|
Less confused, yes. Now I that understand what you were getting at, it's quite clear that your argument doesn't work. I see no hypocrisy in Rudd's position. Hilali should be sacked because he's not doing his job. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The fact that Hilali hasn't been fired (yet) has more to do with internal politics (which is a dirty business in any organisation) than from any widespread support in the islamic community.
| 
