|
>> Less confused, yes. Now I that understand what you were getting at, it's quite
>> clear that your argument doesn't work. Oh dear! I seem to upset the sensibilities of The Left again. >> I see no hypocrisy in Rudd's position. Hilali should be sacked because he's
>> not doing his job. You are very wise. You have the ability to know who should be sacked from which
organization, even though you are not a part of it. Maybe you would like to
come to my company and tell me who I should and shouldn't sack? Then again, given that the shareholders have appointed me to run the company,
perhaps I am in a better position to actually do that. What a radical thought!
Perhaps the members of Hilali's organization are in a better position to decide
whether he should or shouldn't be sacked, and whether he is 'doing his job'
appropriately? Apparently letting people choose their own leaders is anathema
to you. So much for leftist claims of freedom of
association, eh? >> He was appointed by a particular council to an admittedly dubious position,
>> with his primary role to provide spiritual guidance to his followers. Help
>> them become better muslims or whatever. You have a copy of the man's duty statement? Post it on the internet, please. >> Of course, with such authority comes responsibility, and this is where Hilali
>> falls down. Because as a 'leader' of his community, people assume, as you have
>> done, that his views represent the views of his constituents. And in making
>> the outrageous comments that he has, he's brought the entire muslim community
>> in Australia into disrepute, and continues to do so. Well, one person's 'disrepute' is another's religious pride. (Are you
forgetting the principles of Cultural
Relativism?). Many Australians have been and continue to be appalled at the
behavior of our Muslim brethren. Some Australians have been appalled at the
attitudes of mainstream Australia. Hilali has done his job admirably. He is an excellent spokesman for the Muslim
community, and most Australians better understand the attitudes of their
Islamic fellow-countrymen as a result. I don't really understand the call to
fire someone on those grounds. But even if I did, it really wouldn't be my business. And neither is it
yours. And neither is it Kevin (LapDog) Rudd's. It's up to the Muslim community
to choose their spokesmen according to their own criteria. And they have done
so. I fully support that right. You, on the other hand seem intent on taking
that right away. (This is typical of The Left). >> If the public spokesman for a company was to repeatedly make stupid and
>> offensive public statements (whether on behalf of the company or not), he would
>> rightfully be sacked. Again, I would say this would be a decision for the shareholders. Not you. And
not LapDog. >> This situation is no different. It's not the case that
>> he's doing a good job but the boss wants to fire him to get a cuter piece of
>> ass, and making such analogies doesn't do your argument any credit. Wrong. His employer can fire him for whatever reason they want to. The fact
that they haven't done so is a clear indication of their agenda. >> As for the fish in water deal; pretty much every muslim group I'm aware of has
>> taken great pains to make clear that they don't support Hilali or his
>> UnAustralian views. He has no support, but he is still in the position!! Ha ha!! The man can
levitate!! He is a god! All hail Hilali! Hilali Akbar! Hilali Akbar! >> The fact that Hilali hasn't been fired (yet) has more to
>> do with internal politics (which is a dirty business in any organization) than
>> from any widespread support in the islamic community. In any dirty political
group, those in charge are removed when they no longer have the support of the
rest of the group. Heck - this even works in the ALP: even MadDog got the push
eventually. Hilali is there because he has support. Any other claim is simply apologist
nonsense.
| 
