Incredible as it may sound, a Muslim tried to at sue Channel Ten for interviewing Ayaan Hirsii Ali on the David and Kim programme, alleging racial vilification. The case, Ekermawi vs. Network Ten Pty Limited [2008], was heard under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.The applicant appeared in person, which is surprising, given the plethora of lawyers eager to jump on the Muslim grievance bandwagon. Maybe they realised that this would be a stretch for even the most committed Islamophile.
When his attempt failed on the ground that it had no substance, he appealed to the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal . (reference)
The Tribunal needed to grant leave before the complaint could continue, and following the principles laid down in Xu vs Sydney West Area Health Service [2006], especially the points made at paras 17 and 18, leave was denied.
17 … It is not the Tribunal’s task to determine whether the President has made the correct decision in declining the complaint as lacking in substance. The Tribunal’s role is to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the interests of complainants in having their complaints heard and the interests of respondents in not having to spend money defending unmeritorious claims. There is also a public interest in ensuring that unmeritorious complaints do not proceed to hearing.
18 Leave to have a complaint heard by the Tribunal when it has been declined as lacking in substance should be granted when the applicant can show a substantial reason for leave being granted, which may include the fact that the complaint has reasonable prospects of succesNo, it is not the interview, but it also would be considered racist by our devout Muslim Samir EkermawiMr Ekermawi alleged that there had been a breach of section 20C, which provides:
(1) It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race of the person or members of the group.
The elements that Mr Ekermawi would have to prove are1.there has been a public act;
2.that that act incited hatred towards serious contempt for or severe ridicule of a person or group of people 3. that the incitement was on the ground of race.
Channel 10 said that even if there has been incitement of hatred in the interview it is not on the ground of race, which section 4 defines to include “colour, nationality, descent and ethno-religious or national origin” and that Islam per se is not an ethno-religious origin. Rather, it is a religion and religion is not covered by the Act.
Mr Ekermawi responded that the race which has been vilified in this case is Islam and that just as Jews are protected by racial vilification provisions, so adherence to Islam should also be protected.
Nevertheless, the authorities are clear that Islam per se is not an ethno-religious origin.
For that reason alone I would refuse to give leave for his complaint to go ahead because there is little or no prospect of him succeeding on the ground of race. Even if he did have some prospect of success on the ground of race it would be highly unlikely that he would be able to prove the other element in dispute, which is that the broadcast incites hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule. While the broadcast is highly critical of Islam and makes certain generalisations, some of which may not be accurate, it falls short of inciting hatred.
I can fully understand Mr Ekermawi’s concerns about the highly critical way in which Ayaan Hirsi Ali portrayed Islam and her interpretation of the way that religion was being conveyed to children and others. However the Act does not prevent robust criticism,…It only prevents a much more serious type of conduct and that is incitement to hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule.
How dare the Tribunal, acting according to well-established precedent, reject a Muslim request!
Is the Tribunal not aware that Islam must be cossetted and accommodated at all costs?
Now had this case been heard in Victoria, home of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, things would have been very different. In that State, no criticism of Islam is allowed, as two Christian Pastors found to their cost when they quoted (accurately) from the Qur’an.
Maybe the Tribunal needs to be re-educated on the special sensitivities of Muslims.
Where better to go than the People’s Cube to read about Offended Muslim Syndrome:
Following the misery inflicted on Islam by a toy bear that ended up with calls for the execution of an English woman, more Muslims are stepping forward with stories of long-suppressed emotional trauma imposed on them by so-called reality.
"Abdullah Sharif had just turned 35 when the Mohammed cartoon controversy suddenly broke out. It left him so emotionally scarred that he developed an aversion to representative art in all its forms. He often found himself shrieking while passing comics in a bookstore window, or seeing the funnies in the local newspaper. But while Abdullah had formerly been considered just another oddball, thanks to social networking, he is now a successful leader of an international charitable organization working for the betterment of humankind through imposing of Sharia law on the infidels.His group covers a wide range of activities, from occasional riots, bombings, and beating of newspaper editors to writing threatening letters to the Cartoon Network. "One true believer may be a nutcase, but together we are the fastest growing religion on Earth, making the important cultural shift to a more Islam-dominated society that benefits both the true believers and the lowly kufir," boasts Abdullah. He recently moved to a new home in Malibu and is touring the world on a private Lear Jet.
Studies conducted by mental health professionals have shown that Muslim men and women are often offended by the most unexpected items, including baby rattles, hummingbirds, home appliances, or geographical maps with polar ice caps. On the top ten list of the most offensive things are rectal thermometers and the word "allometric," which many consider an underhanded insult to Allah.Every such grievance is being thoroughly documented and acted upon by support groups and mental health providers, such as CAIR, that help victims to overcome their stress and anxiety by filing costly lawsuits against private institutions and government agencies.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has called on national governments to provide financial backing for thenetwork of Muslim self-help groups, creating an environment that is more supportive and empowering for sufferers of Offended Muslim Syndrome (OMS).
"Being a Muslim today means to be always aware that something, somewhere, is somehow offensive to Islam," said a report issued by WHO. "It is a shame to see the wealthiest nations of the world stingily hold on to their pockets in the face of the largest epidemic of reality-induced psychological disorder in human history."
The WHO report provides a list of symptoms of the Offended Muslim Syndrome, suggesting that the condition be officially recognized as a disability, with the ensuing costs covered by Western governments.Symptoms of Offended Muslim Syndrome (OMS):
- Irritability, agitation, anxiety at the sight of women who are not fully covered
- Prolonged rage or unexplained killing sprees
- Significant changes in immigration patterns
- Brooding about the past glory of the Caliphate
- Decreased effectiveness and minimal work productivity
- Difficulty in understanding new information without a trial lawyer
- Feelings of despair or hopelessness about the existence of Israel
- Recurring thoughts of death to the infidels (source)
So everyone, in the interests of not upsetting Muslims, let’s ensure that 2009 is the Year of the Dhimmi.
Let’s follow brave overseas leaders like Rowan Williams and welcome more Sharia into Oz.
Australians celebrate and revere Anzac Day on April 25th each year in remembrance of our brave soldiers who fought in two great world wars to secure our freedom. Every Australian identifies with the slogan “lest we forget” and in services held around the country people reflect on the battles and men who died to secure our freedom. Yet across the world in France, there is one remarkable battle which helped form the Europe we know today and allowed the development of civilization based on Judeo Christian principles. This one famous battle has become known as the battle of Tours and effectively stopped the Muslim advance into Europe. After the death of Mohammed in 632AD, Muslim armies exploded out of the Arabian peninsula to conquer much of the Middle East, expanding across north Africa. From there they crossed into Spain in 711AD and eventually controlled much of al-Andalus by 715AD. It was the victory at Tours by Charles Martel that stemmed the tide and eventually the Muslim marauders were expelled from Spain in 1492 when the last outpost at Granada fell to King Ferdinand of Spain. 
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was born, lived, fought and won battles against religious and social oppression in the 17th century Bharat or India. He was a shining star in the Indian firmament and is renowned as a champion of the downtrodden and depressed masses. He was and continues to be an icon for the classes and masses alike and is seen as a rallying point for peasants oppressed by foreign rulers, Pathans and Moghuls alike. Sexually exploited women found in Shivaji Raje a protector, a benefactor and flocked to his Hindavi Swaraj to find solace and feel liberated under his saffron flag. 
Perhaps some readers might be interested to know that January 28 is considered a feast day among Catholics – actually 2 feast days are celebrated on the same day – one is of ST Thomas Aquinas, the great medieval theologian and philosopher who adapted Aristotle to the western Judeo-Christian worldview. . It is also the feast day of a lesser known person – St Peter Nolasco, the great ransomer of captives from the Muslims.
How often in conversation with a Muslim, do they quote Spain as the crowning achievement of Islam, where Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in harmony for about 800 years?
Why do Muslims insist that Jerusalem is their Holy City?
There is a very strongly entrenched view among majority of Westerners today that the three main monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam share one common God and therefore despite the obvious differences, the core foundation of these three religions is the same. 
