About Me

My Photo
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Benjamin Franklin

Thursday, 8 October 2015

The twilight of tolerance.

The liberal secular west prides itself upon creating a cultural and political environment that has tolerance at the forefront.  Tolerance in this context is the willingness to allow ideas, attitudes and even behaviours that one dislikes or disagrees with to be freely expressed.  Free speech is at the heart of tolerance in this environment.  The free expression of ideas, however abhorrent must be allowed, provided that they can be critiqued or even ridiculed by their opponents, again with absolute freedom.

It is this free exchange of ideas that has allowed for the development of various political parties, and the expression of different religious worldviews to exist under the common ‘rule of law’ that we have inherited from our Judeo / Christian democratic Westminster parliamentary system.

This system has served us well until the present day.

However, what happens when we import a people from a culture that has no tradition of free speech or religious liberty.  A culture that is entirely intolerant of ‘the other’, a culture that sincerely holds to the view of their religious and cultural surpremacism?  

What then?

We need only look to Britain to see how this is working out.  For decades they have been importing hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants every year, many of whom are cultural and religious supremacists.

I appreciate that politicians don’t like to talk about the ‘clash of civilizations’ and yet this is what’s being played out before our very eyes.  Finally, David Cameron who has been slow to grasp the significance of this reality has begun to speak up.  This week at his party’s annual conference he is reported as saying:

'For too long, we've been so frightened of causing offence that we haven't looked hard enough at what is going on in our communities. This passive tolerance has turned us into a less integrated country; it's put our children in danger. It is unforgiveable.'

The 'shadow of extremism is hanging over every single one of us' and the fight to defeat it was a 'fight for our existence', he said.

Cameron made a point of tacking [religious] extremism at it’s source, including Islamic schools. There are about 5,000 religious schools in the UK, 2,000 of them madrassas, the remainder predominantly Christian. 

Last night, the Muslim Council of Britain said it was 'concerned', adding: 'It is neither Islamic, nor prevalent in Madrassas, to be isolationist or to preach hate of other faiths.'

In his most hardline comments yet, Mr Cameron insisted: 'We need to confront – and I mean really confront – extremism. When I read what some young people born and brought up in this country are doing, it makes me feel sick.

'Girls not much older than my eldest daughter, swapping loving family homes and straight-A futures for a life of servitude under IS, in a land of violence and oppression.

'Boys who could do anything they wanted in Britain – who have benefited from all this country stands for – instead ending up in the desert wielding a knife.

'This ideology, this diseased view of the world, has become an epidemic infecting minds from the mosques of Mogadishu to the bedrooms of Birmingham.'

He said Britain needed to 'tear up the narrative that says Muslims are persecuted and the West deserves what it gets'.

'Zoom in and you'll see some institutions that actually help incubate these divisions. Did you know, in our country, there are some children who spend several hours each day at a madrassa? [Goodness David, who knew?]

'In some madrassas we've got children being taught that they shouldn't mix with people of other religions; being beaten; swallowing conspiracy theories about Jewish people. 

'These children should be having their minds opened, their horizons broadened – not having their heads filled with poison and their hearts filled with hate.'

He continued: 'Let me say it right here: no more passive tolerance in Britain. We've passed the laws – now I want them enforced. People who organise forced marriages – I want them prosecuted.

Let me say it right here: no more passive tolerance in Britain. We've passed the laws – now I want them enforced

‘Parents who take their children for FGM – I want them arrested.'

It was a passionate speech for sure.  Does this mean that Britain could be entering the ‘twilight of tolerance’ when it comes to Islam? 

Certainly Australia is still a long way back from this point with its Police and Politicians still believing it can win over the Muslim Jihadists by engaging in compromise and appeasement.  New Zealand is no better.

If Cameron’s speech is anything to go by, through bitter and bloody experience, Britain has moved on from obsequies platitudes and attempts to ‘win over’ their Muslim community to a more combative and confrontational stance. 

To put it bluntly, they have had a guts full of Islam and its outworking in society.

Watching Sky News I believe the Australians have too, especially some of their law enforcement officers, their body language says it all.  They are just waiting for their politicians to get with the program and to catch up with Cameron and the rest of the civilized world.

Intellectually this is a significant leap for any politician to take.  To say ‘We have reached the end of tolerance for the intolerant’ is a tipping point that is unique in the western world.

It remains to be seen if Britain is capable of implementing this new intolerance for the excesses of Islam.  One can only hope they are successful, and that our politicians are prepared to learn from Britain’s mistakes.

It’s an issue closely related to Immigration, and easily managed at the boarders.  If we want to have David Cameron’s problems then we just need to follow their immigration example.

Despite the evidence, I have little confidence that our leadership is prepared to stray off the multiculturalists reservation in order to protect its citizens.

"Our Planet is Cooking and Heating up." - Aaron Mair President of Sierra Club.

The advocates of global warming alarmism constantly remind us that the ‘facts’ are on their side, what’s more the science is settled and there really is nothing further to discuss.  Those of us who impertinently express mild skepticism about the impact of human induced climate change are simply ‘deniers’ of established scientific facts.

That is until Senator Ted Cruz questions the ‘alarmists’ at a Congressional hearing with some ‘inconvenient facts’.  The President of the Sierra Club Aaron Mair is quickly out of his depth, and falls back upon bluster and political spin to defend his narrative.

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

Hear no Islam see no Islam – the deceit continues.

In a raid by Parramatta Police, the NSW police department, the federal police, the national counter terrorism squad, and with the rumored assistance of Spiderman, four more young men of ‘unstated religious persuasion’ have been taken in for questioning regarding Friday’s Islamic terrorist attack.

But I’ve jumped the gun here, if you will pardon the unseemly pun, because no one in authority, no one from the Police or the Australian Government is prepared to mention the word ‘Islam’ in relation to this cold-blooded murder despite the blindingly obvious connection.

The unspoken narrative goes something like this.  “We need the support of the Muslim community to fight this epidemic of terrorism that they are inflicting upon us, the hated infidel.  We cannot expect to receive their assistance if we blame them for the atrocities they are committing.”

Ah, so the Muslim community alerted you to the prospect of this attack from 15 year old Farhad Jabar?

“Well not exactly – no they didn’t.”

I see, but they did warn you about the attack by Sydney Siege gunman Haron Monis?

“Well, not exactly – no they didn’t.”

But you do expect them to warn you in advance about the next attack?

“Well, we are hopeful that we will solicit their cooperation, yes.”

In a way I don’t blame the police.  They are not tasked with protecting us from those who are waging asymmetric guerilla warfare in our cities. 

That’s the role of the Army.

But our politicians will never call in the Army because that would mean admitting we are at war with the followers of Islam, even though many are explicit about the fact they are at war with us.

Which means we are losing.

Which means we will forever be washing the blood of innocent victims off our streets, with the police treating it as a criminal offence, and politicians mouthing platitudes about ‘standing strong’ and ‘going about our normal business to show that we cannot be intimidated by terrorists of unstated religious persuasion’.

We may not be intimidated, but some of us have been killed by these Jihadists, and this slaughter will continue until our politicians stop immigration from Islamic countries, and begin to deport those who represent a clear threat to our personal security.

There is no point waiting until after the event before these people are prosecuted and deported.

Note to PM's Turnbull and Key:  We will not defeat Islamic ideology with the thin gruel of secular pluralism.  The killings in the name of Allah are going to continue until you find the courage to do something tangible about it. 

Tuesday, 6 October 2015

The ‘lone wolf’ metaphor is now officially dead.

Big surprise in Parramatta Jihad attack – Police now believe that the deadly Islamic gunman Farhad Jabar was no ‘lone wolf’ but part of an ‘extremist pack’.

POLICE are working on the theory that teen terrorist Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar was acting on the orders of other radicals and was not a “lone wolf’’ killer.

NSW counterterrorism officers are investigating who may have supplied the gun he used to carry out the brutal murder of a civilian staffer at Parramatta police headquarters on Friday afternoon.

“The possibility the teenager was used by extremists is a strong line of inquiry,’’ a senior officer involved in the operation told TheDaily Telegraph.
“That includes searching his computers, electronic devices and who he was in contact with on the days leading up to the shooting and on the day itself.’’

It has always been absurd to suggest that someone who kills in the name of Allah or Islam is a ‘lone wolf’ operating in the style of Norwegian killer Anders Breivik, or any of those who have perpetrated recent high school killings in the USA.

Those who engage in violent Jihad be it singularly or in groups, originate from a well known pack, the Islamic Ummah.  Sure, not all who belong to this pack are disposed to act violently, but as we see all too often, many refuse to condemn the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam.   Where for example is the Australian Grand Mufti’s public condemnation of this most recent terrorist act?

The Islamic ‘lone wolf’ has been a useful political construct designed to keep the public unaware of the link between Islam and violent extremism.  Now that this link has become obvious even to the most casual observer, it has rendered the metaphor politically useless.  Expect to see it used less often in the future, just as we no longer see western politicians rushing to proclaim that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ while the blood of its latest victim is still congealing on our streets.

The ‘lone wolf’ metaphor is now officially dead, along with the public’s naivety regarding the link between Islam and violent extremism.

Monday, 5 October 2015

Some more fact checking on the deadly Parramatta Jihad attack.

I note that Australian Journalist Andrew Bolt has also chosen to discuss the obvious lie regarding the recent act of Jihad at Parramatta. Was this really an act of ‘politically motivated’ terrorism as opined by our police and politicians, or was it something else?

Still just “politically inspired” terrorism? From one of a ”very, very small” minority of Muslim extremists?  And is “the Australian Muslim community ... especially appalled and shocked

A fact check on Turnbull’s rhetoric:

Less than 48 hours after the execution-style slaying of NSW Police IT worker Curtis Cheng, a page called “RIP Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar” appeared on Facebook.

A post on the page hails Jabar, 15, a martyr and says all he is guilty of “was being Muslim” and that he should rest in peace for his “sacrifice in the face of racist bigotry”.

“hero of the Islamic peoples he will be gratly (sic) missed death to the evil police state of Australia who killed this child all he is guilty of was being muslim,” another post reads.

Photographs of Jabar have been made into memes, one with the words “inshallah we will kill all the infidels” and a gun emoji aimed at a picture of a police officer alongside a photograph of American president Barack Obama.
Anyone heard yet from the Australian Grand Mufti, who was once so quick to condemn Tony Abbott?

Sunday, 4 October 2015

Six questions raised by the Parramatta Jihadist attack.

After visiting his Mosque 15 year old Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, a Muslim immigrant from Iran brutally gunned down Curtis Cheng, a 58-year-old accountant working in the police Finance and Business Services division, outside the Parramatta police station.

There are many questions that deserve to be answered regarding this killing – not all of them will be asked.

Was this shooting politically motivated?

We have been told repeatedly, that this killing was ‘politically motivated’.  The NSW police Commissioner first made this assertion and Sky News and other outlets have repeated it.

But was it really politically motivated?  What political cause did this killing advance?

The IRA assassinations were politically motivated; they wanted home rule for Ireland.  The Basque separatist group Eta was involved in terrorist activities because it sought independence for its homeland in Spain.

However, Farhad was heard herd shouting ‘Allah, Allah’ after killing Mr Cheng.  That is not a political slogan; it is religious, it is Islamic.

This presents a problem for the Police and the political elite.  If they were to admit such acts of terrorism were religious in their motivation, then they would be forced to address the religious source – Islam.  By claiming the killing is political, they are engaging in a form of denial and civilizational cowardice that if continued will have dire consequences.

You cannot defeat what you dare not name.

How does a 15 year old get a handgun?

President Obama recently held up Australia as having some of the most sensible gun laws in the civilized world.  How then does a 15 year old boy who is too young to obtain a drivers license obtain a handgun and ammunition?

Is it reasonable to suspect that those who provided him with the weapon also knew what it was to be used for, possibly even instructing Farhad in Islamic Jihad?

Someone knows how Farhad obtained this gun, but in any event, the possession of such a weapon by a 15 year old boy makes it obvious that he was not acting alone.

What do they teach at Farhad’s Mosque?

I don’t know what they teach at Farhad’s Mosque, but it’s doubtful they spend a great deal of time teaching respect for the lives of infidels, or the need to integrate and adopt the values of their host culture.

Farhad clearly believed he was serving Allah and advancing the cause of Islam by carrying out this act of Jihad.

If he didn’t get this idea from the precepts of Islam or from other Muslims at his mosque, at the very least they must have been aware of his attraction to this ideology.  What did his peers and his elders do to dissuade him from these beliefs? 

Do they run anti-radicalization programs at the Mosque, if so how many people are presently attending them, was Farhad one of them?

I think we can safely guess the answers to those questions.

Should Muslims be held accountable for Jihad?

How long should Australians and those of us living in western nations be prepared to allow these atrocities to be perpetrated without any attempt to hold the leadership of Mosques and communities that produce these Jihadists to account?

It is simply not credible for Imams to express regret at the killings, say they have ‘nothing to do with Islam’ and by inference nothing to do with them or their Mosque.

Jihad attacks arise solely from the Muslim community. 

In the last 12 months three people in Sydney have died as a result of Islamic terrorism.  Does it have to be 30, or 300, or as in the twin towers in New York 3,000 deaths before the Government decides it must hold this community to account?  

Holding the Muslim community accountable does not have to be draconian, especially in the first instance.  Evidence of de-radicalization programs being run in every mosque would be a reasonable first step.  Perhaps making them a mandatory part of their youth programs?

While you cannot force people to attend, their very existence is an acknowledgement of the problem, and creates a talking point for Muslim families.

How effective are immigration background checks?

Muslim immigrants were responsible for both of Sydney’s deadly Jihadist terror attacks.  Both came from Iran.

Is it time for us to concede that even with the best will in the world it is impossible to screen all potential Jihadists out of the immigration queues before they arrive in our countries?

Therefore is it acceptable to continue with Muslim immigration into the west, knowing as we do now that some of these immigrants, or their children will go on to kill innocent civilians through acts of Jihadist terrorism?

Is ‘death by Jihad’ a reasonable price for us to pay?

Are the inevitable deaths by Jihad an acceptable price to pay for reaching out to help Muslims from the Middle East obtain a better life in our countries?

If our politicians believe this is the case, would they mind stating that in their political manifesto so that citizens of the west might vote on this issue at the next election?

On the other hand, if they consider the price to be too high, what are they going to do about it? 

Saturday, 3 October 2015

Parramatta shooting – nothing to see here, or is there?

It’s an all too familiar and tragic passage of events.  A man of ‘middle eastern’ appearance shoots an innocent police staffer dead in cold blood on the streets of Parramatta as he was leaving work.  The offender remained at the scene angrily shouting (what we are not told) until the police shoot him dead.

The police make a statement saying they believe the offender was acting alone and it was unlikely to be terrorism related.  Move right along, there is nothing to see here.

Except we all know there is. 

While the Sydney Morning Herald cannot bring itself to report the facts surrounding this terrorist act, the Daily Telegraph fills in the gaps for us.

The gunman who shot dead a police staffer was a 15-year-old who had visited Parramatta Mosque on his way to commit murder.

The teenager, a naturalised Australian who arrived his with his family from Iran, had walked to the police headquarters in Charles Street from his home in North Parramatta before opening fire on a civilian police employee.

Police are today trying to track down the teenage killer’s family who may have left the area.

His victim was a father-of-two, a son and a daughter, who is understood to have worked in the finance area for police.

Witnesses have told The Saturday Telegraph that after shooting dead the civilian employee, the teenager ran up and down in front of police headquarters waving his handgun in the air and shouting: “Allah. Allah.”
It was then that two special constables on security duty ran from the police building and shot the gunman dead.

Just when Australia announces it is keen to take more immigrants from the Middle East, an ungrateful teenage Muslim immigrant from the region having just visited his Mosque engages in Jihad against the infidel for Allah and for Islam.  Why aren’t the Australians with signs saying ‘refugees welcome’ standing outside this crime scene?  Will they be at the graveside to waive them in front of the family at the funeral of the slaughtered IT worker?

I doubt that those who embrace that kind of soft emotive liberalism are capable of connecting these events.

The timing is somewhat unfortunate for the new Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull who has recently expressed a desire to develop ‘new more inclusive tone in dealing with the Islamic community’. 

Clearly, if we were just nicer to Muslims the tensions would evaporate and none of this bloodshed would be happening.

Friday, 2 October 2015

President Obama 'All Americans are complicit' in school shooting.

Today we learn of another tragic shooting in America, this time at Umpqua Community College in Oregon were the Telegraph reports 13 people are killed and 20 wounded.  Even this far away it is impossible not to feel grief at the loss of human life, and the suffering of loved ones left behind.

Historically, it is predominantly young white males who have a history of drug taking or mental instability, or both that carry out these shootings.  It is reported that killer asked victims to ‘state their religion’ before opening fire, however at this time we know nothing about his background, and it’s too soon to draw any conclusions about his motivation.

While these events are deeply distressing, what I also find appalling is the reported response by Barak Obama.  I can understand his frustration and grief over yet another school shooting, however what I object to is his statement that “All Americans are complicit in allowing shootings like this to take place.”

My dictionary defines ‘complicit’ as being ‘involved with others in an activity that is unlawful or morally wrong’.  That is a substantial and ill-deserved condemnation of hundreds of millions of law abiding American citizens who had absolutely nothing to do with this atrocity.

We all know that Obama wanted to restrict gun ownership, and has been frustrated in that quest. It is true that firearms make it easier to kill and maim people than might otherwise be the case without them.  However, blaming innocent Americans for the activities of a few depressed or psychotic individuals must surely be a ‘bridge too far’.

How can the President believe that all Americans are complicit in the shooting of 13 students at Umpqua Community College, when he declares that the slaughter of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood by an “Allauh akbah” screaming Major Hasan had ‘nothing to do with Islam’?

Obama views life and events through a unique and particular lens of his own choosing.

Thursday, 1 October 2015

Transgender Green declares Christians Tasmanian Devils.

The Greens want to preserve everything it seems, except the right to free speech.  There are some ideas that are considered to be so hurtful and injurious to the common good that they must be banned from public discourse.

What are those hurtful ideas? That Marriage is to be enacted solely between one man and one woman.

"The Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commission is considering a complaint lodged this week by Hobart transgender activist and Greens’ candidate Martine Delaney that Archbishop Porteus and the Catholic Bishops Conference breached the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act by circulating a booklet to the parents of Catholic school students called “Don’t Mess with Marriage”.

Ms Delaney, who has changed from male to female and lives in a same-sex relationship with a woman, said she felt humiliated by the marriage booklet.

She said the booklet, which claims to advise all Australians of the church’s reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, paid lip service to respecting same-sex-attracted Australians, but actually sent out negative messages about them."

We live in a culture that is now devoid of mutually agreed objective standards of behaviour.  The ‘cord of meaning’ that once united those of us living in western civilization has been broken. Consequently the only measure we have concerning what is right or wrong has been reduced to our feelings.

Ms Delaney has hurt feelings, therefore the Government must act to protect him her. 

Furthermore, it’s those bigoted Christians who are responsible once again, attacking the lifestyle choices of those committed to celebrating difference and inclusion.

If Ms Delaney thinks living in the crumbling ruins of what remains of a liberal Christianised western civilization is offensive, she should try spending a few days celebrating her difference in Tehran, Ryder or Lahore.

Perhaps once she is elected to parliament she could lead a delegation to these capital cities and lecture them on the rights of the transgendered to live free from alternative religious narratives on sexuality. 

Wednesday, 30 September 2015

Is the writing on the wall for our mainstream media?

Imagine for a moment you are the Chairman of a global corporation that has been in serious decline for a number of years.  Revenues are down, customer demand for your products was rapidly evaporating and there appeared to be no solution in sight.  You have called an emergency board meeting and invited senior executives of the company to join the board in a day’s brainstorming to come up with a solution.

After the usual preliminaries you ask the question “Gentlemen, when was the last time this company delivered a product or service that was highly valued by our customers?”

After a moment’s silence and some nervous looks, the head of product marketing speaks up “I believe it was back in March 1968, just over 47 years ago, well before my time in the company I’m afraid.”

Listening to National Radio yesterday morning I caught the tail end of a conversation between the host Kathryn Ryan and a regular media commentator.  They were discussing impact of the Internets’ capture of advertizing revenue and its contribution to the decline of mainstream media.

They were appalled of course, and lamented the inevitable loss of investigative journalism.  As part of this discourse they raised, by way of example, the investigation by a journalist into the My Lai Massacre that took place in Vietnam by American troops in March 1968.  Who, they wondered, would be around to perform that valuable service once the legacy media finally evaporates?

Could they not think of a more recent and meaningful example of investigative journalism that has taken place in the last 47 years?  Has there been no significant contribution by journalists in this space for a generation?  Could that be part of the reason the industry is in trouble?

Just as there has been a democratization of knowledge brought about by the Internet, there is coming a democratization of news through the same medium.  Google and others are significant aggregators of news, presently most of it comes from legacy newspaper websites, but there is no reason why this has to be the case in the future.

There is nothing to stop independent newsgathering organizations from setting up small regional businesses on-line, and generating their revenues from Google advertizing, and / or paid on-line subscriptions.

They wouldn’t have the legacy infrastructure, management, staff or the need to produce a daily broadsheet to be physically distributed around their city or region.  Such lean and nimble organizations may well be the way of the future, assuming they don’t exist to some extent already.

In many ways bloggers have provided both an independent source of news and informed commentary that has supplanted the mainstream media.  Here in New Zealand both major newspaper companies have been reduced to providing a diet of sensationalism, sport and trivia dressed up as news.  Where commentary exists, it has been filtered through a politicized editorial policy that renders it just short of ideological propaganda.

No wonder subscriptions are being cancelled, and people are sourcing their news, commentary and information about the world elsewhere.

2,500 years ago, a Jewish captive and exile called Daniel was called in to troubleshoot a mystifying event for the King of Babylon.  He was asked to interpret the ‘writing on the wall’ of King Belshazzar’s palace that had mysteriously appeared during one of his feasts.  It read in part ‘you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting’. 

The mainstream media may not be Belshazzar, and the writing on the wall from a source other than the hand of God, but unless they change and quickly, the outcome for both will be the same.

Tuesday, 29 September 2015

Tenth anniversary of Mohammad cartoon outrage.

Ten years have passed since the publishing of the Mohammad cartoons that resulted in world wide Islamic outrage, violence and death. Is free speech still alive and well in the West, or do we now live under self imposed Islamic blasphemy laws?

Just to ask the question means you can guess the answer.

Oh sure, we have dressed up our cowardice in the language of ‘respect’ but there is no denying that the violence has worked.  There is not a single mainstream media outlet that will display a carton of Mohammad for fear of violent reprisals from the religion of peace.

Even to host a conference on the subject represents such a ‘risk to security’ that in Denmark, it had to be moved from a normal convention centre to their most secure and heavily guarded premises outside of their prison system, parliament buildings.

Who would have thought just a decade ago that holding a free speech conference in Copenhagen would subject the participants to the risk of death from members of the local community?

Not the indigenous Dane local community – but rather an Islamic one that Angelia Merkel believes should repopulate Europe.  Even our own PM was forced to embrace increased quotas of Muslim immigrants on the back of nothing less than popular opinion.  Such is the power of the cowardly mainstream media that has succumbed to Islam’s blasphemy laws.  Their emotive covering of the popular invasion left him with little option if he wanted to keep up his compassionate appearance.

Mark Steyn who was a guest speaker, reflects on the conference and you can watch his address on-line at his website.  That we in the west should actively seek to increase the numbers of the illiberal, the misogynist and the barbaric in our communities is beyond comprehension. 

As an aside, how many saw this anniversary mentioned in our mainstream media?  Just not that important I guess.

Pat Condell debunks NZ Herald’s ‘Muslim migrants no problem’ narrative.

Pat Condell reflects upon Muslim migration to Europe at the invitation of Angela Merkel.  Needless to say, he has a different view regarding the inevitable outcomes following this invasion compared to (say) Dona Mojab and the NZ herald, but then they don’t have to live there do they.

Monday, 28 September 2015

More puff pieces from the NZ Herald on Islam.

Having learned nothing from it’s declining circulation, falling revenues and staff layoffs, the NZ Herald continues to churn out tired puff pieces in support of Islam.  This weeks hopeful narrative comes courtesy of Iranian born Donna Mojab, whom I have no doubt is a credit to her faith, a great mother and a solid citizen.

Now with the disclaimers out of the way, it’s worth reviewing some of her text.

The depictions of Muslims as terrorists are not balanced with images and news of Muslim men and women as revered scientists, Nobel Peace Prize winners, poets, artists, writers, etc.”

Probably because that's more fiction than fact.  Wikipedia tells us that out of 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world, there have been 11 Nobel prize winners ever.  They include the well-known peace prize recipient and former PLO leader Yasser Arafat.  A more deserving peacemaker would be hard to find.

Ok, so just 11 or perhaps 10 if you discount Arafat. 

By way of contrast, how did the hated Jews perform?

Wikipedia tells us there are approximately 15 Million Jews in the world, or less than 1% of the total Muslim population. 

Wikipedia also tells us that the Jews have won 22% of the 850 Nobel prizes ever awarded, or 187 prizes.

Despite having a population less than 1% of Muslims, Jews have won 17 times more Nobel prizes. Put another way, to have equaled the Jewish performance, Muslims would need to have won 1,700 of the 850 Nobel Prizes ever issued, which only serves to highlight the absurdity of Ms Mojab’s assertions regarding Muslims relative contribution to the arts and sciences. If they have been notable at all in this arena, it is because of their absence.

As far as New Zealand is concerned, there is virtually no threat. All refugees accepted to NZ will be processed through UN agencies, and will be subjected to rigorous background checks.”

When you consider that there is little by way of a functioning civil society in Syria, a country that has been involved in a bloody civil war for more than four years, it is absurd to suggest that the UN might call their Department of Internal Affairs to perform background checks on anyone.

In Europe, nearly all major acts of Islamic terrorism were carried out by people who were already living in Europe. Charlie Hebdo attacks, and 7/7 London bombings were carried out by people who were already living in France and the UK respectively.”

Hmm, well yes Donna.  These were Muslim immigrants or their children who undertook those atrocities.  No doubt they all had the same background checks you are suggesting will save us from the same outcomes here in New Zealand.  How is it that this reality is not as obvious to you as it is to any casual observer?

Donna fits the NZ Heralds fantasy profile perfectly.  Heavy on opinion, light on facts, strong on emotion, lacking in substance.  At what point does a once respected News Paper become nothing more than an apologist for the Islamic narrative?