top of page


Political Parties, Companies, Organisations, Places of Worship, individuals and Others must be challenged for their support or lack of condemnation of islam.  

It is encouraged that our readers will act and voice their disapproval to those concerned by: writing letters, ringing radio stations, meeting with those concerned and other legal ways. 

Attack Catholicism? Progressive. Criticise Islam? Racist  

By Laura McNally for the Daily Telegraph 14 July 2016

In the recent wave of attacks across Baghdad, ISIS killed hundreds of innocent civilians, mostly Shia, as they celebrated Ramadan. These attacks were declared proof that “ISIS is anti-Islam” in various media headlines.

Yet when other religions are implicated in serious social harms — even against their own — these have been seen as inextricably linked to the offender’s religion.

Consider the Catholic Church, which has been embroiled in shocking child sex abuse charges against priests. These crimes led to widespread condemnation of not only the church and its leaders, but also the religion, for its patriarchal and antiquated ideology.

These criticisms played out in both the court of law and the court of public opinion where Catholic leaders were scrutinised to the nth degree. Any denial or downplaying of this abuse was swiftly struck down in media and public at large.

Today, segments of Islam are embroiled in conflict. The dispute spans multiple sects, various countries and regions, each with differing perspectives on Islamic beliefs, laws and practices. Boosted by geo-political instability, this has brought about increased terrorism across Asia-Pacific, Africa, the Middle East and Europe. As the violence grows, so does the concern.

Yet unlike with the Catholic crimes, many of the criticisms of Islamic extremism are denounced or denied. In the court of public opinion, critical voices are deemed phobic, racist or ignorant, even if they occur within the religion themselves. Where journalists scrutinise Islamic leaders they may even be met with threats of violence.

In Australia, some political leaders are taking on religious groups. The Australian Sex Party have scorned the Catholic Church for their failings. In a recent ad campaign the Sex Party mocked the church over “sleazy priests”, tax evasion and more.

Party leader Fiona Patten explained: “Catholics and atheists alike are having a bit of a laugh at it. That’s the beauty of Australians; we can laugh at ourselves.” It is questionable if laughter would ensue had the Sex Party targeted an alternate religious group with their video.

Some politicians have questioned the role of Islam in extremism. Ex-PM Tony Abbott wrote that while most Muslims rejected terrorism, some were “all too ready to justify ‘death to the infidel’” before calling for reformation. Many condemned his words as hateful.

The message is clear: critique of Islam is not to be tolerated. Indeed, media voices remind the public that while this religion has no link to terrorism, criticising the religion could lead to increases in terrorism.

It is unlikely that the Sex Party were concerned about reprisal attacks when devising their ad to mock Catholicism.

So how is it that offences of the Catholic Church are to be directly attributed to Catholicism, while Islamic extremism and terrorism are strictly defined as un-Islamic?

Presumably, based on vague arguments, there is concern that criticism of Islam could lead to reprisal attacks on innocent Muslim people. This approach assumes that the general public is unable to walk and chew gum — to think critically about religion and simultaneously maintain an anti-violence stance.

Denying the public the opportunity to even attempt to do so is unlikely to resolve any of these problems. Repressing dialogue is neither anti-extremism nor anti-discrimination.

In an egalitarian society, all religions, ideologies and leaders are open to critical dialogue. Yet in Australia, this apparently means “having a laugh” at some religious groups and tiptoeing around the truth for others.

So insular and bipolar has the discourse become that there is scarcely any expert input or new insights and even a push to silence progressive Muslims. Instead, we see a repetition of the cycle of denial with every new terrorist attack. Progress is not only hindered, it is prohibited.

The Left may continue to blindly deny any link between Islam and terrorism yet there appears to be common consensus that criticism of Islam could engender terrorism.

If there is a risk of violence for thinking or speaking critically about any religion, then that is precisely why dialogue is most needed.

Fortunately, this country supports the freedom to think critically — at least in theory.

Laura McNally is a psychologist, author and PhD candidate. Her doctoral research examines the social implications of corporate social responsibility. She provides regular commentary on issues related to gender and social inequality.

Please post on mainstream media sites

The idea of this challenge came from this excellent article written by noted Author Harry Richardson

"There is only one way to beat Jihad. This way is simple and relatively painless. The way to beat Jihad is to destroy Islam itself. The way to do this is with knowledge. Once people understand Islam, almost without exception they hate it. That includes Muslims. Once it is explained properly to them, they want to leave.

I believe that once the correct approach is taken, it will take around six months to destroy Islam. All that is needed is a program (including TV shows, newspaper articles etc.) run by people with the correct understanding of Islam.

This program would expose the fraud of Islam in the mass media in a way that no Muslim can deny. Islamic clerics would be invited to publicly defend Islam against reasoned argument. They will not be able to do so".
Harry Richardson

bottom of page