“Self-segregation has become a reality” in Australia, says Senator Malcolm Roberts, with people “fleeing areas of heavy migrant settlement, especially Islamic settlement”.
“This is not only white flight, it is every kind of flight. Every type of Australian is fleeing these new ghettos” claimed the One Nation populist, citing research on diversity and societal cohesion which suggests the country’s identity and social fabric are beginning to fray.
“Culture and integration matter to Australians,” he told colleagues in the Australian parliament’s upper house, condemning the “coldness and arrogance of [the] political elites” who refused to recognise this.
“In our fraying society, self-segregation has become a reality. We the people are seeking to protect our children, our daughters, our property, our liberty,” he stated bluntly.
Sex attacks on women and girls have become increasingly common in Europe since the advent of the migrant crisis. The German authorities and media came under heavy criticism for apparently attempting to cover up an outbreak of mass sex attacks on New Year’s Eve 2015/16, while assaults in neighbouring Austria rose by 133 per cent in 2016.
More recently, Sweden was shocked when a gang rape was live streamed on Facebook, and Italian populist Matteo Salavini called for the introduction of chemical castration for sex offenders after a Nigerian migrant was accused of attempting to rape a 62-year-old woman working at an asylum centre.
“If immigrants are to assimilate we should be choosing those from cultures with a track record of ready assimilation,” argued Senator Roberts, pointing out that Australians had few complaints about “Buddhists, or Sikhs, or Hindus, or Jews or Catholics or Protestants and so on”.
“How can we expect people wedded to an ideology masquerading as a religion that specifically precludes assimilation, to assimilate and integrate?” he asked. “We can’t.”
Speaking in the same debate, crossbencher Jacqui Lambie praised U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s attempt to temporarily restrict travel from seven Muslim-majority states identified as “countries of concern” by the Obama administration as “on the right track”.
Lambie further suggested that would-be visitors to Australia who do not “share our democratic beliefs and respect [our] liberties” should be denied entry. Advocates of Shariah law, the strict religious legal code practised by Islamic State and in Saudi Arabia, were highlighted as a source of particular concern.
“Shariah law is an anti-democratic cancer that doesn’t belong in a free society,” she said. “How could someone who thinks it is okay for women to be treated like possessions of men and like second- or third-class citizens share Australian democratic beliefs?” she asked.
“Sharia law … is anti-democratic. Show me a successful democracy in the Middle East that imposes the death penalty on gay people for being gay, imposes the death penalty on women who are unfaithful to their husband and denies the right of the Jewish people to live in peace in Israel.
“If [people] support Shariah law and want it in Australia, don’t let them in,” advised Lambie. “They are obviously supporters of the terrorists, their law and their culture.”
Muslim rebels brutally stabbed to death a Christian pastor in the Central African Republic (CAR), then proceeded to burn his church to the ground.
In what is being reported as a revenge attack for military operations against the Islamist militia, jihadists attacked Pastor Jean-Paul Sankagui of the Church of Christ in the capital city of Bangui on Feb. 7, stabbing him to death and then torching his church as well as two other Christian churches in the area.
CAR military together with UN peacekeepers recently attempted to capture local Muslim militia leader Youssouf Sy, but the operation failed and Sy and one of his men were killed in the incident.
During the operation, Sy and his men opened fire on the security forces and killed two passers-by, a man and a woman, at which point the military returned fire and killed Sy and another militiaman.
According to World Watch Monitor, Sy’s supporters went on a “rampage” in retaliation for the operation, attacking people and destroying property.
“The incident took place following a military operation. Then militiamen started shooting. They burnt down our houses,” one internally displaced person (IDP) told local media, on condition of anonymity.
Sy’s allies surrounded Rev. Sankagui’s church, then killed the pastor and burned the church building.
After the initial attack, the Muslim militia set fire to two other churches in the area, the Apostolic and St Mathias Church, and also destroyed a local school. Militiamen also reportedly stormed a health facility with the intention of killing off the wounded.
According to Dr. Michel Yao, acting U.N. humanitarian coordinator in the country, more than two dozen wounded were brought in for treatment.
“Armed elements forcefully entered into the facility with the intention to kill some of the injured,” he said.
According to UN reports, the attacks brought about the combined deaths of at least five people with 26 more injured.
The poverty-stricken Central African Republic erupted in civil war in 2013 after Muslim rebels from the Seleka militia overthrew former president Francois Bozize, a Christian.
Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter
A Georgetown University professor who teaches about Islamic civilization delivered a lecture on slavery to a gathering at the International Institute for Islamic Thought – an organization with suspected ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – and told the attendees that modern society tends to needlessly agonize over the morality of owning people as property. Why?
Because “there is no such thing as slavery,” professor Jonathan Brown said, the Investigative Project reported.
Brown, a 39-year-old convert to Islam, read from his paper, “Slavery and Islam” about the “Problems of Slavery” during his lecture. Following, he fielded several questions from the audience, offering up such food for thought as his view that slavery cannot be defined as an outright evil because there are so many different kinds – slavery based on religion versus gender, for example. And what really counts, in the end, is whether those who were enslaved were treated well or poorly – not that they were enslaved.
“I don’t think you can talk about slavery in Islam until you realize that there is no such thing as slavery,” he said, the Investigative Project found. “As a category, as a conceptual category that exists throughout state and time, trans-historically, there’s no such thing as slavery.”
His lecture was baffling and at times, difficult to follow.
But at different points in the event, Brown said “slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself,” and that it’s not “morally evil to own somebody because we own lots of people all around us.”
On that last, he actually explained that everybody owns people, and everybody is owned by people – for instance, think of social obligations, or work responsibilities, where individuals are compelled to appear at certain times, or perform certain jobs, he said.
As the Daily Banter wrote: “That is a major problem, considering that slavery by definition is involuntary.”
But Brown went on, explaining that today’s society ought to rethink the definition of slavery as a great sin.
“This obsession of thinking of slavery as property – it’s treated as this inconceivable sin,” he said, the Investigative Project reported. “I think that’s actually a really odd and unhelpful way to think about slavery and kind of gets you locked in this way of thinking where, if you talk about ownership and people, that you’re already transgressed some moral boundary that you can’t come back from. But I don’t think that’s true at all.”
Brown, fielding a question from a skeptical audience member, admitted that “the fact that there was slavery is a wrong.” But he then spoke of his Muslim faith and the fact his prophet owned slaves – and suggested that what was OK for the prophet should be OK for followers of Islam.
“He had slaves,” Brown said. “There’s no denying that. Are you more morally mature than the prophet of God? No, you’re not.”
On the notion of consent for sexual relations, Brown was equally puzzling.
First, he said this, the Daily Banter reported: “For most of human history human beings have not thought of consent as the essential feature of morally correct sexual activity. And second, we fetishize the idea of autonomy to the extent that we forget, again who’s really free? Are we really autonomous people? I mean what does autonomy mean? Can I just drive — can I be like a cowboy and in a movie or an action TV series where I just get on my motorcycle and just ride to the West? No, I got kids. I have a mortgage.
“I mean,” he went on, “we’re all born into and live in a network of relationships and responsibilities and duties, but we have this obsession with the idea of autonomy. And the fact is that — and this is not to demean the status of woman in Islam or Islamic civilization at all — but a concubine’s autonomy was not that different from the autonomy of a wife, because for most of human history and most of Islamic civilization, women got married to the person that their family wanted them to get married to. The idea of being autonomous and saying, ‘I need to be in love with him. I need to go have this, you know, Jane Austen-like courtship with him.’ That was hogwash.”
So is Brown saying the notion of consensual sex – the idea of a woman having the right to say no, for example – is based on skewed historical interpretation?
But he had more to say about the matter.
The Daily Banter reported he said: “What’s the difference between someone who is captured in a raid in … Central Asia [being] brought to Istanbul’s slave market, sold to an owner — who, by the way, might treat her badly, might treat her incredibly well. She’s going to bear him children. She’s going to be a free woman. She’s going to be the mother of his children. If he’s high status, she’s going to be high status. If he dies she might be a very desirable wife.
“That person’s situation? What’s the difference between that,” Brown went on, “and some woman who’s a poor baker’s daughter who gets married to some baker’s son without any choice because no one expects her to have any choice? And that baker’s son might treat her well. He might treat her horribly. The difference between these two people is not that big. We see it as enormous because we’re obsessed with the idea of autonomy and consent, would be my first response. It’s not a solution to the problem. I think it does help frame it.”