27 Sep 2012

Why Are Muslims So Angry?

By Ben Pobjie

Islam. Who gets it? In a better world, we could have a calm conversation about whether Muslims really are innocent. In the name of religious tolerance, Ben Pobjie has taken it upon himself to explain Islam

We all remember that beloved childhood rhyme, "I slam, you slam, we all slam for Islam." But has that innocent chant taken on a more sinister aspect in recent weeks? Is it now Islam, in fact, that is slamming us? And if so, what can we do to prevent ourselves getting slammed? And do these questions even make sense? Perhaps not, and that is what is so terrifying about this whole Muslim brouhaha: it's impossible to understand without the assistance of experienced pundits like myself and Alan Howe.

And yet, we must understand. Without understanding, multiculturalism just wouldn't work. Look at our great allies in America: if they had not worked hard to achieve a level of understanding between different cultures, they would never have matured enough to elect Barack Obama, a devout Sikh, president. It's a testament to the US's sensitivity and commitment that they forgave him his role in 9/11 in the first place.

And so we need to work out how we in Australia can achieve the same level of reasoned debate over religious differences that has become such a hallmark of the States.

First, let's examine the cold hard FACTS of what's been going on. There have been protests. What have the protests been about?

Well they have been mainly about the hit new film "The Innocence of Muslims", a slick docudrama which follows Muslims and the ways in which they are innocent, focused on the story of the prophet Muhammad and his early experiments in audio dubbing. The movie is an important contribution to the debate around freedom of religion, dogma, extremism, and the underfunding of tertiary screenwriting courses, and yet it seems we are destined to miss out on the robust discussion the film should have sparked, thanks to the wild vagaries of human emotion.

In a reasonable world, of course, the reaction to "Innocence" would have been a group of sensible adults sitting down for a nice cup of tea or whatever it is that Muslims drink, and having a calm, well-modulated conversation about whether Muslims really ARE innocent, what causes them to attain this state of innocence and/or not innocence, and just how we can most efficiently construct the internment camps in which they are to be imprisoned.

But we do not, alas, live in a reasonable world, and so we get protests and riots and counter-protests and counter-riots and burning embassies and angry editorials and high blood pressure and a generally rotten time.

Why is this? Why are those Muslims so angry all the time, and why is it the so-called "moderate" Muslims never seem to denounce their radical brethren?

Oh sure, they "condemn" violence, and they "abhor" extremism, and they consider militant Muslims' "behaviour" to be "unacceptable", but how hard is it to simply say, "I denounce these radical Muslims"? Not very difficult at all — you can see how easy it is by the number of times moderate Muslims say it, so god knows why all the other moderate Muslims who don't say it don't say it. And the ones who do say it always seem to be lying, don't they? Maybe it's because it's so hard to trust those Muslims who denounce extremism, given how often Muslims fail to denounce extremism. They're tricky, those Muslims.

The thing is, it all comes down to the Koran, which is the Muslims' holy book, much as Christianity's holy book is Brian Houston's "You Need More Money". A big cause of the problem is that very few non-Muslims have read the Koran, which means they can't understand where Muslims are coming from (Afghanistan mostly). Again, this is what I'm here for. I haven't read it either, but I watched the whole first series of Homeland and I listen to Cat Stevens all the time, so I have what might be called a basic working knowledge of the text.

Essentially, the Koran is an "instruction book" for Muslims — not in the sense that you need one to assemble a Muslim, but in the sense it tells you how to be a Muslim. So it covers things like causing traffic congestion by building mosques in suburban areas, forcing women to put more clothes on, cooking weird spicy food with lumps in and so forth.

But there is a more sinister side to the Koran. Several verses in the book refer explicitly to "jihad", which is an Arabic word meaning "punching policemen". There are numerous references to the concept of the "fatwa", an Islamic concept in which believers are entreated to give offensive signs to their children. And a good portion of the Koran is devoted to telling the story of Muhammad's child bride, who waged war in an attempt to remove nativity scenes from schools.

So as we can see, Muslims are not really to blame for their behaviour: it's simply a matter of the holy book that has enslaved them. And that's something everyone can identify with: we all have a book which we obey without question, whether it be the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or There's A Hippopotamus On The Roof Eating Cake. And if, tomorrow, we opened up that book of ours and suddenly noticed a passage we'd never noticed before that said we had to be big fat crybabies every time we saw a movie we didn't like, would we behave any differently to those protesters? We would not. We'd probably dress differently, but still.

In this context, we should probably count ourselves lucky that "Innocence of Muslims" only caused protests and riots and property damage and murder. If those Muslims had been following the letter of their law, it could have been a whole lot worse: just consider Chapter 16, Verse 28, Paragraph 4, Size 6, which state explicitly, "and if howsoever the fruits of the 'Tube offendeth thee, take thou thy Kalashnikovs and bringeth the infidels all the way down".

These Muslims were actually restraining themselves mightily, which is actually a good reason to despise them even more, since if someone can't even fully commit to their religious beliefs, how can you really respect them? I guess the only thing worse than a Muslim who won't condemn his fellow Muslims' violence is a Muslim who refuses to commit acts of violence, which just goes to show that religion, in general, is pretty stupid.

But that's the whole point, isn't it? We are but human, and humans are stupid. Muslim humans, Christian humans, Buddhist humans, Voodoo humans, woman humans — all of us are complete idiots, and the sooner we learn to accept that, the sooner we can all get some perspective and realise what's important: strict immigration controls and The X-Factor.

There is no need to fear our Muslim neighbours. By instead getting to know them, striving to understand them, and making them our friends, we can lose our fears, abandon our paranoia, and in peace, kinship, and harmony, quietly inform the authorities and have them removed to a secure facility.

Then we really will be one world.

Log in or register to post comments

Discuss this article

To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.

Enter your comments here

Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 11:29

When Muslims howled assassination is good for said film makers, 100K reward was on offer. When the Christians howled assassination is good for Assange no cash was on offer.

Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 12:25

Why was my comment deleted?

Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 12:26

And then they came for the satirists... but there was no one left to speak.

Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 12:27

So now I can't comment without being moderated?

Good to know NM can afford to lose a keen follower of the blog.


This user is a New Matilda supporter. marnic
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 12:44

Hi RonsonDalby,

We deleted your comment because it was offensive. You can read our comments policy here: http://newmatilda.com/faq/

We've put comment moderation on this article for all commenters, not just you.

Marni Cordell (Editor)

Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 13:42

"assemble" - you mean resemble surely?

This user is a New Matilda supporter. john slaughter
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 14:04

I have to say I'd like to read the "offensive" comment that was deleted and make up my own mind.

Is Matilda scared of Muslem retribution? What other reason could there be for censorship in a case such as this?

Just curious.

Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 14:11

Assemble would be right, in the sense 'construct' - just think of it as an Ikean thing.

And Ben? The entire article is summed up in these six words of yours "religion, in general, is pretty stupid"

Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 14:22

@Joh: Any site that allows posting, from Facebook to Twitter, has provision for deleting offensive comments, why would NM be different? Apart from anything else, not doing it would lose them 'Safe Harbor' protection.

Neil James - Au...
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 14:29

No doubt some have not understood or enjoyed Ben's satire.

Having lived and worked extensively in Muslim-majority countries across South-East Asia and the Middle East, much of the misunderstanding about Islam is due to not understanding the diversity of Islamic beliefs.

This is compounded within Islam by hard-line Salafists not conceding that much of this diversity is "truly" Islamic, or even that it has Islamic roots. Even now, many mainstream Sunnis do not regard Shiites as truly Islamic or as Islamic as them.

Within Australia, we have a different problem with the socio-political integration of some Muslim Australians, and with immigration from Muslim countries, to that applying across much of Europe. Largely because of where most Australian Muslims, or their ancestors, migrated from. We have nowhere near the percentage of South Asian migrants, for example, that the UK has experienced.

Some of the second-generation youth alienation problems are similar in nature but the extent is certainly much less as a consequence. Our rate of arrests and convictions for Islamist terrorism (still under 50) is much lower and the offences have generally been lower down the scale.

The domination of AFIC by Fijian-Indian Muslims for so long has not helped the public image of the Muslim community because such "leadership" has often been well out of touch.

On an SBS "Lateline" panel back in 2005 I remember being astounded that a senior AFIC official claimed never to have heard of the term "Islamist" and clearly did not understand its meaning.

The ADA is always careful to note that the terrorism perpetrated by some Muslims (indeed a small minority) is Islamist terrorism, not Islamic terrorism. We believe that a failure to make such a differentiation between Islamist and Islamic beliefs and motivations generally indicates insufficient knowledge. Certainly not enough to join informed public debate. But such confusion is still common in media reports and public commentary.

The broader Islamic community is, however, partly at fault here, at least historically, because of its failure to seriously condemn Islamist terrorism early enough after the 9/11 and Bali attacks. Or to explain that the Islamists are really religious bigots who are perverting Islamic teachings and beliefs.

Another part of the problem is that because so few Australians now have strong religious beliefs, our society's ability to recognise the difference between the mainstream adherents of any religion or denomination, and the bigots on its extremes, is no longer as strong or as sophisticated as it once was. The majority of any religion tend to get criticised inaccurately for the actions of a small minority.

Finally, we have the burgeoning blame-the-victim tendency, where the general toleration of most Australians (of all religions) has resulted in them being somehow blamed for the very existence of Islamist beliefs and even terrorism, whilst the perpetrators and their apologists often escape the scrutiny of robust public debate.

We all need to remember that after the Bali murders, not one mosque in Australia was vandalised. Nor has the occasional stupid abuse of Muslim Australians come anywhere near the activities of the Islamists. Even the violence when the demonstrations at Cronulla in 2005 got out of hand late that day, was significantly less than that perpetrated the following two nights across Sydney by some disaffected Muslim youth (largely being exploited by the Islamists). Yet Cronulla is wrongly described in total as a "riot", while the real and more extensive violence in the days afterward is often ignored.

Australians of all religions, or no religion, should be proud of our general tolerance.

Neil James
Executive Director
Australia Defence Association

(02) 6231-4444

Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 14:35

Wow Ben, I remember that saying as I scream you scream we all scream for icecream. However you may be right in the context that people are taking the version you said in a more sinister context but I think that it is more the later & like all countries who feel the financial pinch, it ends up coming down to money & power.

Religion has become the biggest talking point & a major threat to the Islamic faith, with the rise of Atheism & it's speakers like Dawkins, Hutchins & the general population questioning & demoralizing it on a regular basis. I know I do on face books Atheism Debunked page & so do many others, but then again, I do the same to Christianity because it is a religious belief without any facts & a whole lot of fiction. Religion being the main bases of power in any culture, the Islamic culture especially, continue tradition when their religion is ridiculed & killing for blasphemy is a normal thing to their beliefs & that's whether I understand their readings & teachings or not.

As for financial standings, I see a big difference between Christianity & Islamic rule & that is the personal/community support for another. One example is the way they treat their women. Islam is so busy holding women in a state of ownership that they are supposed to be dependent on the man so the male can be dominant owner of her, but we on the other hand, have compassion in the way we support females into financial independence, depending on the woman & how far she goes to exploit the courts in the case of family law, but overall we do support that communal growth & Islamic seem to sty-full that economic growth.

Either way, it is a world which has had enough of religious ideology & unbelievable lies being used to treat everyone as some sort of gullible fool & as much as the Islamic faith tries to control an out of control situation, they they have hit the self destruct button & are spiraling out of control for the duration.

Julia Gillard can babble on as much as she likes & keep on telling the Muslim world that Aussies respect their religions; But I will be forced to speak candidly & truthfully that I only respect people who treat me the same as they wish to be treated & that's with respect & I will not respect their religious lies & ideology.

Harry the breaker
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 14:36

Someone once said” I don’t agree with your opinions but I respect your right to voice such opinions but neglected, in self controlled frustration, to add “ Opinions are like orifices, every one has them but they mostly blow hot air”
In this modern age in which we live, social engineering runs rampart with enforced politeness enforced to the plebs by them accepting that political correctness must be followed.
Maybe religions would be less formidable if their texts of believed wisdom had a few jokes inserted.

Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 14:51

Cleverly done Ben. Presumably the intention wasn't to be offensive but to show how you can still be unenlightened about something, totally not getting it, and yet still being able to remain inoffensive!

An irony somewhat lost on dear RonsonDalby whose comments I am sure will be very much missed. I am more than happy to take his place if numbers matter NM, though I can't promise I will keep your moderators as gainfully employed.

I slam for Islam - Ronnie Johns?!

This user is a New Matilda supporter. billgo
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 15:11

I was reminded by a friend of a curious coincidence. The 1600s of the Christian era were a time of particularly vicious sectarian violence between different Christian sects - violence that in some places such as Northern Ireland continued until very recently.

This century is 1600 years after the foundation of Islam with the life of the prophet Mohammed and the writing of the Koran. Maybe in time, this era of violence will pass for Islam as it has largely passed for Christianity.

The timing may be no more than a coincidence, but every faith can, and most do, go through one or more crises as particular adherents put different and conflicting interpretations on the scripture or underlying belief system and, all too often, confuse a lust for power and influence with faith.

The underlying problem always has been, and remains, dogmatic fundamentalism. We find it today not just in religion but in views of economics, politics, society and nationhood. It does not always cause physical violence, but it invariably makes reasonable amity between people more difficulty and all too often also leads to great injustice.

Our own present particular weakness happens to be conflicting political fundamentalisms. Mercifully we manage that largely without physical violence, but the damage to social harmony and even economic progress is vast.

A little tolerance of other beliefs and a reluctance to ridicule beliefs we do not share would be quite a big step forward for all of us!

This user is a New Matilda supporter. O. Puhleez
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 16:55


"A little tolerance of other beliefs and a reluctance to ridicule beliefs we do not share would be quite a big step forward for all of us!"

If the beliefs are ridiculous (Mormonism for example) then why not say so? How otherwise can the poor deluded souls in thrall to such illusion ever find a way out of it? If on the other hand doing a hatchet job (sorry, critique) on them is too hard for us, then maybe there's something to them after all.

Otherwise, we leave the Emperor walking naked down the street while we watch on, praising his finery.

This user is a New Matilda supporter. O. Puhleez
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 17:13


"A little tolerance of other beliefs and a reluctance to ridicule beliefs we do not share would be quite a big step forward for all of us!"

If the beliefs are ridiculous (Mormonism for example) then why not say so? How otherwise can the poor deluded souls in thrall to such illusion ever find a way out of it? If on the other hand doing a hatchet job (sorry, critique) on them is too hard for us, then maybe there's something to them after all.

Otherwise, we leave the Emperor walking naked down the street while we watch on, praising his finery.

Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 17:55

good point billgo.

Opuleez - I'd like to know how you plan on getting these groups of The Ridiculous to listen to your views and be attracted to change their own for yours?

We did this exercise at the recent autism conference where we had to convince another person to change how they hang their toilet paper roll - you know, some of us like to have the free piece hanging out from the wall and others of us prefer to have it hanging beside the wall. It was to demonstrate how reluctant any of us is to change even over an unimportant thing (seriously having it OUT from the wall is the ONLY sensible, logical way).

This user is a New Matilda supporter. billgo
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 19:42


You couldn't have made my point better! You may think Mormon beliefs are ridiculous: they don't. And you can't PROVE they are wrong any more than they can PROVE they are right. You may be, for all I know, an atheist, but neither of us can PROVE that you are right or wrong. If you believed that the earth is flat, you can be proved wrong, but religious beliefs do not fall into that category. You don't have to believe what they believe, but it makes no sense to ridicule it either.

Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 20:49

Wonderful comment Neil.

I do wonder what your thoughts are on this Dutch MP being given a VISA or not.

And how does that relate the preeminence (or not) of 'freedom of speech?'

Ben Heslop

Posted Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 22:18

Hi, can the offensive deleted comment be posted in code? And then in a week or so you could post the key to decoding it, so anyone who was really curious could come back and read it? I'm sure that way that nice Mr Danby would have no cause to slander this fine website in parliament again!

This user is a New Matilda supporter. ladywhitepeace
Posted Friday, September 28, 2012 - 05:13

I saw the youtube video of the Innocence of Muslims and found it to be quite a stupid and silly video, which seemingly was made to provoke and incite rage in a people who are very sensitive to their religion and their Prophet. I thought about it and thought how would I, a Christian, react if Jesus was shown in that way in a video, and even though I am not terribly religious I could see how it would annoy me and possibly incite rage in very religious Christians.
So why are you surprised Ben ?? I think it's important that our right to freedom of speech is upheld, however I am of the view that with every RIGHT there is a RESPONSIBILITY. And in this case a responsibility to be sensitive to and thus to protect the feelings and the devotional proclivity of Muslims, from idiots who either have nothing better to do with their time or who are provocateurs.

Posted Friday, September 28, 2012 - 05:43

Neil James - Aust. Defence Assn.
Got to agree with you there

And billgo very good points.

The problem with religion is its become far too Political instead of charitable.

The wives of rich people have become well payed female Execs of charities something churches used to do almost exclusively, but also created poverty with their un adultrated breeding prograns to out number the others. So until churches go back to being the Charitable organisation rather then Political influence as the Jewish faith is then we will have this problem for a while yet.

The Yanks are creating the poverty and disfunction so they can give their grain harvests to Charitable Organisations and or the U.N instead of cash. They are also trying to ruin compatetive economies by creating these refugees. Look at the amount of refugee's Germany has to take and Germany is a dominant Economy as it once was.

This problem has only occured since Russian Communism collapsed, because thats where the old Allied Nations dumped their over production, it was over production which originaly led to WW1 and WW2.

85% of the worlds wealth and Production was in the hands of the big 4 competitors
1860 England, France, America, Germany. The Yanks colapsed the world economy and the struggle between England and Germany for control and superiority began in earnest.

By 1900 U.S.A. Germany Britain France and take note that WW1 and WW2 soon followed to restore France and England to their rightful places.
What happened instead was America came out ahead as the new empire.

So today in 2012 we have to see the GFC for what it is a struggle between England/Europe, Chinese/Asia and England/America notice how England can't make up its mind whether to go with their supposed saviours and what they actualy are, Europeans.

Until we fix this problem with England and the World Economy, American dominance, religions and Cockroaches will manipulate the failings of the U.N to be what it was tauted to be but never was, anything other then a front for American Dominance and Control. The Yanks created it out of the League to hide their own shame.

This Muslim rubbish has just come about because of oil and the new big 4 or Wests need for it as they struggle for economic superiority or survival.

Australia is of course the confussed Bastard child of England that can't and does not want to decide because of old links, failings and Nationalistic Control of our Government, by, ??????????.
I'll leave you to answer who controls our Democracy and why, because it isn't the Aust. people, the Minning Tax Debarcle proved that.

So onwards virgin soldiers to another WW and only the young could be that stupid when driven to it by the cunning old.

human History always goes around and around, the names, nationalities and religions behind it change but its always the same human garbage, the needs of survival because of overbreeding. 7 billion world Population and between 20 to 40 million human refugee, excuses to have charitable executives on $500K salaries.

Now thats Sick!

This user is a New Matilda supporter. O. Puhleez
Posted Friday, September 28, 2012 - 05:47

Why are (some) Muslims so angry?

Maybe it's because Australia is not like the countries the angry ones ones came from.

Dunno what can be done about it, though.

Posted Friday, September 28, 2012 - 09:25

Ben Pobjie is not up to his usual comical, satirical
style in this article. I didn't find it delightfully
witty as I usually do.

This has all the charm and wit of three men -
Larry, Curly, and Moe!

Posted Friday, September 28, 2012 - 09:48

I realise that Ben Pobjie is a satirist - fair enough.
However, this article lacks his usual robust style. It appears
to have all the charm and wit of Larry, Curley and Moe.
It's not clever or entertaining and actually quite offensive
because it's selective in its offense and only one group is
targeted. Which doesn't help matters - certainly in trying to
understand this complex issue.

To many Westenwea, Islamic fundamentalism seem like an almost
scandalous return to a medieval morality. It conjures forth
images of women behind veils, of adulterers being stoned of
thieves having their hands cut off, of public floggings and
executions, of martyrdom in holy wars, and, in extreme cases,
of political fanaticism exemplified in aircraft hijackings and
terrorist bombings.

This picture is rather distorted, for it is based on what is
newsworthy rather than what is typical.

Why has Islamic fundamentalism intensified at all - especially at
a time when we might expect the societies involved to be moving
forward, toward modernisation, rather than backward, toward

Sociologists have observed that fundamentalism revivals, in
whatever religion, take place at times when social chantges have
led to turmoil, uncertainty, and the erosion of familiar values.
When people find themselves confused, threatened, or even appalled
at changing conditions, they may see a "return to basics" as
a solution.

It isn't surprising, therefore that Islamic fundamentalism has
surged in societies like Iran, for example, which have experienced
wrenching social change as a result of their new found oil wealth.
Some of these societies have previously remained culturally
fairly stable for generations - in some cases, for centuries.
Then, in less than the space of a single life span, they were thrust into a world of ariports and highways, schools, and television,
factories and power plants. As part of this process, some of the
Islamic societies have been flooded with foreign advisers, officials,
entrepreneurs - and of course the military.

The problem is indeed a complex one.

Posted Friday, September 28, 2012 - 11:22

bladeofgrass - maybe NM is using us as an experiment to see what happens when we are censored and what people do when some views are denied from public consumption - see, we are drawn obsessively to it with some primal curiousity...what better publicity could the guy get!!!?

Posted Friday, September 28, 2012 - 15:36

I correct my spelling from yesterday, as I meant to call Christopher Hitchens, not Hutchens.

In response to Neil James comment, I would not contradict his knowledge of the middle Eastern culture but I would question his antics on the basis of his political intentions & exactly what context he is protecting Islamic religion, knowing he is a defense force advocate & has a very strong support of Christianity for the sake of religious Ideology.

I definitely understood Ben's article & I repute anyone claiming they know what someone else thinks with overtones of psychological suggestion & overriding their comments with a personal touch of power from someone in a high position & who believes their more qualified due to their position of power & as a strategy they use to claim their more educated than others.

I have not seen one comment anywhere on the internet that does not acknowledge that it is a minority who are doing the most damage but always openly admit that religion is the problem with the world. The Koran has been used as an excuse in the usual way that it has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of years, just as it did on America's 9/11 & now 12 years later with the showing of a movie trailer & it will come to the same thing when someone gets up their goat again.

They are an antagonized people who have put up with all the crap of western culture & especially Israels occupation of Palestine & their suppression by other western countries, especially the US. But then, for the sake of pretension, I'm sure the defense force would like to play it into another form of politics as they usually do & pretend to keep the peace until the next time.

This user is a New Matilda supporter. Venise Alstergren
Posted Friday, September 28, 2012 - 21:00

BEN POBJIE: Hi Ben, I haven't had a chance to read the whole article yet, but I'll bet there were a few 'outraged' members of the commentariat writing in. I am going to go a little off topic, and I apologise for so doing.

Do you remember those ghastly old tits and togas movies churned out by Hollywood and shown on TV late movie shows? In those halcyon years it was verboten to depict Jesus in the flesh, as it were. In order to indicate the holy presence, the actors, assumed a facial expression somewhere between 'Chrïst, I've just bitten into a quince; how much am I being paid for this shït; there goes a molar, but smile I must.

Sorry for the levity, but Muslims are protesting at the same things we did sixty plus years ago.

This user is a New Matilda supporter. Venise Alstergren
Posted Friday, September 28, 2012 - 21:05

BTW, reason and logic have no place in faith-addled religionists.

Posted Friday, September 28, 2012 - 23:53

I just wish that the rationalists, the unbelievers and the true sceptics would stop sitting on the fence and just kill everyone else so that there be only one culture, one language, one focus, one god/goddess/trannydiety, one Alpha female and her harem of compliant boys. Perhaps only then can we start the violence anew in simplified disharmony and this time round, be able to blame the women.

Posted Saturday, September 29, 2012 - 12:17

All the talking points your article has raised, just goes to show how good your article is Ben & just what sort of issues are on the minds of NM's readers. Thanks

Posted Saturday, September 29, 2012 - 18:45

Gee I love the dedication of some of the commenters here . They are really committed to their principals ....no body else's right or property is too much a sacrifice for the commenters' Principals .
Last time I looked neither Marni or the esteemed Pobjie's name appeared on the disgustingly rich list . But what the hell does that matter when some nut job decides decides to take their ire out on their family or property . Neither should an innocent Muslim's family mind sacrificing their security from some Aussie nut job who takes the armchair hero's comments as incitement to terrorise them.
Why should these armchair moralist be at risk for their right to offend whom ever they choose. We all know that is the purpose of New Matilda is to act as lightening rod for the verbally challenged . I'm sure in the event of either disaster those same paragons of morality will immediately financially compensate either victim . But then again I did write a series of fairy stories about the antegowobblers (tooth fairy helpers) .
What puzzles me though is that many say I should get real.?!?

Posted Saturday, September 29, 2012 - 20:38

Perhaps the next movie will be "The Silence of the Moslems".

Question Authority

This user is a New Matilda supporter. O. Puhleez
Posted Monday, October 1, 2012 - 07:09

I sometimes agree with Paul Sheehan of the SMH, as in this instance:

"The Australian organisers of the Wilders trip are resigning themselves to being out of pocket by at least $10,000 if the Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen, continues to stall. The trip was going to be cancelled yesterday but the organisers have decided to hold for a few more days. After six weeks of silence, the federal government hasn't had the courage to deny Wilders a visa. It prefers the back door.

"This confirms, as if any more confirmation were needed, the gutlessness that lies at the core of Australia's multibillion-dollar debacle on border security, where the thin blue line on border integrity has been turned into a wide yellow streak. While the government blusters, the people smugglers keep thriving and the cost of processing asylum seekers soars well beyond $100,000 per person."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/visa-insult-a-betrayal-of-liberal...

Posted Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - 09:55

The signs say it all "We [Muslims] respect every religion".
But do they also respect the right for us 'to ridicule every religion'?

Posted Thursday, October 4, 2012 - 10:04

Obviously not Denise & I see the same hypocrisy in Christian terms when The PM Julia Gillard uses her political position & has her flock of thugs stand over people who comment against her or her religious beliefs, such as marriage equality. Gillard claims to be an Atheist when it obvious she is a Theist with some very strong religious beliefs.

The reality of the extent of having the Labor cult stand over people has recently highlighted with the Jones/Gillard comments & Gillards inability to stand up for herself & allowing her hate based religious gangs to attack the @2GB783 radio station, whilst in the process of attacking Jones himself.

I will always respect a person who treats me with dignity & respect but I will never respect their religion. We all come from the same world & are all related by genetics, even though the Bible & Koran have tried desperately in conjunction with religious clergy, to deny these facts.

Posted Thursday, October 4, 2012 - 14:16

I'm confused explain the link between the government's deliberations on Wilders getting a visa and the cost of asylum seekers?

Suppose I wanted to hold an after birth throwing competition and um offered $1million prize should that be allowed?
no one is being hurt .
My guess it wouldn't because the whole idea is gross (read offensive).
Apart from the fact I can think it over the top and offensive and I don't have the $1million dollars.

My point is what would such a competition gain for the offence? nothing!
So why do it just because I can?
Same deal with Wilders inane provocation what would it gain for the offence to the Muslims and the potential for the Aussie to use this as confirmation of their paranoiac xenophobia and terrorise some harmless Muslim family.
One mustn't over estimate the intellectual base of our society. I recently heard a woman bagging a man in a turban and big beard as and I quote "one of them worthless Muslims"
I interrupted her and said " madam, a wise saying goes tis better to be silent and thought perhaps a fool than open you mouth and remove all doubt ..that man is in fact a Sikh not a Muslim and he's a professor of medicine at the local university born here in Brisbane '
Neither should one avoid saying something important to society or worth the offence ...but really, make fun of someone's religion ? why? when there are funny things that won't offend others. To me that is the same as someone making fun of a Downe syndrome child ...its cruel, offensive and frankly totally unnecessary. There are words for that rude intolerant and boorish.

Posted Friday, October 5, 2012 - 12:43

It's obvious that Examinator is confused. No one else is unable to determine the difference between after birth & a man with his own views.

Posted Sunday, October 7, 2012 - 16:25

I said ridicule - not be disgusting.
So it's OK for Mohammed to bag Judaism and Christianity, but no one else is allowed.
Only he, and he alone is granted that 'blessed' privilege to freely and openly ridicule other people's religions.
I believe that's called hypocrisy!

This user is a New Matilda supporter. O. Puhleez
Posted Sunday, October 7, 2012 - 23:43


As one who is convinced that T. Abbott would be the worst possible choice for PM (considerably worse than the vacillating J Gillard), I would have thought it was obvious.

The government has had more success in keeping Wilders out than in keeping out the varied cargoes the people smugglers bring. It should be the other way round. They should never have blocked Wilders, and the only reason I can think of is that they are thereby courting the Muslim vote. Note also that Muslims appear to be increasingly filling the ranks and files of the ALP itself.

Belatedly, Gillard & Co have discovered that the best immigration policy does not accord privilege to those who jump the queue by arriving in a boat.

I have nothing against Muslims, but a helluva lot against Islam. Paul Sheehan likewise sometimes writes stuff I agree with, even though he is trying his damnedest to get Abbott elected, and dutifully banging the Mad Monk's drum of carbon denial.