Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
August 20th 2017 print

Bill Martin

George Brandis and the Quivering Lip

You expect the likes of Penny Wong to peddle multiculti pablum in defence of the burqa, identity politics being modern Labor's stock in trade. But a Liberal attorney-general bringing himself to the brink of photogenic tears in defence of a vile, misogynist garment, that is beyond disgusting

oz burqa 2Pauline Hanson walked into the Senate wearing the ultimate Muslim attire for women, the hideous burqa, and silently sat down at her station. With that simple act she made a powerful and profound statement, arguably unequalled in the Senate’s history. She did so in the full knowledge that she would be torn to shreds by fellow senators. She also knew that many colleagues secretly approved but would lack the courage to express that support for fear of being labelled Islamophobic, racists, bigots and making themselves targets for the ABC, social media’s lynch mobs and the pulpiteers of the mainstream press.

Say whatever you will of Hanson, what she did required the sort of courage few of or politicians possess.

Penny Wong pontificated in her ostentatiously virtuous response about multiculturalism, the need to respect all cultures and the evil of offending others simply because they are “different”. She omitted mentioning the status of women in Islam, where they are treated like men’s chattel, needing permission to do most anything besides domestic chores, forbidden to appear in public unaccompanied by their husbands or male relatives. Let it be noted for the record that Ms Wong calls herself a feminist.

Sure, some Muslim women are able to go out by themselves or in the company of other women because not all Islamic families are strictly fundamentalist, but their menfolk always retain the licence to enforce Islamic rules. Wong also failed to mention that when a Muslim woman is raped, she can be deemed guilty of adultery and condemned to death by stoning unless four respected men of her faith, having witnessed the event, testify in her favour. And never mind, either, about homosexuals being thrown off tall buildings as an act of “kindness” to put an end to their sinning ways in their own spiritual interest. Feminist and gay, one might have expected more from Ms Wong.

And what about Senator George Brandis, our nation’s attorney-general, no less. He vehemently condemned Hanson for the gross disrespect she has shown to “a great religion” by flippantly mocking one of its most recognisable symbols. Did he ever make a similarly impassioned speech in the Senate (or anywhere else) castigating Islamists terrorists who refuse to stand in court as required? Those defendants were disrespecting Australian law and culture, which he is tasked to uphold and protect. Or is that brazen disrespect for the rule of law nowhere near as significant as the thought crime of “disrespecting” Islam?

Related utterances of other, less prominent senators and politicians indicated the woeful ignorance they purported to perceive in the opinions of the knuckle-dragging constituents they represent. What, Australians cannot accept the veiling for life of young girls, the arranged first-cousin marriages, the misogyny inherent in covering women in all-enveloping drapery because apsychotic warlord designated them vessels of sin specifically designed by Shaytan to tempt men?

Politically correct journalists, commentators and other opinion merchants endeavoured to better each other in displaying the most outrage over Hanson’s “scandalous stunt”. All did their very best to ignore that the overwhelming majority of callers to talk-back radio programs applauded Hanson’s “stunt”, although even the ABC was eventually compelled to state that “there was mixed reaction to Pauline Hanson wearing a burqa”.

For Coalition supporters — more accurately, former Coalition supporters — it cannot have escaped attention that the performance of Senator Brandis and his much-hailed quivering lip were accorded a standing ovation, not by members of his own team, who mostly sat unmoving, but Greens and Labor. If Prime Minister Turnbull wonders why the polls suggest the Coalition is heading for a thorough thrashing at the next election, that gulf between his party and many of its (former) voters might shed some light.

There is no doubt that ignorance, misconceptions and apathy are so rampant in our society, even among otherwise intelligent and caring people, that various malevolent forces are able to proliferate with little if any hindrance. These gambits are all aimed at the weakening and eventual destruction of our Western, Judeo-Christian culture — a key element of the globalists’ dream of a one-world government.

Just how aware Pauline Hanson is of this grave danger is anyone’s guess, but her courageous act most certainly struck a blow against it.

Comments [30]

  1. Ian MacDougall says:

    Bill:
    What was Brandis supposed to do? Cheer the lamentable Hanson stunt on?
    The Australian Constitution, when last I looked, gives everyone absolute freedom of religion.
    That is not freedom to practice a religion approved by some august authority or other. The freedom is absolute.
    We can’t have freedom for Catholic nuns to wear distinguishing garb proclaiming their faith, or just a simple Christian badge, while denying the same right to non-Christians. And if Muslim women choose to bow to peer pressure and dress themselves up in a black sack, however hideous to you and me, that is their choice: though if they are being coerced and do not want to wear the thing, they have only to report that fact to the nearest cop. The Law will support them.

    • Peter says:

      Twaddle Ian. Good luck to a Muslim woman who reports to the police that she is being coerced by her family into wearing a burka. What will the police do? Put her in witness protection.

      • Ian MacDougall says:

        And twaddle with bells on, Peter.
        The Law is on their side. Getting it enforced is an easy political issue.
        Ever heard of the various councils of Ex-Muslims, who give each other the protection of moral and physical support?
        eg Ex-Muslims of North America
        https://www.exmna.org/team/sarah-haider/
        Council of Ex-Muslims of Great Britain
        https://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/
        Etc…..
        The imams, islamists and such know bloody well that their religion is inherently unstable, and that this sort of thing has to be quenched at the outset, lest it spread like a grass fire. Hence the constant threats to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the murder of Theo Van Gogh in Holland. This is also why said imams and islamists are so concerned to get control of the minds of the Muslim youth as early as possible.
        Every religion is about mind-control, be it coercive or persuasive.
        And that is why the clerics of all faiths are so concerned to protect the youth for the corrupting influence of other faiths and outlooks. Liberalism all too easily leads to a fall into Error and (choke!) atheism.
        Back in my Anglican days, I had friends who were Methodists and Presbyterians. They invited me along, and I made the mistake of mentioning that fact to my Anglican parson. He was horrified, and warned me against such a course: ie of accepting invitations from other Christians. Never mind from Sufis, Buddhists, Muslims or atheists. From Christians!

        For further research, start with Plato: on the trial and death of Socrates. See the ‘Apology’.

    • PT says:

      Ian, I accept the right of people to wear what they want. But you can’t wear a motorcycle helmet in a bank etc! Similar prohibitions have to apply to the burka! If someone chooses to wear something that obscures identity, then activities where identity is required to be established must be blocked. Wear a burka, but don’t shop, go to the bank, drive a car, etc.

    • Jody says:

      Where are the complaints about offence when nuns are being portrayed marching decadently in the gay Mardi Gras. (Sound of crickets).

    • In 1900 our population was 30% Irish Catholic. The Catholic Emancipation Act was fresh in memory, having being passed in 1829. So our constitution provides for separation of the Anglican Church from the State, unlike the situation in the UK. It also provides for freedom of religion; in practical terms this meant for Catholics, not actually Islamists.
      On another subject, our constitution makes no provision against retrospective laws. This is because the American Revolution shocked the British out of their disgusting habit of retrospective laws and bills of attainder. So in 1900, retrospective laws were thought to have fallen into disuse. But that was before John Howard.

    • whitelaughter says:

      “The Australian Constitution, when last I looked, gives everyone absolute freedom of religion.”

      And when did you last look? While it was still being drafted?
      The Constitution forbids Federal – but not State – government from interfering with religion. That’s it. The States could if they wanted establish state religions: it’s worth noting that NSW *had* a state religion for several decades, the Church of England.

  2. Ian MacDougall says:

    And twaddle with bells on, Peter.
    The Law is on their side. Getting it enforced is an easy political issue.
    Ever heard of the various councils of Ex-Muslims, who give each other the protection of moral and physical support?
    eg Ex-Muslims of North America
    Council of Ex-Muslims of Great Britain
    Etc…..
    The imams, islamists and such know bloody well that their religion is inherently unstable, and that this sort of thing has to be quenched at the outset, lest it spread like a grass fire. Hence the constant threats to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the murder of Theo Van Gogh in Holland. This is also why said imams and islamists are so concerned to get control of the minds of the Muslim youth as early as possible.
    Every religion is about mind-control, be it coercive or persuasive.
    And that is why the clerics of all faiths are so concerned to protect the youth for the corrupting influence of other faiths and outlooks. Liberalism all too easily leads to a fall into Error and (choke!) atheism.
    Back in my Anglican days, I had friends who were Methodists and Presbyterians. They invited me along, and I made the mistake of mentioning that fact to my Anglican parson. He was horrified, and warned me against such a course: ie of accepting invitations from other Christians. Never mind from Sufis, Buddhists, Muslims or atheists. From Christians!

    For further research, let me suggest a start with Plato: on the trial and death of Socrates. See his ‘Apology’.

    (Links follow in next post.)

    • PT says:

      Anglican??? Catholic surely! The is CofE never tried to stop practitioners from attending weddings held in other Churches. But the RCs did. My mother told me about friends of hers waiting outside the church to see the bride (all Catholics). Your tales of an Irish grandmother only make sense if she was Catholic.

  3. Mohsen says:

    How can it be possible a woman who is raped be punished for it and even condemned to death at that?

    • whitelaughter says:

      Mohsen, the idea that the guilty should be punished rather than the victim only exists in Guilt-based societies. In Shame-based societies (most of Asia) and ‘honor’-based societies (Islam and other nomadic groups) the victim is both weak and ostracised so a more convenient target for punishment.

      • Mohsen says:

        Thanks, whitelaughter. I assume by victim and guilty you mean specifically the victim and the guilty of rape, but not referring generally, say, the victim or guilty of burglary or murder. (I do agree with the idea of “should” in your first sentence.)
        Obviously my question implies I don’t believe a woman who is raped can be punished or is ever been punished anywhere. Bill Martin didn’t provide any evidence or reason for his claim, which has been made before on Quadrant few times before.

        You see, “punishment, conviction, condemnation to death, etc.” suggest the presence of the relevant “authority”, the one who metes out so-called justice. If we here in Australia know that one certain woman, under the authority’s decision, had been raped, then inferentially he knows too. Bearing in mind and—assuming—agreeing what “rape” is, then it is impossible that he will punish the woman who was raped. It is easy to imagine the consequences—and the message to the perpetrators of the rape—of her conviction.

        So-called honor-based punishment or shame-based punishment is different subject based on the fact that different groups of peoples disagree (sometimes sharply) on defining some acts as guilt; for example, adultery (defined by Merriam Webster as voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery) is no guilt, judicially and customarily deserving punishment, in Australia but it is in, say, Saudi Arabia. (I am not suggesting any sympathy here.)

  4. en passant says:

    Best to not waste any more time on the trolls rambling, even though he needs our attention. We are all he has. From this point on and let him resume his conversations with the Archangel Gabriel and his farting cattle and the rest of us should ignore it. He is not real.

    • Mohsen says:

      I’m not sure if you responded to my comment. Still, speaking of rambling, farting, and begging for attention, you certainly do a good job, presenting yourself few times under every article ignorantly and dizzily (speaking of cattle) babbling.

      • en passant says:

        I was referring to the MacD troll.

        Please provide examples of my ignorance of the subject

        • Mohsen says:

          I do apologize to you for my mistake; I’m very sorry for it. Your comment came right after mine; hence my misapprehension. I apologize again.
          I agree with your views on Islam; can’t think of any example from the past, but if you Like Bill Martin believe that that’s the case that in some places raped women are punished, then that will be the example. And if you are one of those who believe Muslim nations and communities are misogynists, then that one too. (By the way, thanks for not ignoring me

  5. Jody says:

    Georgie Porgie and his little entourage of male worshippers! Who’d take the slightest notice of any of them?

  6. en passant says:

    Bill,
    An excellent analysis of an intractable situation. I lived in the M.E.. It took about six weeks before the sight of BMO’s (black moving objects) or Daleks began to offend me. Part of the reason was that the bus would deliver them to the work place each morning in burqas. 15-minutes later about 90% reappeared in short skirts and normal dresses. At the end of the day some very pretty Cinderellas disappeared back to hell. I talked to some of them about this but they saw the hopelessness of their situation and for most life was better than the alternative.

    Several of the local men strongly objected, but they had no power to stop what they saw as Satanic behaviour as we were on ‘foreign territory’. One man I worked with would hang up the phone if a female called. He would also leave meetings if females were part of it. He asked me to help him emigrate to Oz – and was offended when I refused – and gave him reasons.

    There was no choice and no way out unless they gave up family, friends and their whole past life, so the rubbish about the ex-muslim help groups is a fantasy of a profoundly ignorant (although opinionated) fool.

    You cannot change or civilise people who just want everyone else dead. Islam is a cancer that is incompatible with any form of civilised behaviour. Equality for women is not possible. Acceptance of gays, kuffirs, other religions, no religion, etc, etc are utterly unacceptable to islam, so appeasers and fools who think it is just another sect protected under our Constitution are simpleton dhimmis promoting the destruction of Oz and the west. Don’t believe it? Couldn’t happen here? Where is Constantinople today? Lebanon was a Christian country – once, as was Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Spain was 90% conquered, but fought back for 700 years in the Reconquista tha expelled the Moors. Now they are back in droves. How is that working out for Spain?

    Islam is a death-cult, not just a fluffy religion saving souls.

    Given the treasonous, cowardly, unprincipled hacks we have in Parliament, if we do not recognise that fact soon, it will be too late for Oz as they will use lawfare as well as terrorism to eat out the heart of our society.

  7. Ian MacDougall says:

    Still stuck in the “awaiting moderation” limbo.
    Ian MacDougall
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    August 20, 2017 at 6:09 pm
    https://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/

  8. Ian MacDougall says:

    Eyn Pyssant for once is right. Islam is a terrible religion.
    The Islamic clerics are very concerned to keep their ship watertight. Critical thought from outside must be stopped from coming in. And critical thought starting up inside must be trodden on.
    But Islamic science once rescued Europe from its Dark Age.
    “Through the Umayyad Caliphate and, in particular, the succeeding Abbasid Caliphate’s early phase, lies the Islamic Golden Age (roughly between 692 and 945), with stable political structures and flourishing trade. Major religious and cultural works of the empire were translated into Arabic. The culture inherited Greek, Indic, Assyrian and Persian influences. A new common civilisation formed, based on Islam. An era of high culture and innovation ensued, with rapid growth in population and cities. The Arab Agricultural Revolution in the countryside brought more crops and improved agricultural technology, especially irrigation. This supported the larger population and enabled culture to flourish.[1][2] In the 8th century, scholars translated Indian, Assyrian, Sassanian (Persian) and Greek knowledge, including the works of Aristotle, into Arabic. These translations supported advances by scientists across the Islamic world.”
    But no priest can teach critical thought on one day and his religious dogma the next. And so it came to pass that both critical thought (ie philosophy) and science withered and languished in the Islamic world.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

  9. Ian MacDougall says:

    And also https://www.exmna.org/team/sarah-haider/
    Those two links are just for starters.

  10. Joel B1 says:

    At the very least Hanson showed that feminism is dead and buried.

  11. padraic says:

    Nuns may have worn “distinguishing garb proclaiming their faith” but at least you could see their faces, unlike the those wearing the burqa. But when you see photos of black clad women in Muslim countries it does remind one of when the nuns wore similar garb. It seems that all Middle Eastern religions share some elements of practice. Fortunately, Christianity is more adaptable, so that these days you don’t see nuns dressed as they used to be. Full face coverings should be banned.

  12. Warty says:

    Questions as to what dear George Brandis ought to have done . . . well he, and all too many like him in the so called Liberal ranks,ought to pause and consider what effect their utterances might have on their conservative base, you know, the ones who are exploding from the hive like so many angry bees.
    It is more than a little interesting that he had his back turned to the motley mob that gave him a standing ovation, because that was very much ‘for whom the bell tolls’ stuff. In other words it was simply not a good look. Just go back over the footage and look at the rousing response (not) given by his own side, because some tentatively clapped (bedwetters) a few had their head down (downright ashamed) and others sat stolidly, not clapping at all (the ones considering what post election job opportunities there might be in their respective states: none in South Australia of course).
    So what should George Brandis have done? Well never say ‘no’ when asked about whether or not he’d ban the burka. Instead use the old standby “I’ll take advice on that . . . let me get back to you”. And then sit down and shut up.
    Attack Pauline and her stakes go up every time. Stall and there’s a chance her poll results might just go down a point, or at least remain at the 8% they were when Pauline did what she did. But Georgy didn’t think of that one did he? Too many second helpings have contributed to the brain fog.

    • Jody says:

      Georgie Porgey is playing to a different audience in the parliament, I think you’ll find. The Australian people have nothing to do with his, er, proclivities.

  13. mags of Queensland says:

    George Brandis is one reason that long time Liberals, like me, are deserting them in droves. His ludicrous remarks concerning Pauline Hanson show a distinct lack of the issue and its ramifications. I have lived in areas where I saw these walking dead and my first instinct was to spit on them. When I think of the trials that women of the past suffered to improve the lot of women, some paying with their lives, I want to shake the living daylights out of them. They came to a country where face covering is NOT the custom as it may have been in their birth country. By maintaining that custom, not religious observance, they immediately tell us that they have no wish to associate with us, even though it is WE who are providing them with the benefits of being in a free country.

    We do not see any commentary from the feminists about the burqa or any of the disgusting practices of those of the Islamic faith. None of these practices are ordered by the Koran, so it is a spurious argument by Brandis that it is a religious garb. The man’s a complete fool and one can only hope he is one of those who will depart the Parliament at the next election.

    • en passant says:

      As one troll pointed out in defence of subjugation of women: “The Australian Constitution, when last I looked, gives everyone absolute freedom of religion.”

      This is great news as I am currently trying to make up my mind about registering my Druidic faith (as its been a while since I indulged in human sacrifice). Then again the Wiccans liked to burn people alive in giant effigies of straw men. That sounds like fun, but even the Christians having stopped that practice.

      Fortunately, islam does continue to behead, burn people alive, murder their wives and female children for family ‘honour’, or just gently genitally mutilate them for their own good and to curb any sex urge they may have had.

      Yes, the absolute right of barbarians (including the LBTQWERY thugs) to oppress everyone else is guaranteed by the starry-eyed who believe that human sacrifices are not wrong, just different and must be tolerated and respected.

      https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2017/06/celebrating-aztecs-cultural-enrichment/

      • padraic says:

        That’s a valid point about the Druids, en passant. Back in the 60s I was driving through the Kentish countryside looking for somewhere to have a beer. My co-workers in London had assured me that the best way to locate a pub in the English countryside was to look for a church spire and then head in that direction. I spotted one and sure enough I followed their instructions to the letter and soon found myself in a little village called Chiddington. Opposite the church was the pub and I parked the car outside. I noticed on my left a large rock surrounded by a low fence, so I wandered over to have a look. It was about 12 to 18 feet high and had a flattish top with two or three shallow hollows dug into the rock near the top, one above another. So I went in to the pub and while downing my beer asked the barman what was with the rock. He said that was the “chiding stone” where the Druids, pre-Christianity, used to sacrifice the children from the village by taking them up to the top, slitting their throats and allowing the blood to fill up the top hollow after which it would overflow into the one immediately below. Obviously the verb “to chide” had a more forceful meaning in those far off days than it does today. These barbaric sacrifices of those older societies dropped off when better ones replaced them. Those who sneer at Christianity today do not realise why people in those older societies embraced Christianity so readily. It is fashionable to think they were brainwashed, but not having your eldest child sacrificed by some maniac was a big incentive to change. You see the same situation in the Old Testament when Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac and was advised to change to sacrificing a lamb instead. Even today, Christianity is popular in societies where witchcraft (and its obnoxious practices) were even recently still a factor. The original Jewish religion got the ball rolling with lambs and the newer version, Christianity, went a step further and replaced the lamb with bread. On the other hand, the joys and rewards of self sacrifice through martyrdom is common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Christians are not as keen as they used to be. I remember at school being taught that the greatest thing I could do was to die for my faith and this was backed up by heroic stories of Christian martyrs whom we could emulate if the situation arose. I have never never been able to understand this need for these types of sacrifice to make the crops grow better or to get rich or to go straight to heaven and bypassing purgatory (or 21 virgins), but it seems a way of a self styled elite in all societies to exhibit total control over other people in the community.