Plain Talking Jane

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Send A Letter to Those Responsible

Ladies and Gentlemen

it's time to take action. In the 1780's the Clapham Sect in England started a letter writing and petitioning campaign that led to the end of slavery throughout most of the world. Today we need to break the bonds of a political correctness slavery that will not let us, the people, decide if we want to tolerate the violent intolerance of Islam.Below I have prepared letters for you to copy and paste and send to a variety of people. It is important to send the letters to The Government, The Opposition and the Bureaucracy. Let them all know that the complaint has been sent to the others to increase the pressure on the politicians, police and bureaucrats.

It is important to act calmly and peacefully. As you can see there are remedies available under the law but first we must force the government and bureaucracy to apply the law. We are not asking for special treatment, rather we ask for an end to discrimination. We know that the law is only respected if it is universally applied. We also know that there are office holders who have a sworn duty to protect the community and apply the law equally to all. The initial threat from literalist Islam is predominantly a threat to the common law which they want us to abandon in favour of a selective jurisprudence that places the sensibilities of Islam above the human rights of the wider community.

To get action we must explain clearly that we will vote for the party that best responds to our demand to apply the law equally to all without fear or favour. Please tell your friends and other bloggers about this campaign. We need to make our voices heard so that politicians are more scared of the electoral consequences of our numbers than they are of being called names by left wing elite politicians, media, academics and 'community leaders'.

Unfortunately the Victorian Government web presence is not as obvious as the NSW Government so the departmental email addresses aren’t as good.
Here are the letters:

Victorian Residents email these people (put then all as addressees on the same email and let them see who else has received the email).

Premier Steve Bracks
steve.bracks@parliament.vic.gov.au
Tim Holding Police Minister
timothy.holding@parliament.vic.gov.au
Robert Doyle Leader of the Opposition
robert.doyle@parliament.vic.gov.au
Victorian Police via office of ethical standards email
ethical.standards@police.vic.gov.au
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am offended by violent passages in the Koran that I believe are in clear breach of Section 321G of the Victorian Crimes Act which states that ‘…where a person …incites any other person to pursue a course of conduct which will involve the commission of an offence…the inciter is guilty…of incitement.’ Section 2A states that ‘…incite includes command, request, propose, advise, encourage or authorize…’ They also violate Section 25 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 which says: ‘A person…must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, intentionally engage in conduct that the offender knows is likely …to incite hatred...to threaten, or incite others to threaten physical harm towards that person or class of persons…’

There are numerous passages in the Koran that violate this section of the law. I am referring to the 2003 Penguin edition Koran currently available in Dymocks bookstores. P.133 says 'When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them.’ ‘fighting is obligatory for you…’ p.32; ‘Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them.’ p.146; and ‘slay or crucify opponents in war’ p.83.' As an idolater and infidel I find these passages threatening, offensive and consequently illegal.

I believe the publisher and distributor of these passages are in breach of the law and would like you to refer all publishers and distributors of such offensive, threatening and illegal literature to the Courts for Prosecution. No publisher or distributor in the current climate can reasonably argue that they could not reasonably foresee that someone is likely to take these words literally. Koranic passages like these were interpreted literally to incite mass murder in Bali, New York, London and Madrid.

Whilst the Australian Constitution includes Section 116 which states that ‘The Commonwealth shall not make any law …prohibiting the free exercise of religion...’ this freedom has clear limits that were established in the High Court in the 1943 Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses vs The Commonwealth case. The Court found that ‘Freedom of religion is not absolute. It is subject to powers and restrictions of government essential to the preservation of the community. Freedom of religion may not be invoked to cloak and dissemble subversive opinions or practices and operations dangerous to the common weal.’ and that religion was ‘subject to limitations…such as are reasonably necessary for the protection of the community and in the interests of social order’. Freedom of religion does not extend to the incitement of murder and violence.

As a non Muslim I find these passages offensive, threatening and constituting incitement. I expect you and your office to uphold the law and apply it equally to all in the community without fear or favour in accordance with your sworn duty. The next vote I cast will be primarily determined by your willingness to protect my most fundamental human right not to live in fear of assault or murder because of my beliefs.

Yours sincerely


NSW Residents email these people (put them all as addressees on the same email and let them see who else has received the email).

Premier Morris Iemma

thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au

Carl Scully Police Minister

carl.scully@scully.minister.nsw.gov.au

Peter Debnam leader of the Opposition

peter.debnam@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Commissioner Ken Moroney Police Commissioner

memocirc@police.nsw.gov.au

Mr Nicholas Cowdrey Director of Public Prosecutions

ncowdery@odpp.nsw.gov.au

Gentlemen,

I am offended by violent passages in the Koran that I believe are in clear breach of Section 249F of the New South Wales Crimes Act which states that ‘A person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, solicits or incites the commission of an offence…is guilty of an offence…’There are numerous passages in the Koran that violate this section of the law.

I am referring to the 2003 Penguin edition Koran currently available in Dymocks bookstores. P.133 says 'When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them.’ ‘fighting is obligatory for you…’ p.32; ‘Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them.’ p.146; and ‘slay or crucify opponents in war’ p.83.' As an idolater and infidel I find these passages threatening, offensive and consequently illegal.

I believe the publisher and distributor of these passages are in breach of the law and would like you to refer all publishers and distributors of such offensive, threatening and illegal literature to the Courts for Prosecution.No publisher or distributor in the current climate can reasonably argue that they could not reasonably foresee that someone is likely to take these words literally. Passages like these in the Koran were interpreted literally to incite the mass murder in Bali, New York, London and Madrid.

Whilst the Australian Constitution includes Section 116 which states that ‘The Commonwealth shall not make any law …prohibiting the free exercise of religion...’ this freedom has clear limits that were established in the High Court in the 1943 Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses vs The Commonwealth case. The Court found that ‘Freedom of religion is not absolute. It is subject to powers and restrictions of government essential to the preservation of the community. Freedom of religion may not be invoked to cloak and dissemble subversive opinions or practices and operations dangerous to the common weal.’ and that religion was ‘subject to limitations…such as are reasonably necessary for the protection of the community and in the interests of social order’. Freedom of religion does not extend to the incitement of murder and violence.

As a non Muslim I find these passages offensive, threatening and constituting incitement. I expect you and your office to uphold the law and apply it equally to all in the community without fear or favour in accordance with your sworn duty. The next vote I cast will be primarily determined by your willingness to protect my most fundamental human right not to live in fear of assault or murder because of my beliefs.

Yours sincerely










Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Head in the Oven and Turning Up the Gas?

Danna Vale’s comments on the Islamic birth rates and abortion drew widespread derision and condemnation last week. Few tested her argument with fact, relying instead on the usual mix of outrage and pejoratives. So what did she really say?

Firstly, that some Imams see the high Islamic birth rate as the path to achieve majority status in Western countries. So Vale’s is right to say that these claims have been made but is the prediction accurate?

Secondly, her source reportedly predicted that Muslim’s will overtake Australia’s infidel population in fifty years? This is almost certainly wrong. Let’s make some generalized basic assumptions rounded up to whole numbers and do some modeling to predict a loosely plausible future. Let’s use 2000 as the base year and apply these very general estimates.

Group ----------------- Population size---------Fertility rate-- Generational span

Aust Islamic:-----------500,000-----------------4-----------------------25 years
Aust Other:------------20,000,000-------------1.5----------------------35 years

In these figures ‘Aust Islamic’ includes all Muslim Australians and ‘Aust Other’ all non Muslim Australians. The fertility rate is the average number of children each female will produce and the generational span is the average time taken to reach the average fertility rate. To model this set of assumptions take the total population, divide it by two (to get the number of women) and multiply that by the fertility rate every generational span. (To get the in between generation figure I estimate how close to the full generation is and apply this percentage).

So what these assumptions tell us is:

Year----------Aust Other --------------Aust Islamic --------------Aust generation
2000---------20,000,000--------------500,000------------------Our generation
2025---------17,000,000--------------1,000,000
2035---------15,000,000--------------1,400,000-----------------Children
2050---------13,500,000--------------2,000,000
2070---------11,250,000--------------3,700,000----------------Grand children
2075---------10,828,120---------------4,000,000
2100----------8,859,375---------------8,000,000
2105---------8,437,500--------------9,200,000----------Great grand child

If we assume current patterns continue our great grandchildren live in a society that is majority Islamic in 100 years. However, these figures are incorrect. I don’t know what the respective fertility rates are, the initial Islamic population in 2000 or the generational span. However the model demonstrates that Danna Vale is wrong, on the time scale at least, and immigration hasn’t yet to be factored in.

If we assume that we take 100,000 immigrants per year we will add 5 million extra people between 2000 and 2050. As the tables below show the make up of the immigration program is the most important factor in determining whether Islam achieves Danna Vale’s prediction in 2050 or after 2150.

So here are some speculative outcomes if we assume that the Islamic percentage of the immigration intake is the only variable in the model.

Islamic immigration at 5% of total immigration program:

Year-----------Aust General--------Aust Islamic---------Total--------% Islamic
2025-----------21,425,000----------700,000---------22,125,000--------3
2050----------18,562,500--------2,600,000---------21,162,500--------12

Islamic immigration at 10% of total immigration program:

Year-----------Aust General--------Aust Islamic---------Total--------% Islamic
2025-----------21,350,000---------900,000------------22,250,000------4
2050----------18,375,000--------3,800,000-----------22,175,000------17

Islamic immigration at 15% of total immigration program:

Year------------Aust General--------Aust Islamic---------Total--------% Islamic
2025------------21,275,000---------1,100,000-----------22,375,000------5
2050-----------18,187,500---------5,000,000-----------23,187,500------22

Islamic immigration at 20% of total immigration program:

Year------------Aust General--------Aust Islamic---------Total--------% Islamic
2025------------21,200,000---------1,300,000-----------22,500,000-------6
2050------------18,000,000---------6,200,000----------24,200,000-------26

The Islamic intake would have to be 60% of all immigrants to achieve Islamic majority by 2050. If 20% of the total immigration intake is Islamic the results is a Muslim majority somewhere around 2075 – I won’t be alive, but my children will be.

Finally are we aborting ourselves into oblivion and will RU486 make things worse? I haven't seen anything to suggest that RU486 increases abortion demand. I would imagine it is a substitute product, and therefore doesn’t add to demand just changes the way existing demand is satisfied.

So Danna Vale is right about the first part of her argument and wrong on the timetable in the second part of her argument. On the third part she is probably wrong about the impact of RU486 but has a point on abortion more generally.

So it probably is in the national interest to reduce the abortion rate amongst non Islamic Australian women, but I doubt passage of the RU486 bill will affect the rate and I doubt abortion should or will become illegal.

The real message for Australia is to understand the religious constitution of the immigration program and its impact on the general population over time. We need a respected demographer, armed with accurate figures, to project the religious impact of our current immigration program into the future. Then we can let the people decide if they are comfortable with the projected outcome.

Nearly everywhere that Muslims are the majority they substantially adjust the constitution to favour Islamic legal concepts if not impose Sharia law. Consequently we need to know now whether we need a referendum or whether the problem is so far into the future it is inherently unnecessary.

Because we are one of the few countries where citizens can change the constiturion through a referendum we are more at risk than most. All the Muslims need to go to Sharia is an overall majority of Australians and a majority in a majority of states. On my simple model a realistic outcome is that our grand children might have Sharia forced on them due to the make up if our current immigration program has more than 15% or so Islamic component. Clearly the Australiancommunity deserves more information so that we can make an informed decision about our future.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Wanted: A Few Good Men to Fight Islamo Fascism

In the wake of the cartoon fiasco some Muslims are calling for greater legal protection for their religious feelings. The West doesn’t seem prepared to apply existing laws to protect peoples safety so why invent new laws to protect peoples feelings?

Most Australians consider freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equality before the law as our basic democratic principles. But how do these principles balance out in relation to a statement like this one published in a book purchased at a major bookstore? ‘When the sacred months are over slay the idolators wherever you find them.’ Like most Australians I am an idolator and I find calls to murder me absolutely offensive.

Most would accept this statement is a literal incitement to murder. Under the New South Wales Crimes Act, Sect 249F, ‘A person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, solicits or incites the commission of an offence…is guilty of an offence…’ Under Sect 2A of the Victorian Crimes Act ‘…incite includes command, request, propose, advise, encourage or authorize…’ Sect 321G states that ‘…where a person …incites any other person to pursue a course of conduct which will involve the commission of an offence…the inciter is guilty…of incitement.’ At the very least the quoted statement counsels and therefore incites murder.

Incitement laws restrict freedom of speech, but the context of this statement is religious and the Australian Constitution guarantees freedom of religious observance. Sect 116 states that ‘The Commonwealth shall not make any law …prohibiting the free exercise of religion...’. As with freedom of speech the ‘free exercise’ of religious observance is also limited. Its limits were established in the High Court in 1943 in the Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses vs The Commonwealth case. The Court found that ‘Freedom of religion is not absolute. It is subject to powers and restrictions of government essential to the preservation of the community. Freedom of religion may not be invoked to cloak and dissemble subversive opinions or practices and operations dangerous to the common weal.’ and that religion was ‘subject to limitations…such as are reasonably necessary for the protection of the community and in the interests of social order’. Freedom of religion is not freedom to commit crime.

Additionally Victoria introduced the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 to specifically deal with religious vilification. Sect 25 says: ‘A person…must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, intentionally engage in conduct that the offender knows is likely …to incite hatred...to threaten, or incite others to threaten physical harm towards that person or class of persons…’

If the call to slay idolators was made in an obscure religious text of a tiny sect it might not be a big deal. The facts are that this statement is made on p133 of The Koran revised and published by Penguin in 2003. It was purchased at Dymocks, one of Australia’s leading bookstores. We know that a number of people around the world, including in Australia, take this direction literally and are likely to carry out its command including: that ‘fighting is obligatory for you…’ p.32; ‘Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them.’ p.146; and ‘slay or crucify opponents in war’ p.83.

Some, currently before Australian courts allegedly quoted the Koran to incite Australians to allegedly participate in intended crimes. In the UK Abu Hamza was recently convicted of incitement after his defence failed. He argued that his incitement to kill infidels was based on the obligatory teachings of the Koran. No publisher in the current environment can credibly argue that murder is not a foreseeable outcome of publishing the Koran. Consequently Australian victims of terror should mount a class action against the publishers of the Koran on the grounds that they knowingly published material likely to lead to murder.

So freedom of speech and religion are limited by other laws including incitement. But how does this balance with the democratic principle of equality before the law? Take this simple test: could you publish a direction to kill Muslims wherever you find them? I doubt anyone in Australia would publish such a direction and if they did you and the publisher would be promptly, and quite properly, prosecuted. Last year two Victorian Pastors were charged for frivolous ‘offences’ under Victoria’s religious vilification law but to date no one has been similarly charged or even investigated for publishing the Surah inciting murder, hate and violence.

The failure to apply the law is emboldening some Muslims to commit extreme vilification of other religions including violent assault and a drive by shooting of a Christian primary school’s Christmas Carols ceremony and arson attacks on churches in Sydney in December that left one destroyed. I doubt anyone will be charged for these crimes due to the extremely limited media coverage of these post Cronulla hate crimes and the consequent lack of public outrage. As a result the majority loses confidence in the protection of the police, the administration of law and consequently their equality before the law.

This feeds a growing belief that there is one law for Muslims and another for everyone else. This view provides fertile ground for vigilantism and the grievance based crime that occurred in Cronulla. People who lose faith in the law are more likely to take it into their own hands making it critically important to reinforce the assumption of equality before the law.

The examples I cited from the Koran are a prima-facie breach of the NSW and Victorian criminal code and Victoria’s Religious Vilification Laws. The Koran includes other examples of vilification and incitement on the grounds of gender, sexuality, race and religion. There is no comparable incitement through direct instruction in any other major religious text.

Who wants to use their real name, make a complaint and go to court to be idendified by criminals that the Police are scared of? Islamic intimidation is supported by the Government's treatment of the Pastors’ prosecution, death ‘fatwas’ issued worldwide against Islam’s critics and set against a backdrop of anti Australian rape, organised violence and Police inaction.

Premiers Iemma and Bracks need to demonstrate whether they believe in equality or condone discrimination. They must dispel the widely held view that Muslims are favoured before the law in NSW and Victoria. The test for their governments is not to make new laws but rather to equally apply existing ones. A good starting point is to refer publishers of the Koran to the DPP for breaching their respective State’s criminal laws. We don’t need censorship to protect religious sensibilities but we do need the law to protect community safety. It is simply not legal to publish a call for the murder of anyone in contemporary Australia.

Plain Talking Jane Takes Aim

Yee Haa,

Plain Talkin' Jane is Taking Aim at the subjects of her fancy and the ones that get her antzy! As a girl on the outer boundaries of the Wild Wild West I talk plain and shoot straight. I welcome all and sundry to return fire or fire in support.