Tory is very quick to use the “racist” slur to disguise her lack of argument and of comprehension. It’s a dead giveaway these days.
A word cloud of this column by Andrew.

But there is an even more telling sign that she is totally unable to refute, let alone understand, my argument.

It’s that rather than deal with what I actually wrote, she imputes to me sentiments I do not share and arguments I have never made.

Here’s some, all drawn from this one rant of hers. According to Tory, I have “legions of racist fans”, my aim is to “whip up indignation and outrage”, I’ve urged readers to “disregard the contribution that Muslims have made to Australia”, and I argued that “we shouldn’t let Muslims in”.

All this is false, and utterly irrelevant to boot. Is Tory dishonest or simply incredibly sloppy?

Even when I write that “most people from whatever community or group I’ve mentioned are law-abiding”, and repeat that I’m talking only of a “minority” of Muslims, Tory insists instead that in my article I “tar all Muslims”.  Even when I mention plenty of other immigrant groups around the world with signs of dysfunction - Canadian Latinos, Tongans, Vietnamese, Samoans, those of African heritage and more - Tory still claims “he picks on (Muslims) to the exclusion of all others”.
Even when I explain why the argument that our racism created alienated minorities won’t wash, citing, for instance, the difference in achievement here of our Lebanese Christian and Lebanese Muslim minorities,  and our success in assimmilating our more numerous Buddhists, Tory still manages to assert that my article “completely overlooks the role of racism in ostracising those minorities”.  I somehow “competely overlook” an issue I in fact addressed at length.

This is bizarre. Really, why do I bother writing anything at all, when Tory clearly does not read it and insists on treating my column instead as just a space for her own notes of what she imagines I might have said or even hopes I said?

Even when Tory acknowledges that I did present a raft of statistics to illustrate my point about the trouble some minorities have had in fitting in to new communities in the West, she simply dismisses them as “cherrypicked” without bothering to even try to explain why they are not representative, and sneakily suggests they may even be false, anyway, since she has to “take it on faith that he’s got them from good sources”.

No, Tory, you didn’t have to take my statistics in good faith. You could have checked them for yourself. But that would have taken work, wouldn’t it, and may have forced you to acknowledge what you’d rather dismiss and disparage.

If there is any argument in Tory’s article, it’s probably this:

“...  anyone who can read should know that some people are more likely to end up in trouble because they are born into appalling socio-economic conditions; that some people are more likely to be jailed than your average Anglo for exactly the same crime; and that some people are isolated from society, which in turn makes them more likely to commit crimes.”

These reasons may in part be true, but Tory ignores completely the fact that these “appalling socio-economic conditions” and terrible crime rates are not just the product of Australian racism or accident of birth.

As I pointed out, crime rates for Chinese and Indian immigrants are way below the national average. As I could have added, Jews are more likely than most to face discrimination, yet are remarkably successful in our community. 

As I noted, Buddhists have fitted in very well - and certainly without attracting the public anxiety caused by the less numerous Muslims. 

As I noted, Lebanese Christians have done so well that they’ve provided Victoria with a Premier and NSW with a Governor.

If we’re uniformly racist, why these very un-uniform results? Is it really “racist” to ask to what extent differences in outcomes are influenced by differences in the cultures of the immigrants themselves? 

Wouldn’t, say, a culture which devalued the education of girls tend to be less rich?  Wouldn’t followers of a faith whose leading representatives preach against assimilation be more likely to be marginalised, by themselves at least as much as us? 

Tory has one last argument, which does have some merit - even if she actually mistates it, falsely accusing me of widening “the gap in understanding”, when I believe I’m actually stripping away some myths.

What she should have said is that what I wrote, even if true, may make worse what I actually deplore. Does talking as frankly as I do about this issue just make enemies of those we all would wish as our allies? Does it make the children of migrants feel more picked on?

Let’s ignore that this is actually a veiled concession that there is a problem of the kind I suggest. The fact is that I do worry about just that. I see the children of African and Muslim immigrants playing with my own children, and would hate for anyone to treat them or their parents badly.

But we have had a media that for many, many years said too little that’s honest and frank about what is clearly a growing problem. SBS, for instance, refused to air footage it had of Sheik Hilali in his mosque praising suicide bombers as “heroes”.

The misreporting of the Cronulla riots as purely a burp of Anglo racism was widespread and desperately ill-informed, ignoring the rise of Middle Eastern street violence and the gang gulture that has prompted the NSW police to devote an entire squad to crime in this one ethnic minority.

The refusal of so many journalists to identify the true perpetrators of much of the worst or most notorious violence against Indians and tourists have perpetuated the false and damaging reputation we have in the world of being a nation of white racists, and blinded many to the troubling rise of ethnic gangs in Victoria.

I suspect the real danger lies not in saying too much but too little, and drifting on to where Europe now warns us we dare not go.
I could go on, but it is clear to me that there is no point in writing even this. Tory does not read what I write, and attacks me only for what she imagines I think. She does it not to reveal my sins, but to advertise her allegedly superior virtue.

But meanwhile we have a problem, and serious minds must discuss it seriously. Screams of “racist” simply announce the arrival at the table of a child.

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

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented


Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:44am | 16/07/10

      That’s the same way most of my critics work. They imagine I said something I didn’t say, then criticise me on the basis of their own fictions.

    • Kordez says:

      08:50am | 16/07/10

      Only the women do Eric.

    • Jenni says:

      09:39am | 16/07/10

      @ Kordez ... not all women do, thanks. I myself read all of Eric’s comments, state plainly why I disagree with some of them, and am always quick to applaud when I do agree, which is actually quite often.

      My gender, and Eric’s, have little to do with being a mature adult capable of open discussion.  But hey, thank you for the sweeping generalisation about my entire gender based on the comments of a few!

    • Dylan says:

      11:07am | 16/07/10

      Lol @ Kordez. 

      It must be a tough gig, singlehandedly fighting the Media Elites from deep inside the EricBunker.  But hey, it’s a dirty job, but someone’s gotta do it.

    • Fred says:

      12:12pm | 16/07/10

      @ Jenni - you must not be a regular puncher, Kordez is making reference to Eric’s previous comments that inevitably make him sound like a bitter woman-hater.

    • Reg says:

      04:23pm | 16/07/10

      Eric, if you’re so unclear that the readers have to try and construct some idea of what you mean, then don’t be surprised if you think you said something else.  There is no such thing as a standard interpretation except apparently in your mind.

    • Uncle Buck says:

      07:49pm | 18/07/10

      Eric The Racist: Isn’t that the name of a movie?

    • Sally says:

      06:50am | 16/07/10

      Gotta love those statistics…... Over half Australia’s population is female.  Prison population consists of 319 men per 100,000 and 7 women per 100,000.
      To use your reasoning, that makes men the biggest danger Australians face physically and socially.  Is it time to address gender levels? 

      Of course not.  Most men are decent citizens, but should they be held to account for the one’s who aren’t?  How does this differ from your argument?

    • Philip Crowley says:

      08:31am | 16/07/10

      Sally, has anyone ever mentioned to you that apples and oranges are different fruit, and cannot be compared? If you don’t see the differences in the argument I’m afraid it would take far more space than is available here to adequately explain it.

    • pete m says:

      08:34am | 16/07/10

      Actually Sally, you prove his point.  The stats show men over=represented in gaol.  We should be working on reducing this number.  i.e. face reality and honestly say that men are more prone to violence and other criminal behaviour than women.  I as a male have no “oh my god you must be a racist for singling out men” response to what the stats clearly reveal.

      Last point for you and all others - muslim is not a race.  It is a religion.

    • dovif says:

      09:26am | 16/07/10


      I think you are proving Andrew’s point, the fact you raise these statistics does not make you sexist.

      It means there is an issue there, and we shoulld talk about it. Rather then just all someone sexist and try to sweep it under the carpet for the sake of being politically correct, which is the reason the problem had not been solved

    • JP says:

      10:19am | 16/07/10

      319 men per 100,000 and 7 women per 100,000.

      Who or what the hell else have we locked up?

    • BK says:

      10:26am | 16/07/10

      When we start arresting, prosecuting and sentencing women equally, you will have a point. At the moment, factors like female offender sentencing discount skew these statistics. As an example, if it were up to me, women found guilty of paternity fraud would face jail time.

    • Sally says:

      10:26am | 16/07/10

      I agree that raising these statistics doesn’t make me sexist.  My point is, however, it makes me selective.  Statistics indicate 134 journalists are currently jailed worldwide.  Statistics also indicate 1 in 111 Americans are named Andrew.  As a journalist named Andrew, Mr Bolt is neither American nor incarcerated.  I do not understand how grabbing a selection of statistics (“cherry-picking”) adds credence or validity to an argument.  This statistically-heavy piece is no different to using the old “ALL my friends” and “EVERYONE I talk to” and the “MAJORITY of people agree with me” line in terms of adding weight and validity to one’s opinion.  It seems be drawing a long bow…....

    • rech says:

      01:53pm | 16/07/10

      Yes, and that is why there are all kinds of resources in our society to address anger management, deal with mental illness in males, provide refuges and support for female victims of violence…it’s why there are ads on tv every night encouraging males not to drink excessively, and to help prevent their mates getting violent during a night out. Male violence is an enormous problem in our society. So what is your point exactly?

    • Toady says:

      04:41pm | 16/07/10

      Simple solution is to throw more women in jail.  The reality is that lots of women do commit crimes, and very few of them get sent to jail because of the effect it would have on their children, or because of some misguided belief by the courts that you shouldn’t send females to jail! It’s a stupid argument Sally, and if you care to sit in a magistrates court for a few days you’d see that the ratio of male criminals to female criminals is much lower than your prison statistic suggests.  Also, you would find that many, many women commit very violent crimes.

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      06:57am | 16/07/10

      Tory… pwened!

    • Fred says:

      09:53am | 16/07/10

      I don’t know if that’s a typo or if you’re trying to be something you’re not but any gamer will tell you it’s:


    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      04:18pm | 16/07/10

      hehe, I saw the erroneous “e” a little too late smile

      *typo* *blush*

    • Seamus says:

      07:53am | 16/07/10

      I think Tory Shepherd’s endeavour to gain her 15 minutes of fame by slagging a senior, well respected and well researched journalist failed rather dismally.  Andrew Bolt got it in one by describing her form of journalism as sloppy.

    • Jane says:

      09:07am | 16/07/10

      The moral relativism and assumed elitism is gagworthy.
      The “Racism’ tag is used lazily as a club to subdue and invoke silence….yawn, not buying.

      Well done BoltA

    • Julatron says:

      09:35pm | 17/07/10

      You mistake Andrew Bolt for someone respected…. Regardless, as much as i usually dislike Andrew Bolts outlandish racism, i cannot deny his issue here - Islam is not a race and deserves to be pulled apart as any ideology should be. And all the apologists who know nothing about this heinous set of beliefs should do themselves a favour and investigate.

    • Jen says:

      08:12am | 16/07/10

      Andrew; can you explain the fine line between discrimination and racism.  I feel that most of us (regardless of sex, colour or creed) face discrimination one way or another in our lives and deal with it - personally I just ignore it!  I am actually reluctant to list the points of discrimination I experience as I fear I will cop a barrage of it on this blog from other readers.  Perhaps the word ‘racism’ just has more impact than the word ‘discrimination’ as I am unable to isolate a difference between the two.

    • James says:

      08:54am | 16/07/10

      Huh?  Racism is a type of discrimination… race based discrimination/prejudice.

    • Bush Greg says:

      08:18am | 16/07/10

      Of course, not all Muslims are a threat, just those that follow Islam and Sharia law. What small percentage of Muslims do follow Islam and how do you recocnise a Muslim who does follow Islam as it appears that these are the racists - not Andrew Bolt or Australians “I suspect the real danger lies not in saying too much but too little, and drifting on to where Europe now warns us we dare not go.”

    • Trevor says:

      08:52am | 16/07/10

      The first part of what you’ve written is entirely correct.  The problem, though, is when we move from that to a conclusion that the SOLUTION is to control the migration of Muslims - or of any other group which has these issues - in a blunt way.

      The correct solution is to work on removing the individuals that have the undesirable characteristics.  Of course, that involves a lot more work then slapping a label on a much wider group and saying “statistically, they are more likely to be a problem”.  And that’s really the difference here.

    • Andy says:

      10:37am | 16/07/10

      Bush Greg, Islam and Muslim are different ways of saying the same thing. To be defined as a Muslim you must follow Islam. Just like to be defined as a Christian you must follow Christianity, and to be defined as a Buddhist you must follow Buddhism.

      I see the point you are trying to make but it is being clouded by your inaccurate terminology. Perhaps you are saying “Islam” where you really mean “Fundamentalist Islam” or “Radical Islam”?

    • Tobias Ziegler says:

      08:18am | 16/07/10

      Andrew suggests that Tory could have checked into whether the information he drew on was valid and dismisses any claim that he “cherrypicked”. I haven’t had a chance to run down all the crime “stats” and see whether they hold up, but I certainly went looking at the document by the Centre for Excellence in Islamic Studies on bringing Muslim perspectives into education that he criticised in his column.

      Andrew has claimed, among other things, that it barely mentions terrorism, attributes higher unemployment among Australian Muslims to racism, and teaches a one-sided view of history (e.g., the Crusades). All of these claims misrepresent what the document actually contains. This would seem to suggest we should be sceptical about Andrew’s selection and description of sources, including crime statistics.

      A more detailed explanation of the misrepresentations is at

    • AdamC says:

      09:02am | 16/07/10

      What has any of that got to do Bolt’s article here, Tobias? It looks like you are playing the man because the ball’s too difficult.

    • Carter says:

      09:24am | 16/07/10


      Tobias is simply supporting Tory’s argument, which is related to Andrew’s original piece, therefore it’s highly relevant…

    • AdamC says:

      09:34am | 16/07/10

      Carter, no he isn’t. He is implying that because he disagrees with Bolt’s characterisation of an advice booklet, Bolt’s statistics are somehow suspect (though, he hasn’t actually checked them).

      That is a very lazy kind of criticism, even if you are a Bolt-hater.

    • Tobias Ziegler says:

      11:47am | 16/07/10

      AdamC, I have added something that supplements Tory’s argument - she focused on the so-called statistics Bolt provided, but his original column also included misrepresentations about the education guide I mentioned. Given that Andrew has claimed in this article that checking his sources is something we should do, I thought it relevant to note that I’ve done so with that one document.

      As to his “raft of statistics”, Bolt hasn’t exactly cited sources and so checking his claims is not as straightforward as he suggests, for me or for Tory Shepherd. But given his previous failures to accurately discuss crime statistics about crime by African-born Victorians vs the general population, all I’m saying is that I am sceptical of the chances that he’s giving a complete and accurate representation.

      I’d also note that while I’ve discussed issues and presented evidence, you haven’t actually responded to any of the points I raise but instead do exactly what you accuse me of - engage in lazy criticism by dismissing the argument as irrelevant or personally-driven.

    • AdamC says:

      01:35pm | 16/07/10

      Tobias, what I was saying, which remains correct, is that you haven’t actually presented an argument about why Bolt’s statistics are wrong. While it may be interesting to some that Bolt supposedly misrepresented crime statistics on African immigrants in Victoria, or made misleading comments about a muslim teaching resource, it doesn’t mean his ‘so-called statistics’, as you put it, have been cherry-picked or are inaccurate.

      You are simply making ad hominem attacks and criticising me for pointing it out.

      Incidentally, while you say you have ‘discussed issues’, I can’t see any such discussion in your comments. Are you arguing that Bolt’s original article, and this defence of it, are wrong in their contentions?

    • Fred says:

      02:31pm | 16/07/10

      AdamC - uhhh… Tobias’ point seemed pretty logical, and yet you seem to have not gotten it… which is unlike you. 

      He’s simply stating that Bolt has a precedent for misstating statistics, and has therefore come to the conclusion that in his opinion, he lacks credibility with these statistics.

      So he’s not saying his statistics are wrong (which is I think is where you’re going wrong) he’s saying there is a precedent for this and as a result, believes these statistics lack credibility as well. 

      And I’m pretty sure that’s all he’s saying.  I don’t know where you pulled: “Are you arguing that Bolt’s original article, and this defence of it, are wrong in their contentions?” from…

    • With eyes wide open... says:

      08:18am | 16/07/10

      Tory should just stick to writing health stories and leave politics to those that have an understanding of it. What really pisses her off is that 80% of Australians believe more in what Andrew Bolt has to say on border protection than her minority views.  Thats what really upsets them…. I’m a proud racist if that means shutting the door to those who come here uninvited. This is the view held by a staggering 80%.....So if we are all wrong what does that make you Tory? Obviously a much better person than the rest of us…...Well you believe so don’t you?

    • AliceC says:

      08:53am | 16/07/10

      80%? Where on earth did you get that number from????

      ‘I’m a proud racist if that means shutting the door to those who come here uninvited’

      Do you even understand the complexities of the International Treaties regarding asylum seekers? And Australia has signed these treatiee, so we have a legal obligaiton to prcoess asylum seekers, allow those who are genuine to stay, and send the rest back.

      They cannot be invitied if they are fleeing another country from persecution or death. The treaties were created after what happened during the Holocaust (did you need some links on that, or do you have a general idea of what happened then?).

    • remlap says:

      08:57am | 16/07/10

      75% of people are likely to skew statistics in favour of their argument. 83% of statstics are made up on the spot. A staggering 83%... of course my post is 100% BS and that is the only reliable statistic posted here so far.

    • NG says:

      10:49am | 16/07/10

      Alice, you’ll also find on their website where it states that once ‘asylum seekers’ pass a country where it is safe to seek asylum, they’re no longer considered ‘asylum seekers’.

    • iansand says:

      08:35am | 16/07/10

      From this article - ‘Even when I write that “most people from whatever community or group I’ve mentioned are law-abiding”, and repeat that I’m talking only of a “minority” of Muslims, Tory insists instead that in my article I “tar all Muslims”.’

      So can you explain the point of your column?

    • MarK says:

      01:49pm | 16/07/10

      Questioning what Gillard meant and throwing out examples of problems implicit in selection.

      So ian what did Gillard mean? That is the point after all. She raised it. She is the PM(for a while anyway).

      How is she going to achieve stop a “big Australia” - how is she going to encourage the “right” immigrants to come and keep out the rest?

      What are the “wrong ones”?

      Hmmmmm.? I wait with bated breath

    • Julia says:

      08:42am | 16/07/10

      The left just want to shout down the right. If ever you want to find a more closed-minded set of people, look to the left.

      The right is 100% wrong, 100% all of the time.

      Never mind.

    • Adam says:

      10:02am | 16/07/10

      Obviously you would never generalise like that…

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      03:18pm | 16/07/10

      Actually it’s the right that’s making the most noise and setting the political agenda but you wouldn’t know from all their cries of biased left wing media…..

    • Reg says:

      09:33am | 17/07/10

      The RIGHT are mostly of legal backgrounds and fully conversant with the art of distraction that thumping the desk provides when they are lacking substance. Which, as you say, is most of the time.

    • f. alberton says:

      08:48am | 16/07/10

      Andrew, you summed it up perfectly when you wrote, “Really, why do I bother writing anything at all”.

      I have often wondered the same thing.

    • ChrisD says:

      08:57am | 16/07/10

      Andrew, why don’t you just flat out write “We shouldn’t let Muslims into Australia?” It’s easy. You just type the words, into the computer, and the Herald Sun prints them.

      So much flowery jibberish and skirting around the edges in a an oddly PC way for someone who so clearly deplores the PC brigade.

      Why do you insist on crafting the entire jigsaw puzzle just to leave the last piece for us to hammer in? I wonder.

    • Matt says:

      09:05am | 16/07/10

      Sorry Bolty, but you DO have “legions of racist fans” (One Nation voters love you like Jesus) and you do “whip up indignation and outrage” whether it’s your aim or nowt.

      I dunno ... you make fair points and back them up with stats, and I do nod along to some things in terms of us being honest enough to voice our fears and such about who comes in and the manner in which they do, etc ... but your columns are couched in language that DOES cause indignation and outrage among folks frightened of the brown-skinned honour-killing terrorists and clitoris manglers lobbing on our shores uninvited.

      And I think you can do better.

      Why don’t you write something in praise of the 349,000 Muslims who are nice poeple just like you and I? Even ironically?

      How about a profile piece on a person from Sudan who’s watched his family slaughtered and who escaped to Australia and now contributes to his community and is breeding tall future ruckmen for the Bombers?

      Always with the fear and loathing Bolty - have a go at some light, just for one column anyway. Then you can go back to your base.

      Just a thought.

    • OtherwiseKnownAs says:

      12:19pm | 16/07/10

      Matt, I think you are spot on.

      It’s funny how the media in general shapes our opinions on Muslim poeple, when in reality the opposite of what they say is true. I attended multicultural primary & high schools in one of the most multicultural suburbs in the inner west. In my entire life of living in Australia I have NEVER encountered any person of the Islam faith who hadn’t assimilated to our Australian way of life or who expressed antagonistic opinions about the society we lived in! I have had many Muslim friends in my life and I have worked with many Muslim people in my line of work, and again I cannot recall of just one instance where they made un-Australian remarks.

      If you had asked me fifteen years ago if I thought Muslims were terrorists or supported terrorists activities I would have laughed uncontrollably and pointed out the Catholic/Protestant conflicts in Ireland to show you were the real terrorists were.

    • Matt says:

      04:26pm | 16/07/10

      Yeah well - bomb chuckers and madmen are less scary when they’re same colour as you, I suppose - otherwise after Martin Bryant went mad in Port Arthur, Bolty and Akerman and the other frothers would’ve been onto The Authorities to imprison all surfy-looking Tassie gun owners.

      Hazem el Masri’s a muslim. And seems a fine bloke.

      Problem is when Bolt and co., under the guise of free speech and speaking openly and not being PC, say, “Muslims are X”, it does besmirch all Muslims, Hazem included. Though Bryant going bonkers didn’t mean we wanted to hunt down surfie-looking people, or the catholic priests rooting kiddies doesn’t mean we throw paint at catholics or ban them building more churches (what Moozies call Mosques), etc.

      It’s just fear and loathing stuff, and you’d think we’d be over it.

      Small country, this.

    • AdamC says:

      09:16am | 16/07/10

      For at least the last fifteen years, the term ‘racism’ has ceased to be anything but a slur. In particular, it has been employed when people have questioned the conventional wisdom concerning mass immigration and multiculturalism.

      Refreshingly, people are starting to talk sensibly about the rate of growth in Australia’s population, which is driven by immigration. However, a topic that remains taboo is the social impact on communities of mass immigration. Hopefully writers like Andrew Bolt can help to encourage more serious debate about the costs and benefits of large-scale immigration of distinct ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups into Australia, especially into discrete geographic localities, which is what is occurring now. 

      Thus far, Australia has avoided the ethnic ‘ghettoisation’ of particular communities (with exceptions), largely through good luck. Australia should start complementing its good luck with some good management.

    • Fred says:

      10:03am | 16/07/10

      I don’t completely disagree with your point (about people being able to talk about these things sensibly) but I do not think you can seriously say ‘the term ‘racism’ has ceased to be anything but a slur’ - I’m guessing you haven’t been on the receiving end of it like I have.  You may think the word is overused, but I don’t think that means we should ignore the term every time it’s raised.

    • AdamC says:

      01:18pm | 16/07/10

      Fred, I wasn’t trying to suggest that all instances of racial discrimination in society have ceased to occur completely. Of course they haven’t. Rather, what I was saying is that the term ‘racism’ and, more particularly the accusation of someone being racist, have been debased to the point where they are meaningless (except as an insult).

      I also dispute the position, dogmatically asserted by many, that Australia is a ‘racist’ nation. If this were true, rather than being merely a projection of elitist self-loathing, we wouldn’t be talking about immigration and multiculturalism. Because we wouldn’t have either of them to talk about.

    • Carter says:

      09:17am | 16/07/10

      Even when I write that “most people from whatever community or group I’ve mentioned are law-abiding”, and repeat that I’m talking only of a “minority” of Muslims, Tory insists instead that in my article I “tar all Muslims”.  Even when I mention plenty of other immigrant groups around the world with signs of dysfunction - Canadian Latinos, Tongans, Vietnamese, Samoans, those of African heritage and more - Tory still claims “he picks on (Muslims) to the exclusion of all others”.

      More to the point, Andrew, is that you HAVE NOT mentioned the legion of atrocities committed by white anglo-saxons…

      Simply grouping a whole lot of non-anglos together doesn’t mean you’re not being racist…

      It’s a shame. Perhaps the reason these minority groups appear more ‘troubled’ than anglo groups is because we, as a society, have failed to accept their physical and cultural differences adequately (White Australia, Cronulla riots, endless bigotted views aired on talkback radio and even in these comments) and celbrate that, although my neighbour may look different, and do things that we think of as strange, he’s still a good bloke and I’d love to hve him around to my place for a barbie and a beer. I might even learn something.

      Instead, Andrew, you seem content to denigrate this societal progression.


    • Ads says:

      02:49pm | 16/07/10

      Sorry, but shame yourself.

      Andrew’s article (the original one) was about how the media fail to report the nationality of crime suspects, despite the statistics that show some ethnic groups seem to have more problems adhering to the law than the average WASP does in this country.

      I think a lot of people are jumping the gun here - if it was shown that people from whereveristan ran more red lights than the rest of the population because of cultural issues, would it be racist to say that whereveristan immigrants would receive training to help them understand how red light laws work in Australia?

      Not like anyone on the left complains when immigrants receive free English classes, but helping people understand the law is somehow racist?????

      I’d suggest it be racist not to.  After all its the new immigrant that pays the price legally, not the inner city greenie calling everyone else racist…

    • Nicole says:

      10:11am | 16/07/10

      Andrew how right you are. I believe that most of the people who scream ‘racist’ at you don’t even read what you write, let alone grasp an understanding of it. They simply do what Tory has done, dissect the little bits they want to and then howl ‘racist’ from the top of their soap box. It’s very yawnish. Tory should stick to what she knows, which is, um, er, I dunno and leave the important stuff to the professionals, like yourself. BTW I agree 100% with your original piece.

    • Sherekahn says:

      10:33am | 16/07/10

      There’s an awful lot of twaddle here, for instance:
      “Sally, has anyone ever mentioned to you that apples and oranges are different fruit, and cannot be compared.”  Nonsense, when comparing, one takes the obvious things first, one similarity is that apples and oranges are both ROUND!
      Another is that many creatures on earth like to EAT them!  They both have pips you can eat!  Their juice is delicious!  ETC, ETC.
      As for our racism, is anyone surprised?  Australia is being stuffed full of people from such diverse ideas on Morals, Ethics, Religion, Humanity, Neighbourliness, Environment and much more.
      America was probably the first to start this nonsense because the rich and powerful wanted CHEAP labour, so they could become more wealthy, forget the ‘IDEAL’ of Democracy, they still have not achieved that!  They ‘freed’ themselves from Colonial tyranny of King George 3rd of England only to replace it with the Financial Colonial tyranny of the whole world by themselves.  So much for Democracy!  They still have cheap labour as they do not have a MINIMUM wage for workers, many workers earn only US$5.00 per hour.  Anyone who believes they have Racial Harmony hasn’t logged on to American News papers on line.
      There are many in this Australia of ours who would like to copy America and there are many, migrants/students/refugees who would be happy to get ANY wages.
      It is time in Australia to pre-empt racialism by putting a hold on Migration to settle our country down and stabilise its values.
      In my suburban Brisbane ‘village’ years ago, the only Indian persons I saw was a neighbour, who was here when I arrived 25 years ago.
      Now, when I go to the Library I see about 10.  Of course, they stand out and if you asked, why do you especially notice them, it is because there appears to be an imbalance here. 
      I also believe another 100 million see us as NIRVANA and would gladly come here.  Is my fear called racism?

    • Fred says:

      12:18pm | 16/07/10

      Sherekahn, regardless of whether or not I would call it racism, I have to ask, what is driving this ‘fear’ of yours in the first place?? 

      Using your hypothetical of the library, I have to say those 10 people would not stand out to me, and if they did, I wouldn’t be afraid.  So the question is - why are you?

    • IMHO says:

      12:53pm | 16/07/10

      You eat the pips? Whenever I’ve done that by accident I find them very bitter!

    • Casey says:

      10:46am | 16/07/10

      Andrew, perhaps like Tory, I took great offence to this comment in your orginal article:

      “They are the kind of facts that also have so many voters so steamed up about just a few thousand boat people - or, to put it another way, about thousands of people who barge in, having destroyed their identity documents, and expect us to believe they’ll be model citizens. “

      How much time have you spent with refugees? Have you listened to their stories? Do you understand at all that people fleeing persecution and war might not have the opportunity to get or pack identity documents? That these identity documents might actually make their processing in Australia quicker?

      I find your comments offensive and shameful and consider that they only serve to stir up negative opinions of asylum seekers - more than 90% of whom are found to be geniune refugees. And who, whether you agree with me or not, we as a developed and rich nation, are morally obliged to help and support.  Shameful.

    • Mikeymike says:

      02:54pm | 16/07/10

      And therefore, those refugees with the resources to buy passage on a people smuggler’s boat are more deserving than those stuck in UN refugee camps?
      And that, under the refugee convention, these asylum seekers are entitled to identity documents from the host country, before they engage the services of a people smuggler.
      And that, there is footage and eyewitness testimony from our naval personnel of these asylum seekers destroying their documents.

      We do help and we do support refugees as a nation.  Yes, we are morally obligated to help refugees.  And we do.  But tell me, why should we give the asylum seeker a place at the expense of the camp refugee?

    • William says:

      10:50am | 16/07/10

      Finally, Andrew Bolt writes something worth reading…

      “Really, why do I bother writing anything at all”.

      Nailed it.

    • ChelseaLee says:

      10:56am | 16/07/10

      Andrew, I find your article refreshing. It says what I think, and yet am too afraid to say. Sometimes you just can’t dispute cold hard facts.

      Australia is one glorious country which, on a whole and in comparison to others, runs like a well-oiled machine. We have our way of doing things, and every country does. But if you are going to visit another, let alone live in another, a whole new level of respect needs to come in to play. I find this a problem, obviously especially in terms of terrorism, but on a much smaller scale also.

      I got caught behind an ethnic taxi driver on my way to work, because he decided to do a u-turn across a six lane road, divided by distinct double lines. The peak hour traffic banked up for kilometres while we waited for him to get on his merry way. Now I don’t have a problem with ethnic taxi drivers - God knows what they must see and put up with on a Friday or Saturday night. But if you want to come to Australia to earn a living, get with the program, follow the rules and act like you’re working in Australia. Your driving may be acceptable in the backstreets of India or the like, but that’s why you’re not in the backstreets of India or the like.

      And why is it that women are allowed to wear full body burkas when it’s quite obvious from previous uproars regarding this topic, that a lot of Australian people feel threatened by this? When an Australian goes to a Muslim country, aren’t we expected to cover ourselves and dress exactly like them? Or am I unaware of them having suddenly become more accepting of our daisy duke shorts, singlets and thongs?

      And why is it ‘racist’ to talk like this about a Muslim, when people are free to say what they like about Christians, without any repurcussions? Christians cop slander day in, day out, especially from websites like The Punch. But are they in fear of getting bombed? Oh, but Heaven forbid we offend the Muslims. As long as they’re happy, then the world is just pushing up daisies.

      I think we should protect our culture as much as we can. If there are boat people who are willing to adapt to our lifestyle, which they quite clearly so desire, then give them a chance. If they try for one minute to disrespect it, send them back to where they came from. Maybe only then, they will begin to appreciate and respect what so many Australians have worked hard to build.

    • Gregg says:

      12:04pm | 16/07/10

      It is not racist to talk about Islam Chelsea just as it is not racist to talk about any religion, but with
      ” And why is it that women are allowed to wear full body burkas when it’s quite obvious from previous uproars regarding this topic, that a lot of Australian people feel threatened by this? When an Australian goes to a Muslim country, aren’t we expected to cover ourselves and dress exactly like them? Or am I unaware of them having suddenly become more accepting of our daisy duke shorts, singlets and thongs? “
      A lot of Australian people being threatened by a full body burka may mean that a lot of the lot of those people are just driven by the media beat-up.
      Thankfully we have not seen laws in Australia that forbid a woman from doing as they believe in when it comes to what clothes they wear and hopefully we will not see such laws.
      When people come to Australia, how they dress other than deciding to leave it all in the closet is optional though if a guy/gal paraded down George, Bourke or Ann streets in just a G string there might be giggles along with more outrage than at the Mardi Gras and they could find themselves apprehended.
      So yes, we have a standard of sensible variation in dress and other countries have their standards and not all countries with Islam as the majority religion are the same.
      Dress standards of visitors to places like Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey and even parts of Bangladesh and Pakistan are different to that which might best be adopted for other more severely religious law policed countries and that is just the way it is.
      If you go to religious temples of some other religions, there is an expectation to dress conservatively and then in India you may not have Hindu women wearing Burkas but many are substantially clothed.
      So it really is a no brainer to single out what people wear.

    • Fred says:

      12:22pm | 16/07/10

      ChelseaLee - my problem with comments like yours are that the points you make are valid, but shouldn’t have anything to do with race.  Let’s use your taxi driver as an example - would you notice if a white taxi driver did this?  Probably, as it sounds quite illegal.  The next question is, when re-telling this story, would you mention the race of the taxi driver if they were white??  Probably not. 

      The point I’m trying to make is - if you want to have a go about people breaking road rules, go for it.  Just don’t bring their race in to it because it implies you think all people of that race are exactly the same.  I don’t care if that’s not how you think, but that’s definitely how it comes across. And besides, what does somebody’s race have to do with their driving skills?  the ONLY answer to that question is NOTHING.

    • Ads says:

      02:58pm | 16/07/10

      Fred, the whole point of the original article is that crime statistics say that certain immigrant groups feature significantly higher in crime statistics than the average population.  as well, certain immigrant groups were significantly below.

      Is it cultural?  Lack of understanding of Australia’s laws?

      Only thing I know is that as long as people keep screaming ‘racist’ every time we try and discuss cultural issues we aren’t going to get to the bottom of this, and its the immigrant that ends up paying the price in a reduced quality of life than they could have.

      But the left would prefer to keep its head in the sand and pretend that people are all homogenous in their ideological PC world.

    • ChelseaLee says:

      03:19pm | 16/07/10

      Gregg and Fred - I understand completely that my enraged rant may have come across differently to the way I wanted it to. I guess you could say that a snowball of thoughts and events based on this topic has been met by a timely article, allowing me a place to vent my frustration. My apologies for that.

      I have no problem with people from different races/religions becoming a part of our country. Infact, I welcome it because I love the beautiful aspects that every culture can bring to the table. Australia has and always will be a mixing pot of differences, and that’s all that most Australians know.

      But I think when it comes down to it, the issue here is a matter of respect. Respect for all races by all races, and respect for all religions by all religions. And I guess my point is that *that* is where Islam can differ from others. There are bad eggs in every race and religion - child-molesting Priests, Bible-bashing Christians, suicide-bombing Muslims, and I’m certain that there would be Australians in other countries, who don’t respect the people or culture. But this is not a discussion about protecting other countries’ cultures - this is a discussion about protecting the Australian culture. And when it comes to the facts, Bolt is correct.

      I don’t think for one minute that the solution is to stop genuine refugees seeking asylum from entering Australia, nor do I think it’s wise for any old refugee to be allowed access without correct procedures. To be honest, I don’t know what the solution would be.

      But what I do know, is that there are a very large number of people from different races and religions which refuse to respect the Australian culture, be it through refusing to learn, or just complete ignorance. And for some reason, when this topic is brought to light, the misused ‘racist’ term is the only solution that people can come up with. No, the Australian people who want to protect our much-loved way of life are not racist. We merely want to protect our much-loved way of life! And if that means refusing access to the volatile extremists (which, according to the facts, tend to be mostly of the Muslim faith), then so be it.

    • Fred says:

      03:32pm | 16/07/10

      Ads - not sure why you directed your comment at me… I can’t see anything past my name that relates to what I said. But… good input? I guess?

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:09am | 16/07/10

      I don’t often agree with Andrew but I have to wholeheartedly endorse what he’s saying in his refutation of Tory’s extremely sloppy work.

      Its ‘journos’ like Tory that over the years have attempted to browbeat anyone who had an opinion that was contrary to the whiny handwringing manifesto of the PC brigade. Don’t like an opinion - scream RACIST at the top of your lungs, facts be damned.

      People have had enough. Ordinary people. Its not racist to ask the hard questions, its not racist to demand proper explanations, its not racist to disagree with your opinion, its not racist to point out the facts…and by the by, you can’t be racist against a religion - but not that it stops the likes of Tory form throwing it around when they want to stifle opinion or hard questions.

      Well Done Andrew, brilliant response. I await Tory’s long winded retort that will boil down to - RACIST!

    • acker says:

      11:17am | 16/07/10

      Just like trying to put a square peg in a round hole, multiculturism is not going to work in every circumstance

    • Beagle says:

      11:19am | 16/07/10

      Andrew, why do you think they call it a dog whistle?

    • Notadog says:

      11:58am | 16/07/10

      I think they call it a dog whistle because they’re stupid.

    • Kieran says:

      11:27am | 16/07/10

      That’s gold. Andrew one : Tory zero

    • Cat says:

      11:43am | 16/07/10

      Tory writes some good material - in her own area. I suspect that her article criticising Andrew is something she rushed off in a hurry without reading his words with comprehension - and it is something she will come to regret.
      One Nation voters are as guilty as Tory if they read without comprehension but the reality is that many people will read what they want to read into what is there - whether it actually says something or not.
      May I suggest that Tory be asked to sit down and analyse what Andrew had to say and then provide a rebuttal?

    • Peter says:

      11:47am | 16/07/10

      Whether your racist or not Andrew, i don’t know. There is perhaps an element of truth in what you say (I am particulary concerned about MidEast crime gangs). But you must concede for some reason you do have a legion of racists fans…

    • Jeff says:

      11:47am | 16/07/10

      Well written Andrew. You should be commended for your willingness to write unpopular truths and put up with the cheap racist accusations you endure.
      The Left, unfortunately seems to be frozen by their own blinding version of what is nice. The problem with this though, is a country can go to hell in and hand basked by being nice. The un-nice needs to be examined and dealt with.
      Fortunately Tory’s has been shown for what it was. A cheap shot.

    • Chris says:

      12:11pm | 16/07/10

      Not sure that you should be so quick to congratulate Andrew. Tory tackled him on the wrong basis. The strongest predictor of crime is poverty not cultural or racial background. This is hardly a “nice” notion. We should look at the impact of poverty - an issue that is avoided more often than race - before we look at cultural influences. The two might interact with one another, but poverty comes first when considering crime rates. Bolt stumbles on this awkwardly when he says “As I could have added, Jews are more likely than most to face discrimination, yet are remarkably successful in our community.”

    • Aero says:

      11:49am | 16/07/10

      “Middle Eastern street violence and the gang gulture that has prompted the NSW police to devote an entire squad to crime in this one ethnic minority.”

      Mate they have entire squads to various ethnic minorities, even Asians. so don’t just use half truths to get your point across.

    • Bulmkt says:

      12:01pm | 16/07/10

      Two quotes, I think, best sum up Andrew Bolt. Martin Luther King Jr famously said “Speak without fear”; and the third US President Thomas Jefferson said “Question with boldness.” Andrew does both, and a lot of Australians, myself included, are thankful that he does.
      People like Tory are obviously intimidated by Andrew’s candour and his ability to call it as he sees it.

    • Ras Putin says:

      01:16pm | 16/07/10

      As he sees it says Bulmkt! ..Quite right,but that does not make his opinion correct.. In fact a lot of people ,me included ,think that his continual racist rants and extreme red neck viewpoints,are quite capable of arousing nasty people…By the way-Tory would not be intimidated by Bolt or any one else.!

    • Amber says:

      03:02pm | 17/07/10

      Rasputin what a ridiculous and irrational response from you.

      Sadly you show just how uninformed and hysterical you are. Bolt is not a racist but I fear you probably are. Anyone who doesn’t agree with your simplistic notions is labelled a ‘red neck’ and ‘extremist’. Sad.

    • Jon says:

      12:14pm | 16/07/10

      There are big issues afoot with Islam. Is it racist to demand why the UN Human Rights Council is not allowed to judge religions? According to president Doru Romulus Costea of Romania. Criticism of Sharia law or fatwas is now forbidden.

      This ruling follows attempts by the Egyptian and Pakistani delegates at the Council to silence criticism of human rights abuse in the Islamic world.

      We need to know why a religion is getting an exemption from universal human rights. There are very few Australian journalists willing to report on this issue. The ABC is too PC and as is most of the sheep media. Our politicians are not worth the effort. Though I don’t agree with Andrew on many issues, we certainly need a more robust debate on the influence Islam on world and Australian politics.

    • Hall Patrick says:

      12:40pm | 16/07/10

      I certainly do not believe that Andrew is a racist.  He may well have One Nation desperates holding on to him, but he is not responsible for their pathetic fumbling for someone, anyone who they feel supports their impotent whinings. Andrew has the ability to nail the core of a problem and present it in an unemotional way.  We’ve absorbed every kind of religion here, but none have proved themselves to be so anti everything we believe to be true and great about Australia as fanatical Islamists. The great majority of Muslims here in Australia are good people who want to integrate. Let’s help them do it by not painting them into the naughty corner.

    • DD Ball says:

      12:57pm | 16/07/10

      You defend yourself well, Andrew, and you give Tory a good approximation of what she would be arguing were she to have done so coherently. But I don’t think her argument stands. There is a need to address these issues by adults and among adults. That rules out the ALP and Greens.

    • Peter says:

      12:59pm | 16/07/10

      Ok, let’s look at what Bolt actually wrote:

      “So, yes, let’s talk about bringing in “the right kind of migrants”.”
      “...with one category of immigrant we now have more trouble than we’ve known before.  A significant minority of our 340,000 Muslims seem not only unable to fully assimilate, but unwilling.”
      “Which means the more Muslims we take in (up to 28,000 a year now), the more trouble we may expect from them or, more often, their children.”
      “... I fear we may have reached a tipping point both in numbers and in attitudes.”
      If it walks, talks and smells like a pig…

    • Zaf says:

      01:31pm | 16/07/10

      [If we’re uniformly racist, why these very un-uniform results?]

      Who says we’re uniformly racist?  Some minority groups (Aboriginals, for example) face a lot more racism from broader society than other minority groups (ethnic Koreans, say).  Some minority groups (Italians, Greeks) faced a lot of racism in the past, but much less so now.  Taking a over-simplified one size fits all (and we’re not like that anyway) approach doesn’t constitute a serious analysis.

    • Ads says:

      03:03pm | 16/07/10

      I think Andrew’s point was if ALL of the reason immigrants featured more highly in the crime stats was because Australia is racist then every cultural group would feature highly.

      They don’t, so racism isn’t the explanation. 

      Ironically, attempting to find out what the reason really is gets you sdlandered as a racist…

    • Carl Palmer says:

      01:47pm | 16/07/10

      “The misreporting of the Cronulla riots as purely a burp of Anglo racism was widespread and desperately ill-informed…....”

      Andrew, you are 100% correct

      Thank you thank you thank you!!!

    • MarK says:

      01:57pm | 16/07/10

      By the way.

      Welcome to The Punch Andrew. Hope to see you here more often.

      I enjoyed the article and your excellent defence of it.

      Why oh why will not the haters ask Gillard what she meant by the “right immigrants”.

      How is she going to stop this “big Australia”.

      Seems they attack you rather than the source you are questioning.

    • BK says:

      02:00pm | 16/07/10

      Andrew likes to throw these statistics out there to get a bite. They may well be true, but he needs to use them to make a point or support a proposal. Exactly how would he reduce crime? Exactly how would he reform immigration law and what would these changes achieve? He wants an open debate, free from name calling and malicious misinterpretation. Having a debate means taking a position.

    • AB says:

      02:21pm | 16/07/10

      “Really, why do I bother writing anything at all?

      I ask myself that every time i read your crap AB

    • Randal says:

      02:35pm | 16/07/10

      Easy solved AB… don’t read it!

    • Thinking says:

      02:36pm | 16/07/10

      It is not possible to be “racist” towards muslims since muslims constitute a religious group and not a race of people!

    • Georginorx says:

      02:49pm | 16/07/10

      Oh good I thought it was just me that had a problem with Tory’s work and attitude.
      I’m not saying I agree with all points in this article, and I’m sure there are good points for both arguments, but you need to make rational arguments in order to have a good conversation.
      I think that yes some cultures are more prone to violence and other issues that in Australia are not tolerated, but no excluding those groups from Australia is not the right thing to do (even if their culture encourages rejecting wider society).
      IMO, We as Australians should attempt to tolerate what is reasonable, accommodate those looking for a home, and where possible remove cultural segregation. Patience and virtue will have to solve our problems.
      I am looking forward to Tory’s response to this article - to get any ground back it would actually have to be very logical and rational!

    • Bender says:

      02:51pm | 16/07/10

      I am leaning towards Andrew on this one

    • AJ says:

      03:38pm | 16/07/10

      The core of Mr Bolt’s article is the following statement:

      “A significant minority of our 340,000 Muslims seem not only unable to fully assimilate, but unwilling.”

      He then lists a series of small examples (a group of 500 muslims at a conference, sheik el hilaly) to back up his assertion that such a large number of muslims ‘refuse to assimilate’ that we should discriminate against Muslims when deciding our immigration policies.

      The other claim that Mr Bolt misreads is the following:

      ”  “The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as the size and make-up of local Muslim populations, including their ethnic and/or migrant origins.”

      Which means the more Muslims we take in (up to 28,000 a year now), the more trouble we may expect from them or, more often, their children.”

      Actually, Mr Bolt, no it doesn’t.  It only says that domestic jihadism is a function of a range of complex factors, not that incidence of jihadism (or other crime) will increase as a result of increased migration.

      A useful definition of ‘racism’ (although I concede that Tory would have been more accurate in calling it xenophobia, as Islam is not a race, it just happens to be a religion which a whole pile of ‘scary’ foreigners practice) is to wrongly assume an individual or group has (or all have) a negative characteristic based purely on their racial background (or in this case, their religion).  Mr Bolt’s columns routinely fulfil this definition.

    • Georginorx says:

      04:36pm | 16/07/10

      Can I point out that your first point seems to have just mis-interpreted a sentence - “A significant minority of our 340,000 Muslims” suggest it is a small group out of 340,000, but not too small to discount as statistically similar to other ethnic groups. This means that Mr Bolt was saying *some* Muslims are unwilling to assimilate, not “such a large number”.
      That aside, I do agree that a minority should not be able to spoil it for everyone else. It is not the fault of Muslims as a whole that some people join gangs and all that.
      I do however believe these issues should be addressed more thoroughly by the Government and the communities in which these issues arise. Rejecting migrants based on their religion or race will only lead to increased tension and conflict. Discussion and raising awareness within the general population (as with almost every issue ever) will also help. This fight between Tory and Andrew is fantastic for getting people involved.

    • Aero says:

      04:55pm | 16/07/10

      Can I ask why it is, though, that you needed to attack her in this article?

    • Nicki says:

      05:10pm | 17/07/10

      Hi dear Andrew Bolt. you must be blind or deaf or stupid,I think only stupid and arrogant fit your category. You are living in total denial.
      I know and you I hope know that you are racist.
      It must be horrible place to live in Boltsville.

    • Jimbo says:

      05:51pm | 17/07/10

      Bolt would be right at home is 1960s South Africa. A pity his parents didn’t move there instead of here.

    • Andrew R says:

      10:31pm | 17/07/10


      I am from 1960s South Africa. My family is from 1960s Zimbabwe.

      Unless you lived there and no what you are talking about, this would be the time to pipe down.

      Life tends to be more complex than the stereotype you are suggesting.

      Just as Andrew suggested that the majority of Muslims are probably law abiding, the majority of whites in South Africa were not happy with the Apartheid system. Which is why, when we were finally able to have a referendum, we voted to release Mandela and change the law of the land.

      You are a bigoted fool. We need less people with smartass opinions and more people who are willing to discuss the things they are afraid of.

      In South Africa, most people were afraid that the country would go the same way as Zimbabwe (when the British handed over power to a people that did not live by a democracy), or Rwanda (when the French handed over power to a people that did not understand democracy), or Sudan (when the British…) are you getting the point?

      We can’t change people by excluding them. But, just as important, they cannot change by excluding themselves from Australian society either.

      If we are going to accept immigrants from any country, and I am one myself, then any immigrant must make a commitment to this country to embrace its values and laws.

      Is there any reason that you can see why that is not acceptable?

    • Malcom says:

      10:12pm | 17/07/10

      Lebanese Christians are far superior in number to Lebanese Muslims in Australia largly due to the administration of the White Australia policy until 1973. You can’t compare success of a large minority to a small minority. Where in the teaching of Islam are woman not allowed to receive an Education. The extreme Islamic groups even encourage woman to become doctors so that female patients can be examined by a female doctors. Most Muslims living in Australia would discourage their daughters from marriage until after the completion of their education.  Women have rights in Islamic law which were not available to women in Australia for a long time after federation such as to independently own property from their husbands. The White Australia policy largely kept Muslim people from migrating to Australia and it takes generations to build up huge success, the Muslim community in this respect is doing well. If you go to any Australian University you will find an over representation of Muslims compared with the total number of Muslims living in Australia. Also where is evidence suggesting that Muslim people don’t assimilate and what does Bolt mean by assimilate. Australian Muslim Usman Khawaja is in the Australian cricket team squad and regularly plays for NSW Hazim El Masri a household name in Sydney and the highest point scorer in NRL history is another successful Australian Muslim sporting star. John Ilhan founder of Crazy Johns mobile phones and a fine example of a successful Australian Muslim entrepreneur. The famous Australian Muslim poet Adeeb Kamal Ad-Deen. Waleed Aly an Australian University lecturer, Lawyer and musician. Aussie Olympic boxer Hussein Hussein just to name a few. I know Muslims who are members of Surf Life Saving Clubs across NSW, work for charity groups feeding the homeless in the Sydney CBD, regularly participate in community service activities such as clean up Australia Day, Bandaged Bear Day ect. As for politics Shaoquett Moselmane is the first Muslim MP in NSW. PINAR Yesil is the Greater City of Dandenong Mayor an example of a successful Australian Muslim woman. I think that Bolt should interview some of these prominent Muslim Australian and see why they have had so much trouble’ assimilating to Australian society.

    • Jon says:

      11:50am | 18/07/10

      So are saying these people are only good and contribute to the country because they are Muslim? I would say many more people do the same and they are atheists. The measure of person should be as a good human being not as a follower of any religion.


Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more



Read all about it

Sign up to the free newsletter