News.com report a senior Islamic leader in NSW has accused John Howard of trying to oppress Muslims and said new counter-terrorism laws would achieve the aims of terrorists by proxy.
In an angry speech to a summit designed to condemn terrorism and promote harmony between Muslims and non-Muslims Islamic Council of NSW acting chairman Ali Roude does neither;
“If John Howard gets his way, we will not be able to talk about it. We will be tagged and monitored and maybe interned,” he said. “I hate to see someone who is not a Muslim scared of me.”
Then tell them how you dispise the actions of some of your extremist bretheren and they might calm down. You can’t blame any westerners for being wary of a religious group that are providing the world with 100% of it’s terrorists from among it’s adherents.
While Simon Kearney or John Kerin describe Ali’s speach as angry and designed to condemn terrorism and promote harmony between moslems and non-moslems they then go on to report his condemnation of our reaction to terrorism. I don’t think he has either condemned terrorism or promoted harmony.
The summit, controversially held in Sydney on the fourth anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks in the US, condemned terrorism without qualification, saying terrorists were not Muslims.
Saying terrorists are not Muslims is not condemning terrorism without qualification at all – it’s simply denial and what do Simon Kearney or John Kerin see as controversial? The fact that the conference was held in Sydney or that it was held on September 11. I just don’t get their point. I see the location as irrelevent and the timing as opportune.
While Ali says terrorists aren’t Muslims, a representative of an extremist Muslim group, Al-Qaeda,
threatens Melbourne
The masked man warned that the attackers would show no compassion.
“Yesterday, London and Madrid. Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne,” he said.
“We love peace, but peace on our terms.”
I can sort of understand the
no passion thing about Melbourne but I don’t like it that we are on their radar again.
Over at
Evil Pundit a debate rages over wearing of the Hijab by muslem woman.
I see a woman wearing hijab and I see subjugation – whether she is aware of it or not. Readers at EP compare wearing the hijab with wearing the christian cross and therebye show their confusion. One act is covering up lest men succumb to lust and is enforced in many families. The christian cross is worn as a statement and in my experience is done so by choice and never by direction.
By the same token I don’t think outlawing wearing the hijab is the way to go either. I would think that time and education will see it’s demise.
There are, I’m sure, many young moslem woman who wear the hijab or scarves or clothes that completely cover their form for perceived modesty reasons. Education will change their perception of modesty. I might have thought the first bikini wearing woman as exciting but now hardly ever get distracted by the scenery yet my great-grandfather could well have been driven to uncontrolled lust by the sight of a pretty turned ankle.
Perceptions change and people assimilate after generational change.