Professor Hassan also makes the points in his report that the rate of poverty amongst Muslim children is 40% versus 20% for the general population (albeit a very subjective measure) and the rate of prison incarceration is significantly higher for Muslim populations in European countries, citing the U.K. and France (where Muslims number 8% of the country but 50% of the prison population).

Ms. Parker is sure that there are two explanations for this discrepency;

i) the proliferation of Islamic schools in Australia leading to marginalised Muslim youth unable to get ahead in an otherwise Anglo/Chinese country.

ii) ‘discrimination’ by non-Muslim Australia against Muslims

She has two solutions;

i) Stop the spread of religious schools and regulate existing ones much more tightly

ii) Encourage businesses to employ Muslims

‘Perhaps we can start a campaign to help by telling employers _ do your bit for Australia, employ a Muslim Australian.’

The U.K.’s education watchdog, OFSTED, now publishes GCSE exam results (Year 10) by ethnic group. This information reveals much more interesting information.  In fact, it is a wonderful report to show your racist (sorry, ‘race realist’) friends as it reveals that far from indigenous white kids stealing the show, the best performers are those with yellow and brown skins. But within the ‘brown skin’ category, there is a marked difference between the performance of non-Muslims (largely Indians) and Muslims (Pakistanis and Bangladeshis).  Far from pointing to genetic effects in intellect and effort, this data suggests cultural differences are far more important.

A rather more intelligent line of questioning than the SMH is taken by a post on Muslim Village.  They pose the following;

1. Is there discrimination in the workforce and is this one of the reasons for the higher unemployment rate?
2. Are Muslims obtaining degrees but not choosing to work, instead opting for a more family orientated role?
3. Are Muslims putting their deen [way of life] before a career?
4. Are there not enough suitable jobs for Muslims due to certain industries being prohibited?

From my own personal experience i would agree that Muslims are discriminated against in the workplace (i’ve seen first hand evidence many times). Some employers (though generally not the larger ones) are nervous of hiring Muslims for fear of litigation down the road (justified or otherwise). A small business needs flexibility in its workforce to survive. The thought of being dragged through the courts on charges of racism or Islamophobia almost certainly deters some smaller business owners.   This is an issue both communities need to work out.

On the subject of religious schools, i am torn. Every libertarian bone in my body argues that parents should be free to choose the education for their children. Parents will ultimately make decisions in the interests of their children and will not choose to send them to schools that will harm their employment prospects later in life. But every pragmatic bone suggests that this view is naive and not working. Religious schools breed difference and marginalisation.  

Finally, i would add one further explanation for the large differential in employment.  There is a anti-school, anti-work, aggressive culture amongst many young Muslim males. These boys are often ‘pampered by their mothers’ as you will see on numerous Muslim forums.  This is a problem the Muslim community needs to address.

‘What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist’,   Salman Rushdie.

Controversial Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, was recently invited to give a screening of his film, Fitna, to a private gathering at the House of Lords in London. Following threats made by Lord Nazir Ahmed to mobilise an army of 10,000 Muslim followers, the British authorities caved in and banned Wilders from screening his film.  Lord Ahmed declared the ban as a ‘victory for the Muslim community.’

The European Parliament has already banned the screening of Fitna on its premises.  One Dutch MEP, Maria Martens, welcomed the decision with these immortal words,

‘The film has nothing to do with freedom of expression. This freedom does not give the right to offend.’

Freedom of speech is generally regarded as a ‘good thing’ in most political circles. But the freedom to offend is increasingly being viewed as a ‘bad thing’ and needing of regulation.  This is wrong, stupid and dangerous.  Freedom of speech is nothing without the freedom to offend. 

But why is the right to offend so important?  After all, wouldn’t it be better if we could all just get along and cause no offence to each other?   Well of course it would, but once you strangle the right to criticise ideas, you lose the ability to progress. Idiotic ideas that go unchallenged fester and start to attract an underground following. 

Copernicus caused great offence to the Catholic Church in 1514 by challenging the long-held belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Yet, would anyone today rather if his offensive ideas had been banned?  Restricting the freedom to offend is an anti-progressive, arch-conservative reaction to a changing world.  

Let’s take an example closer to home.

Danny Nalliah (pictured) is a senior pastor of  the ‘Catch the Fire Ministries’. He believes that the tragic bushfires in Victoria which have claimed as many as 300 lives are a result of Victoria’s ‘incendiary‘ (a truly appalling choice of word) abortion laws.

‘God’s protection has been taken off the state, and Satan is having a go at the nation.’

Tons more of this crap can be found on their website here.

Mr. Nalliah is an idiot. And his views are deeply offensive to me and many millions of people across Australia. I will never respect this retarded view but i will fight for his right to express his opinions with my last breath. Had he called for his deranged followers to light fires in Victoria to exact revenge, then he should be prosecuted and charged, for this would amount to incitement to carnage. But he didn’t. He merely observed that, in his opinion, the fires are the result of divine retribution in response to the Victorian abortion laws.  

The absurdity of banning the freedom to offend is thus.  It is quite possible that under Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of 2001 that i could be prosecuted for inciting hatred towards the Catch the Fires Ministries. My view that he is an idiot and his followers are deranged morons could be construed as ‘offensive’ to his flock and i could be charged with the crime of ‘causing offence’ even though it is me who has been offended.

It is time for those of us who cherish the idea of liberty to make this argument loud and clear.  I have the right to speak freely.  I have the right to offend you and you have the right to offend me.  I seek not your respect but your tolerance.

Update – skepticlawyer awards Mr. Nalliah the Bent Spoon Award

‘Once in the dear dead days beyond recall, an out-of-town visitor was being shown the wonders of the New York financial district. When the party arrived at the Battery, one of his guides indicated some handsome ships riding at anchor. “Look, those are the bankers’ and brokers’ yachts. ‘Where are all the customers’ yachts?’ asked the naïve visitor.”‘

When governments are in a hole, they firstly look for a shovel and then for someone to use it on. The trendy cause du jour is the subject of capping bankers’ bonuses.

President Obama has proposed placing a $500,000 ceiling on the salaries of senior bankers of institutions that accept taxpayer funds.  UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, never shy of ignoring a convenient whipping boy when he sees one, has stated on the record that he will be ‘reviewing‘ the proposed $2.4bn bonus pool for employees of all-but-nationalised bank, RBS. Chancellor Alistair Darling has gone one step further and will be probing whether ‘the promise of big bonuses lured bankers into taking excessive risks’, though quickly adding that ‘no government should try to remove risk-taking from the system’.   Our own banks have also received massive state aid in the form of taxpayer-guaranteed funding and taxpayer-guaranteed deposits, but to date, there has been no word from the mighty Rudd-Swan axis of any plans to cap salaries at the Big 4 banks.

Are Obama and Brown right and Rudd wrong?    Is Rudd a shining beacon of free markets?  Or are they all wrong?

Firstly, the subject of bankers pay. 

Investment bankers are were paid a lot of money.   A good (30 year old) trader could easily take home $2mm simply for ‘hitting budget’.   Are they worth it?  Who knows or who cares. Provided compensation is funded by shareholders, there is nothing wrong or immoral about high pay. Christiano Ronaldo is paid about $300,000 a week by the shareholders of Manchester United.  Is he worth this?  Presumably so, otherwise the Glazier family wouldn’t pay. Is it wrong that he receives this amount?  Who are we to judge.

However, when a banker’s bonus is funded by the taxpayer, the issue becomes a lot more complicated.

The obvious side-effect of capping salaries, is that the best graduates will seek alternate careers. So what, say most.  Wouldn’t it be better if the smartest minds diverted their attention to finding cures for cancer rather than how to securitise the royalties from the David Bowie back catalogue. 

The other pernicious side-effect is that the government would effectively become involved in setting company strategy – a very regressive step.

But taxpayers have the right to know how their money is being spent and have the right to feel outraged over the appalling scenes at Merrill Lynch, where the now sacked CEO, John Thain, fast-tracked their bonus payouts prior to the Bank of America takeover and prior to the full extent of the 4th quarter $15bn losses became public knowledge.  The Merrill bonus pool amounted to $4bn, roughly equivalent to the 2006 bonus pool- the second best year ever for Wall Street.    A bonus is the minimum payment required to keep a banker at his desk. No more,  no less. If a banker is unhappy with his 2008 bonus, where exactly can he go?

The only surprise is the lack of strings placed on the massive taxpayer support for Australia’s Big 4 banks. I suspect the banks managed to pull the wool over the eyes of a very incompetent and inexperienced Rudd government. Never underestimate the extent to which bankers will outsmart government, especially dumb governments.

The Manly Daily has been at the forefront of a campaign to ban teenage kids from jumping into the water off Manly Wharf and at Jump Rock (see above for rare footage of a an admirably performed backflip at Jump Rock).  It is, they say, for their ‘own safety.’  Sydney Ferries warned jumpers risked

‘being sucked up into the ferry’s large propellers, swept under the wharf and ripping their skin to shreds on the razor-sharp barnacles covering pylons or hitting their head and losing consciousness.’

It is not actually known how many people have been ‘sucked into the ferry’s propellors’, or have had their skin ‘ripped to shreds’ or have ‘lost consciousness’ but so serious is this crime that the police are now permitted to hand out $1,500 fines to these criminals (versus $200 for shoplifting).

We at the ALS wholeheartedly agree with the Manly Daily and support their campaign.  In fact, we cannot understand how soccer, a far more dangerous activity than rock jumping is still permitted in any civilised society.

The following is an extract from a press release from the ALS’s very own John Humphrys,

“The problem with soccer is that heading objects can cause brain damage. A number of peer-reviewed studies have shown that soccer players are more likely to have mild traumatic brain injury. In 1998, Dutch researchers showed that professional soccer players suffered from deterioration in memory, planning and visual-perceptual tasks.

“Obviously, this calls for government intervention. Initially we should introduce heavy taxes on soccer, introduce regulation to limit the number of times a person can head the ball, restrict soccer games to government approved venues and require soccer players to register with a mental health watch organisation. The long term plan should be to phase out and eventually ban soccer.

“We understand that some people still hold on to out-dated notions about individual freedoms, and would defend the right of people to make their own decision about their life choices and the risks they take. But safety is more important than freedom.

“Anybody who defends the freedom of soccer players is really just promoting brain damage. This issue is no different from the issue of smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods or riding a bicycle without a helmet. Freedom should not extend to any of these dangerous activities. People should only be free to do the things that the government approves. And if the government really does want to protect its citizens from themselves, then it should not allow soccer.”

Please sign up now and join our campaign to promote safety awareness amongst the young. Thankyou.

One of the major drawbacks of political correctness is its multitude of contradictions.  Because it is based on state-sponsored authoritarianism rather than dispassionate reason, it has to forever change as the last ’correct’ view turns out to be incompatible with the next rigidly enforced one. 

For example, it is politically incorrect to expose our children to any form of risk.  Hence some schools in the UK have banned girls making daisy chains for fear that the flowers expose them to the risk of germs, banned hand-stands in the playgrounds and banned yo-yos and conkers. Whilst up in Queensland, one school banned all contact sports.  As a result, children have nowhere to play, so stay indoors and get fat. Which is very incorrect. Although to point this out, is also incorrect.

A truly chilling story in The Australian last week highlighted the heart-breaking story of two perfectly healthy and well cared for children who were forcibly removed by NSW DoCS workers from their parents last September.  Their parents’ crime?  Smoking the occasional joint.

Thirteen weeks later a judge ordered their return to their parents, who he described as

“loving, sensitive and … well able to provide for the safety, welfare and wellbeing of their infant children”. 

adding that there was

“no evidence whatsoever that [DoCS] had any concerns at this time as to the wellbeing or safety of the children.”

Their real crime?

“Last September, after the woman had given birth to the baby boy, the couple missed a meeting with DOCS officers, who promptly visited their home. According to a DOCS report of the incident, the mother was “making a hot drink” when officers arrived. “Her hair was messy and knotted. She appeared to have lost a lot of weight. Her clothes were hanging off her and her bones were protruding.” The DOCS officer said to the woman: “You look like you’ve lost a lot of weight.” The mother replied: “You look like you’ve put on weight.” “

Yes, the mother accused the DoCS worker of being a little fat.  For this, her two young children were removed from their parents for 13 weeks. 

However, across the water in equally PC Britain, prospective carers with a BMI of more than 42 have been banned from becoming foster parents.  They are considered unsuitable human beings.

As Spiked asks, who will be the next group to be considered unsuitable parents? 

 Smokers? Climate change sceptics? Libertarians?

Yesterday was our third Australia Day. In an effort to ‘integrate’ with the local community, we made the obligatory trip to our local (packed) beach armed with eskies of snags, lamingtons and VBs. We blended in with our fellow Aussies by moaning endlessly about the mortgage, the escalating school fees and Saturday’s 42C temperatures. Once the rain descended, we headed back home to watch the cricket from Adelaide and finished off the slab of VBs.

Many of our fellow beach-goers were dressed in yellow and green or had Australian flags tattooed onto their faces.  A number of the cars and houses were flying Australian flags.  It was a display of quiet patriotism that you do not encounter in England.    There are no grand ceremonies, no speeches from self-important politicians, no state processions and no organised silences where one is forced to remember someone or something. Just boardies, thongs, snags, slabs, stingers, sand and sea. We rather like Australia Day.

Australian of the Year, Mick Dodson, clearly does not. 

As an English patriot, i am very proud of my tiny island nation. I am proud of its history, its achievements, its advancement of liberty and its consistent ability to punch above its weight.  The establishment of a great country such as Australia is something we Brits are especially proud of and this little piece of history is (still) widely taught in our schools. Governor Arthur Philip and his band of crims and officers can lay claim to the title of some of our greatest exports.

However whilst i have no time for his welfarist policies, i do have some sympathy for Mr. Dodson.  Opting for the  landing of the first British fleet as your National Day of celebration does seem an odd choice. Whilst the achievements of Governors Philip and Macquarie should indeed be celebrated, the impact on the existing population was clearly not so wonderful.

I understand the day is now referred to as ‘Invasion Day’ in some quarters. This is plainly inaccurate but perhaps ‘Colonisation Day’ would be more accurate.

A poll for the SMH showed that a third of its readers would like to see the date changed.  Given its conservative readership, the national figure is probably even higher.

I can’t help but agree.  There has to be a better day for this nation to unite under the Australian flag.

In a carbon copy of the 2006 conflict with Hizbollah, Israel is once again losing the media war.  The Hamas cheer squad of CNN, the BBC (funded by all British taxpayers), the New York Times and the Guardian is raining propoganda bombs on Israel as surely as the 6,000 Qassam rockets that have hit its southern borders from Gaza.

Despite a clear cut case of self-defence that even the Muslim countries of Egypt  (‘Hamas are more interested in having the injured serve as pawns in their propaganda war on Western TV networks‘),  Saudi Arabia  (‘Arab states should call a spade a spade…let Hamas accept responsibility for once..‘) and the Palestinian Authority (‘we talked to them and we told them ‘please, we ask you, do not end the truce. Let the truce continue and not stop’  so that we could have avoided what happened”) accept is of Hamas’ own making, the Western media continue to hold Israel to impossibly high standards. 

There are no street protests over the ongoing civilian deaths in Sri Lanka, no marches against Russia as it threatens to cut off gas supplies to Central Europe in the midst of a freezing winter, no petitions demanding ceasefires in the war-torn corners of Africa, no hysterical over-the-hill pop stars crying over the children of Afghanistan. But whenever Israel sheds blood, the world demands its pound of flesh.   

‘Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal’d by the same means, warm’d and cool’d by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.’

In the media’s eyes, the Jew quite clearly does not resemble ‘us‘.

Israel stands accused of the following charges; 

i) ‘Israel is using disproportionate force’

According to the media, if your enemy kills 10 of your people you have the right to kill 10 of theirs. This is utter drivel. During World War II Britain killed far more Germans than vice versa.  Does this make Churchill guilty of ’disproportionate force’?   

Apart from the utter absurdity of the argument, the reasons that Israel has killed more than Hamas are as follows;

- Israel builds bomb shelters for its citizens on its southern borders. Hamas stockpiles its weapons in hospitals and mosques, hoping for casualties to show its ‘useful idiots’ in the media. ‘We desire death as you desire life’.

- The majority of the dead in Palestine are terrorists not civilians (UN sources)

-  Israel tries to avoid civilian deaths whereas Hamas seeks to maximise them, even now legitimising the deliberate (as opposed to tragic but accidental) killing of children.

ii) ‘Yes, but the Hamas rockets are ineffective and have only killed a small number of Israelis.’

Only thanks to the bomb shelters. And does anyone doubt for a minute that if Hamas could smuggle more effective weapons across its Eqyptian border, it would refrain from using them?

iii) ‘Hamas is only responding to the blockade of Gaza by Israel.’

Factually incorrect.  Israel tightened the flow of goods into Gaza precisely to try and limit the flow of rockets that were already flying into Sderot.

iv) ‘Israel doesn’t want a ceasefire but the extermination of Hamas.’

Wrong. Israel clearly laid out the terms (no more rockets and no more rocket smuggling) for a ceasefire last night in response to a France-Eqgypt initiative. These are not unreasonable terms. Unsurprisingly Hamas have failed to respond.  Why does every Western leader demand an Israeli ceasefire?    Why not a ceasefire too with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda?  After all civilians are dying here too.

v) ‘Israel won’t negotiate with Hamas.’

a) see above

b) from the Hamas Charter,

‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).’

Where do you even begin those negotiations?

vi) ‘Yes, but this will just provoke Muslims living in the West.’

Translation – i’m a coward and i won’t stand up to bullying.

and last but most certainly not least,

vii) ‘Israel forcibly evicted the Palestinians from their homeland. Hamas is just trying to take back what is rightfully theirs.’

Now there is probably no more complex issue than the creation of the Isreali state. David Finkelstein wrote an excellent piece in The Times yesterday on this subject. Whether you believe it was the right thing to do or not, it has happened. A two-state solution needs to be found – not a one-state solution for either side.   

Meet the guys and gals at Hitler Climate Youth. You won’t find a posher, whiter or more earnest bunch of kids anywhere west of Point Piper.   Check out the size of that smile on the guy in the white shirt at the back.  

Their objectives are straight from K Rudd’s Little Red Book 

1. Build Capacity

(No, not generating capacity that would actually keep people warm in winter) but ‘support for member organisations’ capacity to carry out their own youth climate initiatives’.

2. Inspire: Build the youth climate movement
In just one short paragraph they have managed to find room for the words outreach, communication, training, diverse (x2), cultures, engagement (4 times), empowerment (x3), mobilization. 

3. Educate and Empower 
AYCC will educate, facilitate, educate, empower, enable and mobilize. 

4. Mobilise: Ensure youth climate organisers are included in decision-making
‘AYCC will ensure governments and business hear, and act on, young climate organisers’ voices at local, national and international decision-making on climate policy.’  Now they are really starting to sound like Hitler Youth.

5. Maintain a democratic, effective and inclusive coalition 
Key Orwellian bingo words in this short paragraph – strive (x2), democratic, functional, coalition, engages (x3), delivers, commitments, mission, youth (x3)  empowering (x2), effective, advocates.

6. Inform on adults who use the garden hose on Tuesdays or who leave a light on when they go out for dinner

ok – i made that bit up – but i bet it’s in next year’s agenda

Where do kids so young learn these empty words?

Their bios are here – it gets creepier and creepier.   

via Tim Blair