If You Don't Like It Than Leave!

Well it's half true:

See http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp for the reference to "Muslims out of Australia". Note the lack of reference to "A Christian Nation" as this was added haphazardly after the fact.

Nor does he ever talk about "English" or even "language".

For the actual transcript that this letter is derived from, see

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/cont...05/s1444603.htm

or

http://www.treasurer.gov.au/tsr/con...ts/2005/123.asp

Note however that his actual words are:

PETER COSTELLO: "What I've said is that this is a country, which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you."

Which is quite DISSIMILAR from the quote from the email below which claims "Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, rightwing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented..." Actually neither the word "god" nor the word "Christian" was ever used in the interview.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

Amazing how "right-wing American" it does sound though.... Typical of any fanatical group - taking bits and pieces of their religion to persecute others and seclude themselves - while conveniently ignoring the part of their religion that promotes inclusion and tolerance. As if rewriting and distorting US History wasn't enough, now they (the right wing) needs to distort quotes from politicians of other countries to energize their base - which sadly, after looking at a number of message boards and blogs is appearing to work. I'm not really sure what it says about a group so eager to justify their beliefs that they have to make stuff up.

FYI: Australia was founded by England as a penal colony. It's Constitution explicitly prohibits the federal government from "imposing any religious observance". If only "/Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"/ in the US Constitution (Bill of Rights) would be interpreted as clearly.

Australia Government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia

Complete Text from US Bill of Rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ill_of_R ights

-CF

the respective founding fathers' sense of freedom and independence was a direct result of being british.

Remember the US was more or less based upon the rule of law outlined in the magna carta.

British individual freedoms were mush valued in the 17th and 18th centruries and did not exist in the same way in continental europe.

I am not ashamed of Britain's colonial past in the least.

Now I would argue the Inuit have hardly faced any persecution by anyone. Most Inuit land is uninhabited and has always been unihabited by anyone other than the Inuit. They have there own self government in Canada and are pretty much an isolated autnomous nation within a larger country. Since they have no concept of nation or country they are fine with this. Really the Inuit have suffered the least of all aborginal native peoples in North America, the only big thing that has struck them would be the few introduced disease, alcohol (which is now banned in most Inuit communities) and us trying to get them to stop killing so many whales.

Now, if you want to discuss the Beothuk, MigMagh, Huron, Iroquois, Cherokee or any of the countless other tribes, than I will say that colonialism was devastating to them. Especially the Beothuk since, thanks to the Brits, they were the worlds first and only successful case of genocide.

Well for starters tendai it is all very well to say it was obviously an evil practice etc etc but the fact is that it was practised by every country in the world. Including the african countries.

It was an accepted norm. Clearly horrific to our modern sensibilities but not so to the mind of 300 years ago. To make a stand and change this was a very progressive step.

It is a difficult thing to try and adopt a mind set without a modern bias but I think to suggest that the merchants who originally were involved in this were in some way evil is unfair.

As for British colonialism I think you can identify many areas that weren't evil.

Of the colonial powers Britain's rule is generally accepted as being the most benevolent and is in stark contrast to those of belgium and germany and france.

Although I freely admit that massacres and the like did occur and are terrible the general philosohpy of the empire was not one of supressing and destroying the natives and I think it that many countries' inhabitants enjoyed a greater quality of life under the pax britannica than at any time in the various countries' histories and in some cases since.

Mahatma ghandi was educated in bombay and in london at the height of empire. Without the British presence would a university have existed in Bombay at that time? A simplistic example which will no doubt be attacked by the likes of tg but the it illustrates the fact that not all was evil about the empire.

The abolition of slavery was directly related to moral obligation. It was a parliamentary response to a growing popular campaign within the country to halt what was coming to be considered contrary to princples of justice etc

I was just trying to be funny anyway (obviously once again my sense of humour has failed :( *sigh*). No I actually agree with you, colonialism had very few if any good effects on the world. And to argue that the few things that could be considered good out weigh the bad that it has caused would be foolish.

I guess my only defence of it would be it wasn't just Britian colonizing it was most European countries at the time, and Spain treated the natives much worse than Britain did. Also Britain was far kinder to the natives than the Americans were. Most of the subjugation of the American native came after the Revolution, not before.

The existence of these countries today is more a tribute to their respective founding fathers and the spirit of independence and self government than any British sense of moral will.

That's of course little comfort to the Inuits, the Aborigines, and the Maoris!

But I am trying to draw a clear distinction between the results of Britains colonial past, and her colonial past.

Britains imperial ambitions were manifest in the forced subjugation of many indigenous peoples all over the world. Centuries later new countries with new names now exist where Britain once (forcibly) flew her flag. To argue that because of this, colonialsm wasn't all bad, is in fact to justify colonialsm and all its methods.

Britains colonial past is a blight on her history. I challenge anyone to argue otherwise.

God bless Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the Commonwealth.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Last time I checked we weren't considered evil. :)

..that Super. I have discussed this very idea with 3rd generation (Soviet) Jewish immigrant friends of mine and I've got to tell you, even if you don't entirely sound English, it really does help to look it i.e. caucasian. Much as she has improved, Britain harbours an almost vestigial preference for he/she who looks and sounds English, than otherwise. I'd argue that the Jewish immigrant community have enjoyed by far the most successful integration into our British society.. and good for them! The Black Brit population need to achieve the same.

I do agree that Great Britain did abolish slavery, and yes, paid more than lip service to this policy on the high seas. But let me put it like this. Slavery is to racism, as base jumping is to sport. Extreme. The fact that the Uk decided to reverse a policy that was fundamentally wrong in the first place, and one she so handsomely profited from (and whose holdings she still profits from today!) doesn't exactly entitle her to a 'citizen of the year' award. Oh, and I'm not sure a new sense of moral obligation had anything to do with it either. In her colonies, Britain retained holdings on which slave practices were continued long after the abolishment.

I challenge you to argue what you see about Britains colonial past that wasn't evil.

Yes Tendai, White mans burden has it's benefits. :P

Actually, I have found most black brits to be more patriotic and accepting of their country than most black North Americans. But not being black or a brit, I could be wrong. :)

tendai I would say that the black brits have integrated most successfully of all minorities into the UK.

And by the way the UK abolished slavery first of all the major nations and then actively patrolled the seas stopping the slave trade wherever encountered.

The British colonial past is not all evil

I'm not sure true integration is even possible. There are always fringe groups on both sides that don't want it. But still, people pray for world peace and an end to wars every evening but still treat other races as second class citizens the next day. You can't just talk about it, you have to change yourself, teach your children the right way, break the molds and stereotypes that were instilled in you by your friends and family. In short it takes work and effort.

Fair-minded people understand that true integration is not only a good idea but absolutely necessary for the further progression of the human race. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I don't think we, as a species, can progress much further until we learn to get along.

This is a connected world. There is no place that is untouched anymore and we need to start acting like it. We have to stop isolating ourselves, grouping together in cliques of like-mindedness, and start to expand our tolerances, understanding, and knowledge of all groups, races, cultures...

Wow...I think I went a little overboard there...but I am very passionate about this. I really hate the way we treat each other, it sickens me actually, and I find it hard not to express my feelings about it!

..is one that I had a somewhat peculiar take on. As a black Brit, I can say with some authority that the idea of minority integration into the UK mainstream has for too long been just that.. a hot air sound bite of an idea. Its straight out of the 'Idiots guide to campaigning in a minority constituency' book, Chapter 1. I would wager that most reasonably educated people right across the colour spectrum recognise this, even if at the fringe extremes, the 'intelligencia' might not agree on whether or not integration is even a good idea (e.g. BNP supporters, Muslim extremists etc) These sound bites are of course the lowest common denominator of message. I think all of it misses the point.

Britain has always struggled with forcing fundamentally opposite ideas to co-exist. For instance, her colonial history of empire building and slavery.. with today's PC idea of the melting pot. Does Britain honestly think minorities have forgotten how and why they got their in the very first place?

Another example.. how about the United Kingdom of devolved, almost.. kinda.. nearly separate independent.. (but not quite..) countries.. (but not quite...) with their own languages (though only Engish is the Queen's) and money, curiously always called the pound!

My point? Integration is an evolutionary idea borne out of the dream of democracy. Nobody has found the answer yet. How do you espouse the tenets of free speech and pluralism.. without muzzling those who would advocate at the top of their lungs the ideals of a one-religion fundamentalist state? In the end, in a democracy, its the wishes of the many that must be heard and heeded. In the end, whatever one's religious or political persuasion, I believe it is incumbent upon every citizen of every nation to embrace those values and principles that are their nations own. Its called being a patriot.

As a black Brit, I'm British first. Regardless of race, religion or ethnicity, I expect my fellow Brits to either be patriots, or renounce the citizenship.

You see I assumed it was the same as my friend who had to make a choice between her American and British passport (she chose American) but that acutally makes sense. Thanks scmasse.

I still disagree with qatar4ever though and say the situation for minorities in North American is just as bad as Europe.

Korean/American have to make that choice now based on Korean law, not american law. It has to do with the whole 2 years of mandatory military service they have in Korea. The individuals who had both passports could opt out of the military service, now they make it so if you want to keep your Korean passport you HAVE to serve your 2 year commitment.

I just came here from that (expletive) place myself:) Don't miss it one bit either.

Yes, I was thinking of the Executive Branch and Condi Rice. We do use the term government differently. I think of something like Congress as parliament, government is the governing body.

And I know so many people who had to make a choice by the time they were 18 whether they wanted to be American citizens or citizens of their other country, and only were allowed the one passport. So thats were that confusion came from. I know Korean/American have to make the choice.

Thanks for clearing that up Marjorie. :)

Personally, at first I thought it was untrue that there's only one person of color in government. Then I remembered that Canadians (and Europeans) use the word "government" differently from Americans. I was thinking of Congress, which of course has more than one person of color; you were thinking of the executive branch.

Also, I know several people who hold both U.S. and non-U.S. passports. The U.S. doesn't acknowledge dual citizenship, in that they consider U.S. citizens to be U.S. citizens regardless of what other passports they hold -- but in some circumstances, at least, it is quite possible to hold dual citizenship. (My sister will become a dual citizen next week, and I probably will within the next year.)

I do believe that "too much" freedom has its drawbacks. Most of these "clerics" (mainly arab) were given asylum in the UK as they were threatened with prison, or worse, in their own countries. In fact, some organisations (eg hizb-u-tahrir) are banned in most if not all arab countries although they are free to flourish in the UK.

This is not new. I have come across (in my university days) many followers of such organisations and they were calling for an islamic state in the uk back then. My standard response back then was that they had a moral obligation to do that in their home country (be it pakistan, algeria, libya or wherever) not in the UK. Its totally immoral to bite the hand that feeds you. I lay part of the blame on the UK government for allowing activities and organisations deemed "dangerous" in the islamic world.

I don't think they shelter them, these extremists are born and raised in these countries. Unfortunatly they are exposed to hardcore clerics and fundamentalist Islamic influences. In every country there are people who become disillusioned with the way things are done, they United States has quite a few militia groups and radical groups, Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber was one, in Canada we have had fringe French groups. In the UK and Australia it is Muslim extremists, probably because it is easier for them to get into these countries, for whatever reasons.

Nobody is more extreme in their beliefs than someone who is seperated and living apart from those beliefs.

The thing I don’t seem to understand is why on earth governments like Australia or UK shelter extreme exiled Islamist groups, while knowing their background, opinions & potential?

I'm referring to the fundamentalist Australian clerics referred to in the e-mail. And I know the email is propaganda, thats why I posted it. I wanted to see peoples reactions. :)

Sorry i just read your post, and came across 1 of your comments

"Well the clerics aren't calling for all of Australia to come under Sharia law, they are asking the Muslims in Australia come under Sharia law"

Which clerics are you reffering to?

Muslim in Australia are assumed to be 1.5% of the total popoulation. which a very large number of them comes from lebanon, turkey, albania & bosnia.(its no brainer that muslim from that region are the most secular & moderate in the entier islamic world)

The email you've recieved is part of the "emails & sms messges" propaganda circulated on sydney during the controversial december 2005 cronulla riots.

There is an extreme egyptian 'taj hilaly' who claim him self the grand mufti of australia. However, most muslim there don't recognize him so & he was disputed by several islamic leaders.

i'm a big supporter of coesxistence so yes QC i would say cultures CAN mix rather than SHOULD

it's quite simple really. one must first accept that not all people are alike, and most importantly that it is perfectly okay that they aren't.

Everything you said made sense and was true.

On the other note, do you people think that cultures SHOULD mix? The more I see the outcome, the more I tend to believe that people belong where their roots and origins are.

What did I say that was untrue Qatar4Ever?

did you guys notice the part with: "we don't speak....Lebanese, or ARABIC"

this reminds me of an incident when i was helping a friend fill up some australian immigration self-assessment test. we got to a part where one should list all languages spoken and on the drop-down list it said "Arabic, including Lebanese".

this is so funny. why do aussies think Lebanese speak an alien form of arabic? :D

As for the topic of discussion (finally) I tend to agree with what e46M3 said. Immigrants for some reason almost never adapt to the societies they're living in. I guess they just address the topic of culture & heritage as if it were a matter of life and death. Instead of forming a melting pot of countless cultures you'd find that most immigrants opt for gathering up around each other and living in their own "bubble" -if i may say-, while refusing to let any "outsiders" into their lives. That being said I also think it's only a part of human nature for seek and befriend those of similar backgrounds, but it certainly does not help alleviate the situation in the least.

DG,

You really didn't make much of a valid point.. none of ur examples are in place and some are untrue. !!

regardless, we'll agree to disagree.

super7 you have a great point, the fact is that england like rest of europe majorities are actual natives to the land whereas america has always been an immigrant nation. Maybe this has played a major role.

Again just to point out, i believe its both the govt and the minorities fault that their is segragation in communities. And showing ppl the door wont work. U need to keep in mind that today's england, just like america, is moved by its immigrant population. All the basic services, from collecting trash, to parking tickets, to building homes, to serving big MCs, are being run mostly by an immigrant population. If you show them all the door without taking consideration into accomdating them.. well lets just say england will have a big problem.

I have lived in both the US and the UK.

When I moved to London in the mid-90s I was surprised to see the lack of integration of minorities. There were no TV ads with minorities in them, I hardly ever saw minority policemen and when I went to the East End to attend a football match I was stunned by the character of the area. I think some of what I saw contributed to 7/7.

It is worth pointing out, at the same time, that the the Yemeni community in Britain can be traced back to 1885. It was the first Arab community and one of the first ever ethnic groups to settle in the UK.

On the other hand the Muslim Asian population chooses to segregate itself and has been allowed to do so for decades. The British government must take some responsibility for allowing the situation to go on for so long and should have done more and encouraged more outreach programs.

qatar4ever again there is a profound difference. America is an immigrant country. It was built by immigrants from the first Brits (more or less) and europeans to the rest of the world. The country was built by minorities which forged a nation. Yes it was primarily based on the British rule of law magna carta etc but the very nature of the country required integration (to varying degrees) throughout their history.

Britain only became a country for immigration following the decline of the empire post world war 2. SO the ties to the home countries are that much stronger.

That said it is the muslims who seem to be finding it more difficult to integrate.

I also dispute that it is the "fault of the country". I don't think the onus is on the country at all. If the immigrants prefer home and want to remain associated with that country then show them the door.

I'm scared of it too AlmaWad. But there is no reason, in a democratic society, that Muslims in Australia can't verbally ask for or promote the idea. As long as it is done in a peaceful manner.

It's not like any non-Muslim (or even many Muslims) would actually vote it in.

Crazy Q, there is nothing wrong with that as long as right next to it there is a Islamic Crescent, a Star of David, a Buddhist swastika (I don't think thats the right name for it, but so on as so forth).

I grew up going to a school where I had to say a prayer every morning and I was excluded from religious classes that the rest of my peers got to leave normal class to attend. I was teased and made fun of because I didn't know the rosary or how to cross myself properly. In a place like Canada this shouldn't be acceptable. Canada is a place that is supposed to be open and tolerant to all people and religions, not just the majority ones. My school was not tolerant of me they made me feel like I was bad for believing something different that the rest of the students.

I do understand that clerics aren t calling for all of Australia to come under Sharia law .i am a muslim from europe - and i know that being muslim does not mean the same rules and the same belief .

it would sound strange - " christian law " - would not ? Would it be chatolic -lutheran -jehova -mormon ? who would dictate ?

for the time being - the strongest country would dictate . it is saudi arabia . islam in saudi style -is something i am afraid of .

Qatar4ever Sweetie, I'm basing what I say on personal experience as well. After all if the US was so accepting why do the vast majority of its minorites keep too secular communities. Why such strict laws against immigration. Why is there only one minority person in government? Why the Million man March or the recent demonstrations by Latino immigrants? Why does the US only allow you to have one passport. Either you are American or you are an outsider. Propaganda does not just come from books and TV honey pie.

DG,

I don't disagree with all your comments. I don't think people should be forced to participate in Christian or any other religous traditions or ceremonies if they don't feel comfortable doing so.

For example when I was at school there were a couple of Jehovah Witnesses pupils who didn't attend school assembley because it contained religous songs and prays that didn't match their religion.

When it comes to seeing other religous symbols, personally I wouldn't be offended. I mean what is the difference between seeing a cross hanging somewhere, like a school, and walking past an identifiable religous building, which in effect is a religous symbol.

dohagirl sweeti.. no i havent fallen into any propaganda trap.. im basing what im saying not on the a book i read or a tv program.. but from years of living in america and europe.

Im not saying america, boarder to boarder town to town is accepting to minorities, but generally america as a nation is more accepting, tolerant and even celebrates their minorities, while europe, england included has a long way to go.

This is why immigrants in europe are very alienated while the ones in america are more integrated.

again ppl before anyone bites my fingers, these are just based on my experience as an arab muslim who lived in the states and europe...

Well the clerics aren't calling for all of Australia to come under Sharia law, they are asking the Muslims in Australia come under Sharia law. Either way the whole idea would be ridiculous and chaotic.

I do not like the reaction of the Aussi gov. -but I would not like to live under the shariah law either .Shariah is not the same in every country . So which type would be used ? The practice of Islam is different from country to country "the Islam world" is not homogeneous substance .

Whose pratice should be used : wahhabi? hanafi ? shia ? koranist ? etc.

Simply- it can not be solved .

Qatar4ever, be very careful you've just fallen into the trap of American propaganda. The US is no more accepting of its minority communities than any European countries.

And Super, you find me a school that teaches religion in a non-biased way and I will send my kids there. Till than I don't think religion should be taught in schools.

I completely agree Super. If you are not willing to respect the laws of your country and are not willing to follow the democratic process to change those laws, than you should be forced to leave...actually you should be in jail for breaking the law.

But just because someone wants to live under Shariah Law doesn't mean that they will be violent or promote violence, and there's nothing in any Western countries consitution to say that they cannot vocally call for such a thing (how else would you get people to vote). So if someone is simply promoting the idea vocally I do not think they should be told to leave. It's undemocratic.

Super 7

I agree, no comparsion between expats living in doha and say second generation pakistani living in london. But i was drawing a comparsion between myself as an expat in europe and the expats living in doha, not immigrants in europe and expats in doha.

Regardless, if second generation muslims, born and breed in the UK turn out to be terrorist, then there is a problem within the UK system itself, just as much as there maybe a problem within the muslim communities of Europe.

Ive lived in the states, and pretty much most of the 2nd/3rd generation muslims in america who come from the mideast/pakistan are proud americans. They may be critical to american policies, nevertheless they love america. I am yet to met one 2nd generation muslim in england who actually loves england. The same case with France and its north africans and germany with its turkish community. The minority communities havent integrated into these communities as a result of both the host country and its govt, and because of the ppl themselve. A problem with is not rarely present in america.

Maybe its time europe become accepting, rather than just welcoming to its minority communities. At least thats one thing america is doing right.

I may be wrong in the above, but they are nothing more than based on my observation from living on both sides of the atlantic.

It really just comes down to human nature. People, when they believe in something...I mean really believe in something, see nothing but black and white. Their way is the right was and anything contrary is the wrong way.

Of course muslims in any country that is not muslim want it to be a fundamentalist muslim state, because they would feel more comfortable. People are selfish by nature and rarely care about anyone else, I'm being very general here, and they want to be around people that are like them.

People move to other countries for differing reasons, but people always gravitate, in those new countries, to areas and people who are like them. There really is very little TOTAL integration of cultures and ideas in any country. In my opinion, that is what is really lacking in our society.

Anyway, we all our human beings, most of us generally want the same things in life. I respect everyone's culture and religion...while I may not understand it OR agree with it, I do respect it. If, hypothetically, I was granted citizneship to Qatar...would I want the freedom to practice my religion...yes. Would I want the whole country to be run according to my religion...uh no that would be silly...don't you think?

RE should be taught but in a non baised way. It is important to understand the basis behind everyone's lunacy

Not in non-segregational school no it shouldn't be.

Citizens have a right to complain and they can change things through normal democratic methods in the country in which they live. We have been repeatedly told in the UK that the home grown terrorists are being incited to kill innocents by the governments foreign policy.

In the UK if we don't like foreign policy we vote a new goverment in. We don't kill hundreds of fellow citizens.

If they are unwilling to conform to the way things are currently done then they should leave. If they gain enough support then they can vote in the changes but until then they need to toe the line.

I did not pay and it was not private just one of the three catholic schools where i lived, one you paid for two you did not mine had the longest waiting list and catholics would get in before non catholics but i get your point but are you saying as well that RE should not be taught?

Yes sammie, you went to a relgious private school, not a public school. It's one thing to choose, and pay to go to a religious school its another thing to go to your local school and have to hear a prayer every morning.

It's about immigrants and it's about people who were born in these countries and expect to bully the government into change.

I can understand telling expats they have no right to complain. But telling a citizen?

Maybe not in main stream school i went to a catholic school swapped from main stream in the second year and to be honest it was 100% better than the main stream i had mass every month which the whole school attended!

I am not a Christian and I would love to participate in a nativity play :)

But I would hate it if I HAD to. So no, I don't think that anyone's kid should be forced to do that. Even if the kid is Christian or simply undecided. Religion should be voluntary.

But this post is not really about religion, is it? It's about people coming to live in a country totally different to their culture, and expect to be allowed to live there according to their own rules and laws.

Crazy Q he says this :"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push but a fact because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, Because God is part of our culture. We will accept your beliefs and will not question why, all we ask is that you accept ours and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."

He clearly says displaying religious symbols on the walls of schools. As Super pointed out, he is not talking about someone who has just immigrated, but citizens of that country. If I were an Australian citizen I would not want my children seeing religious symbols at school, because I don't believe relgion has a place in the shcools.

According to a Channel 4/NOP survey on August 7th:

Forty-five percent of British Muslims say 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American and Israeli governments.

Almost one in four British Muslims believe that last year's 7/7 attacks on London were justified because of British support for the U.S.-led war on terror.

When asked, "Is Britain my country or their country?" only one in four say it is.

Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law.

Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state.

"Hardcore Islamists" constitute nine percent of the British Muslim population. A slightly more moderate group is composed of "staunch defenders of Islam." This second group comprises 29 percent of the British Muslim population.

Only three percent of British Muslims "took a consistently pro-freedom of speech line on these questions." The Muslim threat to British security is so severe that the assistant London police commissioner, Tarique Ghaffur, has called for an inquiry into the radicalization of young Muslims. Ghaffur sadly describes "a generation of angry young people vulnerable to exploitation."

Religion should be nothing to do with government. I agree with some of his chat but don't think christianity is any better than anything else.

qatar4ever that is slightly different. The expats here are visitors and fully intend to return to the home country. The muslims causing the problems in Europe and blowing people up to protest at government policies instead of voting for change like everyone else are citizens of that country and in many cases born there and they intend to stay and live forever. It is their home.

It is these people that we object to. If a qatari or anyone else came to UK to work for a few years that is a different case.

We have a situation where british people, born in the UK to parents in many cases born in the UK going to British schools and claiming british benefits turn up to cricket matches and support pakistan (as an example). Who lecture the government about inciting home grown terrorism by pursuing a certain foreign policy. Who want shariah law. ETC ETC ETC

That is what we are fed up with.

He does go on to say

"We will accept your beliefs and will not question why, all we ask is that you accept ours and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us".

Yes QC but I don't think we should shove it down their throats either by making their kids do the nativity play at school.

And they said that we could not have the england flag up because it offended them also they do not have to wear school uniform and this is in england we do not moan about them that way so maybe they need to lay off us!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH this really annoys me

Sorry, North American natives had several different nations. I assumed that it was similar in Australia. My point was there was a religion being practiced there long before Christianity.

Yes I agree that religion belongs in the church (mosque, shrine) and at home should you want to bring it home. It should not be enforced in any way. But I think that people go too far by claiming that seeing images of crosses (make it crescents, buddhas, anything else) "offend them". Don't look if it offends you.

Australia was not founded by the aboriginals. They had no concept or interest in a nation state.

They lived there before the creation of the nation

Yeah all they have to do is get a bun in the oven and our government will give you a house help you to furnish it pay your rent water electric and give you money on top of that and when they do do something wrong it takes them over a year if not move to kick them out so they live in a cell pretty much the same thing and we get taxed and have to pay more for everything!!!!

I have a poster that says "fed up of working 40 hours a week why work at all come to England where we will not question you just give you what you want"

I couldnt agree more. As a muslim living in Europe I have to follow the rule of land I am in. I should try to understand its culture and beliefs. I also need to have a good understanding of the people and interact within the norms of what is acceptable in its culture. If i dont like it and wish otherwise, then rather than impose what i think is right or wrong, i should leave else where where i feel more comfortable.

Just as those expats who are critical to qatar and all they have to do is bitch on how things are just wrong and for some reason believe it is thier heavenly duty to change qatar... they need to stop bitching and start packing !!

Overall.. when everyone at the beach is in bikins drinking coronas, dont turn up in ur burqa and look suprised... when everyone at the beach is wearing a burqa sipping on arabic coffee.. keep ur bikins and corona at home !! and if these folks down in australia want things to be differently, they need to leave their lives in australia and head to pakistan, saudi or somewhere where theyd feel more at home.

I don't like the bit about Australia being founded as a Christian state and that people of other religions have to adapt to that. I don't believe religion has any place in schools or government. And I would argue that Australia was first founded by Aboringinals who were not Christian.

Places like Australia, Canada and the US were founded by people of different backgrounds, races and relgious beliefs,are we really going to start judging now how people should practice their religions?

Qatarcat, I would agree with you as long as you accept the laws in the muslim countries. I hope also westerners accept that muslim can - if they wish - implement Islamic law in their own countries.

But what is not acceptable is to infringe the personal freedom of others, if a muslim girl wants to wear veil she should be able to and even more so in Australia. It's an migrant country and no one race or religion can claim it more than the other.

I haven’t heard of Muslims wanting Islamic law in Australia. Most of the muslims there are busy with their lives, but the Australia government have been doing a good job of alienating muslims and particularly the youth.

I don't agree with everything in the article but I can understand where it is coming from. It does depend on how you interpret it.

For example in the UK there were a couple of extermist Muslim clerics such as Abu Hamza. They lived in the UK but preached sermons inciting hatred against the West. Not only did they live in the West but according to the UK media most of them were being supported and benefitting from social welfare paid for by UK taxpayers. One guy was eventually kicked out and pleaded to be let back in as he needed medical treatment. He wanted to receive it free on the NHS in the UK. The country he supposedly hated so much.

I would have to say in circumstances like that, if you hate it so much why don't you leave!

Unfortunately the media in the West do like to highlight stories like this, which are very few and far between and this doesn't help matters.

I came to Qatar understanding it is predominantly Muslim country. I have adapted my lifestyle to respect this. If I didn't like it here I would leave.

By all means be proud of your religion, culture and society but respect other peoples.

By the way I am staying in Qatar.

I wouldn't want to "get rid of Muslims" anywhere in Europe. I just wish they managed to stick to our laws, accepted our values and integrated into the community and became productive members of it if they want to live with us.

Let me point out that I am Canadian, so I'm not sure why my friend sent me this e-mail, presumably because I live in the Middle East. I am get not part of any "Groundswell" to get rid of Muslims in the UK. :D