The new “blasphemy laws”

The new “blasphemy laws” to protect the ‪#‎DeathCult‬ introduced last week in the ACT now matches the same law that’s been in place in the leftwing communist capital of Australia Victoria for years!

So now’s there’s 2 states where “the truth is no defense”

This is a great insight into this absurd law designed to protect and appease the evil cult!



“Islamophobia” is a widely used yet vague and controversial term referring to anti-Muslim bigotry. In recent years, identifying, monitoring, reporting on, and working to ban Islamophobia worldwide has been a major focus of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
The OIC is an international body of 56 member states that is based in Saudi Arabia and active within the United Nations.

There has to be a will to bring us together – Andrew Bolt

THINK AGAIN – An Interview with Andrew Bolt. An agnostic who publically defends the Christian faith and believes Islam needs reform

Calvary Christian Church

  • Q & A bias against Christians
  • Media treats Christian church different to Muslims
  • excessive courtesy to Islam
  • 5 journalist subjected to threat to their lives here in Australia
  • I see the link between the chritian faith and the freedoms i enjoy, its no coincidence that the freer societies in the world are almost universally Christian.
  • I think Humility is what is missing
  • You are living on the fat of Christianity
  • Foreign Minister Julia Bishop described radical Islam as a greater threat to world peace than communism was during the height of cold war
  • as the twig is bent, so grows the tree. Jesus very different to Muhammod
  • Julia Bishop said to truly defeat Islamic state we need to challenge and repudiate its idealogy
  • Islam and Ideology –  an artificial distinction. need to say reform “What” The “What” is the Koran
  • The Church should be very explicit about its teachings.



Step 1: Shut down free Speech

An authoritarian ruler must get a grip.

The first policy that he imposes on his people shuts down free speech that expresses dissent and criticism, especially if the speech questions the leader. He takes any questioning of his opinions and decisions as a personal insult of him, the head of state, and therefore a threat to his society.

Muhammad laid down severe restrictions on such free speech. He assassinated many who insulted him. In the Quran, he promises death and eternal damnation if anyone deviates in words and action from Allah and his messenger. In the hadith (Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran), we read that he kills dissenters and insulters. Later legal rulings, rooted in the Quran and hadith, follow his lead and decree that hard-hitting speech must be stifled. Indeed, the dissenters must die, if they cross the line.

In 1989, Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.

In 2003, legendary American radio host Paul Harvey was asked by Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to apologize for saying that Islam encourages killing. Dhimmi Watch provides the context of Harvey’s remarks. His comments have plenty of Quranic verses to back them up, but his free speech must be curtailed.

In 2004, Britain’s Robert Kilroy-Silk, presenter of a daytime TV show, wrote an article that used harsh language against Arabs. The Muslim Council of Britain denounced the rant and said that action should be taken against him. He has since resigned. The Muslim Council welcomed the news.

In 2005, Radical Muslims do not hesitate to riot if the Quran is desecrated. In honor of their holy book, they kill innocent people. This demonstrates how far radicals will go in responding to perceived insults of their religion.

In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on a vilification law in one of Australia’s states. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence, but the lawyer for the Muslim Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England’s parliament. They have succeeded. However, Muslims may read passages from the Quran that call for harsh treatment of Jews and Christians. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed, either. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.

[Editor’s and author’s update: The religious hate speech law has finally not succeeded. The bill, which “was aimed at extending the concept of the UK’s race hate laws to cover belief” lost by one vote. “[C]ritics said ministers’ proposals would have made it too wide-reaching.” (Sources: hereand here)]

In 2005, Radio host Michael Graham was fired for connecting Islam to terrorism. The Council on American Islamic Relations called this hate speech. The owner of the station demand that Graham apologized, but he refused. This is the article that started it all.

Why do these Muslims want to restrict unpleasant speech about their religion? Are they hiding anything? Are they embarrassed about something that sits at the core of their religion? These Muslims who would restrict free speech are following their prophet.

Here is how the story of repression of hard-hitting speech unfolds in early Islam. First, some verses in the Quran, analyzed in their literary and historical context, do not promise a happy life for dissenters and insulters. Second, the hadith (reports of Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran) records reliable traditions that spell out doom for dissenters and insulters. Third, later classical legal rulings, which are rooted in the Quran and hadith, do not promise tolerance for hard-hitting speech, to say the least. Next, we contrast the way of Jesus with the way of Muhammad. Needless to say, even though Jesus was often insulted, he did not order executions or lay down excessive rules against unpleasant speech.

Finally, we explore why the West must maintain its free speech, and we apply our findings to the world today.

read more

Freedom of Speech – we are losing it in the courts

This is the key phrase in this article

“without violent reprisal, banned as discriminatory”

Australia: Ads saying one should be able to flush Qur’an down toilet without violent reprisal banned as discriminatory

The ads mocking Christianity were banned as well, but it is extremely unlikely that APN Outdoor was concerned about discriminating against and vilifying Christians. Clearly, what they were concerned about violent reprisals from Muslims enraged at the prospect of flushing the Qur’an. The organizers are quite correct when they say, “To reject these posters is to censor free speech – pure and simple.” It is not allowed in the West, except on the Internet and in certain courageous fora, to speak critically about Islamic supremacism and jihad terror today.

This is the battle that Pamela Geller and I have been fighting for years; now the same thing is being done to Sam Harris: the false branding of his ads, the mischaracterization of his work, the charges of “bigotry,” “Islamophobia,” etc. He has the advantage of having been known and loved on the Left before it began, so he has a following and a reservoir of good will — or else he would be notorious today as a “right-wing extremist,” just like those he shuns.


“Controversial ads for atheist author who was in famous TV row with Ben Affleck over Islam are BANNED for ‘discrimination’ – because they said it should be OK to flush the Koran down the toilet,” by Daniel Piotrowski, Daily Mail Australia, October 29, 2015

OCTOBER 30, 2015 12:43 PM BY

Australia: Ads saying one should be able to flush Qur’an down toilet without violent reprisal banned as discriminatory

Pro Multiculturalism IS anti Islam – don’t you get it Betina?

​Is Betina Szkudlarek just blatantly uninformed?

My response to her article:

The racist fringe must be cut before it grows stronger

I have 5 things to say

  1. Anti Islam is Pro Multiculturalism
  2. I am Anti Islam because I respect and value other people’s right to enjoy Australia, side by side with me, in peace and harmony including Muslims.
  3. Islam is a destructive political idealogy that says convert or die (what part of that don’t you understand Betina?) which preaches violence and inequality
  4. Europe is experiencing cival uprising as a result of their open immigration policies. Hello!! Look at Germany and look at Sweden – two of the most liberal countries with wide open door policies.
  5. Name calling of people who have an opinion that is different to yours is not very professional and it is exactly what the Silence Jihard wants Racist , Bigot, Intolerant, anti-Muslim Islamphobic . As a journalist you think you would have your wordsmith skills a little better hones. Islam is not a race.

They are now heading towards ruin unless the peaceful people raise up a political party that puts a stop to it.

Sweden is now the number one rape capital of the world. Sweden, Germany  and France all suffering under “No Go” Islamic gettos. Their police and ambulance personel are in constant danger.

French Governement reported on their website there were 751 enclaves “No Go ” areas ruled by Sharia Law. They do not recognise French Law. They are taught “Anyone who insults the prophet must be put to death.  2 of the 3 perpertraiters of the Charlie Hebro killings were born in these areas.

Is this what you want for our beautiful safe country Betina?

All I ask is you get  up to speed with the facts. Your ignorance of this subject is down right dangerous.

Betina wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald:

“If we don’t curtail growing anti-immigration rhetoric, we risk going down the same intolerant path as Europe.”

Well Betina, I am unashamably Anti Islam.

Why? Because I love our multicultural Australia where the Italians and the Greeks and the Vietnamese and the Chinese and absolutley everyone has been able to come to our beautiful country and assimulate and contribute into our society and bring with them all the  rich tapestry of their culture and live in harmony and peace with their neighbours who might have been true blue Aussies or from some other country.

Read her full article here

Meet the honor brigade .. their role is to silence debate on Islam

.. an organized campaign to silence debate on Islam

Silencing Islam DiscussionAsra Q. Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is the author of “Standing Alone: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam.”

“You have shamed the community,” a fellow Muslim in Morgantown, W.Va., said to me as we sat in a Panera Bread in 2004. “Stop writing.”

In 2007, as part of this playbook, the OIC launched the Islamophobia Observatory, a watchdog group based in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, with the goal of documenting slights against the faith. Its first report, released the following year, complained that the artists and publishers of controversial Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad were defiling “sacred symbols of Islam . . . in an insulting, offensive and contemptuous manner.” The honor brigade began calling out academics, writers and others, including former New York police commissioner Ray Kelly and administrators at a Catholic school in Britain that turned away a mother who wouldn’t remove her face veil….

“The OIC invented the anti-‘Islamophobia’ movement,” says Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a frequent target of the honor brigade. “These countries . . . think they own the Muslim community and all interpretations of Islam.”

Alongside the honor brigade’s official channel, a community of self-styled blasphemy police — from anonymous blogs such as to a large and disparate cast of social-media activists — arose and began trying to control the debate on Islam. This wider corps throws the label of “Islamophobe” on pundits, journalists and others who dare to talk about extremist ideology in the religion. Their targets are as large as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and as small as me.

The official and unofficial channels work in tandem, harassing, threatening and battling introspective Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere. They bank on an important truth: Islam, as practiced from Malaysia to Morocco, is a shame-based, patriarchal culture that values honor and face-saving from the family to the public square. Which is why the bullying often works to silence critics of Islamic extremism.

“Honor brigades are wound collectors. They are couch jihadis,” Joe Navarro, a former supervisory special agent in the FBI’s behavioral analysis unit, tells me. “They sit around and collect the wounds and injustices inflicted against them to justify what they are doing. Tragedy unites for the moment, but hatred unites for longer.”

 In an e-mail exchange, the OIC’s ambassador to the United Nations denied that the organization tries to silence discussion of problems in Muslim communities.

The attacks are everywhere. Soon after the Islamophobia Observatory took shape, Sheik Sabah Ahmed al-Sabah, the emir of Kuwait, grumbled about “defamatory caricatures of our Master and Prophet Muhammad” and films that smear Islam, according to the OIC’s first Islamophobia report.

The OIC helped give birth to a culture of victimization. In speeches, blogs, articles and interviews widely broadcast in the Muslim press, its honor brigade has targeted pundits, political leaders and writers — from TV host Bill Maher to atheist author Richard Dawkins — for insulting Islam. Writer Glenn Greenwald has supported the campaign to brand writers and thinkers, such as neuroscientist and atheist Sam Harris, as having “anti-Muslim animus” just for criticizing Islam.

Full Article



Lars Hedegaard, Denmark needs free speech Islam not compatible with freedom loving people

This video is all about Freedom of Speech and media censorship in Europe as Laas Hedegaard , an historian, has been charged and is facing conviction



Lars Hedegaard had an bungled attempt on his life. He had a mail man come to his dorr, hand him a parcel and then shoot a gun at his head. Thankfully he missed.

Journalist are lucrative. Being a journalist in this country is not really a profession it is more like a political party

45% of Denmark our now Muslim as a result of immigration

If you can not solve a problem then at least silence it.

Chanecellor Miekle claimed multiculterism had failed in Germany.

Q:How would you characterise the influence of Brussles on the media reporting on immigration policies

A:EU  November Nov 2008  framework decision have to introduce laws have to criminalise racial and hate speech.  Each country member state has to guarantee laws that will defend  rubber article will get between 1-3 years . These also