People saved from selves by friendly Government

I’ve written about the Rudd Government raising excise on pre-mixed drinks to, ahem, “curb the binge drinking epidemic”.

Well, it’s official:

The cost of pre-mixed drinks will jump by about $1 a bottle from today after a dramatic move by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to curb binge drinking.

The Rudd Government doubled the tax on ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages from midnight last night.

It’s only around a dollar per bottle and that it’s for the greater good, I hear you say. Perhaps, although this is just the beginning and it’s sure as hell a slippery slope from here. The mind police are back.

Drinks targeted included Bacardi Breezers, rum and coke, Vodka Cruisers and UDLs. Some are equivalent to three standard drinks.

I’ve never come across a pre-mixed drink that contains three standard drinks. The closest I’ve come is along the lines of the Smirnoff Black Label pre-mixed vodka drinks, which have around 7% alcohol and are around 1.9 standard drinks. Also, the fact that these Limited News journalists cannot name a single pre-mixed drink that contains such a high level of alcohol only fuels my curiosity.

The Government could raise $2 billion from the tax hike, which will be put into a preventative health program.

Sure it will. In the same way that my fuel excise and car registration fees are funding road improvements.

I suppose the raising of taxes on pre-mixed drinks — in the grand scheme of things — isn’t so much of a big deal. However, the reason this particular issue irks me as much as it does is actually because of the bigger picture.

I fear that we are living in a time where people are becoming too comfortably reliant on the Government. Whenever a societal issue presents itself, people turn to the Government to see how they should deem, feel or even behave. It seems that just about any conversation that takes place to do with an issue requires Government intervention, and these conversation almost always contain the passionate phrase “something must be done!“

How this fits in with the seemingly common attitude of political apathy and general distrust of politicians I’m not quite sure. But ask any punter about any issue facing society these days and you will almost certainly have a response that contains the words “the Government should…”

This in itself, while innocent, is in my opinion dangerous. First of all, it completely ignores the capability of freedom of thought that we (supposedly) value so dearly in Western society. Secondly, and most importantly, it gives the Government of the day a reason to patrol our thoughts and decide how we as a people behave — which is where the issue of raising taxes on pre-mixed drinks comes in.

Of course, I will stop there because I don’t think it’s necessary to go over old ground. However in light of Kevin Rudd claiming a mandate to legislate for the greater good of this country, I will make a smattering of suggestions that will invariably result in a better behaved, safer, healthier and above all more efficient society:

* Severely restrict or ban all mind-altering substances. This includes alcohol and strong pain medication.

* In line with the aforementioned substance ban, all night spots must:
A) Keep music volumes down to an acceptable level, which will be defined as being less than what could potentially cause hearing damage if there was prolonged exposure; and
B) Close at or before 10pm to ensure patrons are home at a reasonable hour, which will be defined as before or at midnight.

* A new branch of the Police will be created in each State (and administered by the respective State Government) known as the “Citizens Protection Force” will patrol city streets, and as the name suggests, protect citizens from socially undesirable behaviour. Citizens found on the streets after midnight will be escorted either to the nearest Police Watchhouse or their home (whichever is closest) to prevent them becoming victims of socially undesirable behaviour.

* All food outlets must not sell any food items whatsoever that has a fat content of 25 grams or higher.

* Film, television and video/computer game classifications shall be moved to a 3-tier system. The MA15+, R18+ and, in the ACT and Northern Territory, X18+ classifications will be abolished. Any television show, film or video/computer game that exceeds the M15+ classification shall not be granted classification in Australia in order to provide a more well-rounded entertainment experience for children and families.

* All film, television and video/computer games sold, shown or broadcast in Australia must meet new “sensitivity guidelines”, as enforced by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. This is to prevent the spread of cancerous hate speech, racism, discrimination and other forms of social insensitivity that are difficult to enforce under the current classification system.

* There will be one centrally-designed curriculum for all primary, secondary and tertiary institutions. This will promote efficiency, assist in teaching standards and also ensure Australia is among the smartest of the developed nations.

These are only a few suggestions for Rudd’s Australia, and they may come in handy given that these suggestions are more detailed than anything that came out of the 2020 Summit last weekend.

I for one am glad that Kevin Rudd and his Social Crusaders are up to the task of fixing all our societal woes. Damn people can’t be trusted with anything.

Australia’s “best” and “brightest”… Allegedly

My God, I am frothing-at-the-mouth irritated about the sheer tripe that is coming out of the 2020 Summit this weekend. So much in fact, that I’m having trouble forming sentences and that various inanimate objects in my house — who are completely innocent — have copped punches.

I will rant later, because I will need to get it off my chest. But until then, Andrew Bolt blogged yesterday’s proceedings. He also has more this morning. Finally, keep an eye on this post for further updates.

I will be back when I’m calm enough to form sentences again. It may take a while.

Society saved, taxes raised

Young people. Alcohol. You cannot trust any of those words when put together in a sentence, and you definitely can’t trust them when they’re literally together. Young people are simply not fit enough, mature enough, or responsible enough to consume alcohol. The Federal Government — along with the mainstream press — has declared the topic of binge drinking in this country as more than just a “problem” or “issue”, and even gone past such terms as “crisis” and straight to the term “epidemic”. It’s so far beyond a problem that it’s a disease. And it’s young people who are the problem.

Kevin Rudd and his ever-increasing army of do-gooding, society improving bureaucrats are not only fighting these societal woes, but invariably going to ruin life for us law-abiding, non-nuisance people. That is, at a guess, around about 95% of the population. For example, the Daily Telegraph reports that the Government is likely to raise taxes on pre-mixed drinks:

The cost of a case of “alcopop” products such as Bacardi Breezer, Smirnoff Ice and Jim Beam and Cola, would rise by up to $15 a case, restoring the “cost barrier” that the Howard government removed.

Evil Howard. Crushing the workers by making things cheaper and making it easier for them to get drunk.

The Budget measure – believed to have the support of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Health Minister Nicola Roxon – would reverse the price drop brought about by the introduction of the GST in 2000.

While the price of premium beer rose slightly, alcopops fell by 20 per cent, leading to an explosion in their consumption.

Politically brilliant — Rudd can say “no, it’s not a tax hike, it’s saving Australia!”

Give me a break. It’s a freakin’ opportunistic tax hike.

Confidential alcohol industry research obtained by The Daily Telegraph shows, for the first time, the grip alcopops have on young Australians compared to the rest of the world.

Australia has the highest per capita consumption of alcopops in the world, double that of the next biggest consumers, Britain and New Zealand.

First it’s kids that are the problem for drinking too many of these drinks, and now it’s the drinks (and the evil alcohol corporations) who have the grip on young Australians? Here’s a suggestion to all the boneheaded journalists, lobbyists, politicians and general meddling do-gooders: Make up your mind about what exactly is the cause of the problem. Is it the kids? Is it the manufacturers? Who cares, they say, there’s a problem and the Government must do something! That attitude in itself is the source of a big problem I have with nanny-statists, but the end result is always action taken by the Government that creates more problems than it solves.

Forty-five per cent of girls as young as 12 surveyed by the Australian Divisions of General Practice said their last drink was an alcopop, compared to 8 per cent saying it was beer and 11 per cent wine.

Because girls as young as twelve can freely wander into a bottle shop and buy these pre-mixed drinks. Underage drinking is an area where you need to bring quality of parenting into account. It’s completely ignorant and naive to think that the manufacturers market directly to under-18s, while quality of parenting has nothing to do with drunken 14-year olds.

The Australian General Practice Network’s chairman Dr Tony Hobbs said the “alarming” consumption of alcopops had to be curbed.

Give me a break. For starters, there’s a huge market for pre-mixed drinks, which is very obviously why they’re so successful. But at the same time, there’s nothing stopping people from buying the spirits themselves (say, a bottle or two of vodka) and a few flavoured mixers and making their own drinks. In fact, that is arguably more dangerous, because then you’re letting those irresponsible, immature kids decide how much alcohol goes into their drinks. But instead of thinking the problem through, Dr Hobbs has instead decided to go down the ever so easy path of declaring that “something must be done!”

“Drinks need to be priced appropriately. This tax loophole needs to be closed so that drinks become more expensive, restoring the cost barrier to consumption,” he said.

To begin with, there is no tax “loophole”. There is simply a 10% GST component of the product, which just happens to be less than the pre-GST sales tax that was there before. On top of that there is excise which, according to the Australian Tax Office schedule from February 2008, by my own calculation works out to be around 68.8 cents per standard drink. That is just how it is; manufacturers are not avoiding paying any tax or exploiting anything. The very fact that Dr Hobbs would use such a misleading term shows how much he doesn’t understand the issue.

Secondly, pre-mixed drinks range between about 4% to around 8% alcohol, much the same as full-strength beer. However pre-mixed drinks are sold at bars for more than your on-tap full-strength beers. It’s unlikely you’ll get much change out of $7 if you buy one from a bar or a nightclub after 8 or 9pm, and even less likely to get any change after around midnight if you’re not paying more than that. They are the most expensive drinks you can buy at a bar/pub/club if you don’t count what’s on the cocktail menu (or if you’re picky about what wine you drink).

Alternatively, you can pay around $50 for a case of 24 Vodka Cruisers, or about $30 – $35 for a case of 30 cans of VB or XXXX.

Do these people really think that pushing drinkers away from these already comparitively expensive beverages onto Tooheys New, VB or XXXX — which are already cheaper, despite having a similar alcohol content — will solve anything? What planet are they on? Even then, if all else fails, there is always the trusty goon bag.

Consumption slumped in Britain, when the government in 2002 raised taxes on alcopops by 40 per cent amid similar concern over excessive youth drinking.

Was there a raise in consumption of other drinks to compensate? It’s not as if these drinkers were giving up drinking just because their favourite drinks became more expensive. Let’s be realistic here.

Secondly, the problem that extra taxes creates on certain kinds of drinks is that it makes people more likely to buy spirits and mixers seperately and then mix them manually. Ever see a drunk guy responsibly mix his next JD and Coke? I certainly haven’t. There’s always a lot more JD than Coke in that drink. Or there’s always a goon bag.

Drug and Alcohol Research and Training Australia’s Paul Dillon said alcopops allowed kids to get drunk from a far younger age.

Anybody who actually believes that is kidding themselves. Something like a Cruiser or a Breezer allows kids to get drunk at a younger age? Or is it just shoddy parenting and supervision? That such a person could be in such a position to make such a comment is truly astounding. Paul Dillon, you have set a new benchmark for idiots everywhere.

“It used to be that young guys tried beer and girls had a wine cooler or passion pop. They had far less alcohol content and were harder to use to get drunk,” he said.

Sure, beer and wine are acquired tastes. But if kids wanted to get drunk, they would. Also, last I checked, the alcohol content of a standard Vodka Cruiser, Bacardi Breezer or a Smirnoff Ice was around 5%. That is, for the idiots amongst us — and I’m looking at you, Paul Dillon — around about the same content as a full-strength beer or a wine cooler.

The Rudd Government minister responsible for alcohol policy, Senator Jan McLucas railed against alcopops when in she was in Opposition.

In a Parliamentary speech in 2004 the Labor Senator recalled a colleague’s 10-year-old child who described an alcopop drink as: “sweet and fizzy and tastes just like soft drinks”.

I only have one question to pose to Jan McLucas about that: “Why the fuck was your colleague feeding their 10-year old child an alcoholic drink?”

Yesterday Senator McLucas would not comment on whether tax on pre-mixed drinks would be raised in the May Budget.

Let me translate this for you: Tax on pre-mixed drinks will be raised in the May Budget. Considerably.

It’s this kind of reaction to these kinds of societal issues which will solve nothing. It will only serve to annoy most of the population by making alcoholic drinks more expensive (so much for K-Rudd fighting for the workers — taxes will go up left, right and centre), and furthering the impression that idiot bogan parents don’t have to look after their kids because Daddy Rudd and his friendly bureaucrats can do it for them.

Give me a break.

Update: Sure, his post is over a month old — which shows how on the ball I am more than anything else — but Yobbo makes a good point on a similar subject.

Letters read

Meandering through the letters section of The Age is a dangerous exercise. But hey, I’ll do it anyway.

Seemingly referring to a story The Age ran bemoaning David Hicks’ situation, Brian Haill from Frankston writes:

I HOLD my breath as to what the future might hold for Osama bin Laden if he’s ever caught — and he’s actually confronting, threatening and killing elements of the entire “coalition of the willing”!

Short of being shot on sight, I hope if Bin Laden is caught, he’s thrown into Guantanamo. If only because wankers like this will start holding up signs saying “Bring Osama home!”

Gregory Serong from Heidelberg writes:

NOW that the Country Liberal Party leader, Jodeen Carney, former Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett, current federal Liberal MPs Judith Troeth, Bruce Baird, Petro Georgiou, Judi Moylan, and Dana Vale, and the Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce have added their voices to the growing chorus of criticism of the Howard Government’s compliance in the continued incarceration of David Hicks by the US authorities, this issue can no longer be denigrated as the domain of the “loony left”. Conversely, this means that anyone who continues to support the Federal Government’s untenable position must, in fact, hail from the far right.

Firstly, Barnaby Joyce is not a Nationals MP. He’s a Senator. And a nutbag. Secondly, Hicks was caught fighting against Western forces — allies of Australia — in a time of war. I’m sure if he weren’t caught, he’d still be looking to destroy the Jews and the United States of Infidels. Still, a fair trial may be in order. Even Saddam Hussein had a trial.

The other letters in The Age are generally pointless dribble. I survived an Age letters page and I’m still alive!

Intolerance demonstrated

Marieke Hardy, the reason why Channel 7’s Last Man Standing sucked so hard, doesn’t like young’uns with flags. Here’s how she tells of a “real” conversation she had with a flagged youngster at Melbourne’s Big Day Out:

Me: Nice flag, fuckhead.

Moron child: Whatever.

Me: Why are you even wearing that? Do you have any idea what you’re doing?

Moron child: Aussie pride, man.

Me: Go and die.

In this day of tolerance of other cultures, why is it our own culture that idiots like Hardy are intolerant of? Though being cornered by Hardy at a festival is probably a little more fearful. Drunk and with eyes pointing in different directions, this kid would have been confronted with something more like this:

Anybody who is arse-over-head in love with Bob Ellis is surely as retarded as the old coot himself. ‘Nuff said.

Boxer’s head needs examining

Anthony Mundine, not known for his intellect, has released a video for his rap song which shows him burning stuff.

The openly political video for Mundine’s hip-hop single Platinum Ryder, filmed at The Block in Redfern, shows indigenous residents tearing up Mr Howard’s photograph and tossing it into a barrel of flames.

A Union Jack meets the same fate.

The burning takes place against the background of Mundine’s rags-to-riches rap lyrics: “I am just one man, it ain’t the whole of the nation, politicians won’t say sorry for the stolen generation.”

Firstly, I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of stolen generation claims. Name some victims, Anthony!

Secondly, why should today’s government say sorry for something that was allegedly happening long before the political time of anybody in the current government? It’s not as if the evil neo-conservative forces of John Howard ordered the removal of Aboriginal kids from their families.

Thirdly, what would it achieve? The entire concept of a forced apology is stupid. Saying sorry these days seems to be used mostly as an attempt at a “get out of jail free” card. As a child, if your parents forced you to say sorry for punching another annoying kid, would you really mean it? Of course not. However, if you are responsible for something that is an accident and is your fault, it’s okay to say sorry… and mean it.

Why should the current Australian government apologise for something that folks like Mundine can only allege, and that happened before our current Prime Minister came to any kind of power? What would it achieve? Would it really get rid of all the problems folks like Mundine say it will? Somehow I doubt it.

Anthony Mundine, you are a fool. Do everybody a favour and shut up.

Lynch the wealthy

Ethicist Peter Singer is appearing on Channel 10’s 9am program at the moment, suggesting that Australia’s top 10% of rich people should donate one third of their incomes to the poor. One of the presenters posed the question, “what would this mean?”

It means we’d turn into filthy, stinking socialists like Peter Singer.

Dominic Knight, blithering fool

As what seems to happen whenever I issue a notice of leaving, I tend to find internet again fairly quickly. That said, if I were you I would expect only sporadic posting over the next few weeks.

Anyway, not that it needed me to declare it or anything, but Dominic Knight who runs the Radar blog at the Sydney Morning Herald website is a tool. A couple of days back, he decided to take on the Young Liberals.

To address the outrage that is people being actively encouraged to live longer, the Victorian branch of the Young Liberals has advocated bringing back tobacco advertising.

They have?

Really, their logic is infallible. Like the good little ideologues that they are, they know that individual free will should reign supreme. “Prohibitions on tobacco advertising are an insult to the intelligence of the ordinary Australian,” the branch says. “These bans assume that individuals are not fit to make up their own minds on the benefits or otherwise of smoking and need the Government to make the decision for them.”

Well, it’s true. I feel it’s a bit of an extreme example, however anytime that the government bans anything it is a result of nanny-state thinking. There are times when you need to ensure you don’t let ideology get in the way of pragmatism — and I believe this is one of those situations — however at the end of the day, it is simply not good to have a society who always needs the government to distinguish right and wrong for them. The individual should reign supreme. On the other hand, it is refreshing that in saying this, Dominic Knight implies he is not up to the task of making his own decisions and that government bureaucrats should make them for him.

And while we’re at it, why not leave more things up to the wisdom of ordinary Australians, like whether to take drugs? We should be able to determine the “benefits or otherwise” for ourselves, surely?

With adequate education programs in place, there is no reason why not. The thing is, regardless of whether drugs are illegal or not, the idiots that will misuse them will obtain them somehow. Decriminalisation is not necessarily allowing a free, unregulated market, rather than allowing a little more government control over a black market. At any rate, Dominic would prefer the government to tell us what we should and shouldn’t do because he simply cannot look out for himself.

In fact, this argument applies to the whole of organised society. How dare society interfere with my individual choices about whether to vote, wear clothes, pay taxes, or unleash a hail of bullets into a Young Liberals convention!

Now society is interfering? I thought Dominic’s rant was against the Young Liberals, who don’t like the government interfering? How confusing. A genuine intellect at work. At any rate, voting is part of any democratic society — and I’m sure Dominic wouldn’t like to see that disappear. He can not wear clothes at his own peril. I’d love to pay significantly less amounts of tax, however the cuts in non-essential government services and mass public service sackings would not sit well with Dominic (who presumably wants to pay no tax, but have the government provide everything for him and make his decisions for him). And unleashing a hail of bullets at a Young Liberal convention is a bit much; though it shows how idiot lefties are all for dissent unless it’s against their point of view.

I’m sick of the nanny state interfering with my choices about whether to inject heroin, and it’s time I was given the liberty.

Of course. Just because the government won’t throw you in jail for doing it means it’s a good idea and that everybody will do it. This is sickening.

There must be some limits to this bountiful individual freedom, of course. The same people that passionately advocate liberty for all generally draw the line at allowing women to “make up their own minds on the benefits or otherwise” of proceeding with their pregnancies.

An issue like this is what distinguishes libertarians from social conservatives. I’m sure you’d get a good mix of both if you went to a Young Liberal convention. Just as you’d get a mix of hardcore socialists all the way to Keynesian thinkers if you went to a Young Labor convention. And it’s not as if the Liberals have a monopoly on social conservatism — Kevin Rudd is about as Catholic as they get, and I’m sure he doesn’t like the idea of abortions.

Dominic continues dribbling on for a few more paragraphs, before coming out with this:

The Young Libs have lots of other great policy ideas as well, like the flat tax. Although that was Pauline Hanson’s idea first. Still, that never stopped John Howard.

I’m sure that idea has been around long before Pauline Hanson came around. And considering it’s a libertarian policy (that the government should be as small and non-intrusive as possible), it’s unlikely Hanson came up with it herself. She’s said a lot of silly things in her time, however a flat tax is not one of them. The flat tax is a core policy of the Liberal Democratic Party as well, but I’m sure Dominic wants to put in a cause-and-effect argument forward instead. The Young Libs are proposing something that Pauline Hanson proposed years ago, therefore they agree with everything she ever said, especially those things about Asians!

Dominic Knight is a complete idiot. Perhaps he could be eliminated with a hail of bullets through somebody’s own free will like he suggested in his post.

Free speech, but only if others agree to it

I’m all for free speech and whatnot, but sometimes people should be punched in the face out of principle. Like this guy:

An Australian who lives in Britain has threatened legal action against Qantas for barring him from a Melbourne-to-London flight wearing a t-shirt depicting US President George W Bush as a terrorist.

So? Qantas is a private enterprise and can bar whatever shirts they wish. It’s not like they were discriminating, since this tool would be allowed to board if he swapped shirts.

Airline staff argued the t-shirt, which bears an image of the US president with the slogan ‘World’s number 1 terrorist’, was a security risk or an item likely to upset passengers.

It’s certainly an inflammatory shirt, and anybody who wears a shirt like that is asking for conflict. I wonder what this guy would think if I wore a shirt that said “The Australian Greens: World’s Number One Terrorist Sympathisers”? Chances are, because it’s something he wouldn’t agree with, he’d cry foul because I’m not respecting his beliefs or some such nonsense.

I hope this guy hasn’t reproduced; it’s a little painful to think that some poor kid would have this nutbag as a parent.

Blame the Joooos

According to a “respected” and “highly influential” radical Muslim cleric from Sydney, Jews are pigs:

Sheikh Feiz Mohammed, head of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool, delivers the hateful rants on a collection of DVDs called the Death Series, sold in Australia and overseas, News Limited newspapers report.

Almost sounds like a normal lecture from Antony Loewenstein. Still, moving on from those evil Joooos, this “influential” cleric has more to spray:

“Today many parents, they prevent their children from attending lessons,” he says in the video.

“Why? They fear that they might create a place in their hearts, the love, just a bit of the love, of sacrificing their lives for Allah.”

“We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam.

“Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid (holy warrior).

“Put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom.”

I got cornered by a girl from Amnesty International on the street today, saying they wanted to stop the use of children as soldiers in war zones. Given that there are so many terrorist (and radical Muslim) apologists on the Left, and that organisations like Amnesty International are mostly made up of lefties, this must be a real brain buster.

I can hear them screaming “think of the children” now, however their leftiness is also crying out that we’ve got a higher chance of being killed by lightning than by an act of terrorism, so fighting terrorists is a stupid idea. But we have to stop militant Muslim groups recruiting young children to fight for them. But lightning is more harmful than terrorists. But the children…

I suggest we bomb the sky to get rid of lightning, and then we can save the children. Yup, foolproof.

How to mislead readers

Headline of the day:

Cause of death: Nintendo Wii

I’ll get to the headline later. First, about the story.

I was able to walk in and get a Nintendo Wii on launch day (after waiting an hour to get in the door of the store). Then again, I did the sensible thing and pre-ordered it to ensure I got one. Since it’s extremely hard to get one now, with just about everywhere sold out of Wii stuff, people are resorting to dumb radio competitions:

The promotion, titled “Hold Your Wee for a Wii”, challenged contestants to drink as much water as possible without having to urinate. The “last man standing” would win a brand new, hard to find, Nintendo Wii.

Hey, sounds promising!

The rules were simple: Drink an 8 ounce bottle of water every 15 minutes. Tap out if you couldn’t take it or keep going until a winner emerged.

Unfortunately for Mrs. Strange, who was doing this for her three kids, water intoxication kicked in, according to the Sacramento County Coroner’s Office.

After the contest, Jennifer called her place of work with a horrible pain in her head. “She said to one of our supervisors that she was on her way home and her head was hurting her real bad,” Rios said. “She was crying and that was the last that anyone had heard from her.”

The body was found by Strange’s mother, who was alerted of her daughters pain by her supervisor.

Sad, tragic and unnecessary, yes. But it’s also a stupid competition. Surely it would have been easier to simply pre-order a Wii so you’re definitely going to get one when the next shipment arrives, and just pay for the convenience. I know which option I’d take; the lazy one.

Now, about that headline. How stupid and misleading. The Nintendo Wii itself did not contribute at all to the death of Jennifer Strange. Sure, it was a prize desirable enough to make people participate in the competition, but she did not die as a direct result of a Nintendo Wii.

Cause of idiocy: Prolonged exposure to teh intarwebs!!!!11

Stupid Sheik

As we all know by now, Sheik Taj el-din al Hilaly has had another big ol’ spray against Australia.

The senior cleric said Muslims were more Australian than Anglo-Saxons because they came here voluntarily, that Australians played the “fear card” to keep Muslims down, and that racial prejudice was the reason for the 55-year sentence given to the gang rapist Bilal Skaf.

I don’t think Australia needs to play the “fear card” when idiots like this keep popping up. At least he’s sticking to his guns about the gang raping though; after all, according to this nutbag, the girl should be thrown in jail. After all, she was probably showing her uncovered meat, and Bilal Skaf was nothing but an innocent little puddy cat.

“Anglo-Saxons came to Australia in chains, while we paid our way and came in freedom. We are more Australian than them. Australia is not an Anglo-Saxon country – Islam has deep roots in Australian soil that were there before the English arrived,” Sheik Hilaly said.

Deep roots in Australia? I guess that explains why Australia has a tradition of Sharia law and makes sure women are not allowed to wear clothes that expose more than the eyes. Oh wait, no it doesn’t. This guy is seriously messed up.

Australia’s most controversial cleric was talking on the Egyptian news program Cairo Today, shown in Australia on the Orbit satellite network on Tuesday morning.

The interview, in Arabic, was about the furore he created in October with a Ramadan sermon in which he compared scantily clad women with “uncovered meat”, suggesting they were responsible for rape, called women Satan’s soldiers to deceive men, and said thieves often stole because they were pressured by greedy women.

It would be interesting to find out if Sheik Hilaly has ever been laid. My guess is no, given that he’d be giving into Satan’s deceptive soldiers. Still, given this is what Australia’s top Muslim has to say about women, it makes the prospect of Sharia law all the more wonderful if you’re a woman.

The most interesting thing, though, is that lefties are already making excuses and saying that the rest of Australia is to blame. Indymedia commenter Dave has this to say (scroll down on the above link):

The sheik is nothing more than an “agent provocatuer”, whether he knows it or not. Most of the time, comments in the Egyptian media bare little or no importance to our own media here in Oz, but not today! Every newspaper, every radio station, every TV news and current affairs programme, are all itching to tell us all what the sheik ‘thinks’ of Australia and Australians. The net result – his comments become ‘topic of the day’ at workplaces around Australia, and all the racist and terrorism-fearing citizens among the population feel a little more justified in their hatred of the muslim community.

It’s not his comments that are important, it’s the effect that the dissemination of those comments have on a predominantly racist Australian population…

- Dave

Yep, the Australian media pays attention to some crazy Sheik, who just happens to be Australia’s most prominent Muslim representative, and it’s racist. Listen Dave, I’m sure I can speak for most of Australia when I say this: I don’t care what race you are — if you’re a fool, you will be treated as one.

One very interesting twist in this whole saga is that Sheik al Hilaly may not even know he’s pissed off Australia again:

AUSTRALIA’S controversial mufti Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali may be blissfully unaware of the fallout caused by his latest comments, with his family concerned the news may damage his health, a long-term friend says.

Tell him! Tell him! Screw his health. Predictably, Keysar Trad is offering excuses:

“I don’t believe that he intended to take a swipe at Australian society, I got the impression that he was trying to justify living here to a person that was probing him,” said Mr Trad, who usually acts as the mufti’s spokesman.

[...]

“You can see some of his comments are clear generalisations that would certainly not be his views,” said Mr Trad, who in the past has said the mufti’s controversial remarks had been misinterpreted or misunderstood.

He may have said it all by himself, but that doesn’t mean he meant it.

Quite rightly, this hemorrhoid on society has been loudly told to bugger off.