June 04, 2004


Amir Butler -- who is quite keen on watching others -- doesn’t much like it when the tables are turned. Writing in The Age, the executive director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee complains about anti-vilification legislation he formerly supported:

I can say with some confidence that these laws have served only to undermine the very religious freedoms they intended to protect.

At every major Islamic lecture I have attended since litigation began against Catch the Fire Ministries, there have been small groups of evangelical Christians - armed with notepads and pens - jotting down any comment that might later be used as evidence in the present case or presumably future cases. (The Islamic Council of Victoria is suing Catch the Fire under Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001.)

The organisations being targeted by these evangelical Christians are neither involved in nor supported the legal action by the Islamic Council, and yet must now suffer the consequences of having their publications and public utterances subjected to a ridiculous level of scrutiny and analysis.

Of course, Amir himself would never subject anybody to scrutiny or analysis.

Posted by Tim Blair at June 4, 2004 03:01 PM

Can dish it out but can't take it!
Go Christians!

(I'm not one myself, but sounds like they're right on track.)

Good one Tim!

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance!
The pen is mightier than the sword!

Posted by: BBC at June 4, 2004 at 03:19 PM

The link to a pic under your name on warbloggerwatch is not nice, Tim. Did you know about it?

Posted by: Dylan at June 4, 2004 at 03:23 PM

Imagine that, Islamic lecturers have to watch what they say. No calls for jihad. For shame! Someone must not have heard the message that Islam is a religion of peace.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 4, 2004 at 03:46 PM

I agree with Professor Bunyip. Are there any prominent spokespersons for the Muslim community in Australia who aren't thoroughly dodgy characters?

Posted by: Uncle Milk at June 4, 2004 at 04:15 PM

The idea of extremist Christians and Muslims slugging it out in court seems amusing to me.

However, based on court judgements in the last few days, it'd probably be "assymetrical warfare".

Posted by: Andjam at June 4, 2004 at 04:42 PM

Good point about the picture, Dylan. I think it goes a long way to demonstrating the credibility and maturity of the site authors. Still, I don't suppose it will influence David Marr and his cronies away from using Amir as a subject matter expert in the future.

Posted by: Al Bundy at June 4, 2004 at 05:08 PM

This shows the inescapable absurdity of law against religious vilification.

Because a religion can say anything, there can be (and are*) religion which themselves engage in vilification.

So, in the end, such a law ends up being guilty of breaking itself.

* Case in point - Hitler was a religious zealot (the closest religion to his nowadays is called Odhinism). The very practice of that religion would transgress this law.

Posted by: 2dogs at June 4, 2004 at 08:40 PM

Quote of a quote from his page:
"Pack-rape of white girls is an initiation rite of passage for a small section of young male Muslim youth, said Jean-Jacques Rassial, a psychotherapist at Villetaneuse University. "Fraternal bonding now dominates. It is the law of the gang, shorn of any sexual morals," he said.

I ddn't know that Muslims were such keen rugby players!

Posted by: peggy sue at June 5, 2004 at 01:26 AM

Ain't life a bitch! Muslims figured they could put an end to Christianity in Australia before moving on the country's Jews. Guess they're getting a reallity check.

Peggy Sue, as for those who like to gang rape, Lorena Bobbitt needs to run amok out there.

Posted by: Helen at June 5, 2004 at 07:33 AM

Allah cannot be scrutinized. His Word as recorded by his Holy Messenger, Peace Be Upon Him, is not subject to scrutiny. We must scrutinize infidels and idolators. We must scrutinize them for their foul perfumed pig poisons.


Posted by: AKBAR THE GREAT at June 5, 2004 at 11:34 AM

Akbar eats bacon in secret!

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 5, 2004 at 12:01 PM

If Akbar means "great" does this mean our poster is "Great the Great"?

Or is he talking about this Ackbar?

Posted by: Quentin George at June 5, 2004 at 01:42 PM

Perhaps our esteemed "AKBAR" is a fan of the historical Akbar the Great, about whom the Wikipedia has the following to say:

He was at first Muslim, but skepticism as to the divine origin of the Koran led him to seek the true religion in an eclectic system.
Posted by: PW at June 6, 2004 at 05:28 AM

Allah can be scrutinized. Just ask Saddam Hussein.

Oh, wait, you said scrutinized, not screwtinized. Silly me. Never mind!

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 6, 2004 at 06:50 AM

Sorry Akbar I am going to scrutinize the fuck out of Allah.

Posted by: Dog at June 6, 2004 at 12:38 PM

Jeeezus people tone it down.
TB makes a decent enough point and you're doing a great job discrediting it.

In answer to Uncle Milk;
Are there any prominent spokespersons for the Muslim community in Australia who aren't thoroughly dodgy characters?

Yes there are. And I don't mean Jew-hating Hilaly or his slick media enabler Keysar Trad. Nor do I mean the Saudi funded apologist Amir Butler.

I mean people like Melbourne's Sheik Fehmi El Imam who has consistently spoken out against the more bigoted and violent interpretations of Islam.

As for Amir Butler and his partisan standards, who can forget his silly efforts to throw stones at MEMRI from within his own glass castle?

Posted by: bargarz at June 6, 2004 at 03:48 PM