove,

      Please provide an example of this “race card” of which you speak.

      Or are you just making it up?

    • bec says:

      07:47am | 10/03/10

      I’d like to see why little is being done over the majority of illegal immigrants, who from the UK and NZ.

      Reply

    • annie says:

      01:53pm | 10/03/10

      bec coz they dont want to change our society. You know like ritual cliterectomies, honour killings, sharia law and madrassas, 98% unemployment. Alien political ideology which promotes the supremacy of Islam over other faiths.

      Tabari IX:113: “Allah permits you to shut them (women) in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Quran.”

      Now this might seems a bit foreign to many Australians but they’re all part of the rich fabric of multiculturalism that you must want here.

    • persephone says:

      08:31am | 10/03/10

      If you think it’s the Liberal party’s job to help Rudd keep his promises, pass the ETS.

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      02:10pm | 11/03/10

      Pure Genius, that will solve everything. C’mon, this article contains some very interesting issues and you take the low road. Great contribution.

    • Yut says:

      09:48am | 10/03/10

      Why not let the Muslims have Sharia Law in Australia? Atleast Muslim Australians believe in something (big families, being kind to others, moral values). Most Christian Australians have given up on their faith and now have few kids, if any, and are only focussed on themselves and limiting lifes discomforts.

      Clearly, Australia’s future is a Muslim one.

      Reply

    • Reginald says:

      11:14am | 10/03/10

      Yeah can’t wait for that IED’s and AK-47’s dealing out justice on the streets. Muslims have big families because their women are forced into a life of servitude and rarely have careers other than wife and mother backed up by the Australian taxpayer. Other Australians including christians don’t turn their women into relics from the middle ages and are busy working paying taxes. Paid maternity leave can help to rectify this problem.

    • Anna C. says:

      11:22am | 10/03/10

      So are these the same Muslims who believe in flying planes into buildings, suicide bombings, stoning women to death for committing adultery (when they have actually been raped) etc etc?  Yeah they sure have great moral values don’t they?

      You can keep your Sharia Law ...  I’m not having a bar of it.  If you want Sharia Law I suggest to migrate to a country that already has it.

    • Anna C. says:

      11:20am | 10/03/10

      So are these the same Muslims who believe in flying planes into buildings, suicide bombings, stoning women to death for committing adultery (when they have actually been raped) etc etc?  Yeah they sure have great moral values don’t they?

      You can keep your Sharia Law ...  I’m not having a bar of it.  If you want Sharia Law I suggest to migrate to a country that already has it.

    • yut says:

      12:26pm | 10/03/10

      All I’m saying is that the removal of Christianity by the humanists from Western society has created a vacuum that Islam has started to, and will continue to fill. There are more practising Muslims than Christians under 30 years of age in London and Paris and soon this will be the same for Sydney. I say good luck to them, they simply want it more, like the Tigers wanted the 2005 Premiership.

      And I guarantee you that Muslim women don’t see having a big family as “servitude”, rather they see it as the most important, satisfying and loving thing they can do. The modern Western view of family as an inconvience seems to be unsustainable - go figure.

    • Mother Goose says:

      01:02pm | 10/03/10

      And that, is clearly on the cards.  I see gradual dumbing down of once long held valued celebrations. It seems we are expected to bend over backwards to accommodate all that is encompassed in the muslim way of life and in the process put our own needs on the backburner. We tip toe about in case someone takes offence.  This is predominantly a christian country run on the Westminster system. We are consistently being told we should open up our country to people from war ravaged countries so they can have a better way of life. I am all for that provided they encompass this way of life and not dominate with their beliefs and dogma. I am tired of these repeated attempts to get these laws accepted here. Solution: live in a country where the laws already exist.

    • JJ says:

      01:35pm | 10/03/10

      Because it would create discrimination, be contrary to a myriad of our current laws and international legal obligations. The fact that a muslim woman is then not able to access the same legal remedies that a non-mulsim woman can is discriminatory. There are many values within both muslim and non-muslim religions which are positive and some which I see as negative - all a matter of personal opinion really. I am neither muslim nor christian and still have a moral compass and values. Religious freedom is essential. Australia’s future will never be Muslim. Our nation is becoming one of the most multi-cultural in the world and that is what I love about it. I only hope that we can become more accepting of diversity and ensure that everyone can access their human rights. If we are going to consider incorporating any other legal system into Australia’s then perhaps we should first turn to Indigenous Australia?

    • Ryan says:

      12:41am | 11/03/10

      @Yut: yes, yes and we want Australia and the rest of the world to be like every other Muslim country, the ones, ironically, that Muslims run away from to come to western countries. Where will you run to then?

    • Anna Matevossian says:

      03:12pm | 11/03/10

      Australia doesn’t recognise the law of the true owners of the land - the Australian Aboriginals… why the hell should it recognise the brutal and backward laws of the most dangerous & neanderthal ‘religion’ in the world?!?!?
      My brother in law has been stationed on Christmas Island for over 6 weeks dealing with a bunch of illiterate queue jumping illegals, who do not wish to honour the Australian ethics and way of life. He has been bumped off the allocated airline seating (so he can return to his honest tax paying family) by these people who are treated with more dignity and are given so much more than our own senior citizens, many of whom have given up so much (including loved ones in the wars) to make Australia great. If you want the real story, try talking to some of the officers working in the detention centres.

    • John A Neve says:

      06:27pm | 11/03/10

      Anna,
      Who ever said the early Ausatralians were the “true owners of the land”?

      What law are you talking about Anna, there were many tribes, which ones law do you want us to abide by?

      Show me a law book writen by early Australians.

    • Mick says:

      10:05am | 10/03/10

      If neither Labor or the Liberals want to touch the immigration issue (which certainly looks to be the reality for the foreseeable future) Australians will find themselves a party that will. Others already have all over Europe, I suspect America will be next, and we’ve already been there before so I can easily see it happening again, and sticking around for good this time. People then complain about the ‘far right’ (rightly so in some instances) but that’s what you get when you ignore public opinion.

      Reply

    • Paul says:

      10:21am | 10/03/10

      The real debate needs to be on whether our political parties and incompetent political leaders are like limited water resources in Australia, and a major on limiting factor on growth and industry , when you can allow petrol and food giants to put a drag on the economy and walk all over small businesses. 2. Allow population to soar above the housing building and new infrastructure levels 3. Play teenage blameshifting of health issues for 30 years. Yes it has been 30 years of do-nothing Bronwyn for us long term political watchers 4. Two solid decades of do-nothing on Australias biggest farming, water and environmental disaster- the Murray Darling 5. And why in a ‘progressive’ democracy we only get a choice between two religious nuts Rudd and Abbott who are more committed to their obsessive media narcissism, power-at-any-costs, and strange medieval beliefs, than us ordinary Aussies. We live a talented, resource-laden nation in the sci-fi 21st Century, yet this the best Australia politics is capable of?  Is this a taboo subject?

      Reply

    • James says:

      12:50pm | 10/03/10

      Australia’s resources are indeed patchy, our political “leadership” pool is so shallow it is in danger of evaporating in weak sunlight.  Unfortunately we have a political culture of mediocrity that is well and truely entrenched.

    • Russell says:

      11:02am | 10/03/10

      Since no political party (except extremist loons of both sides) will go to an election and say “we have a great way of making you all poorer”, we will always have similar (more or less) levels of immigration to those which prevail now. But like Libs in the last admin, they’ll try an hide it by dog whistles like this one from Bron.

      Fo all those who want to vote for the loons, fine, waste your vote.

      For those who want to “start an new party” which is as anti-people as they are. Don’t bother, you already have one. Its called the Greens. Instead of saying you don’t like foreigners, just say they are “unsustainable”.

      The rest of us will get on solving our environmental and population problems with the ingenuity mankind and this nation has always shown. We will not be blaming other people.

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      02:17pm | 11/03/10

      The greens are not a party. they are a roadblock who give their preferences to labor.

    • Here we go again says:

      11:04am | 10/03/10

      “We should have a debate on population and immigration.”  Great title, promised heaps.  Unfortunately the content proved tired and disappointing.

      The issue of population (numbers) is a very serious challenge Australia faces.  What do we have in terms of resources, how is it allocated and to whom, is our current lifestyle sustainable and is there room for growth?  All Australians are entitled to input.  I agree it needs to be debated.

      Why though make the jump from how many to who automatically?  Oh t’s right, you were well schooled by Howard.  Divide and conquer.  By dragging race into the discussion, appealing to the xenophobic you muddy the waters of logical and rational debate with emotion and bombast.

      Take the issue of water.  Does it really matter if an Australian Muslim practising Sharia Law or a 6th generation Australian draped in a flag is depleting it?  Either way it’s being depleted.  Either way someone misses out.  It’s not really a who question, more a how, where and why.

      But I doubt you’d understand fairness in allocation Bronwyn.  After all, by using all the hairstyling products yourself, you’ve probably doomed your fellow Australians to flat-hair futures.

      Reply

    • Mother Goose says:

      01:13pm | 10/03/10

      Yes, it does matter. Sharia law is an anathema

    • Here we go again says:

      02:02pm | 10/03/10

      I was not attempting to defend Sharia law, merely pointing out the inclusion of extreme comments by the President of the Australian Islamic Mission was a red herring.  Australia has bigger concerns than the unrealistic fear of Sharia law being adopted.  Water, housing affordability, infrastructure, education, health, aged care, waste management and the like have much more bearing on Australia’s future than the fear of “immigrants” taking over.

    • Eric says:

      05:14pm | 10/03/10

      There’s no mention of race in Ms Bishop’s article.

      In fact, you are the one who has dragged race into the issue, as a way of smearing her.

    • Here we go again says:

      05:43pm | 10/03/10

      Eric,
      My wrong.  I mistakenly believed it was possible to debate population (quantity) without reference to Sharia Law becoming our “second” system.  Highly emotive,  intended to be divisive and not factually based.
      If it walks like a duck….

    • Eric says:

      06:59pm | 10/03/10

      So, HWGA, you admit you have no evidence of racism in this debate.

      Shame on you. You should apologise for your lying smear..

    • Here we go again says:

      07:24pm | 10/03/10

      Eric,
      I apologise for nothing.  If introducing scaremongering about Sharia law becoming our “second” system is not inflamatory and a red herring in terms of population debate/asset management, please explain the direct link, not racially-based of course, I am missing?

    • Eric says:

      06:28am | 11/03/10

      It’s very simple, HWGA, though perhaps not simple enough for you.

      Islam is a religion, not a race.

      That’s r-e-l-i-g-i-o-n, not r-a-c-e.

      Think about it. Really hard.

    • E says:

      11:19am | 10/03/10

      Another question is the lack of a coherent picture and policy matrix from either of the two parties. Their policies tend to be contradictory.

      For example, KRudd and his ‘big Australia’ versus CPRS, or support for the coal industry as exemplified by the Palmer Deal, and the CPRS. There is no coherency between the policy.

      Our real issue as a nation is education. Its abysmal! We need scientists, engineers and doctors, not media consultants or cultural commentators, and yet all the actual science and maths is being systematically removed from science and maths and replaced by cultural studies!

      If you wonder why we have a skills shortage, blame successive LIBLAB governments who skimped on education and training in the hope of importing skills on the cheap.

      Oh yeah, Islam is a regressive and primitive system of control. Thats why all Islamic countries are poor, ignorant, filthy, violent places, just like Catholic Europe was. Religon is a control system, nothing more. We are approximately 300-400 years more advanced that Islam, they should learn from their betters and get with the program or leave.

      Reply

    • Martin G says:

      11:37am | 10/03/10

      Spot on, Bronwyn. But you should know by know how impossible it is to have a debate on population and immigration without enduring screams of ‘RAAAAAACIST!’ from bleeding-heart inner-city lefties from within and abroad.

      Mind you, your party did not help the cause by turning your back on Pauline Hanson in the 90s. That was the green light for the press to shoot her reputation to bits with labels of ‘racist’.

      Closing the door after the horse has bolted???

      Reply

    • Brett L says:

      12:12pm | 10/03/10

      Bronwyn you are a politician we need in government.
      We need a referendum on immigration levels. We need to import people ONLY from countries that are not violent and riddled with criminal or corrupt behaviors.
      Students from India should go back to India so they can use their new academic talents to help their own country. We shouldn’t be stealing the intellect of Third World Countries. If we keep taking the talent those countries will never prosper.
      If Muslims want to keep their wives from equal rights, by not working then they will find it very hard to survive in this dual income capitalistic society we have in Australia.  You can no longer buy a home without two incomes. These antiquated views will see a subculture of poor people. As for Sharia Law take it seriously now, because in the UK it has become partly law there.
      Keep your head and the sand and see what happens in 20 years from now.

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      07:02pm | 10/03/10

      Dear H of SA,

      We’re onto your lies.

      If there is racism, you should be able to name it. The fact that you can’t show any evidence, and instead rely on some silly idea of invisible codes, shows that you have nothing.

    • DC says:

      12:28pm | 10/03/10

      Here we go - more Liberal propaganda feeding on the ignorant and the racist.

      Why doesn’t Bronwyn Bishop explain her time as Minister for Aged Care (98-01) and how it came to be that elderly people were being washed in kerosene baths?

      Or the mistreatment that the elderly suffered under her watch as Minister for Aged Care during that same time?

      Instead we have this crap - “We should have a debate on population and immigration”.

      Maybe we should be asking Tony Abbott why he would put someone into the same portfolio that she mismanaged not even 10 years ago.

      But the truth is that The Punch would clearly rather publish Liberal propaganda then actually ask hard questions of those in positions of power.

      For gods sake The Punch - are you an online presence for political debate, or are you The New Idea Ver 2.0.

      Make up your damn mind.

      Reply

    • Martin G says:

      12:40pm | 10/03/10

      Why don’t you explain what part of the article does not make sense, rather than labelling it as ‘propaganda feeding on the ignorant and the racist’.

      Perhaps you are unable to come up with a reasonable argument refuting the logic of the call for a debate on this issue? You are the reason why we need a debate, because your type have dictated terms for far too long without facing up to any accountability for your actions.

      “But the truth is that The Punch would clearly rather publish Liberal propaganda then actually ask hard questions of those in positions of power”

      Yes, those Nick Champion articles on Climate Change and IR policy recently were such Liberal propaganda weren’t they! Open the other eye, mate.

    • Eric says:

      05:16pm | 10/03/10

      Where is the “racism” of which you speak, DC?

      The voices in your head don’t count.

    • James says:

      12:58pm | 10/03/10

      Yes we should, but why does it have to have racism front and centre?  Honestly a Muslim leader suggesting Sharia law is the least of our worries, firstly I don’t see why he can’t at least ask the question, even if the answer is no.

      Frankly, all this petty tribal bollocks is just a distraction from the real debate.  We need scientists to investigate what different population levels and lifestyles will mean for Australia in the context of climate change and then have the debate around what we, as a country, want to set our population target at.

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      05:17pm | 10/03/10

      What racism?

      I don’t see any racism. Are you seeing things?

    • James says:

      01:32pm | 11/03/10

      @ Eric.  Look there is no way I would ever accept Sharia law in Australia.  My point is, why even bring this up?  Frankly people of all nationalities make extreme suggestions all the time, why would you pick the extreme Muslim comment?  I think it is to give the impression that all Muslims think like this.  What the President of the Australian Islamic mission says about Sharia, is pretty irrelevant in this debate.

      The debate has to be about sustainablity front and centre, if the debate becomes about this group or that group the chances of a sensible debate go to zero.

    • Craig Lambie says:

      01:22pm | 10/03/10

      We totally need to debate at all levels of community on the cost/ benefit of having Millions more people in Australia over the next 40 years.
      Given we are having issues with resources like water and electricity, is Growth really the answer we need to increase the health and well being of our current and future peoples?

      One argument could be that instead of focusing on our country, we look at bringing some of our neighbours up to our level of “comfort” to ensure people want to live where they are, instead of in Australia.

      Another is that we don’t have the resources to handle that many people at our current levels of comfort.

      There are plenty more.
      I am definitely against introducing the Sharia Laws in Australia.  This is not even worth mentioning as the person that said it obviously has no idea, and to be honest probably should have to sit the residency tests again…. or have his citizenry revoked.

      Reply

    • Ricky says:

      02:10pm | 10/03/10

      We should be able to decide who comes & in what numbers.The great failed multicultural experiment has shown us that certain ethnic minorities(mainly middle eastern & Indian in my opinion) are not compatible with our way of life(& some openly show contempt).As for Sharia law, it represents everything that is wrong with a backward, tribal religion & will never be accepted by Australians.There are many who would march in protest if they ever tried to introduce it.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      04:19pm | 10/03/10

      The Hebrew religion is tribal - all Religions are, actually - and in England the Jews have had their own Common Law Court which settles cases outside normal jurisdiction. This Court is sanctioned by the Government, and so far as I know, it is a success.
      Sharia Law may be different because it may be inimical to our Democratic Ideal, and Political systems, in this country at least, should take be emphasized over Religious ones.

      Reply

    • M Kilgour says:

      04:52pm | 10/03/10

      “People who do not recognise the equality of men and women and are biased on the basis of race and/or religion are not welcome.”

      It’s amazing I agree with Bronwyn Bishop. The likes of Tony “Housewives do the Ironing” Abbott and John “lest suspend the Race Relations Act for the NT Intervention” Howard shouldn’t be welcome in Australia.

      It’s a pity that she does not have the sense to realise that a larger population, as suggested by Rudd,  will be need to pay the taxes to support an ageing population.

      But it is good to see that the Liberal dog whistle on Muslims and immigrations is still working and is answered by idiots claiming that Sharia Law is partly in force in the UK.

      Reply

    • annie says:

      05:58pm | 10/03/10

      22 sharia court are running in the UK in tandem with british law, they are only allowed minimal juristiction and mostly cover muslim family law. you can check detail easily on google.

    • Wombat says:

      06:27pm | 10/03/10

      The “Sharia Law” that these people are claiming exists in the UK involves some dodgy home-made “courts”, like a UK version of Judge Judy, but probably less entertaining.
      Both sides must agree to be bound by the decision of the “court”.
      Then if either side doesn’t like that decision they can just go to a real court. Does anyone here know of an instance where a real court in the UK has upheld a decision made by a “Sharia Court”? Or a decision made by a “Flying Spaghetti Monster Court”?
      This is just what Bronwyn wants the fools to do - tell lies about what is happening overseas and what is likely to happen in Australia.
      I just did a quick poll of all the Muslims I know in Australia. All 3 were horrified at the idea of Sharia law in Australia. If anyone has any better statistics please let me know.
      So apart from all the legal reasons why it will never happen, I can see 2 very good political reasons:
      1. Most non-Muslim Australians would never accept it.
      2. Most Muslim Australians would never accept it.
      By the way, the Muslim bloke Bronnie quotes actually said at the time that he knew that Sharia law would never be introduced in Australia. Bronnie just forgot to put that bit in.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      06:41pm | 10/03/10

      Rudd- Big Australia, Abbott- Big Australia. Some debate about population and immigration we’re having. My view- zero immigration and stabilization of australia’s population at 22 million but there’s as much chance in hell of it happening as Collingwood winning the 2010 AFL Grand Final…...

      Reply

    • John L says:

      08:07pm | 10/03/10

      I never thought I would say this - but spot-on Bronnie.

      Reply

    • Mack Vahanian says:

      09:35pm | 10/03/10

      Those who don’t appreciate or understand Hon. Bronwyn Bishop’s patriotic point of views should have their brains examined.  Her unblemished parliamentary track records and and her non bartering moral standings are the gratest undeniable evidence.
      However, I would ask all those Muslim sympatizers to visit their belived Islamic countries and or their Mecca,  and try telling their Islamic governments to let the Christians have a voice in their Sharia laws, and then see what would happen.  Or ask Saudi Arabia to allow to have just one Christian church in their country and then watch their response.
      It is true most of our Christian churches have stepped out of Chritian teachings.  Prominent church leaders like The Archbishop of Canterbury, under certain politacal pressures, announcing “There is no differnce between Islam and Chritranity” !!  Or those churches who turn their blind eye on pedifies and homsexuality.  We can not bleame the Baible for that.
      In Sydney, the Islamic movement is tgargeting our homeless, widows, and the hopeless junkies etc. with their petro dollars.  Those weaklings who slip into their traps, they are usless to this country anyway.

      Reply

    • Evan Findlay says:

      09:55pm | 10/03/10

      Let’s get rid of all religions from this country. I’m not going to name them as they are all evil and only uneducated and gulliable fools follow them. Where are the Lions when you need them.  Rudd may attend church and for that I think he is weak, Abbott tried to join the church and for that I think he is weak and suspect. I cannot vote for someone who believes in a fictional god. ” Of no weaker intelligence is that of a man that seeks God”

      Reply

    • Evan Findlay says:

      10:15pm | 10/03/10

      Bishop you are a germ, a fledging parasite trying to be contemporary. You are the reason why the Liberals will lose the next election. If you don’t move on you will also be the reason you lose the following election. All of your traditional voters are dead or have Alzheimers. Your days are numbered. But in true conservative and selfish style you will flourish on the opposition benches for another twenty years.

      Reply

    • Adam says:

      10:44pm | 10/03/10

      We should have a debate on population, Bronwyn. I believe Australia is over-populated to the tune of exactly one person. And that one person is you.

      Reply

    • Dan says:

      11:13pm | 11/03/10

      Hear hear! I completely agree.

    • Dan says:

      12:05am | 11/03/10

      “I was shocked at reports of a blatant attack on Australia’s legal system.” Your government went out of its way to attack Australia’s legal system, so perhaps you should write on subjects on which you actually have a leg to stand on. Or are you back to using fear of Muslims and hatred against Islam as an electoral strategy? Horrible.

      Reply

    • loz says:

      01:19am | 11/03/10

      There was a case in the UK with Sharia Law exempting a man from loosing his license because of his commitments with his several wives, he needed to travel from one side of the town to the other. You don’t have nations operating within nations. We have a steadfast system under the Crown. Australia can learn from the UK with migration out of control.  It may not be politically correct, it is spiritually correct that this blessed nation has been seen to forgo its Judeo Christian heritage. We have others that want the Utopia by coming here and replacing it with something else.  While we welcome the stranger you don’t want them rising up and biting the hand that feeds them.  This is just good housekeeping.

      Reply

    • Davido says:

      01:30am | 11/03/10

      Yes we should have a debate on immigration and here is the agenda it should have:

      1. how many people can Australia hold? There are geographical and social factors to be taken into account;

      2. what characterics do we desire in people moving to live in Australia;? and

      3. should we expect people to adapt and adopt Australian society as it is now or do we live in a geographic co-existance based on an economic desire to live in Australia?

      Personally, I see great benefits from timing immigration numbers to offset downturns in the economy. That is, use the economic benefits that accure from migration for when those benefits are most needed. Good times would see less immigration but come a recession open the doors. Easy isnt it?

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      02:33pm | 11/03/10

      I think this article has merit if it seriously opens a debate about immigration. I can’t believe how men left whingers are already screaming racist!
      This type of over the top overreaction is exactly why a serious debate on Australian immigration, values and assimilation is almost impossible.
      Are people afraid of a significant rise in muslim immigration. Of course they are. The general muslim, religious attitude toward women is open to significant abuses. Education of women, generally frowned upon.
      You say these things, you’re a racist.
      I read a post earlier where Yut said words to the effect of “muslim women think the best thing they can do with their lives is raise a large family”. So what, he speaks for all muslim women now?
      Having said all that, if you want to immigrate here, leave your baggage at the door or don’t come at all. Practice any religion you want provided you don’t foist it on other people.
      Oh and by the way if you can’t handle criticism of your religion don’t come either.

      Reply

    • Joe Rossi of RPData says:

      01:19pm | 15/03/10

      The whole mogration process should be reviewed even if it means “ruffling a few feathers”. This is vitally important to ensure the sustainability of the future generations.

      Reply

    • Joe Rossi of RPdata says:

      12:27pm | 23/03/10

      A true story: An Iraqi man moves to Australia 10 years ago as a refugee, he is welcomed into Australia and given a place to live, he is unable to get a job so he is given benefits. Over time he gets married and has four children, he now lives in a govt provided house and has not worked so still receives benefits. His income is now $4,000 per month witha free house, car registration, electricity etc.  Now this man is not all what he seems, he also has a truck licence in another name and runs a delivery business for cash, he has been able to buy a new Subaru WRX and still gets free rego! How is this possible…...

      But it doesn’t end there, on a recent trip back to Iraq he claimed he needed urgent medical attention and so tried to claim $20,000 on his travel insurance. He thought he would get away with it because he used his Australian passport to travel to Dubai and then his Iraqi passport (different name and date of birth) to travel to Iraq. Because of the diligence of the insurance investigator this man will now face fraud charges.

      I think we need better controls, don’t you?

      Reply

    • cats says:

      05:16pm | 23/03/10

      Pretty sure that no one has even heard about this nobody Islam cleric anyway. Why are you bringing him up in a debate that you started about Rudd? I’m pretty sure good old christian Rudd would be dead against the idea..

      Reply

    • Joe Rossi of RPData says:

      02:37pm | 24/05/10

      No need to worry about migration, after Rudd finishes stuffing-up everything noone will want to come here.


      Joe Rossi
      Director
      RP Data Ltd

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 10 Feb 12 02:23PM

@FakePaulKeating yep. Can't see repeal of state aid, even by atheist PM. JG actually big fan of Catholic system.

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 10 Feb 12 02:20PM

RT @Prronto: @farrm51 if diesel rebates were cut from mines already operating at a profit what would the saving be? #auspol

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 10 Feb 12 02:17PM

RT @SimonBanksHB: .@farrm51 Remember the means testing of family payments @tonyabbottmhr opposed in his Budget Reply but didn't vote against. More Noalition.

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 10 Feb 12 02:17PM

Good question i can't give quick answer to.MT@GhostofSirJoh: @farrm51 If rebates were cut from Private Schools what would the savings be?

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Would you kill for a job?

by Tory Shepherd

17

Would you kill for a job?

Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

by Anthony Sharwood

12

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…

Hipsters with hip replacements

by Lucy Kippist

23

Hipsters with hip replacements

Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

152 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed