Coalition loons descend into farce

From The Australian:

Liberal MPs told The Australian the Prime Minister needed to assure his colleagues he wanted an open debate that lived up to his pledge last week that “nobody” could tell MPs what to say.

Assistant Minister Alan Tudge backed Mr Turnbull yesterday and urged a forthright debate on all sides because of the risk of repeating the mistakes of the 1990s, when Pauline Hanson gave voice to community frustrations over immigration. “We need to discuss this in a mature way, otherwise there is a risk of a Pauline Hanson figure arising and really dividing the community,” Mr Tudge told The Australian.

Mr Lewis, who is the director-general of ASIO and a former SAS commander, called Mr Hastie­ in a move that was seen by some as an attempt to “heavy” the backbench.

“This is not an issue of Tony Abbott versus Malcolm Turnbull; it’s an issue of bureaucrats dictating to MPs and whether we self-censor on Islam,” said one conservative Liberal, who dismissed claims that the dispute was being fuelled by the former prime minister.

…Former employment minister Eric Abetz, a friend of Mr Abbott and a leading conservative within the Coalition, also questioned the ASIO chief’s actions.

“I have no doubt at all that Duncan Lewis was acting in as well-intentioned a way as anybody in making the call or calls, but I thought it was unwise,” Senator Abetz toldThe Australian.

In short, it’s absolutely essential that ignoramus MPs are free to blurt out their worst in public but it is “unwise” for the nation’s top terrorism expert to offer advice privately. Let’s not forget, either, that political parties have a very heavy-handed script that all members are required to follow ceaselessly lest they be accused of “disunity”.

The loons are descending into farce.

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)

Comments

  1. The pointless debate about the freedom to be a vocal ignorant dope rages accross our clickbait media, and people forget as always that the Laberal party is is a cleverly managed, heavily marketed, election winning business, and nothing more.

  2. Ludwig Wittgenstein

    I don’t agree.

    As someone from the progressive left the attempts to silence criticism of Islam are doing massive damage – and that is precisely what Turnbull is doing.

    The progressive left has genuinely awoken on the issue of the regressive left attempts to stifle all criticism – with Dawkins, Chomsky, Klein, Harris and many others coming out recently being very vociferous and down right angry over exactly what this blog is stating.

    Its absolutely wrong.

    Islam DOES need reform, it DOES have serious issues and absolutely we need to talk about it. Attacking those who attempt to raise that issue is beyond risible.

    The problem it creates is that it silences the well intentioned and leaves a vaccum for the far right.

    Here is Bill and Dawkins discussing precisely what this blog is doing

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvvQJ_zsL1U

    Like it or not – Turnbull is using the situation with Islam to silence people – its a disgrace.

    • Maybe all those kids who were abused a the hands of the Christians, those that took their lives, those that have led damaged lives and who were have been silenced would think that you have wandered too far from home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • How about fixing your own backyard, gains some cred & then think about criticing the neighbours or the options seems hollow.

      • Mark,

        Someone once expressed your thought a bit like this:

        “Hypocrite, first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.”

      • Cool deflection bro. Don’t even assume that Ludwig Wittgenstein is Christian. What a vacuous response you sound like the regressives Ludwig Wittgenstein is talking about.

      • “Hypocrite, first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.”

        If only virtue signalling regressives took this advice.

    • I don’t think Islam will reform based on criticisms from extreme conservatives of opposite faith (Abetz and Abbort are both staunch Christians).

      It’s a conversation the Muslims must have amongst themselves. It took Christianity about 1500 years to begin reforming (and there are still large sections of Christianity that are not fully reformed, e.g. Catholics), and Islam is a younger religion.

      • Ludwig Wittgenstein

        What does that have to do with the price of tea in China ?

        You are basically saying Islam needs reform, but do not speak about it because other religions reformed 5 centuries ago. Which is literally meaningless.

        Modern Islam practised in the world today needs massive reform, only those who have a seriously ignorant idea of what it means to be a progressive would attempt to stifle that conversation – its literally disgusting.

        If you think for one SECOND that ideologies which oppress women and espouse extreme hatred of minorities including homosexuals should be left to have that conversation amongst themselves and that those who stand up in opposition to this, those same who initiated the reformation, enlightenment, progressive left rationalists and thinkers should be silence then you are profoundly ignorant.

        To say it is a conversation Islam needs to have with itself is without any doubt, one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. Truly moronic. It is those progressive leftists who need to point out to Islam its faults for it to even start to consider its problems.

        Truly absurdity in the extreme.

      • R2M – you are wrong on almost every point there… State and religion was has always differentiated with Christianity, even from the point where Jesus points out “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”.

        Not such provision exists under Islam. In fact the opposite exists. I would suggest respectfully, don’t comment on things that you do not understand. The whole basis of Islam is the state. Its a collective force, its about social cohesion and a number of key out workings and basis that unite all peoples under one faith. That is the unifying strength of Islam.

        Christianity has and will always be about personal relationship between the individual and their God. It is an entirely different world view. Christianity has not fundamentally changed in 2000 years! I am not sure what people are referring to???

      • LW,

        I think what R2M might be getting at is that a bunch of old white Christians telling young brown Muslims that their religion sucks isn’t likely to lead to them reforming themselves, any more than, say, Pope Leo telling Luther’s followers that Luther was an agent of Satan had the apparently desired effect of eliminating the Protestant movement.

      • Ludwig Wittgenstein

        @Researchtime

        WHAT ??

        The state and Christianity has always been one and the same – it has not been separate at all. The Church was the rule for most of its existence – hence the inquisition, taxes, laws, pretty much everything was governed entirely by the Church.

        Thats some wholesale ignorance there champ. The division between Church and state in Christianity is extremely new.

        Even today the Queen of England, is the HEAD OF THE CHURCH – Australia is governed not simply by the Queen of England but also the head of the Church – think about that fact for a minute.

      • @ Typical RT thinking you know everything, Muslims have all the old & New Testament within their religion as well as an extra bit, please refrain from commenting on almost everything.

      • RT,

        Regardless of what Jesus actually taught the notion that the state and the Church were separate immediately prior to or during the Reformation is risible. The Reformation would not have occurred if the Church had not become so intertwined with the politics of the time.


        Christianity has and will always be about personal relationship between the individual and their God.

        Not that long ago I went to Church and the text was 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. Most of what was preached was at odds with your statement.

      • No Mark – they have the part written in Mecca and the part written in Medina. Totally different outlooks – totally different situations. If you want to comment, read the Koran, do some Islamic theology.

        People are talking from pure ignorance here.

      • StatSailor – I will not deny, what people have done in the name of religion, has resulted in some pretty horrible incidents.

        My only apologetic was that when the Catholics were in control, certain rules were generally followed and human ability to commit horror was generally tempered. It wasn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But it was civilised.

        The great two exceptions I see was the advent of the wars between the Catholics and Protestants – where the over-arching rules of engagement no longer existed, and Europe descended into chaos, and in places, and an estimated third of the population died of war and disease (to be fair this was the biggest killer, especially famine) as a direst result of the conflict. The other, during the secularist nationalist period between 1914-1945, where the entire population never of Europe never exceeded 500m, but the death rate was substantially over 100m killed as a direct result of conflict during that time.

      • I would respectfully suggest that there is a significant difference between what an ideology requires by design, and what people and institutions who claim the ideology actually do – that is, people and institutions can (and do) claim to ascribe to an ideology but do not actually conduct themselves as such.

        Such as it is with some “Christians” throughout history – they have claimed to be consistent with Jesus, but have not been – it has been in name only. Some of your have criticised Christians for being “hypocrites”, and rightly so, because they have actually been inconsistent with Scripture – eg. acting as social engineers, abusing people, etc, among other things. In that sense, you are right. In another sense, Researchtime is right – Biblical Christianity has not changed in 2,000 years, in that it is about the Creator reconciling people to Himself, through His work on the cross in paying the price for all of all people’s wrongs. It is not actually about social control, enforcing rules, etc etc – all those things are inconsistent with actual Biblical Christianity…

        However, for Islam, it is fairer to say that control and abuse are consistent with the Islamic ideology.

        And therein is a major difference, IMHO.

        My 2c.

      • @RT & Burb while the Jews, Islam & Christianity are working out there in’s and out’s people speak with a certainty that displays their total ignorance on this issue.

        How can you speak with any confidence on this issue which of the 613 commandments are right and how did we get 613?????????

      • Mark,

        The purpose of the Law was two-fold:

        1) as a “caretaker” for the Jews; and, more importantly,
        2) to show the Jews (and everyone else) that, in failing to keep the Law – which no broken person can keep, and all people are broken – they have no hope before God, other than through God’s own Saviour, his own Son , Jesus, who happily gave his own perfect keeping of the Law on behalf of anyone that wants it.

        As Paul the Apostle says in Romans chapter 3, verses 19 to 22a:

        “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.”

        In summary: the Law is there to make people know they are failures, and need a saviour, and look to the Creator for their hope.

        Biblically speaking, and apart from much, much misconception, the Law was never, even supposed to be used as a tool to impress God, nor was it intended as an idealised social engineering device. Instead, its purpose is to point people to Jesus: God’s own solution for the hopelessness of mankind, who’s own perfect life, death, and resurrection is substituted for everyone; and anyone who accepts the gift, has it.

        That’s the primary Biblical purpose of the Law.

        Hope that helps.

        Cheers,
        Stewart

    • Unfortunately its supposed to be about nuance, something that is lost in the 24 hour news cycle.
      A. Islam needs reform/civilising, just like Christianity was civilised from its barbaric roots and is now no longer a signficant force in society. That is clear and plain as the nose on your face, Abbott missives or not.
      B. Radical Islam does not need extra ammunition to entice new members.

      These are the points. The overarching civilising of extreme religions including Islam that will take a century or more long “Crusade” just as it took several hundred years to reform Christianity into the 20th century. In the US its still a battle that is not yet over, although the war is probably won.

      But this must be done without giving extra ammunition to the Radical Islamists and this needs to be part of a multi tiered approach. Basically the loon pond approach is to wave a red flag (and other red appendanges with the other hand) and say, “your entire religion is fucked, we’re better OH and we’re going to bomb you back to the Stone Age”.

      ASIO was simply trying to lower that red flag waving in front of young bulls, when the real work and noise needs to be made in other areas – namely providing a path out of poverty and a life of constant warfare and seeing your family and children killed in front of you. Nothing radicalises a terrorist than having to pick up body parts of a five year old.

      • Christianitywas civilised ? That’s why there have been Royal commissions every it exists into child exploitation?

      • There is nothing in the Bible about buggering little boys or sex with little girls. That was pure and utter sin (and foreign concept to be sure these days). What they did and the lives they destroyed are unforgivable.

        But lets be honest here, I don’t know if these stat’s are true or not, but an epidemic of women in our society have been sexually abused by family members, some say one in seven, or one in four. Those numbers seem extraordinarily high to me – but make no mistake, the “Christians” perpetrating those crimes were not acting in accordance with the Bible… likewise those men abusing their own children are committing an unforgivable sin as well.

        CB – don’t write about things you simply do not understand – the Crusades had nothing to do with reformation!!! Reformation was about heresy, and the buying of grace for the forgiveness of sin. Christianity has not changed a single iota in 2000 years. get your facts straight, you will only embarrass yourself.

      • Ludwig Wittgenstein

        Sorry, you are just wrong and out of touch on this debate.

        The PROGRESSIVE left around the world is being silence and shut down from speaking criticism of Islam because of precisely people like yourself who do not understand the need to criticise it from the progressive left. VOCIFEROUSLY.

        Universities are silencing debate, media, EVERYONE is silencing debate out of fear and this does two things. It enables the radicals to become MORE emboldened and allows the morons on the far right to occupy the vacuum left behind.

        The narrative on the left has moved from criticism Islams homophobic, regressive misogynistic tendencies and is now in full swing against those from the regressive, ignorant, left who are attempting to silence debate.

        Even worse – the silencing of the left is means to justify the ongoing assault on Islam by the Christian west. If ANYONE thinks there has not been a world wide war on Islam by the west then they are also – just as ignorant.

        The only Islamic countries which have not been bombed into oblivion by the wests military might have been those with compliant dictators oppressing their people – all others have been sent on a one way ticket to the 15th century.

        Even Indonesia with its endless procession of extreme brutality over the past three decades with compliant dictators running the streets with blood.

        From Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria – you name it – destroyed.

        And now the endless flood of refugees as a direct result of our bombing and bloodshed has unleashed a tsunami of refugees – Islamic refuges and we are being told NOT to question that. See Germany – DO NOT QUESTION THE REFUGEES. Do not question their religion. Just accept it.

        If people start questioning the ideology of the people flooding into Europe, or anywhere else, then that will provide a questioning point to the wests campaign of slaughter.

        Best to enforce social compliance.

        Seriously the arguments being presented here are an absolute anathema to modern free thinking society.

        The Charlie Hebdo situation is evidence of this and does not become any more relevant – people MUST speak up and do so WITHOUT FEAR.

        Its just risible to be living in the west in a modern liberal democracy and having people tell others to not stand up to a demonstrable regressive, hateful and destructive ideology like Islam in its modern manifestation.

      • Terror Australis

        Well said Chris Becker.

        It’s not as if any religion can “reform” 1200 years of dogma over a weekend retreat in Las Vegas. That kind of process, if it ever happens, takes decades if not centuries.

        The more important need is to do what needs doing NOW i.e. stop radicalization of young muslims at home and abroad.

      • @ Lud so argument against you is some how silencing you HAH? How does questioning someone from Syria about Islam give you insight into Western backed juantas give clarity to this issue??????

      • Ludwig Wittgenstein

        @Mark

        @ Lud so argument against you is some how silencing you HAH? How does questioning someone from Syria about Islam give you insight into Western backed juantas give clarity to this issue??????

        I can’t understand what you are trying to say. Not being rude – its just very convoluted.

      • ASIO was simply trying to lower that red flag waving in front of young bulls, when the real work and noise needs to be made in other areas – namely providing a path out of poverty and a life of constant warfare and seeing your family and children killed in front of you. Nothing radicalises a terrorist than having to pick up body parts of a five year old.

        +Gazillions

        The problem is not criticism of Islam. The problem is people like Abbot doing it, because their methods are utterly counter-productive and their motivations are at best irrational, at worst malicious.

        The vast, vast majority of people just want to get on and live their lives, raise a family, and be able to help and support those they care about, with little desire to harm others. This is true regardless of which brand name they have on their faith.

        Few people disagree with rational and considered criticism of Islam. But rational and considered criticism of Islam in today’s world is a rare beast.

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        @drsmithy

        “Few people disagree with rational and considered criticism of Islam. But rational and considered criticism of Islam in today’s world is a rare beast.”

        I agree.
        There is a problem with the language used. Being critical of Islam draws in many people that have no interest in violence. Politicians – and others with a media voice – really need to draw a distinction and start using the term ‘Islamism’. It is far less divisive, there can be no doubt about who is being referenced – but maybe that’s the problem…

    • It also says that the left needs to reform.

      Its spent the best part of a century attempting to crusade for the betterment of “oppressed people” it has made it its raison d’etre to the point its made supplicating a virtue of its own.

      Now it fight racism where racism doesn’t exist, it fights sexism where sexism doesn’t exist and cant effectively criticise Islam because tolerance has taken place as a moral superiority signal ahead of reason.

      All Islam has to do is accuse the left of racism or intolerance and of it goes supplicating as to not have its morally superior credentials challenged. Moral loathing belongs to white, working class, men or heterosexual.

      Lucky Rotherham happened where it did, three of those four criteria were met, so they were worthy sacrifices. The left needn’t make the challenge it needed to make.

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        “Identity politics, the scourge of modern society. Tribalistic, petty, elitist, divisive, intolerant.”

        The university level expression of this is a real problem. I hope it will die off as people slowly start to express their frustrations, and the universities themselves see that it will hurt their reputations; their ability to offer good education.

        Safe zones, trigger warnings, sis gendered…. arrg!

      • @Rusty Penny, western civilization has progressed as a direct result of the gradual neutering of the Church. Any institution that promotes irrational beliefs will result in irrational behavior and should not exist.

        Could an Islamic Reformation be helpful? Sure, but the intuitions don’t exist for that to happen and so likely it won’t.

      • Removing religion would not remove the tendencies for humans to hold irrational beliefs. Just look at the the regressives and everything is a social construct worshiping the state.

    • I would disagree completely with this. There is nothing to be gained by letting those that would foment hate and division carry on using them as a tool to gain power.

      The best answer is to strengthen the core values of the society in which we live – the rule of law, equality of education and health care, strong and fair institutions, corruption free police and governments.

      Abbott did none of this, and in the end either unwittingly or naively degraded our institutions with entrenched cronyism and corruption.

      This is a distraction, and one that suits those that would have power at any cost – in the end that is what holy wars are about.

    • Agree. Everywhere, particularly arising from the progressive Left, is the determination to stifle debate, to limit free speech and to vilify any holding an opinion counter to the prevailing pc view. We must stop this censorship now.

      • So speaks the man from the far right – Murdoch & Packer supporting free speech, hypo racy at every turn 3d1k

      • “…particularly arising from the progressive Left…”

        Comment posted on a discussion about the director-general of ASIO and a former SAS commander who was appointed by the Abbott government. Yes, clearly it’s the progressive Left we’re talking about here.

      • You know exactly what I mean.

        Anyway, generally those that aspire to Head Of positions are not boat rockers having astutely absorbed current pc memes and mores, confident when parroting the ‘accepted’ position. Again, generally, such views emanate from the cloisters of academia which are richly populated with all kinds of Left. And thus Left crusades tend to wind their way out into the public sphere, ably supported by a compliant media.

      • I struggled to completely parse that comment but are you suggesting that Abbott appointed a non-boat-rocker who had astutely absorbed current pc memes and mores as our top spy? Perhaps it’s more likely that Lewis actually does know a little about what’s best for our country in dealing with Islamic terrorism?

      • As I’ve said before you must have all three hands on it, is there any room for reality in your world??

      • Reminding deadhead debt peons that opinions based on a knowledge of context and history have more merit than those gleaned from Murdock headlines and ACA is not really shutting down debate.

        The 3d warmonger favours conflict … I’m so surprised.

    • Spot on Ludwig. I read Islam and the Future of Tolerance on the weekend, a brief discussion between an ex- Islamist and an atheist, which pointed the finger at regressive liberalism as a huge factor in the rise of extremism in the UK. Shutting down genuine debate in the name of cultural sensitivity has validated extreme views within the faith and led the far right to fill the commentary vacuum with ignorance.

      • Ludwig Wittgenstein

        One of the biggest problems facing the left is that they believe they are on the side of right, just and fair – so no matter what they believe or say they literally think its always right.

        Part of University research led me to understand that the left are the primary target of disinformation and state propaganda because of they are MUCH less questioning that the right on issues they agree with from a source they believe in.

        It was revealed that during the first gulf war the US and Britain used left wing news papers (Guardian, Observer, Independent) as the primary pathways to spread disinformation because those on the left would not question those sources as much as those on the right would question right wing sources.

        It goes a long way to explaining the troubles the left now experiences with its inability to tolerate self reflection – any criticism of the left MUST be, by definition, racism, sexism, intolerance etc from the far right.

        It has literally come to the position where you must wholly and fully comply with accepted narrative or be derided and ridiculed into silence and exile.

        Shocking stuff.

        But as history shows us – when the left goes full retard – it always manages to be even WORSE than when the right goes fully retard.

        Next step will be ghulags for the dissenters.

      • @Ludwig, everyone suffers from confirmation bias and everyone thinks they are right and on the side of the angels.

      • Ludwig I disagree with you on a generic homogenous grouping of the ‘left’. I was being critical of certain types of liberals, ones that seem to have forgotten liberalism’s focus on the rights of the individual and instead prioritise not upsetting anyone on cultural grounds. What this has done in the UK & Europe post WW2, where the mainstream of society has experienced cultural change such as feminism & equal rights, the Muslim communities were ringfenced off in the name of cultural sensitivity and the same scrutiny was not applied to their communities. Certain sections of the left (absolutely not all left leaning voices) spoke out against any interference in their faith as it was just another case of meddling colonial tendencies, this has proved to be a massive own goal.

      • “One of the biggest problems facing the left is that they believe they are on the side of right, just and fair – so no matter what they believe or say they literally think its always right.”

        I’m sorry, but that’s just ridiculous. For starters, I don’t think any group (especially something as nebulous as the “left”) thinks in a uniform way. Granted nobody is likely to believe in a set of ideas or principles if they don’t broadly think they’re ethical or defensible, but the left is no different from any other group with strongly held principles and ideas. Hell, I don’t see a lot of doubt among the more “right-wing” commentators on here, it doesn’t mean they don’t have doubts, or that they represent all others with similar beliefs.

      • Quite frankly Ludwig you are spouting ideological nonsense. Not a hint of intellectual or rational thought.

    • Nope, it isn’t an issue of freedom of speech. These dunderheads are allowed to speak freely. But as representatives of the people of Australia they should have the well-being of the citizens in mind. If they are unable to discuss issues in a way that does not piss off the barbarians, then they should leave the discussion to those who can.

      It is a bunch of dunderhead politicians refusing to follow the frank and fearless advice of a public servant who knows what he is talking about.

      This political arrogance has failed us in matters economic and it will fail us in matters of foreign policy as well.

      I am, and you, Mr Wittgenstein, if that is your real name, are able to bang out nonsense on a keyboard because it amounts to nothing. We are like beatniks on acid screaming at the sky. We feel a bit better at the end of the yelling but the whole shebang changes very little.

      Whereas if a dunderhead politician leverages this for political gain and something bad happens then a lot changes, in a very bad way.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      You forgot to mention my favorite critic of all religions (but esp Islam) Christopher Hitchens.

      Political correctness be dammed, this man articulates how I feel more accurately thsn any other.
      I have watched 100s of hours of him on youtube and genuinely wish he was still around, putting things in perspective for those of us who think the bronze age mind virus that ravages humanity needs to be eridicated and stoped from infecting young minds.

      https://youtu.be/MJ2LehsA1dk

    • like most “progressive left” you use the words and opinions of others to disguise your zealotry. Racism plain and simple here – yes fix yourself first. Same goes with “progressive” AGW zealots, do you realize that the UN wants to displace whole countries of people based on soil/light conditions? AGW is also shallow racism and white posturing at the 3rd world. It’s all sick and sad.

  3. There was a time when what the LNP loon pond call ‘self censorship ‘ would have been called ‘thinking before speaking’.

  4. Strongly disagree. Any I don’t really understand why this is even on MB. It seems that MB is becoming more and more a forum for people to spout their political views even when they have absolutely nothing to do with economics. But I’ll bite anyway.

    My view is that it doesn’t matter what the topic is, or what anyone’s views are. The reality is that we have the chief of an intelligence agency ringing around Members of Parliament and telling them what to say. Looks like the Russian Federation. Unacceptable. The bottom line is that just as the courts have a saying that justice must not only be done but also seen to be done, the same way the security agencies must NEVER be seen as being a political tool in the hands of the PM or various government factions. They can’t start ringing around MP’s, no matter what. It looks dodgy. As we have seen, it casts doubts over peoples motives and becomes a political sh$t-storm.

    • “Any I don’t really understand why this is even on MB. It seems that MB is becoming more and more a forum for people to spout their political views even when they have absolutely nothing to do with economics.”

      Judging by the number of comments that these types of posts attract, it’s clearly a topic of interest for MB readers so why not post it? The same goes (possibly more so) for climate change.

    • Ludwig Wittgenstein

      Very well said.

      Having the internal secret service tell people not to publicly question Islam is verging on the absolute disgusting end of fascism – it seriously is.

      To have a blog like macrobusiness come out and support the attempts by the internal secret service to silence debate is literally mind boggling in its almost total lack of clarity and thought on the issue and to my mind speaks of cheer leading for your chosen team from the grandstands.

      I am just flabbergasted at the almost total lack of critical thinking being displayed by some in this forum.

      Lets just make this clear.

      Islam is an ideology and preaches a great deal of hate and intolerance from even the most moderate of its practitioners – there is a not merely a need, but an absolute OBLIGATION for every progressive western democratic person to stand up in vociferous denial of such backwards and destructive notions.

      No matter WHERE they come from.

      • ??

        How can you be flabbergasted at a lack of critical thinking? Those that display this happen to be MB’s resident lefties.

        The left no longer exists as a means of fair and equitable income distribution and access to opportunity. It exists to give those that lack critical thinking a tribe that allows them to give a kicking to designated villains. The thrill of abuse, veiled in moral superiority as payback to oppressors of times gone by.

        The tribe that legitimises the voices of those like Clementine Ford, instead of institutionalising them.

      • Yeah, I get all that, but:

        Telling someone who is a fanatic in any religion that their religion needs reform is useless. If it were as easy as saying “your religion needs reform”, and off they go and reform, we’d have done it by now. Pointing out that what someone says is useless is hardly fascism.

        What Tony Abbott said was of less use than ads on those television advertising channels. You are more likely to get a useful response from the spruikers on one of those channels than you are from telling a religious zealot to reform. So, recommending that someone doesn’t watch an advertising channel is infringing free speech and a leftist plot?

        The problem is that the right thinks that if someone in authority (Tony) commands something, then everyone has to go off and Obey.

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        Hard to claim one is a critical thinker when complaining that ASIO asking politicians to cool the rhetoric is “verging on the absolute disgusting end of fascism”. There’s smart and there’s stupid. Choose.

      • Islam is an ideology and preaches a great deal of hate and intolerance from even the most moderate of its practitioners […].

        My example of a moderate practitioner of Islam is Waleed Aly – someone I suspect is a great deal more devout than most people who would identify as Christian. Who are you thinking of ?

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        “The left no longer exists as a means of fair and equitable income distribution and access to opportunity. It exists to give those that lack critical thinking a tribe that allows them to give a kicking to designated villains. The thrill of abuse, veiled in moral superiority as payback to oppressors of times gone by.”

        Have you ever been to a union meeting lately? You’re painting a large group of good people with the actions of a stupid and vocal minority. How does that gel with accusations of a lack of critical thinking?

        “The tribe that legitimises the voices of those like Clementine Ford, instead of institutionalising them.”

        Had to Google her. I doubt anyone at a union meeting would give a shit what she says. You might want to find a narrower brush to paint with.

    • The politicians weren’t told what to say. they were advised that dog whistling on the topic of Islam and terrorism done in it’s name is not a good way to ensure the security of the nation.

      I’m all for an open reasoned debate on this topic. We have to give support to moderate muslims to take the risks and possibly die in the years ahead so as to get rid of the cancer that is spreading around the world that uses the koran as a thin veil for barbaric acts.

      before the Chirstians get on their high horses, just remember the dirty deals the Catholic church did with the fascists in Italy, and the cover they provided for the Axis powers within europe.

      THEY are slaves who fear to speak
      For the fallen and the weak;
      They are slaves who will not choose
      Hatred, scoffing, and abuse,
      Rather than in silence shrink 5
      From the truth they needs must think;
      They are slaves who dare not be
      In the right with two or three.

    • Maybe you shouldn’t have bitten. He hasn’t rung around telling MPs what to say, he’s contacted two MPs. His argument is about the use of inflammatory language, he hasn’t told anyone what they should say.

      If you keep spitting in peoples faces, they’ll respond.

    • The reality is that we have the chief of an intelligence agency ringing around Members of Parliament and telling them what to say.

      No it is not.

      There is no evidence anyone has been told to change the content of their communications, simply how they are performed.

      It’s akin to a HR rep telling a manager screaming at people in front of the rest of the company about how stupid they are that he’s doing it wrong.

      • a HR rep telling a manager screaming at people in front of the rest of the company about how stupid they are that he’s doing it wrong.

        Political correctness gone mad.

      • Political correctness gone mad.

        So you think standing someone up in front of a group of their peers and screaming at them about being an incompetent moron will produce a better result than a calm, private chat about what they need to improve to do their job better ?

        Because I doubt you’ll find anyone who thinks that’s a good example of people management other than those who take perverse pleasure in humiliating others.

      • It makes no difference whether they are telling them what to say or how to say it.
        Barring, exposure of classified material (which I believe is an offense, anyway), intelligence agencies have no business EVER telling Members of Parliament about how to communicate with constituents or the broader public. This is not how our system of democracy works. They have their job and they should focus on doing it rather than playing politics. Their job is not to redact political commentary.

      • Sorry – yes that was tongue in cheek.

        Not aimed at Researchtime, but at the general trend I’ve observed of people defending the ‘right to say anything’ actually spending their time defending bullies.

        EDIT: And, indeed, preventing useful discourse on the best way to present a message, itself a form of censorship.

      • They have their job and they should focus on doing it rather than playing politics. Their job is not to redact political commentary.

        They are not playing politics.

        Their job is to protect the country. Asking – not telling – people who seem quite intent on deliberately creating conflict where none currently exists so they can perform their job more effectively is well within their remit.

      • “Barring, exposure of classified material (which I believe is an offense, anyway), intelligence agencies have no business EVER telling Members of Parliament about how to communicate with constituents or the broader public…..They have their job and they should focus on doing it rather than playing politics. Their job is not to redact political commentary.”

        Let me give you two simple reasons why it is in order for ASIO to do this.
        1 – Largely baseless, inflammatory rhetoric marginalizes all Muslims and makes extremism more likely.
        2 – Marginalising Muslims will make it harder for ASIO to form cooperative relationships with the Islamic community.
        The first is an obvious contributor to national security risks while the second directly undermines ASIO’s ability to address such risks effectively. If ASIO can’t comment on this when given latitude to do so then frankly you’re asking them to do their job with one hand tied behind their back.

        EDIT: Oh snap. I see this is pretty much what drsmithy said.

    • Random scared angry guy gets facts wrong after whipped into hysteria by cynical politician – who’d have guessed. Personally I find the usury industry much more dangerous and frightening to the values we hold, but I guess with a death count well below ladders and tractors it’s clear that extremists are a distraction, sorry a danger, that just shouldn’t be ignored…

  5. untill those calling for freedom of religion can grasp the concept that it also includes freedom FROM religion not much will happen.

    Indoctrination / mental programing is very hard to escape from, especially when you’re earliest memories are of the religion.

    Over half the USA population thinks it’s a good chance the rapture will occur in their life.

    Until enough people realise that religion is really just an organisation that has convinced you you’ve been poisoned and they have the only cure, glossing over the fact that the organisation were the ones to poison you, not much will change. My hope is as science continues to explain more and more about the world that used to be though of as the realm of the gods, less will be inclined to give up their critical thinking skills and turn their backs on the charlatans.

  6. Mining BoganMEMBER

    The question is why St Malcolm the Spiv passed the numbers onto Mr Lewis instead of calling himself.

    Is he trying to use ASIO like ex-our Tony used the AFP?

    • adelaide_economistMEMBER

      It’s possible. I suspect part of the rage though is because the assumption by many of the lunar right wing in the Liberal-Nats that massively increasing the power of the surveillance state wouldn’t actually impact on them as they are the ‘right’ sort of people. I don’t know how ignorant these guys (and they are virtually all guys) need to be of, oh, history generally and human nature to not have seen the potential monster they created.

    • I don’t think so, if MT called he cop it. So the ASIO head does to give the “professional” opinion that they need to tone it down, that way MT isn’t seen to be ‘controlling’ the backbench. They wouldn’t listen to T anyway.

      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        But St Mal has already admitted he passed the numbers on so the calls could be made. He’s behind this. Not making the calls shows he has no ticker and no control.

        He’s using ASIO like Tones used the AFP. To do his dirty work.

      • @Mining Bogan
        If the ASIO boss needed Mal to give him the numbers to call,is he really up to the job?
        I mean really, getting MP’s phone numbers is not that hard, they are in the bloody phone book.

      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        Exactly bolstrood!

        This is about politics pure and simple. Truffles had to make up a little story about passing numbers on because he was caught out the day before talking with the ASIO bloke. He’s obviously ordered Lewis to make the calls because he doesn’t have the leadership authority to tell his party members to shut up and stop risking lives. The next question is which one of the monkey pod leaked to the press.

        Telling rabid right-wingers to pull their heads in was the right move. Doing it sneaky just opened the door for ex-our Tony to cause more trouble.

        These arsehats won’t get a peaceful result because it’s always about politics. Results only come from inflaming the situation. You know, just like the Middle East…

      • “I mean really, getting MP’s phone numbers is not that hard, they are in the bloody phone book.”

        You think that Andrew Hastie and Dan Tehan’s mobile numbers are in the phone book? Seriously? Perhaps you could give us a link to them then?

    • I’m no supporter of MT, but whether or not he passed the numbers on is irrelevant imo. If MT had shown he had “balls” he’d have shown he also lacked any smarts as he’d have opened himself up to criticism he was trying to control the backbench, in particular, those who supported TA. This is meant to be about national security, not how big your balls are!

      • “This is meant to be about national security not how big your balls are.”
        In Liberal land the 2 go hand in hand , so to speak.
        Conflatio

  7. MB does appear to be resorting more and more to name calling “e.g. loon pond” rather than reasoned exposition, and increasingly seeks to attack social conservatism many of whose adherents will share the more substantial positions MB pursues.

    MB has changed the political debate in very useful ways but this more recent manifestation is disappointing.

    • MB has always used colourful language, they’ve been talking about the “grey gouge” for ages, as an example.

      However, in this case, it really is a small group of people on the far right of politics such as Tony Abbott and Eric Abetz who are jumping up and down. And suggesting to religious zealots that they reform themselves is loony. There’s no way that a religious zealot will reform because someone says so. It is literally crazy to think so. So, right wing? I think Tony and Eric would agree with pride that they are. Loony? Well telling a religiuos zealot they should reform, and expecting it to be taken seriously is so out of touch with reality that “loony” is fair comment.

      • So if you can’t say: “please reform yourself”, what can you say? And why is it so wrong to say so in the first place? I can’t sensibly call them “loons” for doing so and it is contrary to the basic ideals of our society to shout down and seek to silence what seem entirely reasonable positions.

      • I think it was Albert Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Telling religious zealots that they should reform has been tried over and over again, and it doesn’t ever work.

        I’m with Albert on this one.

        Telling someone that what they are doing won’t work, and that maybe they should try a different approach is not shutting down debate.

      • Except they’re are no way to convert a zealot. The only way is to eliminate it is to contain them and wait for the members to die out. The words loon pond is not for the zealots, but for other members of the community to isolate them and for the wider community to state their ideology is not acceptable.

      • So if you can’t say: “please reform yourself”, what can you say? And why is it so wrong to say so in the first place? I can’t sensibly call them “loons” for doing so and it is contrary to the basic ideals of our society to shout down and seek to silence what seem entirely reasonable positions.

        They’re not interested in reforming Islam, quite the contrary. They’re trying to foment division, fear and hatred.

        Abbot was practically begging the US to get us more involved in the Middle East. He wants a west vs Islam world war.

    • You’re kidding me? The loon-pond are….” many of whose adherents will share the more substantial positions MB pursues.”

      The loon-pond were in control of the gov from the start and what did we get from them that goes anywhere near what MB has been advocating? Absolutely fcuking nothing. Tried to screw those at the bottom end of society while leaving all the rent seekers entrenched where they’ve been since Moses started his 40mday hike.

      • You’re mistaken. Many social conservatives do share the same position, for instance, on housing policy. They don’t need to be called loons for wanting to retain freedom of expression as a basic right in our society.

      • They don’t need to be called loons for wanting to retain freedom of expression as a basic right in our society.

        The slippery slope fallacy here is practically a cliff.

        Nobody is suggesting “freedom of expression as a basic right in our society” be removed.

      • Don’t know who you are Dennis – ease up on the diatribe. Take criticism on the chin.

        Also shed your bias – rather than be the font of enlightenment, you are pitting yourself against all those to do believe in religion. Many of those substantially brighter than yourself!

        Free speech and free will are not secular aims – they are central tenets of Christianity. And are aims that have never been supported by totalitarian secular states, in any of their guises (left or right).

        This is the great irony, you espouse truth from MSM, and expose lies. But stymy discussion socially, on the pretext of loonies. Just because you have the loudest voice doesn’t make you correct…

      • RT,

        I hope you get to read this.

        Diatribe is your thing and I don’t see what intelligence has to do with belief in God, that statement is just outright stupid and I also doubt I would learn much from you. You’re a one trick pony; resources, and that’s it.

        I suggest you take your own advice about intelligence and I’d include knowledge in that when it comes to climate change as you lack both when it comes to that.

        Btw, there was no criticism in that thread.

    • TC, point me towards these ‘many social conservatives’ who support MBs position on housing policy.

      As DrSmithy has pointed out, it’s not about censoring freedom of speech, it’s about aggressive use of language that makes a target of all muslims.

      • Bob Day’s maiden speech addressing housing affordability might be a good place to start. He diagnosed the problem with some accuity.

    • TC, that’s not many, that’s one! I’d also point out that many here have pointed towards what they have termed as hypocrisy by Day when it comes to housing. Anyway, you have one Vs the many who aren’t ‘considered’ in anything they comment on.

      • So you asked. It was answered. But clearly insufficiently in your opinion. In any case, I don’t understand who you mean by: “the many who aren’t ‘considered’ in anything they comment on”

      • “So you asked. It was answered.”

        It wasn’t really. Dennis was looking for a pointer to ‘many social conservatives’, not just one property developer who would personally benefit from more housing construction.

  8. desmodromicMEMBER

    Islam doesn’t need reform any more or less than Christianity. Many or most of the excesses attributed to Islam should be attributed to the Saudis and the wahhabists that prop up the bin Saud family in Arabia. The Saudis fund the teaching of puritanical wahhabist views globally at a cost to us all. Yet the Saudis remain an ally of the West whilst funding jihadist groups across the Middle East and elsewhere. This is a political problem not a problem of any one religion.

    • Exactly. Pretty much all of the problems are coming out of Saudi Arabia and her promotion of terrorism. Crush that at the source, and problem of terrorism would start to reduce. Now to say 1.5 billion people of the world’s population believe in an evil religion and need reform is simply offensive and racist.

      • No its not, to say the religion is in need of reform means exactly that. there is nothing racist about that. After all the pointless name calling one is still stuck with views about homosexuals, apostates, women, genital mutilation, antisemitism, religious supremacy and child marriage, that are out of step with western culture. Pretending that the issues do not exist does no one any favours. The Saudis fund most of the new mosques, including Lakemba so the issue you raise is inexorably mixed with what is taught in those mosques.

      • Exactly. Pretty much all of the problems are coming out of Saudi Arabia and her promotion of terrorism.

        The century or so of imperialist meddling in the region by successive western governments (including ours) plays a fairly large part as well.

      • Yes it is racist. Almost 1/4 of earth’s population believe in that religion. You are implying that that 1.5 billion people are much more blood thirsty than the rest of the population when there are very little to suggest they are any more so than any other groups of population. You are also lumping political aspersions with religious ones. It is quite clear Isis is a political tool of the Saudis for genocidal purposes. When you are not focusing on the specific cause of the terror problem and instead want to incite hate against 1/4 of the world population, you are engaging in racism.

        Legitimate criticisms are clear and focused, racism is broad and generic. E.g. The practice of extreme oppression of women practiced by Saudi Arabia and some neighbors need to cease vs Islam needs to reform itself.

      • That guy is way too rational and well informed for this discussion. The mere suggestion that not all Muslims have identical beliefs blows most tiny minds.

        As it often is, when you watch the hosts continually miss the point, time after time, it is difficult to know whether they’re just stupid and ignorant, or engaging in deliberate misdirection and obfuscation.

      • interested partyMEMBER

        @desmodromic,
        “The Saudis fund the teaching of puritanical wahhabist views globally at a cost to us all. Yet the Saudis remain an ally of the West whilst funding jihadist groups across the Middle East and elsewhere. This is a political problem not a problem of any one religion.”

        Why political?
        I would think it more economic….. energy supplier dictating terms to the end user….. farmers don’t get to dictate to Woolies or Wesfarmers, do they?

        @Kevin,
        “Crush that at the source, and problem of terrorism would start to reduce.”
        Just not going to happen. We are captive via oil addiction.

      • “We are captive via oil addiction.”

        Luckily those who want a war between western civilisation and Islam are also the ones trying the hardest to break that addiction.

      • desmodromicMEMBER

        @IP, I guess in western culture politics and economics are the same thing. You are right, we are politically captive to economic growth fuelled by cheap oil. It probably wont last and all the alternatives appear bleak.

      • desmodromic
        “Fitzroy, it is about the individuals perpetrating the violence not the religion.”
        You could say the same thing about nazi ideology. Generalisations do have a place, although of course it is absurd to draw the inference that all Islamists, (or Stalinists or Nazis) were bad people. I think it is fair to say that I do not agree with those ideologies.

    • interested partyMEMBER

      desmodromic,

      “in western culture politics and economics are the same thing”… maybe put religion in there as well? Take ideology out of the human picture and we become very hollow.

      We have a crappy hand to play, I will admit that. Addicted to technology and oil, and fragmented by religious beliefs,(which in the big picture is just noise ( but up close can be particularly horrid) ), one could be mesmerized by the magnitude of the problems, but not all is bad or bleak. There are opportunities around that undo some of the damage.
      Then again, humanity has been acting this way forever…. when will we learn? The posters above prove that the fractures run deep and wide, not much agreement on anything.

  9. Let’s leave aside the whole Islam vs Christianity vs Fundamentalism etc thing, and look at one vital issue.

    Why the fuck would the head of ASIO need to ring person A to ask him what person B’s phone number is.

    Maybe we’ve got more privacy than we think.

  10. Americans are supposedly Christian / Fundamentalists & are the most bloodthirsty killers on the the planet. What they have done to the Middle East is there for all to see – NO hiding from the facts.
    Australia aids & abets these killers & plunderers along with Britain & the rest of the gang – that’s the problem that needs fixing. The Muslim problem is blowback –well deserved imho.

  11. I am receiving repeated emails from MB asking me if I would like a paid subscription even though I already have one.
    These are the sort of articles which make me wonder why I bother paying for a subscription.
    MB is at its best with the data-driven articles about business and the economy which synthesise facts and arrive at conclusions not usually seen in the MSM.
    It is at its most mundane with this type of article.
    If I want to read comments apologetic towards Muslims and intimating all the violence is our fault I can go to Fairfax or The Guardian. If I want to explore the evil Muslim meme I have The Australian. None of which I would pay money for.

      • C’mon AB. Commenters here complain about me all the time.

        Andrew, now that commodites are shite, these are my favourite kind of articles.

        MB offers are marvellous mixed bag of treasures – remember when you were a kid? Be bold. Venture where you will.

  12. greedypuppyMEMBER

    the Protestant reformation actually unleashed the worst in fundamentalism and intolerance which saw war rage across most of Northern Europe for over 100 years. It was an excuse to settle old scores and in the case of England contributed directly to the Civil War. While not following the machinations of radical islam its pretty obvious that the IS and El Quaida etc actually imagine they are unleashing a reformation. This is a pointless argument.