back to article Cryptography vs. bigotry: The debate Australia needs to have

Australia's newly-elected senator Pauline Hanson has called for a ban on muslim immigration on national security grounds. But her position is ignorant and bigoted because it takes an idea to turn someone to terror and it's now impossible to stop the flow of ideas. Once Hanson realises that stopping immigration won't of itself …

Anonymous Coward

" it takes an idea to turn someone to terror and it's now impossible to stop the flow of ideas."

So we have a population that is more likely to have one of it's own go and join the fight in Syria than to join the Australian Defence Force (there are 98 persons in the ADF who identify as Muslim).

This population has a clear preference for supporting foreign terrorist organisations over supporting the nation in which they live.

To point that out is apparently racist - despite the fact that Islam is a belief system and not a race. So when people can't find a voice for fear of being howled down and labelled racist, they turn to the ballot box to make their point - hence why we have Pauline Hanson here, Nigel Farage in the UK and Donald Trump in the US. These politicians are an outlet for the sensible people who can see that mass immigration programmes of people who hold belief systems at odds with the enlightened democratic west are not a good idea.

14
12
FAIL

Re: Idiot rant

"So we have a population that is more likely to have one of it's own go and join the fight in Syria than to join the Australian Defence Force (there are 98 persons in the ADF who identify as Muslim).

This population has a clear preference for supporting foreign terrorist organisations over supporting the nation in which they live."

Dear Anonymous Coward,

Racist? Xenophobic? Discrimination? How about just plain wrong!

I am really interested in your sources of "information" that show your comments to be anything close to correct.

No, really, please respond.

Adam.

6
12
Anonymous Coward

Re: Idiot rant

You are the epitome of the problem - there is nothing racist about stating a fact.

So you are calling into question the stat on there being 98 Muslims in the ADF? Well sorry I don't have the original article that mentioned 98 - however here is a piece in the extreme right-wing journal, the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-defence-force-to-get-its-first-muslim-imam-20150302-13t18l.html

That article states that there are actually 96 Muslim members of the ADF. So well catered to, that they actually have their own Imam!

And for numbers of Australian Muslims fighting in Syria - this ABC article put that figure at 150: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-19/150-australians-fighting-with-extremists-in-iraq-and-syria/5535018

So going by the numbers, 96 Muslims in the ADF, 150 fighting in Syria - is my statement that an Australian Muslim is more likely to be fighting in Syria that serving in the ADF incorrect?

Until we can discuss these facts without being labelled racist or bigoted you will continue to see people like myself who are concerned for the safety of our families and our country express those opinions at the ballot box, because we can't have a rational discussion without fear of persecution.

19
2
Pint

Re: Idiot rant

There are approximately 476,000 Muslims in Australia. Clearly, they are more likely to be at home eating bbq. Additionally, I'll wager they're also more likely to be having a fosters or vegemite, though i lack the numbers to substantiate that.

7
3
Silver badge

Re: Idiot rant

It would be interesting to compare the numbers of non-muslims who are members of the Australian (or any western) police force with the number of non-muslims who have committed a crime. This might allow us to draw conclusions about the criminal tendencies of non-muslims. Then again, it might just be ranting idiocy.

2
3

Re: Idiot rant

Haha! Wow - of course I am the problem.

Here is MY problem with idiot rants: According to the 2011 census, 476,291 people, or 2.2% of the total Australian population, were Muslims - let's say, for argument's sake, that it's now 500,000.

So, your "PROBLEM" is that there is 150 people in Syria, which is 0.03%... slow clap for the coward.

Additionally, your selective comment that the Muslim ADF members are getting their own Imam... again: Wow.

For your information (actual, not made up & not selective) the ADF supports BUDDHISM; CHRISTIANITY; HINDUISM; ISLAM (MUSLIM); JUDAISM and SIKHISM.

Grow up.

3
7
Anonymous Coward

Regardless of the immigration question, I think this is really the point here...

"These politicians are an outlet for the sensible people who can see that mass immigration programmes of people who hold belief systems at odds with the enlightened democratic west are not a good idea."

There can be no question about the fact that islam is a barbarian religion that has not evolved and mixed with western democracy like christianity has. Christianity was probably on par with island in the middle ages in terms of barbarism, but while christianity evolved, islam stayed the same and that is why it does not fit with modern western society.

Immigrants from arabia who are not religious are probably not a problem. It is the religious ones, who arrive in lage numbers and start to change society into a more barbaric form, where men and women should be kept separate, that is the threat, that is giving Trump his power.

As long as unchecked immigration continues, instability and Trump-like politicians in the west will just grow stronger and stronger.

8
5
Anonymous Coward

Kind of is the R word.

You cannot hold a mass migration policy based on a belief. The reason why banning Muslim immigration is racist is because there is no way to test on a large scale if people are Muslim. All you can do is make assumptions about someone's belief based on external indicators like where they were born, their last name, their clothes or the colour of their skin. Banning someone from your country based on those factors IS racist.

Again though, labelling the Muslim population as some homogeneous group is stupid too. How many of the Australian Muslims going to fight in Syria are from South East Asia, born here, or from the Middle East? Or how many of them are Shia (who ISIS kill with fervour)?

Given Pauline's history, there is nothing sensible about voting for her.

3
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: Idiot rant

Haha! Wow - of course I am the problem.

Here is MY problem with idiot rants: According to the 2011 census, 476,291 people, or 2.2% of the total Australian population, were Muslims - let's say, for argument's sake, that it's now 500,000.

So, your "PROBLEM" is that there is 150 people in Syria, which is 0.03%... slow clap for the coward.

Waaaaay to miss the point you muppet. The OP was pointing out that, given a choice to put their life on the line, more Muslims chose fighting for ISIS than the ADF. 500,000 and 0.03% have fuck all to do with it. More were willing to die for a caliphate than the country that they live in. That is the point. So go square that with your harmonious multiculturalism. Can you find a similar figure for Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, or Buddhism?

8
2

Re: Idiot rant

"500,000 and 0.03% have fuck all to do with it."

Statistically insignificant figures really *do* have a lot to do with it. yes, the figure for ISIS members is higher than the figure for ADF members, but neither figure means anything because they are both outliers. Trying to base any sort of practical argument on them is only just short of lunacy.

3
6
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: Re: Idiot rant

I have a lot of difficulty using ADF enrolments as some kind of loyalty metric for a wider community.

5
4
Silver badge

Re: Idiot rant

There's something missing in your statistics... what about immigrants who are nominally Muslim when they arrive, but then convert to another religion or become atheist later. How many of those join the ADF? I'm assuming that none would abandon their faith, then go and join ISIS.

Allowing people fleeing violence to live in a moderate, welcoming country may reduce the numbers that resort to extremism and violence themselves.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Idiot rant

Please tell me why I should respect some fool who believes in gods? I am an atheist. 'Belief" and 'faith' are not rational things. Why must I respect such irrationality? The ADF _requires_ that I _must_ do so, even though that is not actually possible for me. So the ADF does not support atheism (and in fact, insultingly, calls it a 'belief') as free expression of this 'religion' (atheism) is most certainly not protected. In fact by calling atheism a belief or religion it becomes annulled.

Why are irrational religious beliefs considered to be on the same level as rational atheists? It is ridiculous really.

Why are religious beliefs even recorded?

0
0
Bronze badge
WTF?

Huh? You wrote 600+ words on something that hasn't happened, and may not even happen. And I seriously doubt there are enough cells between Hanson's ears for her to pay attention to anything as complex (maths is hard) as this in the first place.

Still if it makes you feel better I guess then go for it. But it does reaffirm my thoughts that Vulture South is far and away the weakest link in the Vulture Empire...

1
10
Silver badge
Unhappy

It isn't the popular figurehead Hanson per-se, but her shadowy handlers that you really need to worry about.

2
2
(Written by Reg staff)

Just sniffing the breeze. the same breeze that has of late blown in Brexit, the possibility of a Trump presidency, Hanson back into Australian parliament. I don't know this will happen. But I do know debates about crypto are already happening. And intuition tells me this piece - which is presented as comment, not news - is likely.

5
1
Silver badge

"Huh? You wrote 600+ words on something that hasn't happened."

Yeah, I just don't get why everyone's talking about this Trump guy.

1
1
Silver badge

Simon, debates about crypto can be whatever puppet politicians and ill-informed electorates allow them to be. The genie, however, will not go back into the bottle.

2
0
Bronze badge

Your intuition is slow. Turnball is already making noises about the need for more extreme measures (yes there is some irony in there) to combat terrorism. He hardly needs help from Hanson with this - he gets all the backing he needs for authoritarianism in the name of "safety" from the Labor party.

So I repeat, your article seems like you wanted an excuse to have a go at Hansen and so seized on this. I think the social-justice term for this is "punching down" or picking on the easy target or going after the retard for being retarded.

Weak sauce.

1
1
(Written by Reg staff)

I struggle to see how I am punching down in the direction of a Senator-elect.

1
1

Nothing wrong with punching a racist, be it up or down.

0
5

What part of "You can't be racist against a religion" and "Islam is a religion, NOT a race" don't you understand? Oh yeah, it just suits your far-left views to misunderstand (deliberately).

4
0

An accent or language isn't a race either but if walked around shouting "Ching Chong ME SO SOLLY, LOVE YOU LONG TIME" people would rightly call me racist. It is slightly possible that the word racist has grown to encompass more than just a belief that one race is genetically superior to another. In common use it also includes cultural elements like language, food, dress and customs and is used as a synonym for xenophobic. English tends alter the meaning of words over time.

Also Pauline is a racist even if you exclude her comments on Muslims. Unless you're deliberately ignoring the entire 90s.

2
3
Silver badge
Megaphone

All hot air

"Breakfast television and talkback radio hosts will muddle things up..."

Cue Sonia Kruger and Alan Jones in 3... 2... 1...

Shouty icon becausy Mr A Jones is always shouty when he's on a roll.

1
2
Silver badge

Hanson is the threat

Her followers are the concern.

3
3

A story about something that hasn't happened! How original. And don't forget that it was actually labour (under the stewardship of the troglodyte Stephen Conroy) that got the closest to censoring the internet here...

3
1
(Written by Reg staff)

Howard had a good long waft at it. And under the current government we got data retention and site blocking. the piece makes no comment on which side of politics does this stuff. just explains what's happened in the past

4
1
Silver badge

Yep, you got data retention and site blocking. Neither of which work on my VPN. Stupid people set stupid agendas, nothing changes in politics.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

"If Hanson holds true to form, she will do so in complete ignorance"

A curiously apposite observation....

2
1

What evidence do you have?

"Once Hanson realises that stopping immigration won't of itself reduce the likelihood of terror attacks"

I get that you find Hanson's line repugnant. But surely your goal is recruit people to your way of thinking. In my view, making a statement like this. which I believe is difficult to justify, just puts you in the bigoted camp. What evidence do you have the stopping immigration will not stop the likelihood of terror attacks? Can you point to a country that has successfully stopped immigration and then to one of those that also experiences terror attacks?

My guess is not because there precious few that are able to stop immigration. North Korea maybe.

Ideally, immigrants will mix with the native population or, at least, get along. But sometimes that just does not happen.

2
5
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: What evidence do you have?

Firstly, I say stopping migration won't "of itself" stop terror attacks. Secondly, consider the many people who have become radicalised after first encountering ideas online. No local contact with migrants was required. Immigration was not a factor.

3
2
Silver badge

Re: What evidence do you have?

Surely nothing "of itself" will stop terror attacks? Kind of a hollow burned out straw-man.

1
1

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Anonymous Coward

"her position is ignorant and bigoted"

Surely we need to extend Godwin's law to include people using blanket statement like this, 'racist' etc. in an attempt to shut someone down rather than debate the specific points that they raise.

(Anon because the world has become a place where you are at risk personally and professionally if you dare to question the politically correct masses)

6
3

Her position is, ironically, very similar to those radicalised Muslims she appears to think are hiding around every corner, but don't let that idea confuse you. She's an authoritarian, a racist (look at her record and comments on Aboriginals for that if you like) and a bigot, since she is targeting one religion specifically for her ire.

And if you're worried about being seen to be a racist or a bigot perhaps you should take a look at what you're saying and how you're saying it and consider why that might be the case, instead of being defensive and blaming 'the politically correct masses'.

0
4

Definition of bigot: "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions" - Hmmm, sounds like kyza!

3
1

Bigoted? Maybe. Ignorant? Maybe not.

"But her position is ignorant and bigoted because it takes an idea to turn someone to terror and it's now impossible to stop the flow of ideas."

Her position is that by stopping all Muslims from entering Australia, we can stop the (say) 2% of Muslims who are potential terrorists. It doesn't stop Muslims already living here from becoming radicalised, but if there is a percentage of the Muslim population prone to becoming Terrorists then stopping the Australian Muslim population growing does seem a logical way to put a lid on future growth in this area, as well as making it difficult for ISIS and AL Qaeda to infiltrate sleeper agents into our country. So it might be bigoted but it isn't necessarily ignorant, as it is based on logic, and it seems as if we have no way at present of distinguishing between good (as in safe) Muslims and Bad (as in psychopathic religious fanatics with serial killer ambitions).

I could also add that it takes more than "an idea to turn someone to terror" - they have to be ready for that idea to kick off their psycho-killer predisposition. I could argue that it is too possible to stop the flow of ideas: the Government could block all internet sites from terrorist organisations, and force Facebook to close any account that uses certain key words such as "Kill the infidels!" I'm not saying this would necessarily be a good thing, but it could be done, with the political will to do so.

A bigot is "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions." There goes all the Labor Party and the Greens, then: they are bigots towards non-socialists!

4
1
Anonymous Coward

Bigotry is as bigotry does (sorry Forrest)

Sadly this sort of stuff will only make the problem worse. While it might grab votes it also plays directly into the hands of radicalists. Now they can demonstrably show how the West is run by terrified crusaders who actively trample on all Muslims rights and will continue to do so. The victimhood narrative is then re-inforced and spreads. New converts and recruits begin to appear.

The moral high ground is steadily lost with each new repressive measure. You could argue that today the West has already lost the moral high ground.

Many of your serial killing nut cases were groomed from early on (war orphans, child soldiers) and are probably beyond recovery.

Some other nut cases MIGHT be recruited or encouraged to embrace extremism by what they see on the Internet or enabled by their friends/associates. I would argue that like most borderline, mentally-ill people the pre-disposition was already there. You could use the same arguments against violent video games, film and TV.

But banning things like some immigration, strong encryption, free speech, etc. is not going to remove the root causes of what is often mental illness encouraged by unscrupulous indoctrination.

Good policing, community outreach, therapy and cooperation (particularly in local Muslim communities) can help detect and monitor the potential nut cases. Frothing at the mouth against all Muslims simply sends the bad eggs underground and alienates the decent people who want nothing to do with terrorism.

When we designate an entire population as criminal, we create a lot of criminals. The Trumps, et al know this and are using it as an excuse (along with the general malaise fanned by media coverage of acts of terror) to grab power. Both groups appear to be winning their cause and have much in common.

Keep calm and carry on is the best policy, even if it doesn't grab headlines.

0
1

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017