|
It's sometimes hard to say what goes on in the dark recesses of Islam.
Occasionally one gets a glimpse into the mindset, as someone lets the cat out
of the bag to grab some unattended meat, before retreating into the
'misinterpretation', 'out of context' and multicultural victim-hood. Or sometimes even
to prison. In one such a glimpse, some mainstream media outlets were reporting that the
ever colorful Sheik Hilali has been sacked as Australia's Mufti. This has been
met with counter-claim, and counter-counter-claim, but as usual the real
entertainment is not in the truth - it's in the positions of the players. Specifically Kevin (KRudd) Rudd has weighed into the religious debate,
insisting that "It's time for
Sheik Hilali to go and it's time that that happened as a matter of urgency,"
because his "views are inconsistent with the mainstream views of the Australian
community." Huh? This from the leader of the party which championed political
correctness? This from the successor of the man who intervened to give
Hilali citizenship in the first place - in spite of his questionable police
record? Apparently Kevin Rudd feel that people should be sacked simply for having
'views inconsistent with the mainstream'. Wouldn't that constitute unfair
dismissal Kevin? What even happened the ALP's stance on Little Johnny's
'draconian' IR laws? And what about diversity? As Australians, aren't we
supposed to celebrate diversity, Kevin? Wasn't 'mainstreaming' a dirty word
concocted by the fascists in the Liberal party? And would it be appropriate for a Prime Minister (or wannabe Prime Minister) to
interfere with the internal decisions of a religious group? Isn't Australia
supposed to be a secular state? Does KRudd want us to become more like the
Middle East in this respect? Kevin Rudd has once again demonstrated that he is a total goose. For the rest of us, Hilali's status is just an indicator of the sentiment of
the Muslim attitude within Australia. Whether he has been sacked or not, the
fact that he survived this long is a clear indication of the median mind-set of
his supporters. Though-out his lies about his Iraqi adventures (apparently
single-handedly rescuing Douglas Wood), the comments about women being to blame
for rape, and calling
Australians the worst kind of liars and hypocrites, he wasn't removed. The
conclusion? That at least half of the Muslims in this country supported his
position, and therefore supported him. If the Sheik truly is fired from his position, then this will be an indication
of a smarter Muslim population (in recognizing that their overt support for
such extremism has consequences), but not necessarily a change in attitude.
'Mainstream' Australia will remain suspicious of their Islamic co-citizens in
spite of their claims to be from the 'religion of peace'. Is such suspicion justified, or are we merely Hansonist xenophobes? It's
clearly the latter. After all what would would you expect from the worst kind
of liars and hypocrites?
| 
