So the distinction between an enclave and a 'chinatown' is basically arbitrary? You say you wouldn't 'allow' it, but it is perfectly legal. Do you think we should have some laws that allow the government to forcibly evict residents when a 'chinatown' becomes to 'enclavy'?

The only real difference between the two is the extent to which other citizens drive minorities into enclaves. Australia doesn't have them because we embrace multiculturalism and don't make attempts to drive muslims from suburbs like Cambden.

You are getting the solution and the problem totally mixed up. What you see as the problem is actually the solution. What you see as the solution is actually the problem.

To be honest, I am biased against Islam. I'm not very fond of it.

It's just that I am even more opposed to people who want to discard basic human rights every time they get a bit scared of something they don't understand. The locals who think we have just cause to discriminate against Australian muslims have me far more worried than Osama bin Laden.

You really are missing it FD, and it is obviously intentional, obtuseness on your part, Chinatown is not an enclave in the true sense of the word, as I was trying to illustrate, because it is still a part of the broader community.

The insularity is what differentiates Muslim communities, and instead of blaming that on racism or intolerance of the local culture, be it european or aussie, the reality lies with the Islamic intolerance, which stems from their fanatical observance of their religion. Their beliefs are repressive, they are not compatible with those of a liberal western society, and that is where the conflict flows from.

Our normal behaviour is repulsive to their religious sensibilities, and I do not want to trade the liberal freedoms that generations have struggled to attain, in some mealy mouthed tokenistic gesture towards appeasing religious zealots.

It stems from religious zealotry, take christians, and be honest, if any christian wanted to really follow the bible, we would have millions of nutjobs like the guy who wanted to protest at Heath Ledgers funeral, trying to curtail our rights and freedoms as well. Fortunately the vast majority of christians have adapted their beliefs to be compatible with our society, I do not think Muslims should be excluded from doing so too.

If we apply your logic we should also extend the same freedom to satanists and human sacrifice, if it is a religion, it must be respected, irrespective of how far it transgresses against social norms, perhaps you are a satanist? You certainly love playing devil's advocate.

No FD, you keep saying religion is not the issue, it is the issue because muslims cannot secularise their life.
Religion is the state, the state is the religion, that is why they are a problem.
God damn all religions.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 10^th, 2008 at 6:28pm:



You mentioned the Paris riots earlier (I think). Just to clarify - that was not  due to race or religion.  The rioters were from a number of backgrounds - many of them Eastern Europeans.  The only thing that united them was the fact that they were poor.  That doesn't justify the riots of course, but I just wanted to correct a misconception.  I have ties with Paris, so I know the facts on that one.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 11^th, 2008 at 9:12am:


Secularism does not mean discrimination against religion. Separation of church and state is an issue, but Muslims moving to Cambden is not. Discrimination against religion and the erosion of human rights does not aid the cause of secularism in any way. Just because you abuse people in the name of atheism does not make it any less abusive.

The issue is human rights. These people are humans, and you are trying to take away their rights. Whatever dodgy justification you dream up is only secondary to the human rights issue.

That is why you cannot answer the simple question:

Should someone be punished for something they didn't do?

Not allowing an Islamic school, is not banning muslims from Camden, you know that.

Well then what did you mean by this? You seem to change the subject quickly every time I bring it up:

I will not be cowed into believing that we must allow muslims to create new enclaves in our country

If you think Religious schools are great, then I suggest you go to one.

Liking or supporting an action, and supporting people's right to do something, are not the same thing. You don't have to like Islamic schools to like the fact that people are free to choose their religion and not be discrimianted against.

Why do you keep asking an irrelevant question, which is as vacuous as the position you are taking on this.

It is not irrelevant. You are the one who suggested Muslims not be allowed to choose where to live. You are the one who tried to justify this with references to something they didn't do. It's a simple (and relevant) question Mozz. You can't keep ducking and weaving on it forever.

Should someone be punished for something they didn't do?