Jacqui dribbles more shit about Muslims - what a fuckwit.

My favorite fuckwit is at it again against the Muslims but this time she does (most likely by accident) ask a pertinent question, vis;

"...(how many of them) enjoy Australian social service payments, entitlements and democratic freedoms?"

First, by 'them' she is being quite specific about "...radical islamics who are preaching violence". Three conditions there - must be Muslim *and* must be 'radical' (hard to define) *and* must preach violence (easy to define).

The reason why this is an excellent question is manifold. How many indeed? Jacqui is a Federal Senator for Tasmania, with considerable resources at its disposal as befits a Federal Senator. Surely she is well positioned to provide an actual number for the faceless 'them', instead of a pointless question? Or at least a range, expressed as "between x and y number of persons"?

It is possible to partially answer it without doing any research at all. The question of how many of 'them' enjoy democratic freedoms in this country is unequivocally "Every last one of 'them' - 100%".

Because that's the way it is in Australia.

The other two parts to her question regarding social service payment and entitlements would be answered 'those who are eligible under state and federal legislation pertaining to such social service payments and entitlements'. Anyone who has ever interacted with state or federal government - and you all do, come tax return time - will appreciate that you need to provide a significant amount of information about yourself, your situation and be in a form of semi-continuous dialogue with the Department of Human Services or other Department that handles your particular payment or entitlement.

And these guys are rather good at information management.

So I'm fairly certain that Jacqui would not find it hard at all to be able to assign actual numbers against her proposal, which may help to decide if there even is an issue. She could step next door perhaps and ask Tony Abbot - he is the Chairman of the National Security Committee (NSC) after all. She could ask it of the National Counter-Terrorism Committee (NTSC). She could give the spooks at the Office of National Assessments (ONA) a call, or bang off a senatorial email to the brass at Defence Intelligence and Security Group (DSIG). And there's always the agents over at the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS).

Given all the resources that the Federal Government maintains (as above) to ensure the security of this marvelous country, I don't know about you - but I'm pretty confident that somewhere in that slew of organisations there is a list that would provide the number Jacqui needs to make her argument cogent.

The big question is - is there an issue?

Myself and probably a large majority of the Australian public would find - let's speak hypothetically - a cult of sheep blood drinking worshippers of Baal that practiced pre-arranged marriage between Uncles and Nieces, Aunties and Nephews and Cousins with Cousins (all legal here in banjo-plucking Australia) to be, shall we say, somewhat distasteful. But, if certain members of this hypothetical cult were on disability pensions (likely, after a few generations of such marriages), with some unemployed (and dribbly) youth on JobStart and who's leader happened to be an aged pensioner - would that be a problem?

The answer is 'no' - provided no laws were broken.

We'll assume they farm their own sheep and don't steal them.

And that's the critical thing - 'laws broken'.

It's not against any law in Australia to be a Muslim (or 'Islamic' as Jacqui grammars) - and Section 116 of our constitution ensures that that will remain the case for the foreseeable future - a good thing.

It's not against any law in Australia to be 'radical' about any belief, again with Section 116 and the absence of legislation prohibiting people being radical. Which will never occur. The loonies over at Scientology are, by my definitions, pretty damn radical in their beliefs. Read up on that shit, it is mind boggling what they follow. Just one example, trust me there is an unending supply of them. Radicalism is a subjective term and a subject reference - it all depends on your own point of view.  One can be described as a radical left-winger - but generally only by right-wingers.  Etc.  You get the picture.  'Radical' is a non-specific word that sounds impressive but in the context that Jacqui has (ab)used it means nothing.

It is however illegal to practice 'sedition' in Australia - the term that Jacqui no doubt meant to use when she mentioned 'preaching violence'. You can look it up for yourself by reading through the Federal Crimes Act and also consulting the Anti-Terrorism Bill (2005).

Jacqui loves using the 'blender' technique to both create and then argue a point. But she fails to deliver a good punchline - which is this;

It is currently against the law to 'preach violence' (practice sedition) anywhere in Australia, regardless of your creed, your country of origin, your background or your religion. Penalties exist. 

Nuff said.

She dribbles this too;

"...Our taxes should be exclusively reserved for people who love Australia with no formal or informal allegiances to foreign religious leaders and anti-democratic laws, she said."

Guess what Catholics - with your informal allegiances to the Pope - a foreign religious leader - you're all fucked now.  GTFO.

Guess what, members of the Communist Party of Australia - you all need to pack your bags and fuck off somewhere else because you support the establishment of an anti-democratic system of law and governance.

Guess what Jacqui - you, my thick brained and thick ankled dimwitted friend, are a complete fuckwit for giving utterance to such inane drivel as this.  My god, you must have been an unbearable arsehole to work alongside in the ADF.

Just resign and fuck off Jacqui - make someone a sandwich and clean the fucking kitchen, you mindless cunt.