Sunday, January 15, 2006

Letter to Bob Brown. 7th Jan 2006

Dear Mr. Brown,

First of all, I hope you and yours had a great Christmas break – it’s been great here in Melbourne.

I've been reading your site with interest. In particular with regards to the need (or not) for more stringent laws to deal with 'terror' in our country.

I note that "The Australian Greens define terrorism as premeditated acts of violence directed at non-combatant targets with the aim of intimidating others to agree to a political, social, cultural or religious demand. We regard such acts, whether they are carried out by isolated ‘militants’, political organisations or by governments themselves, as terrorism."

There doesn’t seem to be any discussion on the fact that the majority of ‘premeditated acts of violence directed at non-combatants’ are demonstrably carried out by members of one particular ideology. Also, there are proponents of said ideology here in Australia.

Does this hold any real concern for you and the Greens as a whole?

This group, irrespective of whether it consists of a few extremists or also contains many quiet sympathisers, stands against everything you stand for.

As was recently noted in a letter to The Guardian:

Islam is demonstrably a threat to women and gay people, who are routinely tortured and murdered in Islamic countries, such as Iran.

This letter was from Andy Armitage, the former editor of Gay & Lesbian Humanist. Full details of why Mr. Armitage is no longer editor of this small magazine can be found here:

Mr Armitage has provided a very detailed document outlining why he resigned, and includes plenty of information on how Islam cannot conceivably be called a humane or moderate religion, or ideology (my preference).

Are there peaceful muslims? Absolutely.

Are there rabid, extremist christians, for example? Absolutely, yes to that, also. The difference there is that the christians are not seen to be the group most likely to take violent action against you in response to disagreement.

Please excuse me if I seem to be a bit roundabout in my mail – it’s a consequence of living here in Victoria under Mr Bracks’ draconian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. I am against political correctness as a practice, as it stifles freedom of thought and speech. While I have the right not to be offended, I also have the responsibility to act like an adult if I am, and get over myself.

I would also love to know if you have read the excellent book, Mr Robert Spencer’s “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)” (ISBN 0895260131) If you haven’t, I would be more than happy to post you a copy of it.

There are also plenty of websites available with much information on what is happening in the world at large regarding ‘terrorist’ activities and how they may impact upon us Australians in the future.

I prefer as a good place to start, as it was started by an ex-muslim, and the contributors are many and varied.

For overwhelming statistics, keeps a table of atrocities that occur around the world. For a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by a tiny number of extremists, there is an amazing amount of death and destruction in the world today. So far, Australia is not represented on that table, but that is more due to luck than good management, I think.

I would prefer that we do keep off the table of incidents at and if that means further restrictions, then I guess I’d have to accept them. I don’t like it, but if it means a safer existence, then it can’t be as bad as the alternative.

Thank you for your time and for reading this far.



nb.I have a policy of posting correspondence on my blog. If you would prefer that this correspondence remain private, please let me know within seven days, and I will not post it. Thanks, and enjoy!

I'll apologise for any typos or clumsiness - I have a tendency to send out emails late at night. That's when I get the time to sit and compose things. I also don't sent html in my emails, hence my linking might be a bit off.


At 2:46 AM, Blogger Clumsy Birds said...

There doesn’t seem to be any discussion on the fact that the majority of ‘premeditated acts of violence directed at non-combatants’ are demonstrably carried out by members of one particular ideology. Also, there are proponents of said ideology here in Australia.

Does this hold any real concern for you and the Greens as a whole?


Dear Nilknarf,

The issue here is not whether oppressed Muslims are targeting unarmed civilians or US marines with violence, but why... blah blah blah imperialism, blah blah war for oil.

proponents of said ideology here in Australia ?? These people are a reaction to Howard's Australia.

Yours Truly,

The Peoples' Senator, Bob Brown.


Heh.. couldnt help myself. Hopefully they'll reply, I'd love to see how close I am to predicting their answer.

I'm surprised you managed to keep your mail so polite. Good work.

At 9:11 PM, Blogger tealou said...

Hi Nilknarf,

Thought I'd visit your blog in return. You might horrified to read that I am actually a Green.

First of all, Bob Brown is only one voice within the party, so please do not take his response as that of the party - we are diverse and have diverse opinions - and despite the media's temptation to call him the leader -- he is NOT.

I see where you are coming from in regard to the terrorist issue, but I do (respectfully) disagree with the reasoning that the present media spotlight on muslim extremism means that it is the "majority".

I guess we need to be careful about how we use the word terrorist to begin with. The Greens' statement that terrorist acts can include acts by governments, I believe is a bit spurious - and I do think that they are plaing with definitions.

I see terrorism as acts of violence against civilians and BY civilians that wish to bypass government and formal political process.

We also need to differentiate between Islam and fundamentalism: those that believe that Islam should be fused with the state (as in the US where many Christians believe similarly) and will fight for that.

I guess to cite a longstanding Christian example: the IRA.

Anyway, I wanted to acknowledge that I agree with you, I dont know productive it is to preempt a response that will disagree with "blah blah blah"... but yes, as a Green I see your point.

I too will be interested in Bob's response.

At 9:12 PM, Blogger tealou said...

Just wanted to say that that is a lazy response, but I am busy and tired :)

At 10:57 PM, Blogger Nilk said...

Hey there, tealou. :) Glad you dropped in.

I don't expect a reply from Bob Brown. I'm only one voice in the wilderness, after all.

I'm not horrified you are a Green, either. I'm not fussed with a person's politics unless it gets in the way of what I consider good sense. Not that there's much of that anywhere these days.

The problem with the IRA as an example is that the IRA are not trying to take over the world and force us all to become catholics.

A careful reading of the Qu'ran and the Hadith, added to a brief look at history paints a nastier picture in my mind.

As a woman, I find it offensive that this religion sees me as mentally deficient, unclean and fit only to breed. Under sharia I am worth less than half a man, as I'm an infidel and most defiantly so. If I were a muslim woman, I'd still be worth only half a man.

If you read the australian muslim fora, you'll find plenty of commenters of both sexes wanting to live under sharia. These are people who vote. Who want to vote in people to represent their views.

If we look at what is happening in Britain and Scandinavia, France, Africa and Indonesia for example, we see what may happen here.

I don't want to live as a second-class citizen in my own home.

The muslims see Islam as the state - those that read the Qu'ran truly. (I've found it to be all over the place. Need to get a copy of the Hadith and the Sunnah. Not pleasant reading, but necessary).

And, ultimately, I filter everything through the lens of "what impact will this have on my child in the future" and it doesn't look pretty.

If you email me a snail mail address, I'll post you Robert Spencer's Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades. I think everyone should have a read of it, and I'm more than happy to spend the money on the postage. It's too important an issue to not debate or educate ourselves on.

At 10:58 PM, Blogger Nilk said...

hehe. I'm also up past my bedtime. I was intending to hit the sack early, but it never seems to happen!

At 11:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Rosco;

Terrorism takes many forms. it is not always a structured attempt at social engineering, but can frequently be just disregard for the laws that get in the way of the objective....

like rape:

Jury convicts men of rape
By Johanna Leggatt
January 18, 2006
TWO brothers accused of the multiple rape of a young woman at knifepoint have been found guilty in Brisbane of six counts of sexual assault.

Fijian-born Afsheen Kashef Hussein, 26, and Azhar Zuhayr Hussein, 21, each pleaded not guilty in the District Court to eight charges of rape and one of indecent treatment of the 22-year-old woman at Mt Coot-tha in Brisbane.

After almost two days of deliberation, the jury of 10 men and two women found each of the brothers guilty of six counts of rape but not guilty of three charges: two rape counts and the indecent treatment charge.

Prosecutor April Freeman however, submitted that a sentence in the order of 12 years for each of the men was appropriate and Judge Warren Howell adjourned sentencing to a later date.

Judge Howell informed the jury once their verdict had been delivered, that the two brothers have also been charged over a second rape at Mt Coot-tha, this time of a sex worker, in February last year.

They have also pleaded not guilty to the charges but the brothers' co-accused – Brisbane men Zaak Imtiaz Ali, 21, and Zain Iftiaz Ali, 23 – have pleaded guilty. The matter will be heard on May 29.

The Hussein brothers' trial heard that on September 17, 2004, the men picked the woman up from Fortitude Valley and drove her to Mt Coot-tha, where they took turns to repeatedly rape her at knifepoint for about an hour.

She eventually escaped and ran to the nearby security hut of a television station.

The victim broke down a number of times during her evidence, despite a screen being placed between her and the accused men.

At one point one of the rapists started laughing and Judge Howell responded by saying: "If the accused on the left doesn't behave ... I'll take appropriate action".

Judge Howell told the court the victim is also seeking sexual assault compensation from the two men of $75,000 each.

The civil claim will be heard on March


Post a Comment

<< Home