AKA Islamic Friendship Association

4 May 2011
Christina McIntosh
On August 1 2009, in 'The Australian', Michael Pelly reported that Judge Peter McClellan in the NSW Supreme Court rejected a defamation claim which Keysar Trad had made against radio station 2GB.

Quoting the report: 'Judge Peter McClellan said he agreed [with 2GB] [that] Mr Trad "incites acts of violence, incites racist attitudes, is dangerous and perhaps most significantly is a disgraceful individual".

'He [the Judge] added that the founder of the Islamic Friendship Association held views that were "entirely repugnant" to most Australians.  They included, item, Defending the stoning of a woman for adultery in Nigeria, Item - Condoning suicide bombers and the use of children as martyrs, Item - Calling homosexuality "a depraved carnal pursuit" that should be criminalised, Item - Regarding Anglo-Irish Australians as "unworthy descendants of criminal dregs" [never mind, of course, that a very great many such Anglo-Irish Australians, my own immigrant ancestors among them, were not convicts, but *free settlers* - CM], Item - Joking about rapes committed by the Bilal Skaf gang [these being extremely vicious and brutal gang rapes of non-Muslim Australian girls by Lebanese Muslim men - CM], Item - Believing America poses a greater threat to Australia than radical Islam; and [nota bene, O Channel Ten reporter, who should have done your homework before asking Keysar Trad for an opinion re. Bin Laden - CM] **endorsing Hilali  speeches which described the September 11 attacks as "blessings" and excused rapes on women who dressed like "uncovered meat" ** [my emphasis - CM; I should emphasise that to be 'uncovered meat' one does not necessarily need to be wearing short shorts and halterneck top, miniskirt, or a bikini; merely being dressed unislamically - in, for example, sensible jeans and t-shirt with hair uncovered - is quite sufficient to designate a woman as 'uncovered meat' and there-to-be-raped by any Mohammedan male who thinks he can get away with it - CM]...

'Justice McClellan cited an article in The Weekend Australian in September 2002 in which Mr Trad **denied Muslims were behind September 11 and suggested Osama bin Laden could not have organised the attack**...

'Mr Trad had also hosted a web page with links to anti-Semitic sites and Adolf Hitler's manifesto Mein Kampf. "He must be regarded as having apparent sympathies for the views of Adolf Hitler", Justice McClellan said...". END QUOTE

Now, given *that* - after *that* was said by a NSW supreme court judge who *had* evidently done his homework or was prepared to trust the testimony of others who had - why on earth should any Australian journalist, politician or for that matter non-Muslim religious leader EVER choose to give Mr Keysar Trad so much as the time of day, ever again?

He's racist, antisemitic, dangerous and disgraceful.  And he originally peddled typical Muslim-in-the-West denial, nonsense and lies about September 11, in a major Australian newspaper, in 2002; whilst *also* at the same time, in typical Muslim doublethink, endorsing the views of a fellow Muslim who saw those very same September 11 jihad raids as 'blessings'.

End of story. 

Time to ignore him.

w
ww.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/34333/Predictable-Crap-From-Keysar-Trad-In-Strine

LEST WE FORGET WHO KEYSAR TRAD WHEN WE READ HIS  TAQIYYA

In Islam, taqiyya تقية (alternative spellings taqiyeh, taqiya, taqiyah, tuqyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.

IE. LIE

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/treach_thumb.png

Satirising the shameless, shameless deceit of 'the moslem'.....

IMAGE....
http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/sheik.jpg

'.....Just like in muslim countries.'


image source....
http://sheikyermami.com/

jackmountain wrote on Dec 16^th, 2014 at 1:09am:

LEST WE FORGET WHO KEYSAR TRAD WHEN WE READ HIS  TAQIYYA In Islam, taqiyya تقية (alternative spellings taqiyeh, taqiya, taqiyah, tuqyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution. IE. LIE

A LITTLE MORE, ON.........


Taqiyya
“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…”
google




Google;
taqiyya - the muslim doctrine of deceit


How Taqiyya Alters Islams Rules of War
http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war







Quote:

A Study in Muslim Doctrine "...while sincere friendship with non-Muslims is forbidden, insincere friendship - whenever beneficial to Muslims - is not."

http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine



Google,
smile to the face "while our hearts curse them"

p.s.
jackmountain

.....welcome to OzPol.

jackmountain wrote on Dec 16^th, 2014 at 1:07am:

AKA Islamic Friendship Association 4 May 2011 Christina McIntosh On August 1 2009, in 'The Australian', Michael Pelly reported that Judge Peter McClellan in the NSW Supreme Court rejected a defamation claim which Keysar Trad had made against radio station 2GB. Quoting the report: 'Judge Peter McClellan said he agreed [with 2GB] [that] Mr Trad "incites acts of violence, incites racist attitudes, is dangerous and perhaps most significantly is a disgraceful individual". 'He [the Judge] added that the founder of the Islamic Friendship Association held views that were "entirely repugnant" to most Australians.  They included, item, Defending the stoning of a woman for adultery in Nigeria, Item - Condoning suicide bombers and the use of children as martyrs, Item - Calling homosexuality "a depraved carnal pursuit" that should be criminalised, Item - Regarding Anglo-Irish Australians as "unworthy descendants of criminal dregs" [never mind, of course, that a very great many such Anglo-Irish Australians, my own immigrant ancestors among them, were not convicts, but *free settlers* - CM], Item - Joking about rapes committed by the Bilal Skaf gang [these being extremely vicious and brutal gang rapes of non-Muslim Australian girls by Lebanese Muslim men - CM], Item - Believing America poses a greater threat to Australia than radical Islam; and [nota bene, O Channel Ten reporter, who should have done your homework before asking Keysar Trad for an opinion re. Bin Laden - CM] **endorsing Hilali  speeches which described the September 11 attacks as "blessings" and excused rapes on women who dressed like "uncovered meat" ** [my emphasis - CM; I should emphasise that to be 'uncovered meat' one does not necessarily need to be wearing short shorts and halterneck top, miniskirt, or a bikini; merely being dressed unislamically - in, for example, sensible jeans and t-shirt with hair uncovered - is quite sufficient to designate a woman as 'uncovered meat' and there-to-be-raped by any Mohammedan male who thinks he can get away with it - CM]... 'Justice McClellan cited an article in The Weekend Australian in September 2002 in which Mr Trad **denied Muslims were behind September 11 and suggested Osama bin Laden could not have organised the attack**... 'Mr Trad had also hosted a web page with links to anti-Semitic sites and Adolf Hitler's manifesto Mein Kampf. "He must be regarded as having apparent sympathies for the views of Adolf Hitler", Justice McClellan said...". END QUOTE Now, given *that* - after *that* was said by a NSW supreme court judge who *had* evidently done his homework or was prepared to trust the testimony of others who had - why on earth should any Australian journalist, politician or for that matter non-Muslim religious leader EVER choose to give Mr Keysar Trad so much as the time of day, ever again? He's racist, antisemitic, dangerous and disgraceful.  And he originally peddled typical Muslim-in-the-West denial, nonsense and lies about September 11, in a major Australian newspaper, in 2002; whilst *also* at the same time, in typical Muslim doublethink, endorsing the views of a fellow Muslim who saw those very same September 11 jihad raids as 'blessings'. End of story.  Time to ignore him. w ww.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/34333/Predictable-Crap-From-Keysar-Trad-In-Strine

time to deport him

jackmountain wrote on Dec 16^th, 2014 at 1:09am:

LEST WE FORGET WHO KEYSAR TRAD WHEN WE READ HIS  TAQIYYA In Islam, taqiyya تقية (alternative spellings taqiyeh, taqiya, taqiyah, tuqyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution. IE. LIE

How's he performing taqiyya when he is going through the right legal process?

jackmountain wrote on Dec 16^th, 2014 at 1:07am:

On August 1 2009, in 'The Australian', Michael Pelly reported that Judge Peter McClellan in the NSW Supreme Court rejected a defamation claim which Keysar Trad had made against radio station 2GB.

Do you think distorting this story by omitting the rest of the facts is an accurate description of Taqqiya?

Say like ommitting the fact that Justice McClellan's verdict was overturned in a subsequent appeal?


Quote:

MUSLIM community identity Keysar Trad is not dangerous, disgraceful or a racist who incites people to commit violence, the NSW Court of Appeal has ruled. Mr Trad, the president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, has been cleared of those defamatory labels thrown at him by 2GB's Jason Morrison and backed by Supreme Court Justice Peter McClellan. Last week the Court of Appeal ruled there was no evidence to support them. The court found that Justice McClellan had erred in his findings on a number of points in relation to those defamatory statements and has ordered a retrial to assess damages regarding Mr Trad's reputation.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/trad-wins-radio-defamation-appeal-20110326-1cb6b.html

Oh, look at all the Islamophobes lining up along the wall, Gandalf!   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 16^th, 2014 at 10:43am:

Say like omitting the fact that Justice McClellan's verdict was overturned in a subsequent appeal?

I hope you read the appeal case, gandalf. Many of Chief Justice McClellan's findings were endorsed by the Court of Appeal.


Quote:

[The trial judge said:] "I am satisfied that the [appellant] does hold views which can properly be described as racist. I am also satisfied that he encourages others to hold those views. In particular he holds views derogatory of Jewish people. The views which he holds would not be acceptable to most right thinking Australians. This imputation is substantially true." [The Court of Appeal said:]     Once again, with respect, his Honour did not ask the question whether, given the attitudes and views he found the appellant held, a right-thinking member of the Australian community would consider that the appellant incited people to have racist attitudes. In our view the defence of substantial truth in relation to imputation (c) was not made out.

That sounds like the Court accepted Mr Tran was racist towards Jews, but overturned that part of McClellan CJ's verdict because it disagreed with how he applied the law to the fact.


Quote:

[From the trial judge:] "109 The [appellant's] expressed views with respect to homosexuality described homosexuals in vitriolic terms. Although the views which he expressed may be held by others in the Australian community, the language in which he expressed them was likely to encourage violence against homosexuals. 110 A person may hold a view which is dangerous without that person being described as a dangerous individual. To express a view on one occasion which may encourage violence or inappropriate conduct towards others does not of itself make that person dangerous. However, when those views are expressed on many occasions by someone who has significant influence within the community and has access to opportunities to influence others through the media and the views expressed are an incitement to violence or disparagement of ... homosexuals, it is, in my judgment, appropriate to describe that person as a dangerous individual." [From the court of appeal:]     Again, it may be doubted whether the discussion on the website was likely to encourage violence against homosexuals. Further, there was no evidence that the views were expressed on more than one occasion. More importantly for present purposes, there was no attempt to apply the accepted test by asking whether right-thinking members of the community (who might well not share the views) would consider a person who held those views and expressed them in the form that they were expressed on one occasion, to be a dangerous individual.

Same thing again.

Link.

However, the court later found there was no basis for calling Mr Trad "dangerous". The gist seems to be that, he may be a creep, but he's not a terrorist agitator.

Let's try and get the fuller picture out there. Mr Trad's not a scumbag, but he isn't a saint either. Like most other people.

Actually BTTF you seem to be making false assumptions based on what the appeal court didn't say

Read the passages you quoted again - more carefully:

Once again, with respect, his Honour did not ask the question whether, given the attitudes and views he found the appellant held, a right-thinking member of the Australian community would consider that the appellant incited people to have racist attitudes.

Note bolded bits - the argument being used is entirely in reference to what the judge ruled, and there is no indication given here on whether the appeal court considered the comments racist or otherwise. Or in other words, the phrase "a right-thinking member of the Australian community would consider that the appellant incited people to have racist attitudes" is *NOT* the view of the appeal court, but rather relates to what they say the original judge should have considered given his view on the matter.


and...

Again, it may be doubted whether the discussion on the website was likely to encourage violence against homosexuals. Further, there was no evidence that the views were expressed on more than one occasion. More importantly for present purposes, there was no attempt to apply the accepted test by asking whether right-thinking members of the community (who might well not share the views) would consider a person who held those views and expressed them in the form that they were expressed on one occasion, to be a dangerous individual.

Same thing - nowhere in this passage is there any indication the court considers the appealant's views homophobic - it was merely constructing a hypothetical based on the Judge's conclusions - to demonstrate a logical fallacy in the Judge's verdict.