Punch on: Open Thread 22/02/2013

Meph says:

08:31am | 22/02/13

@Mahhrat

I bet that makes you feel a little sheepish

Chillin says:

09:02am | 22/02/13

@Meh

Neighhhh it doesn’t.

Chris L says:

09:31am | 22/02/13

I bet it gets your goat!

gobsmack says:

10:02am | 22/02/13

There appears to be a couple of things missing from “Billy”.

fml says:

10:37am | 22/02/13

Hmmm, so are they saying hanging round with goats makes you go faster??

Maybe we should make our swim team travel with goats? Actually… I fear for the safety of the goats..

pa_kelvin says:

02:17pm | 22/02/13

Neigh ware as much fun as yesterdays foot jokes…

TChong says:

06:37am | 22/02/13

Providing comment without substance is a right of all, and to be found on both sides of the sandpit.
You Zack, prove your own theory

Christine says:

07:20am | 22/02/13

TC Chong says.
Abbott did not say those words and yet you say he did.
What does that say about you? Why the need for distortion?  Perhaps you think if you repeat it enough someone will fall for that line. Shame!

Christian Real I am sure could straighten you out if you ask nicely.

Fred says:

07:42am | 22/02/13

Fortunately, not as great a job as Tony Abbott has done for the ALP. Thanks Tony.

TChong says:

07:56am | 22/02/13

Christine
Nothing funnier than to see a Conservative have a whinge.
And yes, you are correct, those werent Abbotts exact words,( but close enough) but since all types of invented quotes are the norm at Punch,  (see above , below, and all other articles) ,  I thought I would do the same.
( Remeber the Godwins derivative - anyone who claims a different POV is a troll, hack etc loses the argument ! )
Have a nice day. 

Frank Chu says:

09:01am | 22/02/13

You proved Zack’s point ALP lovin TChong but don’t trip over your own limited intellect to figure it out. Acotrel has an excuse what’s yours?

gobsmack says:

10:05am | 22/02/13

Gillard may have done a great job for the LNP but by creating the conditions whereby a clown like Abbott can waltz into the Lodge come September, she certainly hasn’t done any favours to Australia.

rpa eyes says:

10:27am | 22/02/13

TChong your comment reminds me of a buddy who missed out on medical school and ended up in nursing. He never really understood where his hate for society came from. But your comment highlights the concept of winners and losers. The question is which applies to you?

Chillin says:

10:50am | 22/02/13

It’s about this time of year where we hear how wonderful West Tigers are and about four weeks away from when we don’t.

Jack says:

10:55am | 22/02/13

@rpa

The answer was in the election result.

Bear says:

11:17am | 22/02/13

Starting to realise the Lib fans ‘sources’ are always pro Lib newspaper columns rather than facts.

Mr Sam says:

11:51am | 22/02/13

Comn on Bear. Gillard broke an election promise on the carbon tax and failed to deliver a surplus and avoids answering questions and you guys want to take about facts? Enjoy the end

Zack says:

01:21pm | 22/02/13

Thanks for proving my point TChong. Good to see the ALP blitz squad members like yourself scoring own goals from all directions. Have a great weekend and thanks for making my day

Petra says:

06:35am | 22/02/13

An oldie but still a goodie. Yes, Labor’s errors, deceit and misjudgements are completely Rupert Murdoch’s fault. No mention of the leadership crisis in any other media outlet of course.

At least it gives us all a break from ‘Abbott, Abbott, Abbott’ for a minute.

Chillin says:

07:05am | 22/02/13

Yet not peep out of you when he supports Julia.

Jamo says:

07:06am | 22/02/13

Where have you been living alcotrel

Christine says:

07:26am | 22/02/13

Perhaps Labour are making the news because of their own ongoing stuff ups, their own creation. Negative news maybe but news anyway.
Are you missing Tony? I assure you he has been on TV and in the news. He was recently over in Perth as guest speaker.

Huh says:

07:44am | 22/02/13

@chillin

Which was ... ?

Alfie says:

08:04am | 22/02/13

acotrel
You are doing a sterling job of promoting Tony Abbott every day on the Punch. Keep up the good work comrade.

ausspud says:

10:49am | 22/02/13

And yet you continue to read the so called “created newspaper”.

PJ says:

01:53pm | 22/02/13

I wonder if Acotrel realises that the media, dominated by a 1600 strong Gillard Government spin army, is supposed to give equal representation during election time.

His statement is an indictment on the freedom of the press under this Government.

fml says:

07:28am | 22/02/13

They can do that on their own money, I am paying them to win gold. Maybe Tony abbot can charge them with 150 counts of fraud?

marley says:

07:29am | 22/02/13

The problem is, the coaches all sound like teenage camp counsellors - too busy with their own stuff to worry about the kiddies they’re supposed to be looking after.

Jamo says:

08:48am | 22/02/13

Too busy with doing their job you mean, like coaching. Not sure when part of a coach’s job description includes being a babysitter. Nugents job is to help them swim fast, not how use common sense and humility. Most of the swim team carried on like up themselves celebrities before they even went to the games. Football now take ‘minders’ along alot of the time to keep the young blokes on the straight and narrow, or try to, and allow the coach to do their job. Send a minder if need be, it is dumbfounding how this BS behavior is somehow the coaches fault. No wonder there is a lack of good people standing up to coach, bit like good political candidates that couldn’t be bothered with the system and take their talents elsewhere. Stop mamby pambying these wasters of tax payers money. If they can’t swim fast, piss them off, end of story.

marley says:

09:36am | 22/02/13

@Jamo - it is the job of any coach to get the best possible performance out of the team. Do you honestly think that happened? Because two separate reviews of the team’s performance say no, it didn’t.

Like it or not, team spirit, team bonding,is a part of sports, and that obviously never developed.  That’s indeed a coaching issue.  So is failing to discipline athletes that break team rules. 

More to the point, many of the swimmers were slower at the Olympics than at the trials.  That is a performance issue, and yes indeed, the coaches have to take some responsibility for not recognising that at least some of the swimmers were either mentally or physically unprepared to step up to Olympic level competition.  That is a point highlighted in the reviews.

Further, if some of the swimmers were off drinking and playing with soft drugs, that’s a coaching issue as well:  if you can’t motivate your team to be at their mental and physical peak for the Olympics, then you’ve failed as a coach.  All the instructing in perfecting the stroke doesn’t matter a damn if your charges don’t actually care about winning.

AFR says:

09:40am | 22/02/13

Sounds like they were acting like dickheads - but I fail to see how it warrants a press conference.

fml says:

09:53am | 22/02/13

“Nugents job is to help them swim fast,”

I would of thought setting curfews and not allowing the use of drugs during a tournament would of helped them swim faster?

Jamo says:

10:13am | 22/02/13

@marley, I agree that team morale and spirit has alot to do with the coach. That’s what good mentors do, create a positive team environment and therefore good performances. But what is a coach supposed to do, stay awake twenty four seven and hold these brats hands ? Sack him for a lack of performance sure, but you can’t sack the bloke because half the female swim team spent most of their time flirting with the Yankee basketball team instead of supporting their fellow swimmers. The same with the pressure on our teachers. Why should have to deal with certain children in class that don’t want to learn and are holding other students back. Get rid of them and let the teachers do their job. As I said before that is why potentially good coaches, politicians and teachers as well don’t line up to do it anymore. Sad really that this crap is actually holding us back as a nation in so many ways. So trying to portion blame all over the place, accept where it actually should be doesn’t help anyone in the long. Finger pointing and blame shifting to the point that no one takes responsibility for their actions anymore. I hope you understand what I’m trying to say.

Tim the Toolman says:

10:15am | 22/02/13

“Sounds like they were acting like dickheads - but I fail to see how it warrants a press conference. “

Because that’s just how boring our lives have become.  No one must step out of line, ever, lest a press conference be called and opinion pieces written.

marley says:

11:13am | 22/02/13

@jamo - the coaches didn’t need to be babysitting the swimmers;  they just needed to enforce the standing rules.  They didn’t. 

And they should have identified the problem with performance (and attitude) before the actual heats, not after the fact.  That’s what coaches are there for.

And it’s my understanding it was the men, not the women, who didn’t show up to support other swimmers.  I wonder who the guys were “flirting” with. 

The thing is, it’s pretty clear from the reports that Swimming Australia had some major structural issues;  that leadership by Nugent and all the other (paid) coaches and staff was lacking, and that discipline was enforced selectively, if at all. 

It’s one thing to expel badly-behaved ten year olds from a class;  it’s another to expel adult swimmers from your team just as you’re about to compete in Olympic heats. It’s not like you can bring in replacements.  The situation should never have been allowed to degenerate to the state that it did.

Jamo says:

11:34am | 22/02/13

@ Marley, I actually agree with alot of what you said, particularly when you say that it should not have got to the situation it did. The signs were there well before they left, magnusun naming himself white caviar, steffanie rice getting around like a supermodel and the pampering and blowing wind up their arses by the media, like get over yourself. Alot of it is to do with the affects of social media, that’s another discussion, but I still don’t think the blame for this crsp childish behavior should be laid at the feet of the people who are there trying to teach them to swim better. They aren’t the police, they are coaches. These are societal problems, not nugents

AdamC says:

11:53am | 22/02/13

AFR says

‘Sounds like they were acting like dickheads - but I fail to see how it warrants a press conference.’

I totally agree. This incessant blamestorming about the swim team at the London games has become counter-productive. People simply need to address the issues identified in the relevant reports.

There has been enough looking back; it is time to look forward. Hauling some swimmers over the coals for some silly hijinks will not do anything to improve our nation’s performance in the pool.

Mouse says:

12:20pm | 22/02/13

Far out!! Isn’t anyone going to say to the swimmers “Grow up, do the job you were sent here to do. If you can’t keep your mind on your job, go home!” Why should it be the coach or anyone else’s job to make sure the “adult” swimmers stay focussed?  Sheesh!  :o/

marley says:

01:13pm | 22/02/13

@Tim the Toolman - I could care less about press conferences. I do care about my tax dollars going to support a sports bureaucracy which seems to have lost the plot.

Meph says:

01:32pm | 22/02/13

@Jamo

” team morale and spirit has alot to do with the coach. That’s what good mentors do, create a positive team environment and therefore good performances. But what is a coach supposed to do, stay awake twenty four seven and hold these brats hands ?”

You’re spot on the money. Thing is, coaches (like any teachers) can be good and bad. A good coach would have found a way to connect with the team, find ways of motivating them to keep them in line with positive teamwork. A bad coach would just shout at them a lot, push them to do what they were supposed to do, and ignore anything they considered side issues.

Mind you, if they had such crap attitudes as individuals, then perhaps we should be selecting our swim teams further out from an olympics, along with a host of understudies, so they can sack swimmers with bad attitudes.

Chris L says:

02:23pm | 22/02/13

Good point Mouse. After all, thinking about girls will only cause an increase in the level of drag when they’re swimming.

Mouse says:

03:24pm | 22/02/13

ChrisL, that’s it for you, extra spoonful of Bromide in your morning brew from now on!!  Don’t complain ChrisL, it’s for your own good, ya hear!!  LOL :oD

Meph says:

03:32pm | 22/02/13

@Chris L

That’s very fixable though, just drop the pool temperature by several degrees!

Jamo says:

03:58pm | 22/02/13

Meph, I agree with everything you said but where do you draw the line. If someone gets done for drunk driving do you punish the policeman who booked him for not stopping it before it happened. The drunk driver knows he is doing the wrong thing. I know you might accuse me of stretching it but surely these athletes new the rules before they went, they are adults after all and should know what is right and wrong and acceptable behavior. What was nugent going to do, send them home? I don’t think in his situation he had that many options to be honest. It should have been sorted before they went, which it wasn’t

TChong says:

06:40am | 22/02/13

I have a good one for you Petra
Abbott - you cant believe a thing I say , unless its written, and then, ,only maybe.

Jamo says:

07:10am | 22/02/13

“I’m determined”
What follows can be lots of things that she hasn’t said, maybe like…...to cling on to power as long as a can and drag the entire country down with me, and of course “moving forward”. What a dribbler

Chillin says:

07:26am | 22/02/13

We came to learn that ‘moving forward’ means I won’t take responsibility for any disastrous decisions we make, I will move forward and pretend it never occurred.

Keith says:

07:48am | 22/02/13

I’m determined to put a price on carbon.

The funny part is the LNP luvvies are incapable of hearing these words. LMAO

gof says:

08:31am | 22/02/13

# Petra,
” bet the Liberal party are having a tough time choosing which of Julia’s soundbites to use in their election campaign.”
My guess would be “Working Families” because under a coalition government everyone in the family over the age of 10 will need to be working to survive.

Anubis says:

08:42am | 22/02/13

Dunno there are so many but I think Hyper-bowl would come up near the top with her “no carbon tax under a government I lead…peoples forum to decide the carbon pricing structure…take it to the polls in 2013 as a policy” That statement has it all - a lie at every breath.

Anubis says:

08:48am | 22/02/13

@ Keith - just like you are incapable of hearing the “we will establish a people’s forum to determine the best method of pricing carbon and take it to the electorate in 2013 as a policy” You know, that was the bit that followed the Unequivocal statement of “There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead”  Hmmm - including your quote that would make the score in that interview 3 out of 4 lies in the one statement. Then you could add “I now announce an East Timor solution” without first having the decency to consult with that Government. That followed by the Manus Island solution - again with no consultation with that countries Government, then the abortive Malaysian Solution where she knew she was on a hiding to nowhere. What about the great 300 times she declared that the Budget would be in surplus in 2013 ably supported by Swannies 230 odd claims of exactly the same thing when every other man and his dog knew it just wasn’t going to happen.

The hits just keep on coming

Mr Sam says:

10:21am | 22/02/13

Doesn’t TChong work for the ALP?

ausspud says:

10:58am | 22/02/13

Just have a pic of Julia with Radiohead’s “Creep” playing in the background.That should be enough.

Keith says:

11:03am | 22/02/13

@anubis

Wrong. The bit that followed “There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead” was “I’m determined to put a price on carbon” but you LNP luvvies are incapable of hearing that, so that’s why you’re incorrect.

Rob says:

11:07am | 22/02/13

Just a pic of Tony Abbott will do for the ALP. No music required.

Not A Luvvy of Any Type says:

11:14am | 22/02/13

Keith, it is well documented that JG said “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but I am determined to put a price on carbon.” Leaving aside her reference to taking it to a people’s forum in 2013, which you are steadfastly refusing to acknowledge, can you explain what this actually means?  Can you explain how she could put a price on carbon without it being a tax?  And finally, if the two things are completely different, can you explain why she herself called it a tax?  You saying carbon pricing is not a tax is actually contrary to what JG herself calls it, interesting that you disagree with you beloved PM.

Anubis says:

11:19am | 22/02/13

@ Keith I did mention that. If you look the order was

1) No Carbon tax under a govt I lead (blatant lie to gain political points)
2) Determined to price carbon - for once factual
3) Create a people’s forum to determine the best pricing method (Blatant Lie)
4) Take it to the electorate as a policy in 2013 (Blatant lie, she had no intention of doing that).

So, as my previous post said, three out of four statements lies.

Keith says:

11:49am | 22/02/13

@NALOAT

And yet despite it being well documented LNP luvvies are incapable of hearing it. LMAO

Keith says:

11:57am | 22/02/13

@anubis

“Anubis says:08:48am | 22/02/13

we will establish a people’s forum to determine the best method of pricing carbon and take it to the electorate in 2013 as a policy” You know, that was the bit that followed the Unequivocal statement of “There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead”

Anubis says:11:19am | 22/02/13

If you look the order was

1) No Carbon tax under a govt I lead (blatant lie to gain political points)
2) Determined to price carbon - for once factual”

One out of one statements a lie.

Bear says:

12:01pm | 22/02/13

@ausspud I think that would make you look more like the weirdo.Mi could see them doing it.

Mouse says:

12:51pm | 22/02/13

gof, she had to change it to “modern families” because not enough of her demographic were actually “working”  lol :o)

TimB says:

12:57pm | 22/02/13

@ Keith/AASQ, it’s not about not hearing it, it’s about putting what she said in the context of her other remarks. It’s you ALP fools like you with a tenuous grip on logical reasoning that insist on quoting it in complete isolation from the rest of her promises.

She WAS determined to put a price on Carbon….by way of a citizens assembley agreement in 2013.

Didn’t happen. She lied. And the electorate will punish her for it.

PJ says:

01:58pm | 22/02/13

“We need a Surplus to Move Australia Forward.”

As she did not deliver a Surplus, then this means she and her Government cannot move Australia forward and therefore must go.

Right from her own mouth, a reason to for Coalition.

Incredible.

PJ says:

02:03pm | 22/02/13

Gillard (Carbon Tax):

“I’m only after the Big Polluters, to make them pay for polluter our atmosphere.”

What happens next Aussie?

- Big Polluters are compensated, huge lump sums and Free Carbon Credits for years. So much so they actually turn a profit on it.

- the ordinary Australia gets the carbon tax put on their utility bills and passed on to their food and services.

- the Big Polluters, keep the compensation and pass on their carbon tax to us as well. Making a handsome profit.

The Carbon tax, just like the Mining tax was poorly conceived by an inept Government.

Even the Socialist Left think so:

Polluting power generators profiting from carbon tax compensation
Updated Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:27am AEDT

“An analysis of wholesale electricity prices shows brown coal fired power generators are passing on the full cost of the carbon tax. The report’s author says that means billions of dollars in Federal Government compensation will be windfall profit for the companies. The environment group which commissioned the report says the compensation should stop.”
- From the ABC.

iansand says:

02:11pm | 22/02/13

Is a citizens’ assembly a new chamber of Parliament? 

You go away to France for a month and look what happens - they change the whole Constitution on you.  Bastards.

Keith says:

02:21pm | 22/02/13

@TimB

Sad LNP hypocrisy, as usual. Sooking when you LNP fools like you with a tenuous grip on logical reasoning can only remember half of the Prime Minister’s sentence.

Chris L says:

02:31pm | 22/02/13

To be fair though TimB, skipping the citizens assembly isn’t really any worse than the lies from the other side, like rock solid, ironclad guarantees, promises of pension increases, no new taxes over the next term.

I would very much like to be able to trust what we’re being promised, and I would strongly support any legislation intended to hold politicians and their party accountable for election promises. However, accusing one party of lying is only telling half the story.

TimB says:

03:44pm | 22/02/13

:“To be fair though TimB, skipping the citizens assembly isn’t really any worse than the lies from the other side, like rock solid, ironclad guarantees, promises of pension increases, no new taxes over the next term.”

Yeah, but how many of those have been identified as a critical issue that managed to swing a down to the wire election? You know that if Gillard had been clearer about her true intentions, she would have lost. Too many people came away from Gillard’s promises with the impression that we weren’t going to see any carbon pricing from the ALP for at least the next three years.

@ AASQ, considering we quote the full policy and you lot keep leaving bits out, I’m pretty sure it’s you with the memory problem.

And remember, no matter how many times you repeat lines (or steal them off others), your lines are still garbage.

Blackadder says:

04:13pm | 22/02/13

“No child will live in poverty by…”. Oops. Wrong PM.

iansand says:

06:52am | 22/02/13

I see yer problem.  You are assuming ACA and the real world have some connection.

Fred says:

06:55am | 22/02/13

The fact that you openly admit, and seem proud of, watching a current affair is incredibily concerning.

Anyone who admits to watching this dross should be refused the right to vote.

TChong says:

07:17am | 22/02/13

ma kelvin
“law and order seriosly lacking in this country…”
Dont agree, but no probs with a different POV, but , which govt. are you refferring to?
States = mostly proudly Conservative, and as you know, the federal govt. doesnt involve itself with most crimes.

willie says:

07:26am | 22/02/13

She was selling a bit of weed who cares. It happens everywhere most people just don’t do it on TV.

The reporter says that they filmed for 2.5 hours and recorded 47 deals. Now assuming conservatively that she sells by the gram, only works a 12 hour day, and everyone smokes a couple grams a week that’s about 500 people. That means that there are 500 people in this one location fairly constantly smoking this terrible drug. Yet where are the effects.

The only bad aspect to this story is the selling to kids. As the radio commentator says “You’ve got to produce an ID to get a packet of smokes but not a packet of drugs”. Not to mention smokes are more expensive than weed. But this is just an argument for ending prohibition.

I also liked the unquestioning acceptance of the accusing sons evidence when he was clearly previously involved. But that’s a discussion of the journalistic integrity of these programmes which isn’t worth having.

subotic says:

08:01am | 22/02/13

Law and order is seriously lacking in this country

Hell yea ma!

Bring the gallows back, I say.

Capital punishment for kiddie fiddlers, deliberate murder, terrorists, cops who shoot unarmed citizens, and anyone who listens to Justin Beiber.

Hang ‘em high….

Scotchfinger says:

08:17am | 22/02/13

iansand, with heavy heart and weeping I declare that ACA and real life are practically identical.

Subotic, can’t we torture Beiber-listeners to death? Hangings seems like a soft option.

gof says:

08:26am | 22/02/13

#subotic
“Law and order is seriously lacking in this country”,
No it’s not! It is on twice a week on Ch10.

Anubis says:

09:05am | 22/02/13

@ TChong - ROFL when you say “the federal govt. doesnt involve itself with most crimes.” I’m pretty certain they like to get involved in some crimes at least, particularly those involving slush funds and other people’s money.

Jim Moriarty says:

10:09am | 22/02/13

ACA and TT are hilarious.

Rose says:

10:11am | 22/02/13

ma_kelvin, please stop watching A Current Affair permanently, you are just encouraging them to continue to produce utter tripe and pass it off as actual information. What it really is is a vehicle for cheap advertising and for bitter and twisted people to publicly swipe at whoever they feel like. It has zero value as either news or entertainment and s in fact detrimental to the overall Australian IQ as it continues to dumb down TV offerings

sunny says:

11:25am | 22/02/13

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you will hear throughout the course of this trial from the so-called ‘experts’ used by the defense, that the defendant was in the grip of a “Bieber Fever” and therefore had no self control during all 12 counts of Bieber-listening. Don’t believe it for one second - the defendant is as sane as any of you, and must swing from the gallows for this heinous crime.

AFR says:

12:30pm | 22/02/13

gof - you win for today. Now I’ve got the Law and Order theme music in my head, and images of IceT trying to play a cop.

Kgrant says:

05:59pm | 22/02/13

Ma I was in a street watching while reporters from either ACA or TDT paid young men to smash a telephone box while they filmed it.  They were doing a story on youth violence.
It’s all pretend you see.

Economist says:

07:55am | 22/02/13

Like Wilders I have no time for Islam, or for that matter any religion. But Islam is the most archaic, with its treatment of women, with its treatment of dissenters and it’s treatment of minor criminals.

But I don’t support Wilders solutions and fear mongering. So 2% of Australia’s population is Muslims. But this 2% is diverse. AS Guy Rundle highlighted yesterday we have Turkish Muslims, Muslims from a country that has separation of church and state, A country that other Muslim countries should aspire to. A country that Attaturk effectively modernised and a country australia has a very good relationship with. We have Indonesian Muslims, the vast majority that have no time for Bashir and his ilk, we have Malaysian Muslims, North African Muslims and Middle Eastern Muslims. The vast majority of whom do not hold Australia in contempt while living here and don’t live in Lakemba. 

Did we ban the Irish because of the IRA, or devote as many resources as we do now to preventing Australian Irish Catholics from funding the IRA. No.

I believe there are two solutions. Integration, not by force, but by acceptance to allow the majority of Muslims to make a quid and raise their families.

Secondly, I believe you’ll find that ASIO and any other related department have increased in size and budget, that the agency is very good at sharing information with overseas agencies and gets plenty of information from Immigration. That there would be a significant amount of data matching looking at travel patterns to minimise risks, which I believe is what it is about. It’s about prevention and detection, and while never full proof, I trust that these people do there best to protect us from the most extreme individuals, without taking away the rights of those who just want a job, to support their families and worship their God in peace.

AdamC says:

08:57am | 22/02/13

Economist, the terrorism thing is difficult. In any diverse community of Muslims, there will be a spectrum of people, in terms of religious and political beliefs. (And I actually agree with Wilders that Islam has both religious and political chracateristics.) On the extremity, there will be people who actively plot attacks against infidels, that is, that are terrorists.

However, there will be a lot more within that community who support the objectives of the terrorists, if not their horrific methods. In a democracy, these are only slightly less of a problem than violent extremists. Islamist organsations like Hizb ut Tahrir, for example, are amazingly mainstream, given their radical, revolutionary objectives. Their visits, unlike that of moderate, democratic secularists like Wilders, seemingly create very little fuss.

There seems to be an even greater proportion of Muslims around who, while not supporting things like Shariah law or restoration of the Caliphate, nonetheless favour what could be called ‘separate development’ for muslims. That is, they demand that obnoxious practices like veiling and genital cutting be accommodated in an othewise modern , secular society. (See mini-scandals over women-only bathing and ham sandwich bans.)

This latter group also often support what I call Islamic imperialism. That is, the doctrine that non-Muslims, or moderate Muslims, should be expected to conform to Islamic diktats. See the Mohammad cartoons, the Mohammad video, and the like.

We know that people who hold these views exist among Australia’s Muslim community. What we do not know are the relevant numbers. Or, at least, I do not know about any surveys or the like. Does anyone else know of any? 

Also, as I mentioned a couple of days ago, the problem with using Turkey and Indonesia as examples of Muslim secularism and moderation is that they are exceptions to the general rule. The fact is, from North Africa, the Sahara/Sahel, through Egypt, Syria, the Gulf, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India - even through Burma, Malaysia, Thailand and the Phillippines - Islam drives conflict and oppression. Indeed, the only thing most conflicts occurring in the world today have in common is Islam.

That is a problem, in my view. And I think people should at least be able to talk about it.

Sanity says:

09:12am | 22/02/13

Thank you Economist for saying something rational.
Those who claim that all Muslims are terrorists, misogynists, killers and rapists would probably cry foul if I went around and started declaring that because of the Westboro Baptist Church, I believe that all Christians are homophobic, sexist, rude, arrogant people who only care about money.

fml says:

09:42am | 22/02/13

AdamC,

Wilders moderate? you’ve got to be kidding… Irrespective of my thoughts on the man, he is in no way a moderate.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to compare him to other politicians? The only way you can characterise him as a moderate is by comparing to terrorists (which would make pretty much everyone on the planet a moderate).

“Indeed, the only thing most conflicts occurring in the world today have in common is Islam.” And the U.S.A…. Plus that only applies to the middle east… And if you ignore all the Christian extremists in Africa, and all the extremists everywhere else…

egg says:

09:51am | 22/02/13

@GA, you appear to have mistaken Muslims with extremists. You know who generalises and hates entire groups of people? Extremists. They’d be quite happy to know you’re spreading lies and hatred about them - they’re doing the same about you, after all.

Scotchfinger says:

10:03am | 22/02/13

the problem with violence is that nothing is more effective than getting your point across, even when violence itself is the message. As long as the stupid, the illiterate, the greedy and the brainwashed are willing and able to use it, Islamic violence is here to stay.

subotic says:

10:16am | 22/02/13

I get worried when I read today’s British headline “Three British Islamists convicted of plotting another 9/11”

When the British headline says “Gay Islamic Feminazis Demand The Right Marry In A Catholic Church” is when I’ll really be worried.

Economist says:

11:12am | 22/02/13

Scotchfinger and Adam C, what I’m saying is nothing new.

Clearly we need to encourage further support and education, particularly of woman in countries like Afghanistan, i.e. here is a good start http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/rights/woman-afghanistans-next-president.

My key point is though that by leading by example in encouraging Muslims to live and visit Australia, to study in Australia, naturally they see our freedoms and choices and potentially they want to emulate it. Particularly the younger generations, and they’d take this back to their own country or discuss with their family members abroad. 

I see no point in ostracising them, harassing and treating them with disdain.

As a side issue and partly off topic, currently the Chinese are into committing cyber terrorism, I’d argue not for state secrets so much, but for commercial secrets. Yet I’m not going to go around accusing Chinese Australians of supporting this. Many who like the Muslim community have been here for many generations, came here to escape persecution (Falung Gong), or simply to join our society.

Chillin says:

12:27pm | 22/02/13

@egg

I think you will find the extremists ARE Muslims.  You can pretend it’s not so, but they themselves tell you they are Muslim.

Hamish says:

12:36pm | 22/02/13

I find the criticism of Wilders quite fascinating. While he is regarded as a xenophobic racist - which he may well be - I have never seen his primary argument - that Islam is a political ideology as well as a religion - argued against with any success. Probably because it’s true. It is for this reason that muslims constantly seek political and legal concessions. It’s not necessarily because they’re bad people, just that their religion has political and judicial elements which are not seen in other religions.

For instance, in the west, almost all major political parties are dedicated to secularity, even ones with names like Christian Democrats, whereas in the Muslim world almost all successful political parties, even in democracies, must have a position on religion and the state. It’s also why in almost all Islamic societies, non-Muslims are actively discriminated against by the state (and most likely the public). Such an insult to the prophet may not be tolerated. After all, we’re all Muslims, it’s just that some of us are apostates.

I do also find it interesting that we currently have an Islamic convention being promoted called Peace Conference and which the prime minister will apparently attend which includes guest speakers who have variously called Jews the scum of the human race, likened gay people to animals and instructed Islamic nations to execute apostates. This conference, unlike Wilders visit, has generated little controversy.

Modern primitive says:

12:39pm | 22/02/13

fml, how is wilders an extremist?

AdamC says:

01:16pm | 22/02/13

Fml, my point about Wilders is that he believes in democracy, secularism and personal freedom. At least in theory, these are the foundation values of our nation. By contrast, many Islamic organisations, I mentioned Hizb ut Tahrir above, are quite openly hostile to these ideas. And nobody seems to make much of a fuss about it.

Oh, fml, you are so predictable - it is all the Americans’ fault! (Again.) Sorry, but the vast majority of Islam-related conflicts around the world have nothing to do with the United States. And the ones that do, most notably Afghanistan and Pakistan, started long before the USA was drawn into them.

Economist, I like your idealism, but I find it difficult to buy into it.

The difference between Islam and your example is that being Chinese is, at its core, merely an ethnicity. There is no particular reason why Chinese Australians (many of whom are diaspora Chinese from other parts of Asia) would feel any great affection for the Chinese Communist Party. There is also no evidence that Chinese are acting as a ‘fifth column’ here.

But there is clearly a pan-Islamic identity that many Muslims in Australia identify with. That is why we saw those ridiculous, violent protests about the Mohammad You Tube video, for example.

I think one of the problem here is the lack of any data (to my knowledge) to quantify any of these issues.

Chillin says:

07:58am | 22/02/13

So workers putting in cables makes a program a success?

S.L says:

08:09am | 22/02/13

@Chillin…........... So then why is it deemed a failure? Because Joe Hockey, Tony Abbott and Alan Jones says it is?
Oops forgot to mention that other shining light of inbiased politic opinion….....because Andrew Bolt says too?

Jamo says:

08:16am | 22/02/13

While the NBN might not be as a big a balls up as say the BER or the insulation scheme surely you’re not going to use the fact that you seen a few NBN workers as a positive for the government. The consultancy process of it all has held the bloody thing up for god knows how long and makes us way behind the rest of the modern world in communication speed so to call Joe Hockey a goose because of that is typical of labor supporters. Clutching at straws. Only one thing more desperate that labor supporters and that’s labor politicians themselves. Surely you aren’t going to blame anyone else other than the incompetent bunch of fools the labor party is when they get smashed in September. And smashed like no other federal government has ever been smashed before.

PsychoHyena says:

08:37am | 22/02/13

@Jamo, actually having looked at a graph of the world’s broadband speeds, the NBN will definitely not be putting us behind the world, also it’s technology that is quicker to update than initially install.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

08:48am | 22/02/13

I originally accepted the NBNCo explantion of delays being that they had a lot of surveying to do to ensure the most effective way to roll it out and assess how much effort was required. 
 
This is now shown to be complete bollocks. They are simply following the Telstra exchange footprint and they have access to all Telstra’s documentation on the ducting. So what the hell have they been doing and what have they spent all that money on apart from you-beaut coffee machines and free fruit for HQ staff? 
 
In my area, the chap four houses up is on one exchange and I am on another, yet the same duct, used for both Bigpond/Foxtel cable and Telstra telephone, runs the length of the street. He will have NBN by April, when they run the fibre down that duct to his place from the south-west. I will have it in 2021, at which time, they will come back to the same duct and run it to my place from the north, at the other end of he street. 
 
It would make MUCH more sense to actually do the survey work they said they did and cable an entire street at one time instead of coming back later.

Scotchfinger says:

08:55am | 22/02/13

Joe Hockey is a great man to have in charge of a BBQ or organising a mate’s bucks party to remember. Federal Treasurer? The idea makes me a little bit queasy.

Chillin says:

08:56am | 22/02/13

@SL

I didn’t hear why Hockey says it’s a failure, I wanted to know why laying cables meant a program was a success.

Jamo says:

09:19am | 22/02/13

Economist, I’m not criticizing the end product. But it isn’t anywhere near fully implemented. We should be way further down the track with the NBN and as it stands now, our non NBN communications speeds are behind lagging the rest of the world. Bring on the NBN I say

Chris L says:

09:49am | 22/02/13

@Jamo - I’ve linked the reports showing the BER to be a success several times. The only evidence that could point toward it being a “balls up” are opinion pieces by the likes of Bolt, and a couple of people saying their local school building wasn’t as good as it could have been.

I agree with most of the criticisms of this government, but adding the NBN and BER to the mix only demonstrates partisan bias.

S.L says:

10:24am | 22/02/13

@Chilin ......So why are you insisting it’s a failure?
I would’ve thought laying cables is progress.
As the LNP contiually carry on about the miniscule amount of properties that can access the NBN I must be wrong to think laying cables past my house in regional NSW is a step forward and therefore heading toward a success..
@Jamo…there are no straws to clutch. I agree Labor will get their butts kicked in September and I can also see the Abbott lead government using conservative shock jocks to cover up their balls ups in the future…

dobbieb says:

10:33am | 22/02/13

In this weeks local paper The Advocate, NBN had a full page ad advising that the shires of Lismore and Ballina will be provided with high speed broadband with w4G wireless from towers around the area. I like that idea if it works as it must be cheaper than digging trenches but how did we come to be selected for this method?

Chillin says:

10:56am | 22/02/13

@SL

I think the paranoia is starting to over take… Where did I insist it’s a failure? 

I wanted to know why laying cables meant a program was a success?  The laying of cables takes part at the start, before the program can be implemented, evaluated and measured for its success.  How it can be a sign of success, I do not know.

Jamo says:

11:13am | 22/02/13

Well actually, a hell of a lot of ‘preferred’ tenderers were able to put quotes in 3 to 4 times what the jobs were worth and got paid. So there was alot of our tax dollars wasted because of very poor implementation. That is a government balls up and we are way behind on where the NBN should be. That’s because of very poor government consultancy practices

S.L says:

11:45am | 22/02/13

@ Chillin….you used the age old LNP tactic of puting words in my mouth.
Joe Hockey did say the NBN is a failure then you asked why seeing workers on the NBN is considered a success. I never said it is a success but did say progress heading toward success.
So Chillin what do you call the NBN? 
Paranioa? Look in the mirror!
I wonder if you would have replied if I called it a failure?

Chillin says:

12:38pm | 22/02/13

@SL

“The next classic he was going on about was the failed broadband network.”

” I listened to that dribble while looking out my window on the NSW Central Coast watching a bunch of workmen with “NBN” on their fluro’s laying cables.”

Hockey said “failure”.  You said you watch worker’s laying cables…apparently meaning it’s not a failure.  The opposite of failure…is
SUCCESS.

You say, “So why are you insisting it’s a failure?”

I say I didn’t insist it’s a failure.  Now you accuse me of putting words in YOUR mouth?????

OKKKK…steps away from SL….

pa_kelvin says:

01:45pm | 22/02/13

The NBN is going to minority seats first http://www.couriermail.com.au/nbn-to-be-switched-on-in-brisbane/story-fng3f5ma-1226581618571
Typical…..

Leon says:

07:54am | 22/02/13

@jam

What aren’t you really allowed to say ?

Jamo says:

08:27am | 22/02/13

Not allowed to criticize the Muslim religion mate. If we were all aloud to say exactly what we think about it, Wilders wouldn’t be struggling to find venues. All he wants to do is ‘talk’ about the fears people have and he is portrayed as some radical lunatic and virtually silenced. That’s what I’m talking about. Muslims on the other hand can say what ever they bloody well like. That’s what I’m talking about mate

fml says:

08:34am | 22/02/13

I don’t understand why wilders is allowed into this country but snoop lion isnt?

It is a bloody outrage… It’s a conspiracy against the oppressed, white middle class children that their hero Snoop lion is not allowed in to preach love and tolerance, he represents an entire generation! Why won’t the government let me say what I want! I blame tony abbotT!

PsychoHyena says:

08:40am | 22/02/13

@Jamo, from what I’ve seen all Wilders wants to talk about is the 1% and has no consideration for the other 99%. Given his comments on Moroccan-Dutch nationals vs the Swiss, Americans and Australians, he really doesn’t have much time for anyone who doesn’t have money.

Leon says:

08:55am | 22/02/13

@jam

So what is it that you exactly think about Islam that you aren’t really allowed to say mate?

fml says:

08:58am | 22/02/13

Jamo,

You are allowed to say what ever you want, the reason gilders is struggling to find venues is because private entities do not want to be associated with him.

This is the way it is, mate. It’s good the government let him in to talk,
It’s good the government hasn’t gone out of his way to find him a place to talk, he has to do that on his own. It’s good that private entities have the ability to refuse him a place to talk. It is absolutely terrible that the government has not allowed snoop lion into the country to perform.

Chillin says:

09:09am | 22/02/13

@PsychoHyena

When Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly or Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon talk about 1% and have no consideration for the other 99% nobody seems to stop them from speaking.

Jamo says:

09:10am | 22/02/13

PhsychoHyena, he may not have much time for people without money, that may be true, funnily enough the whole world is probably a bit the same. Just ti explain what I mean, in so many instances, social situations included, people who have money are seen to be ‘successful and smart’ and generally a swamped by all sorts of people (some actually true friends and alot of cling ons who flock like flies to a turd so to speak. For the record I and alot of people are only concerned about that 1% we’re referring to and would like an opportunity to talk about it openly. I don’t think the bloke condones decapitations for anyone and also talks about Islam’s attitude towards women. I think we all should be listening to what he has to say, but true to the PC nature of things these days, they are trying to silence him

Jamo says:

09:39am | 22/02/13

@fml, I don’t disagree with anything you said, couldn’t agree more that it is the PC brigade therefore that is stifling the ability to have a say. I don’t think it matters why or who really, but a world where certain people only can say what ever they god damn like is not the free and fair world we keep getting told we are living in. It may be right that only some people actually have freedom of speech but let’s call it what it is . BULLSHIT

marley says:

09:41am | 22/02/13

@fml - my impression is that private enterprises would be quite happy to take Wilders’ money to provide a venue.  It’s the protesters that worry them, not Wilders.  Free speech can struggle a bit when intimidation is in the air.

As for Snoop, with a record like his, I’m surprised he can get a visa to any country at all.  You sure wouldn’t want him in your airport near the duty free.

fml says:

10:14am | 22/02/13

Jamo,

The PC brigade have just as much right to prevent someone from speaking as anyone else who have the right to shove their ideologies down our throats. That’s democracy baby.

Marley,

I agree, what you described is not a battle of ideological agendas, but a business decision. There is no PC cabal, as Jamo suggests, trying to shut down free speech.

I know this is a long shot, but if Wiilders says it is entirely reasonable to judge muslims on the actions of mohammed, and hence deny them entry into a country, then logically it should also be entirely reasonable to deny entry to the man who is cited by Andres brevik as one of his inspirations..

As for Snoop lion, it is a conspiracy by the anti-intellectual, cultist, middle-aged, sea-farer’s cabal. He needs to be heard, the duty free is a small price to pay for freedom!

Jamo says:

10:18am | 22/02/13

@marley
Exactly !
Exactly !!

Leon says:

11:18am | 22/02/13

@jam

What is it that you say only certain people can say that you can’t ?

marley says:

11:22am | 22/02/13

@fml - you’re right, that’s a long shot.  Most countries have rules prohibiting persons with serious criminal convictions from entering, and some have rules prohibiting persons who are known to have committed crimes, war crimes or be involved in terrorism to enter, whether they’ve been convicted or not.  Wilders doesn’t fit any of those categories, so to my mind, we’re purely into free speech territory. 

And while I think the word “cabal” is too strong, there’s certainly a real thread of intolerance running through the protest movement.  Free speech, so long as it agrees with what I think.

As for Snoop, well, true, it could be a plot to deny you access to your own inspiration, or it could just be a strong sense of self-protection by the airport owners.

fml says:

11:41am | 22/02/13

@Jam,

You have ignored Leon’s question three times…

Jamo says:

11:54am | 22/02/13

Fml, what you just said is close to being an oxymoron. Rights are rights. If one person has the so called right to shove their opinions down everyone’s throat then everyone should have the same right to speak. The PC brigade is trying to put a stop to that. That ain’t democracy baby, it’s ignorant and over bearing censorship buddy, don’t kids yourself because that’s what it is.

Leon says:

12:20pm | 22/02/13

@jamo

Ignorant overbearing censorship of what ?

What opinion don’t you have the democratic right to shove down everyone’s throat ?

Modern Primitive says:

12:24pm | 22/02/13

“The PC brigade have just as much right to prevent someone from speaking “

They absolutly do not, fml.

Modern Primitive says:

12:26pm | 22/02/13

“then logically it should also be entirely reasonable to deny entry to the man who is cited by Andres brevik as one of his inspirations..”

How is that logical? Your mental gymnastics astound me sometimes.

fml says:

12:32pm | 22/02/13

Marley,

I don’t see why it is such a long shot. Wiilders is saying that muslims should not be allowed in the country because their actions stem from the actions of mohammed, explicitly saying that it is a dangerous ideology. I believe his ideology is just as dangerous as the one he uses to characterise the muslims, it has been seen to promote violence and intimidation, I am not talking about the response it creates, I am talking about it being used as inspiration, which it has been done (With brevik citing him as an inspiration).

I am glad the government let him in the country, I am glad people had the ability to protest, and I am glad people made it difficult for him to speak. I do not equate people protesting as an indication of freedom of speech being curtailed, especially as he got to have his say. I think his supporters are just upset that his fringe views did not relate (as much as they would’ve liked) to the public. If his ideology was popular as his supporters make it out to be, private entities would’ve supported him. I think blaming the supporters is a cop out. His fringe views are just not that popular in Australia.

subotic says:

12:32pm | 22/02/13

The biggest issue here isn’t Wilders’ attack on Islam, or the followers of Islam attacking Wilders’ right for freedom of speech, but the fact that Wilders unfortunately often highlights that Sharia law, based on the Quran, Sirah and the Hadith of the Prophet, is inconsistent with the laws of most Western nations.

Sharia law, as set out in the actual text of the Quran, mandates violent jihad until a “Worldwide Caliphate” is established. Ayats 9:29 and 9:5 clearly say that non-believers should be slayed until Islam is victorious.

Q 2:191, Q3:56, Q3:151 authorises terrorism “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”.

Q 4:89 “sieze and slay them wherever you find them” (idolators ie. non Muslims).
Q 4:95; Q 5:33; Q 8:12 – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve’.

Q8:39 – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah”.

A systematic analysis shows the peaceful verses are vastly outnumbered by violent ones. Most important, the text cannot be divorced from its implementation. And all true Muslims, extremist AND so-called moderate Muslim alike, will tell you that you clearly have no deep understanding of Sharia law if you say the text of the Quran mandates pacifism.

Aaaaah… religion.

The greatest derangement of the human mind is to believe something because one wishes to be so….

fml says:

12:37pm | 22/02/13

Jamo,

It’s not censorship, it’s people exercising their freedom.

“If one person has the so called right to shove their opinions down everyone’s throat then everyone should have the same right to speak’

They do, but I think that it is naive to not expect someone to disagree with you, and if they wish protest. Also, no one has stopped him from talking, if he was more popular, his speeches wouldve been more accessible. I think that saying the pc brigade have stopped him from speaking is a cop-out rationalisation for his fringe views just not being that popular.

James1 says:

01:15pm | 22/02/13

Jamo, fml is correct that the PC brigade have just as much right to turn up to Wilders’ speaking events and yell things about their opposition to his views as Wilders does to hold the speaking events in the first place.  That is perhaps somewhat undignified, but it is indeed democracy.

If Wilders had been prevented from holding the speaking events, or if the protesters were not allowed to voice their opposition to Wilders, that would be undemocratic.

fml says:

01:30pm | 22/02/13

Marley,

“or it could just be a strong sense of self-protection by the airport owners. ” You mean a strong thread of intolerance? Please explain why hotels (places where speeches are given) seems to be an issue of intolerance and the curtailing of freedom of speech, yet it is ok for duty free shop owners?

fml says:

01:53pm | 22/02/13

MP,

“They absolutly do not, fml. ” They do, it only isn’t right when the government does it. Of course you only consider freedom of speech to be important when you agree with it? How is gert promoting the ideology of curtailing the freedom of speech of muslims any different to the people who speak in favor of reducing gert’s freedom of speech?

It’s a tad hypocritical, also what is hypocritical is Gert saying that foreigners are coming to holland and telling them how to live, isn’t that what he is doing in australia?

fml says:

02:07pm | 22/02/13

Subo,

“A systematic analysis shows the peaceful verses are vastly outnumbered by violent ones. Most important, the text cannot be divorced from its implementation. And all true Muslims, extremist AND so-called moderate Muslim alike, “

Doesn’t sound like systematic analysis, just sounds like the perpetuating of stereotypes. I also like how people are characterised by the stereotypes of the people who dislike them the most. Why is it the people that dislike muslims are the ones which decides who is a true muslim or isnt? You complain about gun owners all being painted as nutters who go shoot everyone (which I disagree with, as it is an untrue stereotype) then use the same logic.

“Most important, the text cannot be divorced from its implementation” That is the most disagreeable, because it is absolutely not true, and if true should be used to characterised other groups, christians, catholics, jews, gun owners and heavy metal groupies.

Jamo says:

02:17pm | 22/02/13

Fml, when someone’s freedom to do something that inhibits somebody else’s right, in this instance to speak, it is censorship, nothing less. If lets say a bunch of non Muslim people were to turn up to protest against a Muslim protest and fisty cuffs break out, the non muslim people get labeled as racist and not tolerant. Alot of Australians would like to hear at least what Wilders has to say. The powers to be that have stopped Wilders even getting a word out in western Australia would like nothing more than to completely shut him down. That is censorship. Absolute censorship nothing but censorship. You may agree or disagree that this is ok that is your right, but it is still bloody censorship

Leon says:

02:28pm | 22/02/13

@jamo

Jamo ? Hello ... ? Jamo ... ?

Jamo says:

02:54pm | 22/02/13

Ok Leon, here goes. When somebody that I would like to listen to isn’t allowed to speak, that’s like me not being allowed to speak. Does that make sense to you. I’m not hear to argue over semantics mate and a don’t mince my words. Leon, how about actually say something and back it up with a little thought process instead of doing what the devils advocate does, which is as I said arguing about semantics

Chris L says:

03:03pm | 22/02/13

@Jamo - If the government prevented Wilders from speaking that would be censorship. If he’s getting drowned out by howls of outrage that’s just Australian politics.

People have protested against muslim protests, like the atheists at the recent gathering I’ve previously mentioned. They didn’t end up getting labelled as racists, and they didn’t start any fights.

Modern Primitive says:

03:11pm | 22/02/13

“It’s a tad hypocritical, also what is hypocritical is Gert saying that foreigners are coming to holland and telling them how to live, isn’t that what he is doing in australia? “

You actually don’t know what he’s come here to talk about, do you fml?

Jamo says:

03:41pm | 22/02/13

@leon, answer me this. What would happen if a business owner decided to blackball Muslims specifically in any way. When you answer that mate you are close to the point. Or just leave your head in the sand and make a hero of yourself being the PC devils advocate. Now I’m waiting, this should be good

Leon says:

03:42pm | 22/02/13

@jamo

Bloody censorship of what ?  What do you want to say that you can’t ?

marley says:

03:59pm | 22/02/13

@fml - re Snoop and airport owners.  That was a joke, fml. A bad one, but a joke. Snoop has a string of criminal convictions and most countries are chary of admitting people with a serious record.  It’s not a free speech issue.  It’s an immigration issue.

Leon says:

04:13pm | 22/02/13

@jamo

I haven’t said a word about semantics. I’ve asked you what you want to say that you can’t. What is it ?

firefly says:

04:48pm | 22/02/13

MP, of course fml has no idea what he is here to talk about. But in typically predictable fml style(being our resident muslim apologist) as soon as there is even the hint of a discussion regarding the incompatibility of muslims & associated subjects you can usually find him riding his camel to their defence. I have said it before, a muslim could run down George st with a babies head on a stick & fml would still defend them.

Mouse says:

01:21pm | 22/02/13

Enjoy Roxanne, have one for me!  :o)
(a drink I mean, you naughty girl!!  lol )

Chris L says:

10:04am | 22/02/13

One has to wonder why religious organisations are so incompetent that they cannot play by the same rules as everybody else.

Funny how those “atheist” French Jacobins look so much like a religion…

“In May 1794, Robespierre insisted that the National Convention proclaim a new official religion for France - the cult of the Supreme Being. This was based on the thinking of the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau of whom Robespierre was a passionate advocate.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/robespierre_maximilien.shtml

gobsmack says:

10:11am | 22/02/13

@Zac
A couple of days ago, you cited a decision of the US Supreme Court in support of your assertion that atheism is a religion.

The same Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to have abortions.

Do you agree that they’re right in relation to abortions?

Or is it the case that decisions of the Supreme Court of the US are only authoritative when it suits you?

Zac says:

10:55am | 22/02/13

@ChrisL,

But the truth is:

“Another anti-clerical uprising was made possible by the instalment of the Revolutionary Calendar on 24 October. Hébert’s and Chaumette’s atheist movement initiated an anti-religious campaign in order to dechristianise society. The program of dechristianisation waged against Catholicism, and eventually against all forms of Christianity, included the deportation or execution of clergy; the closing of churches; the rise of cults and the institution of a civic religion; the large scale destruction of religious monuments; the outlawing of public and private worship and religious education; the forced abjurement of priests of their vows and forced marriages of the clergy; the word “saint” being removed from street names; and the War in the Vendée.[24]
The enactment of a law on 21 October 1793 made all suspected priests and all persons who harboured them liable to death on sight.[24] The climax was reached with the celebration of the goddess “Reason” in Notre Dame Cathedral on 10 November.

ROBESPIRRE OPPOSES ATHEISM

“On 7 June Robespierre, who favoured deism over Hébert’s atheism and had previously condemned the Cult of Reason, recommended that the Convention acknowledge the existence of his god. On the next day, the worship of the deistic Supreme Being was inaugurated as an official aspect of the Revolution.”

BUT HOW DID THAT GO?:

“Robespierre tried to commit suicide before his execution by shooting himself, although the bullet only shattered his jaw. Robespierre was guillotined the next day.[25]”

Zac says:

11:15am | 22/02/13

@gobsmack,

You should be happy that the SC defended the rights of Atheists to practice their beliefs.

1. If the Atheists are about logic and reason, why can’t Atheism defend itself?

2. If religion can be held accountable and specifically Christianity, why can’t we do the same with Atheism/secularism?,

2. Why do you beat around the bush when the same scrutiny and accountability is applied to Atheists and Atheism?

3. Why don’t the universities do research on the effects of secularism (Atheism) and other Athiestic/darwinian policies on society?

4. Why are many lecturers and professors allowed to used tax payers money to attack Christians and propagate Atheism in universities, schools and media?

5. If the separation of Church and State is vital to Australia, then why is the separation of Atheism and State not a priority?

gobsmack says:

11:29am | 22/02/13

@Zac

As I suspected.  No answer.

Also, I notice you have difficulty counting to six which comes as no surprise.

Zac says:

12:11pm | 22/02/13

Just in case you missed this, not that I can please the die hard - resident/internet - Atheist religionists, but I think it will be beneficial to softy Atheos and other readers:

“@gobsmack,

Even without the views of the Supreme Court I’ve proved using the SMART system - which is a standard to asses all religions - that Atheism is a religion. Atheism meets every dimension like a religion. By the way following is a bit more info on what the Supreme Court thinks:

“The Supreme Court has held that what makes a belief religious is “whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God.” Since most of us live for something or the other, this test would mean that most of us are religious. Including atheists.

The Court even explicitly says so: “[A]mong religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” (US v. Seeger) Essentially, belief in no God and commitment to study the non-existence of God are protected by the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. ”

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/punch-on-open-thread-19-02-13/desc/

Zac says:

12:19pm | 22/02/13

@gobsmack,

So my answer didn’t suit your expectation:

1. If the Atheists are about logic and reason, why can’t Atheism defend itself?

James1 says:

12:25pm | 22/02/13

Atheism and secularism are different things, Zac.  Saying them together doesn’t make them the same.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.  Secularism is about separating church from state, so that churches can’t use the apparatus of the state to force belief on unwilling citizens, as churches once did.  Teaching science is not forcing “belief in atheism”, before you attempt that argument.  You are free to reject science all you like, and the secular state will not force you to believe that any science is true, unlike non-secular, theocratic states. 

Also, there is no central set of atheist beliefs.  To be an atheist, one must simply not believe in any gods.  Everything else is up for debate.  That is what makes an atheist different to a theist - atheists have no central book or set of ideas which they are not allowed to challenge, and to which they all must subscribe.  Also, science is not atheism.  Science is a process for gaining and testing knowledge about the universe we live in.  Teaching science is not teaching atheism - it is teaching knowledge and giving people an understanding of how things work the way they do.  But, as I say, it is a free society, and you are free to ignore this knowledge if you so choose.  No one is forcing you to accept the facts. 

Before discussing atheism further, I suggest you digest these points.  I don’t think you will, because you never have before.  What is more likely is that you will respond with several irrelevant quotes and perhaps a non sequitur.

“Why are many lecturers and professors allowed to used tax payers money to attack Christians and propagate Atheism in universities, schools and media?”

Because it is a (mostly) free country, and lecturers, professors and everyone else are just as free to attack Christianity as you are free to attack things that don’t exist, like the atheist “religion”.

P. Darvio says:

01:12pm | 22/02/13

Quote: @Zac
A couple of days ago, you cited a decision of the US Supreme Court in support of your assertion that atheism is a religion.

Atheism is not a religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_25w9CE73ak

“Idiots must stop claiming Atheism is a Religion”

Couldn’t say it any better myself……

Christians and Christianity created communism, they only have themselves to blame.

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

“In general, the history of communism as a political movement can be divided into two periods: early (pre-Marxist) and contemporary (Marxist and post-Marxist) communism. In the early period, communism may have played a major role in everyday Christianity. Although originally established by the teachings of Jesus Christ, Christian Communists have adapted many of Karl Marx’s social and economic ideologies to their system of communism.”

“All communism was rooted in religious principles”

The most Christian Place on Earth is about to elect its new Dear Leader in what can only be described as an undemocratic Communist like Polit Bureau style choice (also no women invloved), by a select small group of virgin men, and announce this to the World using smoke – and mirrors, and then stage a North Korea like Mass Rally where their fanitical followers wave banners and their little books (some of which are red !)

Chris L says:

01:15pm | 22/02/13

@Zac - Those steps of the revolution you mention (without supplying a source, but I’ll take your word for it in this instance) occurred as preparation for the new state religion I mentioned (check the dates).

It wasn’t the first or last time either. The world has a long history of one religion outlawing another to remove the competition. Various pantheons have done this to each other, only to fall victim to monotheism. Christians and Muslims have worked to annihilate each other and Judaism. Catholicism and Protestant sects have taken turns trying to wipe each other out.

Business as usual it would seem,

Zac says:

02:31pm | 22/02/13

@James1,

“Atheism and secularism are different things, Zac.  Saying them together doesn’t make them the same.”

By saying them not together doesn’t mean they are not the same thing. There was a day and age when secularism mean’t just non-religious. But with the advent of militant Atheists that is NOT the case any more. For example:

“Yet it – WYD is resisted by many who seek a radical change in the status quo. They represent an aggressive “new secularism”, a philosophy much discussed by Benedict, that aspires to deny religion by shrinking it to a strictly private affair. In terms of governance, such advocates want not a traditional secular state to enshrine religious freedom, but the creation of atheism as the de facto established religion to drive real religion from the public domain.

This constitutes one of the most radical and intolerant projects in Australian political history.”
Ref: Test of Spirit, The Australian

“Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.”

New age Atheism is not just a lack of belief in a god or gods. It is a full fledged ideology, belief system and a religion. Many Atheists like Lawrance Krauss, Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris etc even proselytise on behalf of Atheism.

“Secularism is about separating church from state, so that churches can’t use the apparatus of the state to force belief on unwilling citizens, as churches once did.”

Separation of Church and State is just a notion. It is no where written down in law. Secularism is absurd and totally unacceptable unless the same standards is applied to Atheists who hide behind the label of secularism. Atheists should never be allowed to “use the apparatus of the state to force (their Atheistic/Darwinian) belief on unwilling citizens”.

“Teaching science is not forcing “belief in atheism”,

Wrong!!! There is heaps of proof to show that Atheists like Lawrance Krauss, Dawkins, Harris and others are using science for ulterior purposes - i.e, to propagate Athiesm. Science should be allowed to go where the evidence leads. It should NEVER be used or allowed to be dictated by Atheists FULL STOP!!

“Also, there is no central set of atheist beliefs.”

New Age Atheism is well organised. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Atheism meets every criteria of SMART system - the same system that is used to analyse and asses religion. I have addressed this in the recent open blog (19/02/2013), so I will leave it at that.

“Because it is a (mostly) free country, and lecturers, professors and everyone else are just as free to attack Christianity as you are free to attack things that don’t exist, like the atheist “religion”.

But I don’t use tax payer funds to expose Atheism (actions of Atheists prove Atheist beliefs exist) or conduct research. If the separation of Church and state makes sense to you, then is applicable to Atheists as well. It is not a one way street. Universities or schools should never be used by Atheist ideologues to attack Christianity.

gobsmack says:

02:33pm | 22/02/13

@Zac

A simple question Zac.  Is the US Supreme Court always right?

Yes or no?

Zac says:

02:39pm | 22/02/13

@ P. Darvio,

“Atheism is not a religion”

Really? For a start please check out the documentary “The Trouble With Atheism”

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/trouble-with-atheism/

“The Trouble with Atheism is an hour-long documentary on atheism, presented by Rod Liddle. It aired on Channel 4 in December 2006. The documentary focuses on criticizing atheism, as well as science, for its perceived similarities to religion, as well as arrogance and intolerance. The programme includes interviews with a number of prominent scientists, including atheists Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne. It also includes an interview with Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists.

Liddle begins the documentary by surveying common criticisms of religion, and particularly antireligious arguments based on the prevalence of religious violence. He argues that the “very stupid human craving for certainty and justification”, not religion, is to blame for this violence, and that atheism is becoming just as dogmatic as religion.

In order to support his thesis, Liddle presents numerous examples of actions and words by atheists which he argues are direct parallels of religious attitudes. He characterizes Atkins and Dawkins as “fundamentalist atheists” and “evangelists”.

In response to atheistic appeals to science as a superior method for understanding the world than religion, Liddle argues that science itself is akin to religion: “the problem for atheists is that science may not be as far away from religion as you might imagine”.

He describes Fermilab, a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory focused on particle physics, as a “temple to science”, and characterizes Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species as a “sacred text” for atheists.”

Zac says:

03:35pm | 22/02/13

@ChrisL,

So which religion or new state religion do you think Atheist Hitchens was proposing by placing fatwa for the genocide of Muslims?

Here is what I mean - * Prof. PZ Meyer says:

“Then it was Hitchens at his most bellicose. He told us what the most serious threat to the West was (and you know this line already): it was Islam… We cannot afford to allow the Iranian theocracy to arm itself with nuclear weapons (something I entirely sympathize with), and that the only solution is to go in there with bombs and marines and blow it all up. The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties.
It was simplistic us-vs.-them thinking at its worst, and the only solution he had to offer was death and destruction of the enemy.
This was made even more clear in the Q&A. He was asked to consider the possibility that bombing and killing was only going to accomplish an increase in the number of people opposing us. Hitchens accused the questioner of being incredibly stupid (the question was not well-phrased, I’ll agree, but it was clear what he meant), and said that it was obvious that every Moslem you kill means there is one less Moslem to fight you … .
Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again”

* “Paul Zachary “PZ” Myers is an American scientist and associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota Morris” -  and also a leading member of the new age Atheism movement.

Chris L says:

04:30pm | 22/02/13

So, you’re not quoting the Hitch there, Zac, you’re quoting someone talking about him.

I recall this discussion actually. Hitchens was talking about his support for Bush and the Iraq invasion. If you take issue with this that’s fine, but I’d be a bit surprised.

BTW, that was an appeal to authority there. Hitchens is/was not the king of atheists and he would never have claimed to be.

Chris L says:

05:56pm | 22/02/13

OK Zac, a somewhat sudden change of subject, but I’ll roll with it.

Hitchens was proferring a political point of view (he was a conservative who supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq and rumblings toward Iran).

Just what does that have to do with religion or atheism?

Is this an appeal to authority? Can I similarly denounce religion by pointing toward Fred Phelps or abortion clinic bombings or acts of terrorism by extremists or the gun rampages that have been committed in modern times in the name of one god or other?

A militant atheist argues, a militant theist kills.

Chillin says:

10:12am | 22/02/13

Oh wow, something new the lefties can latch onto to increase their wanker score.

gobsmack says:

10:14am | 22/02/13

It would probably go nicely with cheese and baguettes.

Alfie says:

11:22am | 22/02/13

That’s where Californian wine belongs.

sunny says:

12:16pm | 22/02/13

gobsmack - or maybe with some black caviar and goat’s cheese horse d’oeuvres?

TimB says:

12:51pm | 22/02/13

So how many bottles did you order ianasand?

Mouse says:

01:19pm | 22/02/13

hahahahahahahahaha gobbie, you crack me up!!  Poor AdamC must be looking over his shoulder every time he visits Punch. LOL :oD

simonfromlakemba says:

01:25pm | 22/02/13

Chllin calling someone a wanker. That’s nice.

AdamC says:

01:36pm | 22/02/13

Gobsmack, indeed. But, given the expected cost of the wine, it would become even more important to minimise the cost of the bread. (Though I suppose there would be a number of $150+ bottles in the gobsmcak wine cellar.)

Alfie, aside from maybe once or twice, I don’t think I have ever had any American wine. I have never seen it here.

Meph says:

02:17pm | 22/02/13

Ok, that’s just bizarre. I thought half the idea of current wine making was keeping the wine at a constant temperature to allow slow fermentation of the grapes. Part of this process relies on minute amounts of oxygen bleeding through the cork or the barrel.

Considering the thermal properties of large bodies of moving water, I suspect you’d almost be better off putting it in a fridge.

iansand says:

03:06pm | 22/02/13

TimB - Unlike you, apparently, I could not even consider consuming the product of a wank.

Chillin says:

03:21pm | 22/02/13

Who did I call a wanker?  Who is this someone?

Punch is being overridden by people who imagine conversations in their own head and then believe it’s real.

Did I hurt your feelings simon?  Are you a lefty or did you already by a case?

che says:

11:08am | 22/02/13

Maybe all the people who sit on here all day commenting should get the sack and all the ‘underemployed’ people given their jobs.

Shane From Melbourne says:

11:43am | 22/02/13

Fair Work Act has nothing to do with it. Employers like having casual non permanent staff so that the economy goes south they can easily lay off staff or when they outsource jobs overseas they don’t have to give out large redundancy packages. When they go back to the Coalition’s Workchoices legislation when Abbott gets back in there will be even more casualization of the workforce. The only externalities I see is employers loading onto the government in the form of increased unemployment benefits costs

simonfromlakemba says:

01:34pm | 22/02/13

It’s funny isn’t Che. All the Conservatives taking their Union benefits, commenting on the Punch all day. Maybe their bosses should sack them for doing it during work hours

Hamish says:

03:43pm | 22/02/13

Shane, if the Fair Work Act has nothing to do with it, then why has underemployment risen steadily since it came in? Just because you’re casual doesn’t mean you’re underemployed and just because you’re a permanent employee doesn’t mean you’re not underemployed. It would help if you researched the measure before commenting.

AdamC says:

03:47pm | 22/02/13

Che and Simon, I wonder if excessive Punch commenting is a ‘fair’ basis for dismissal in Julia’s Australia ...

But surely even you Laborites would have to be concerned that, despite allegedly being all about job security, the Fair Work Act has coincided with an increase in underemployment? Doesn’t that support the view that rigid, oppressive labour market regulations actually do the opposite of what they are supposed to do?

Shane, I am not sure I buy that. Casual, underemployed staff have no reason to feel any sense of loyalty to an employer. They are less likely to put in effort to perform well. They are more likely to quit, slack off or not show up when they do not feel like it. Those are obvious negatives for employers.

Zack says:

01:24pm | 22/02/13

Dr Goh the ALP under Gillard will explain nothing. Watch Gillard’s Four Cornors doco for confirmation.

Meh says:

11:23am | 22/02/13

Sounds exciting.

fml says:

12:00pm | 22/02/13

The only fiasco I am interested in is, Lupe.

TimB says:

12:27pm | 22/02/13

‘One of the interesting topics on the Punch today is “Our take on who will win at the Oscars” unfortunately the discussion has been hijacked by LNP trolls so I thought I would bring it in here.’

Given the source of this comment, I doubted it’s veracity so I went to check it out for myself.

And of course what did I find, but *Acotrel* derailing the topic with yet another rant about Tony Abbott. With Christian Real and gof rounding out the usual Three Stooges act.

And then gof has the gall to blame his actions on “LNP trolls”. What a joke.

gof says:

02:09pm | 22/02/13

#TimB ,
See the LNP trolls have followed into here… is there no respite!

Chris L says:

02:45pm | 22/02/13

That’s some pretty obnoxious hypocrisy Gof. I stand in awe.

Jim Moriarty says:

04:32pm | 22/02/13

I would expect nothing less from the Catholic Church.

gof says:

02:08pm | 22/02/13

#sunny ,
“because it looks like a giant hairy maggot with legs and a tail!”
In the animal world the fine looking stallion would be compared to the Hon. Wayne Swan, the other thing as you have described would be compared to the leader of the Opposition.

AJ in Perth says:

03:02pm | 22/02/13

sunny

the owners of black caviar will be phoning you shortly, they didn’t seem to be impressed with your description of their horse

oh, and the next one will probably be from a giant hairy maggot, they’re not impressed either ...

ps - but don’t panic, I know a very good defense lawyer!

sunny says:

04:47pm | 22/02/13

AJ - I might hit them up for a loan

pa_kelvin says:

03:06pm | 22/02/13

Pat, let him do it…
The only nappy I ever changed was a wet one…
You just gotta have kids….

Knemon says:

05:00pm | 22/02/13

...and have a look at what she beats…mostly second class nags. She’s the ‘Bradbury’ of Australian horse racing, winning when the competition is non existent around her!