Uproar as politican praises White Australia policy, urges Muslim ban

Oppose Islam? Not at all. You can read anything into my post as you wish However, I refute it. I live in Japan not Australia where the state is not opposed to monitoring foreigners and religious groups groups as rigorously as it sees fit without outcries of racism and discrimination. Australia works on different principles and that is problematical. I’m happy to see Muslims in Japan because I know that the Japan state has been able to learn from the mistakes of other governments around the world.

Nothing wrong with being opposed to Islam (a religious ideology). People are openly opposed to Christianity (a religious ideology) as well. There is something wrong with being opposed to Muslims (followers of Islam which once again is a religious ideology) based on what they look like. Depending on how they act on the other hand can determine how to approach them. If someone is such a fundamentalist in their religious beliefs that their actions and how they behave run counter to the basic human rights and laws of the society they are to integrate into, then there will be problems. If they are able to adapt and create a balance between their individual religious beliefs and respect the basic rights and laws of the society they are trying to integrate into there should be no problems.

It's hypocritical to claim any dislike of a religious belief system is racist because it's not about a person's ethnicity (not up to choice), but their religious ideology( people can choose their religious beliefs).

Actually, those of the Islamic faith won’t even be allowed a debate-it is stifled by death threats.from more radical Muslims.

As an individual if I were to post similar exhortations (as found in the Koran) on social media then I would be banned

No, I am not opposed to Islam.

It is the fact that Islam is intolerant -read the Koran.!

There are many acts condoned and encouraged against non Muslims

I am opposed to having Islam grow in secular societies where the majority will be threatened due to their differing beliefs.

It is that simple....

Why wouldn’t Mr Anning be opposed to a religion that refuses to iintergrate?

?? How can a religion refuse to do anything, it is not a thinking entity.

If you are talking about practitioners of that religion, the overwhelming majority integrate just fine.

It would see you're accepting that individuals should be discriminated against based on their religion. AKA bigotry.

Why wouldn’t Mr Anning be opposed to a religion that refuses to iintergrate?

Not only that but iIslam is also anti-reformist.

There are many examples of this out there and that I personally know of.

I am sure that Mr Anning is able to view various examples too.

Unrepentant naive ratbaggery is alive and well in Australia

all of us have the same mitochondria DNA thanks to yours and mine ancestor mother from 140,000 years ago. Incredibly all humans on earth we are all from the same family tree. Also it turns out we change colour every 20-30,000 years or so as UK archaeologists have confirmed.

What is racism then? Skin changes, blood types, and ear wax? Whoop de freaking do.

Racism is stupid and contains so much stupid when in fact the science backs up the notion that we are really all one people, that evolve over time, but in the large scheme of things, not different enough to be different. That should be comforting, not scary

Thanks Science!

At some point people need to get a grip and realize that it isn’t skin color that matters, it is the content of character that makes for a solid immigration system. Let in people who want to add to the nation who are well grounded in the countries political, economic, and social culture. Those things are not determined by skin color or religion.

I have no problem with Muslim immigration and would rather live next door to a good Muslim than a lot of other people.

But what bothers me though is that we are so open to them and thier culture but they are not generally open to us and ours. I know, I lived in such a country for several years. Try going there and spreading your western liberal progressive values or Christian religion. See how well you'll be received.

Thus my suggestion of reciprocal migration agreements.

A fair solution to angst about Muslim immigration and terrorism:

Have reciprocal agreements with majority Muslim nations requiring them to also also allow freedom of religion/thought as western nations do in order to allow migration both ways. In other words, "We are more than happy to accept Muslim migrants from your country and don't mind them influencing our culture as long as you are open to our migrants (Christians, atheists, Buddhists, progressives, etc.) going to your country and influencing yours. How about it? Deal?

If the US election is anything to look at, the loudest, least repentant, and most obnoxious becomes the winner.

All depends on what the people want.

My first comment is to categorically oppose the views of this Anning and his ilk as regards narrowing the focus of immigration. It is unbelievable that he attempts to claim never to have heard the phrase 'final solution' in connection with Nazi Germany - to the point that I actually don't believe him, and if he's by any chance speaking the truth then his ignorance, as a member of any parliament, should disqualify him anyway.

However, I am concerned about the rise of bigotry of various kinds, especially when inspired by religious views, and this includes a range of right wing Christian groups, but also swathes of other religions including Islam. As soon as a group starts singling out other groups for marginalisation, their right to a voice in a modern democracy needs to be questioned. Many of these groups oppose each other, but also seek to exclude LGBTI people and other minorities which they see as living against their religiously inspired lifestyles.

In my opinion there needs to be a debate about how to assess the socially exclusive vs inclusive views of prospective migrants, regardless of their membership of any particular religious or ethnic group. Those who are opposed to social diversity should not be allowed entry as migrants.

How you practically progress that is of course another question.

P.S. I worded that badly, I'm trying to say I'm against toxic hate speech that serves no greater good. I Just wanted to clarify that.

It's madness we still allow people like this character into positions of government. As a global community we all need to do more to stop these idiots getting into positions where they can platform their minority opinions. They serve no purpose, and it reflects badly on all democracies they aren't removed at the local level.

"While all Muslims are not terrorists, certainly all terrorists these days are Muslims, so why would anyone want to bring more of them here?"

"No all chemicals are carcinogens, but all carcinogens are chemicals, so why would anyone want a chemical in their body?"

Anning's pathetic attempts at logic aside, Strangerland is right: the premise is demonstrably false. Notably, people from his own ideological camp have committed terrorism. Indeed, recently there have been more terror attacks from people in his camp than there have been from Muslims.

In terms of Muslims. They make up 3% of the population. He is barking up the wrong tree. There are far bigger risks to this country from other groups as every Australian knows. 

The Muslim immigration to Australia is primarily from middle east, and majority of these immigrants are financially well off and unlike the immigrants to Europe. These immigrants are buying land in towns across Australia and the local residents are terrified of the slowly changing demographics, this is what Anning is indirectly referring to..

If the US election is anything to look at, the loudest, least repentant, and most obnoxious becomes the winner.

He has not been given a free pass. He has been condemned, but he is still allowed to speak, especially in parliament. And thats the way it should be in a democracy. No if's, no but's, no maybe's.

Eh? Of course.

The point I was making is that some like to put aside the idiocy of the speaker, or the accuracy of the statement, if the speaker is prepared to go to outside the PC boundaries.

Idiots who talk like this knuckle-dragger shouldn’t be given a free pass for ‘speaking out’ or ‘telling it like it is’ either.

He has not been given a free pass. He has been condemned, but he is still allowed to speak, especially in parliament. And thats the way it should be in a democracy. No if's, no but's, no maybe's.

"assimilate and integrate" Wiggity grubs for tea while reciting the Dreamtime. Regular walkabouts!

Idiots who talk like this knuckle-dragger shouldn’t be given a free pass for ‘speaking out’ or ‘telling it like it is’ either.

Agree. Thing is, this bloke isn't 'telling it like it is'. He's telling it like he thinks it is & as covered by Murdoch's news corp media and their buddies @ 7, 9 & 10 ( commercial FTA tv), 2GB (radio) etc.

Every so often a party or politician turns up with views that are so rank and extremist, you wonder as they put their foot in it yet again, if this is all some big joke.

"I don't regret anything, I am not going to apologise or regret anything that I say," he said.

Of course not. His arrogance and ego won't allow him to contemplate such a thing.

However, if the religious beliefs they hold are bigoted views, that doesn’t deserve respect

True. I think we should acknowledge a considerable amount of what is written in the Koran is not conducive to a successful secular democracy. We should be thankful that most Muslims ignore a lot of what is written because if they took it seriously, I would have to agree with Fraser Anning.

A U.S. Government Accountability Office report noted 225 deaths from 85 violent extremist attacks since 9/11 (up to the end of 2016). 74% of them were conducted by far-right violent extremists. While these are U.S. statistics, they show just how misguided Fraser Anning is, and why he was condemned by other leaders to the right. This man represents ignorance. Far-right violent extremists are no more representative of people with conservative views than Islamic militants are of Muslims in general.

Immigration is a debate that needs to be had in Australia, but the depth of this guy's idiocy make it hard for the rest of us to have a rational conversation.

U.S statistics have no relation to whats happening in Australia. Why would you bother citing statistics from a very different country with very different demographics and very different population levels. Totally irrelevant.

The number of far right extremists in this country can just about be counted on one hand, or more accurately, a couple thousand out of 25 million. Honestly, its a laughable number. The number far left antifa hooligans and totalitarians is considerably higher, multiples of and a considerably greater threat to the safety of anyone attending a protest event and potentially in future, anyone that dares question there far left orthodoxy, particularly their desire to blame the white man for everything under the sun and the police.

Agree with your second point by in large.

And commend you for your third point and the desire to have an honest debate and discussion.

People deserve respect regardless of their religious beliefs

People deserve respect no matter how they identify - Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu..whatever.

However, if the religious beliefs they hold are bigoted views, that doesn’t deserve respect. People should not make excuses for or give a pass to views they wouldn’t accept from others. Call it out every time.

Idiots who talk like this knuckle-dragger shouldn’t be given a free pass for ‘speaking out’ or ‘telling it like it is’ either.

"While all Muslims are not terrorists, certainly all terrorists these days are Muslims"

A U.S. Government Accountability Office report noted 225 deaths from 85 violent extremist attacks since 9/11 (up to the end of 2016). 74% of them were conducted by far-right violent extremists. While these are U.S. statistics, they show just how misguided Fraser Anning is, and why he was condemned by other leaders to the right. This man represents ignorance. Far-right violent extremists are no more representative of people with conservative views than Islamic militants are of Muslims in general. Immigration is a debate that needs to be had in Australia, but the depth of this guy's idiocy make it hard for the rest of us to have a rational conversation.

If we had to rely on white Christians for our immigration program we would barely reach 30 - 40k a year. Although I suspect a lot of Brits will flee to Aus and Europe post Brexit. That should provide a bump. The overwhelmingly majority unlikely to be practicing Christians and a good chunk not white either. But some people here do say we have already hit population limits given that Australia is basically a desert surrounded by green patches. Having 90% of your immigrants going to Sydney and Melbourne is not exactly ideal however and that needs to change very significantly.

The simple fact is without heavy immigration our GDP numbers will drop significantly. We are simply not diversified enough to do much beyond consumption, housing construction and mining based growth, the first two utterly reliant on population growth.

In terms of Muslims. They make up 3% of the population. He is barking up the wrong tree. There are far bigger risks to this country from other groups as every Australian knows. He should focus on that issue but be measured and tempered and most important, accurate, in doing so.

To quote the article:

"While all Muslims are not terrorists, certainly all terrorists these days are Muslims, so why would anyone want to bring more of them here?"

It is a relevant question.

It's a question built on a false premise:

certainly all terrorists these days are Muslims

Guys like this government fellow are the subset that has stopped being welcoming. They are angry about people who come to their country and cause problems, so they speak their minds. The ones causing problems feel like they are in a country where they are not welcome, so they run wild without following the customs of society. Neither group is helping the problem, and it is up to the rest to work harder to come together, rather than pushing away.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, Bob Katter: https://twitter.com/SBSNews/status/1029593526558973953

So I guess he's speaking for those 19 people, give or take a few.

I wish you were right, bigyen. I reckon a substantial number of aussies either 'fully' agree with Katter & Anning (mostly in the country, perhaps) while many more 'partly agree' (anglos, euros and even 'some' Asians, Egyptian Copts etc). Perhaps 8-10% and 15-20% respectively?

And Anning is probably telling the truth when he says he did not know the connection between the phrase "final solution" and Nazi Germany.

Haha, thought exactly the same (and so did Katter).

People deserve respect regardless of their religious beliefs

Despite the criticism, Anning was unrepentant Wednesday and claimed he did not know the connection between the phrase "final solution" and Nazi Germany.

He's a liar as well as a racist then.

Disgusting! Absolutely crazy!

There's going to be quite the backlash over this I assume..

I have soooo many questions about this !

1) If the "problem" is muslims (therefore religion), why a return to "White Australia" ?

2)What about other ethnicities that are not muslims ?

3)What about christians that are not white ?

4)What about muslims that are white ?

5)What about atheists ? Are they ok ?

6)What about aborigines ? Should they be kicked out of the country ?

7)What about people who are mixed, with one parent being white ?

Racism is so confusing !

Here it is (in full) https://www.sbs.com.au/news/full-text-senator-fraser-anning-s-maiden-speech

White people leave and return to aborigines who have lived there for 10000 years.