We’ll fight radical Islam for 100 years, says ex-army head Peter Leahy

[Vic Vinegar]

I give it 30 years tops. Well whenever more than 5% of the Australian population is Muslim. That will be the beginning of the end of Australia as we know it.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...80pc-in-20-years/story-e6frg6nf-1225996403047

The Muslim population in Australia would still remain relatively low. At present, Muslims comprise 1.9 per cent of all Australians. That figure will rise to 2.8 per cent.

Mind you, the the UK is at 4.4% and I would imagine that 2.8% is probably a conservative estimate. Besides sharia law is practised informally here already:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ork-in-australia/story-fn59niix-1226097889992

Won't be long before the Left allies with Islam in their calls for a "tolerant" attitude toward sharia law here.

 

[Gough]

I give it 30 years tops. Well whenever more than 5% of the Australian population is Muslim. That will be the beginning of the end of Australia as we know it.

Pulling random figures out of the air doesn't strengthen your case any. You're also underestimating the attractions of our great lifestyle, we are a largely secular country because there are plenty of better things to be doing than spending your time in a mosque/church/synagogue. Many immigrants soon come to realise this.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

Pulling random figures out of the air doesn't strengthen your case any. You're also underestimating the attractions of our great lifestyle, we are a largely secular country because there are plenty of better things to be doing than spending your time in a mosque/church/synagogue. Many immigrants soon come to realise this.

Evidence?

 

[Taylor]

The immigrant families I know have Australian children. The Muslim, Italian Catholic, Indian.. all live exactly the same when outside of the home with friends.

 

[Gough]

Evidence?

I have none, it was more an observation. How many first and second generation Italian Australians go to Mass like their Nonnas did? Interestingly I observed the same of first and second generation British Muslim kids when I lived in the UK.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

The immigrant families I know have Australian children. The Muslim, Italian Catholic, Indian.. all live exactly the same when outside of the home with friends.

I have none, it was more an observation. How many first and second generation Italian Australians go to Mass like their Nonnas did? Interestingly I observed the same of first and second generation British Muslim kids when I lived in the UK.

Is that it? Bland PC anecdotes?

I love the continuing sly attempts to link radical Islam with Catholicism (Italian Catholic, Italian Australians........) And Gough, you are not Italian. How would you know?

 

[Taylor]

The beauty of our system is that as long as the middle class is mostly made up of the same sort of person then our political system won't change and as long as the laws aren't changing then lifestyle will win out.

The lifestyle will win over the majority of new Australians too, so the pattern rolls on.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

The beauty of our system is that as long as the middle class is mostly made up of the same sort of person then our political system won't change and as long as the laws aren't changing then lifestyle will win out.

The lifestyle will win over the majority of new Australians too, so the pattern rolls on.

You have absolutely no evidence to back up that assertion whatsoever. None.

We, on the other hand, can point to the UK, France, Germany etc as a precursor of what is to come.

 

[Taylor]

You have absolutely no evidence to back up that assertion whatsoever. None.

We, on the other hand, can point to the UK, France, Germany etc as a precursor of what is to come.

The only actual ground level talk I've heard from the English is a fear that they are losing their country because they can see dark skinned people in Britain. Then an immigrant family move in next door and they are alright, it's the rest of them that are the problem.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

The only actual ground level talk I've heard from the English is a fear that they are losing their country because they can see dark skinned people in Britain. Then an immigrant family move in next door and they are alright, it's the rest of them that are the problem.

So now you are back to the "racist whites" bigotry. Not that it even addressed the question, which was whether sharia law would make it to Australia.

God you people are pathetic.

 

[Taylor]

So now you are back to the "racist whites" bigotry. Not that it even addressed the question, which was whether sharia law would make it to Australia.

God you people are pathetic.

Sharia Law won't get in because the entire interest group would need to live in one electorate and win that single seat. Then a hung parliament. Then the proposed modifications would need to be politically palatable for the major party in power to cop at the next election.

Australians are afraid but nothing has changed.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

I think you might find that peace has been a rare commodity in the west over our history. I call this the sampler package, barely scratching the surface of Christian, European conflagrations and I can't be bothered going beyond the 14th century.

Roman-Etruscan Wars, Sulla's Civil Wars, Gallic Wars, Iberian War, Frankish Civil War, Saxon Wars, Great Slav Rising, German-Polish War, Rus'-Byzantine Wars, Byzanine-Norman Wars, Norman conquest of England, Revolt of the Earls, Civil War in Norway, Norman invasion of Ireland, Anglo-French War, Siege of La Rochelle, Friso-Drentic War, Venetain-Genovese Wars, Scottish-Norwegain Wars, War of the Limburg Succession, Franco-Flemish war, Byzantine Civil War (pt 1), Polish-Teutonic War, Hundred Year's War, War of the Two Peters.

Peace in our time, as then, is not a question of religion but of power, wealth and sabre rattlers, like you.

So tell me, was there a particular reason you neglected to mention the various Islamic attempts on Europe over a period of around 400 years during that time?

 

[Gough]

Sharia Law won't get in because the entire interest group would need to live in one electorate and win that single seat. Then a hung parliament. Then the proposed modifications would need to be politically palatable for the major party in power to cop at the next election.

Australians are afraid but nothing has changed.

It would need a referendum in the first place too I would imagine, I'm pretty sure Sharia Law isn't permissable as The Constitution stands. To claim we are thirty years from it is hysterical crap.

 

[cartwright]

Is that it? Bland PC anecdotes?

I love the continuing sly attempts to link radical Islam with Catholicism (Italian Catholic, Italian Australians........) And Gough, you are not Italian. How would you know?

and yet, his observation is quite accurate.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

Sharia Law won't get in because the entire interest group would need to live in one electorate and win that single seat. Then a hung parliament. Then the proposed modifications would need to be politically palatable for the major party in power to cop at the next election.

Australians are afraid but nothing has changed.

You clearly have no idea how politics works. An entire interest group needs to live in one electorate and win one seat? I just.........oh man. I've seen some stupid comments on here, but yours officially takes the cake.

Dumbest. Single. Statement. On. Bigfooty.

EVER.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

It would need a referendum in the first place too I would imagine, I'm pretty sure Sharia Law isn't permissable as The Constitution stands. To claim we are thirty years from it is hysterical crap.

This makes more sense. It would only need a referendum if the laws were a) challenged and b) found by the High Court to be unconstitutional. s 116 of the Constitution prohibits imposing any religious observance, but there has never been a case which has interpreted this part of s116 before.

And it does not derogate from the capacity of individual States to introduce elements of sharia law, it only operates to constrict the Federal Parliament it its exercise. The Wills Act, for example, is state based legislation, nothing to stop Victoria from imposing sharia laws in relation to inheritance for example.

 

[Taylor]

You clearly have no idea how politics works. An entire interest group needs to live in one electorate and win one seat? I just.........oh man. I've seen some stupid comments on here, but yours officially takes the cake.

Dumbest. Single. Statement. On. Bigfooty.

EVER.

You know that in order to win a political voice, a seat in the house of reps, the candidate needs to win most votes after preferences?

I must be forgetting my entire political science course because the only way a minority group is going to shift aside a liberal, national, labor, PUP or green candidate for the house of reps is to localise their votes.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

You know that in order to win a political voice, a seat in the house of reps, the candidate needs to win most votes after preferences?

I must be forgetting my entire political science course because the only way a minority group is going to shift aside a liberal, national, labor, PUP or green candidate for the house of reps is to localise their votes.

So there needs to be a Sharia Party of Australia does there? And they need one lower house seat to introduce sharia law do they?

Honest to god, I really struggle to believe you studied political science. That is the most unbelievably simplistic view of the political process I have ever read.

Minority interest groups for a start don't focus on the lower house, they focus on the upper house. I'm sure that is taught in Political Science 101, first or second week.

 

[Taylor]

View attachment 73734

So there needs to be a Sharia Party of Australia does there? And they need one lower house seat to introduce sharia law do they?

Honest to god, I really struggle to believe you studied political science. That is the most unbelievably simplistic view of the political process I have ever read.

Minority interest groups for a start don't focus on the lower house, they focus on the upper house. I'm sure that is taught in Political Science 101, first or second week.

You're digging yourself a hole here. The major parties are blocking the preference deals that allow microparty senate wins.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

You're digging yourself a hole here. The major parties are blocking the preference deals that allow microparty senate wins.

So you honestly believe that means that so-called "minority interest groups" are going to migrate down to the lower house do you? Your failure to understand the sarcasm in the first line of my post as well is concerning. Oh man, you are simplistic.

No preferential voting will still be the way to go, it will just be a little more difficult:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...top-micro-gamers/story-fn59niix-1226897751911

The major parties have been considering seeking a minimum percentage of 1.4 per cent in first-preference votes before any preferences could be distributed.

Not unachievable with the rise of Muslim numbers in the years ahead.

And who ever said that such laws are introduced on the basis of one lower house seat (federally anyway)? That has never happened and never will. There is a difference between power and influence, it doesn't take having a seat in Parliament to influence the laws of this country.

It takes raw numbers in the community, not having or being influenced in a single lower house seat as you very simplistically put it.

 

[Taylor]

So you honestly believe that means that so-called "minority interest groups" are going to migrate down to the lower house do you? Your failure to understand the sarcasm in the first line of my post as well is concerning. Oh man, you are simplistic.

Who ever said that such laws are introduced on the basis of one seat/one vote? That has never happened and never will. There is a difference between power and influence, it doesn't take having a seat in Parliament to influence the laws of this country.

It takes raw numbers in the community, not having or being influenced in a single lower house seat as you very simplistically put it.

Have you seen how fast a prime minister will be pushed aside if there is a hint that it will cost votes to keep them?

Yes, it does take raw numbers in the community and those raw numbers need to be over 20% to matter.

There isn't going to be any School Kid Bonus & Islam Appreciation Act 2015 sneaking through.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

Have you seen how fast a prime minister will be pushed aside if there is a hint that it will cost votes to keep them?

Yes, it does take raw numbers in the community and those raw numbers need to be over 20% to matter.

There isn't going to be any School Kid Bonus & Islam Appreciation Act 2015 sneaking through.

Over 20%........do you have any figures to support that? Or are you "pulling random figures out of the air" to quote another poster in this thread?

I suggest that 1.4% is closer to the mark.

You also underestimate political deviancy, Leftist rhetoric and voter apathy. If the Left kicks up a storm about "racism" and "tolerance" the government will just pass the laws and find some way to sweep it under the rug.

 

[Taylor]

Over 20%........do you have any figures to support that? Or are you "pulling random figures out of the air" to quote another poster in this thread?

I suggest that 1.4% is closer to the mark.

You also underestimate political deviancy, Leftist rhetoric and voter apathy. If the Left kicks up a storm about "racism" and "tolerance" the government will just pass the laws and find some way to sweep it under the rug.

Well the Liberal Party and Labor secured mid 30s% of the vote in the last election, the greens got 8% and secured one seat for it because their support was distributed and not localized in the single seat like the 1.37% of total that the two independents were.

Looks like your figure is only correct if the voters are living in the single electorate.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

Well the Liberal Party and Labor secured mid 30s% of the vote in the last election, the greens got 8% and secured one seat for it because their support was distributed and not localized in the single seat like the 1.37% of total that the two independents were.

Looks like your figure is only correct if the voters are living in the single electorate.

I'm not talking about the lower house. As was made clear via the link I posted and my subsequent comments thereon.

I'm not sure whether I should bother with someone who a) deliberately ignores the context of what others are saying to distort the debate and b) struggles to understand basic elements of our political system.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Well the Liberal Party and Labor secured mid 30s% of the vote in the last election, the greens got 8% and secured one seat for it because their support was distributed and not localized in the single seat like the 1.37% of total that the two independents were.

Looks like your figure is only correct if the voters are living in the single electorate.

In a hung parliament one lower house seat can be enough to shift policy. In 2010 the deal with the Greens reversed Labor's pre-election commitments on the Carbon Tax.