When a white Londoner ran over 11 Muslims in front of a London mosque the UK ruling elite called it a heinous act.
Leading the charge, Prime Minister Theresa May expressed outrage, describing the deliberate injury of the Muslim worshippers by running over them with a van as an “evil act borne out of hatred.”
“We want extremism and hatred driven out of society,” Theresa May told reporters.
What strange people the elite, including the Islamic Mayor, turn out to be when the boot is on the other foot. Here we have a fed-up, 47 year old ordinary British man not known to authorities, who simply had seen enough carnage inflicted on normal people at the hands of Muslim extremists.
After running over the worshippers, he shouted: “I want to kill all Muslims.” He took the problem into his own hands, targeting Muslims at the Finsbury Park mosque.
Islamists have carried out numerous attacks and mass killings of people across Europe particularly at London Bridge on June 4, where seven people , including two Australian women were killed after being mowed down by a van driven by a mad Islamic.
Police shot dead three of the madmen in the aftermath of the slaughter.
Any casual observer could be forgiven for saying: “Tough luck Mussies, you are wearing a revenge attack and you can probably expect more of the same.”
“You think it is OK to mass murder Christians in Syria or elsewhere around the world by cutting off their heads, burning them alive or by slow drowning, so call it an eye for an eye, albeit minus the Islamic savagery.”
“Is it OK to kill hundreds of people in Paris without considering there could be retaliation?”
It does not bode well for Australia with its own horde of Muslim immigrants, many with military experience. The extent to which Islam has overtaken the UK is listed below.
List of Mayors in UK that are Muslim with 3,000 Muslim Mosques, 130 Sharia Courts
Now the British have passively succumbed to the Muslim invasion:
Mayor of London … MUSLIM
Mayor of Birmingham … MUSLIM
Mayor of Leeds … MUSLIM
Mayor of Blackburn … MUSLIM
Mayor of Sheffield … MUSLIM
Mayor of Oxford … MUSLIM
Mayor of Luton … MUSLIM
Mayor of Oldham … MUSLIM
Mayor of Rochdale … MUSLIM
Over 3,000 Muslim Mosques
Over 130 Muslim Sharia Courts
Over 50 Muslim Sharia Councils
Muslims-Only No-Go Areas Across The UK
Muslim Women … 78% don’t work and are on FREE benefits/housing
Muslim Men … 63% don’t work and are on FREE benefits/housing
Muslim Families … 6-8 children planning to go on FREE benefits/housing
… and now all UK schools are ONLY serving HALAL MEAT!
All this achieved by just 4 million or 2.6 per cent of Muslims out of the 66 million population!
Islam strikes again
Letter to the Editor
I had to pick something up from Grays Online at Lidcombe yesterday and on the way back we called into Maccas on the corner of Parramatta Rd and Silverwater Rd.
I got a Quarter Pounder and my wife got some Crispy Chicken, BLT Burger (Bacon, Lettuce, Tomato) the crispy was some rectangular things like corn chips but her bacon was cold and sort of pale and watery. When she questioned it at the counter and said the bacon should be cooked and a bit crispy, she was informed that they now do the bacon in the microwave because if they put it on the grill it would contaminate the other meats and they would lose their HALAL Certification. She then said,
“So I can’t have it how we have eaten it all our lives because this minority say it offends them?” The only reply was a shrug of the shoulders and a comment that this was a HALAL Store.
It seems that even the mighty Maccas have bowed to the Muslim Halal Beast. So next time you get a burger from Maccas and wonder why the bacon doesn’t taste right, you’ll know that it was thawed out and heated up in the microwave because it offends less that 3% of the population, (according to Google) and they want to keep their Halal Certification.
I guess that scratches Maccas off my food list. Maybe a good thing and I’ll lose some weight.
From Donald in Sydney
Supreme and Federal courts rule against Cronulla riots memorial rally
Two courts have made separate rulings to prevent a far-right group from holding a rally in Sydney to mark 10 years since the Cronulla riots.
The New South Wales Supreme Court has banned Party for Freedom chairman Nicholas Folkes from holding the “memorial” event at Cronulla on Saturday on the grounds it would stir up racial hatred.
Separately, the Federal Court has ruled in favour of an application to prevent any other groups or individuals from commemorating the anniversary.
This weekend marks a decade since the racially-motivated violence that erupted in the Sydney suburb in 2005.
In the Supreme Court today, the judge ruled the holding of the public assembly was prohibited.
She made no order in regards to costs, with each party to pay their own.
In the later hearing in the Federal Court, Mr Folkes agreed he would not hold the rally or address any public assembly in Cronulla on Saturday.
He also agreed to do all things necessary to state on his website, the party’s website and Facebook pages that the event was cancelled.
While in the witness stand, he told the court he wanted to celebrate Australian culture by holding a halal-free barbeque instead.
Outside court he said it was an attack on free speech and branded the ruling “sharia” law.
“This is censorship, this is sharia law in action,” he said.
“Where’s the freedom of speech? A peaceful person like myself doesn’t have a criminal record, doesn’t promote violence. I’m just absolutely shocked.”
Before the ruling, Mr Folkes told the ABC the memorial was about celebrating Australian culture, not violence.
“I believe it’s an important time when Australians did stand up,” Mr Folkes said.
Sydney GP and Muslim community leader Jamal Rifi and the Sutherland Shire Council together applied for the Federal Court ruling.
Dr Rifi said the group’s right to freedom of speech “should not impinge on our rights as citizens”.
“They have every right to express their view but their right is not absolute,” he said
“We also have a right as a citizen of this country not to be insulted, not to be humiliated and not to be intimidated.”
Family Matters No. 84
Legal recognition of Sharia law
Is this the right direction for Australian family matters?
A new direction for a pluralistic nation?
Australia is marked by pluralism – cultural, religious and ethnic. Yet, our legal system is not pluralistic. Apart from some concessions to the Indigenous peoples of this country, we abide by the “one law for all” mantra. Both sides of politics have rejected a separate stream of law for specific religious or ethnic communities on the basis that Australia is a secular nation. Freedom of religion and worship is protected, but religion is to play no part in the formal legal system. Australia’s former treasurer, Peter Costello (2006), argued, “there is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution. If you can’t accept that then you don’t accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for” (para. 44). This year, Attorney-General Robert McCelland confirmed that the “Rudd government is not considering and will not consider the introduction of any part of Sharia law into the Australian legal system” (Zwartz, 2009).
Research undertaken by Dunn (2005) and Poynting, Noble, Tabar, and Collins (2004) indicates that there is a high level of apprehension among the general population about Muslims “in our suburbs”, which gives support to the contention that the majority of Australians accept and endorse the “one law for all” approach. However, this position does raise challenges for Australian Muslims for whom adherence to their religious law – the Sharia1 – is an Islamic obligation and not a matter of personal preference, particularly in regard to family matters.
The issue of whether Australia should give formal legal recognition to Sharia law in resolving family law disputes involving Muslims will be canvassed in this paper. The case for and against such recognition is outlined. Debate on this issue has gained currency across common law jurisdictions due to several recent events. One was the legal recognition given to Islamic arbitration in the province of Ontario, Canada, in 2004. Although the enabling sections of the Arbitration Act were subsequently repealed, it did ignite the possibility that within a common law system there could be faith-based dispute resolution for family law and other legal matters. The second event was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s address to the Royal Courts of Justice (Williams, 2008), in which he promoted the concept of Britain becoming a “plural jurisdiction” by accommodating aspects of Sharia law. Although this speech provoked opposition from some other members of Britain’s legal, political and religious communities (including some Muslim groups), the Lord Chief Justice of Britain came to the Archbishop’s defence by also supporting alternative dispute resolution using Sharia principles. Whether this is the right direction for Australia or whether we should retain the status quo needs consideration and debate.
This paper examines arguments that have been raised for and against the official recognition of Sharia law and finds that, on balance, the status quo should prevail.
The case for official recognition
Sharia law is already operating in Australia
Given that many of Australia’s 350,000 Muslims (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2006) are already regulating their lives according to Sharia, it is logical to officially recognise and support this. Sharia regulates the legal relationships many Australian Muslims enter into and out of, including marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance, as well as contractual and commercial dealings. Among Australian Muslims, there exists a strong preference to have legal questions answered and disputes settled by persons with Islamic credentials. Except in rare cases, this does not mean there is rejection of Australian laws, but instead there is a desire to conform with Sharia law when it is possible to do so. Muslims as minorities in secular societies like Australia have been recognised as skilled “cultural navigators” (Yilmaz, 2005), able to manoeuvre through two systems of law, one of their nation and the other of their faith.
Complying with both systems of laws is one approach that can and is being taken. In Australia, marriage is a good example where there can readily be dual compliance. The Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) accommodates Islamic marriages by allowing marriages to be performed and registered by a Muslim marriage celebrant, usually an Imam, without the need for a separate registering event or ceremony. Polygynist marriages, however, remain problematic, being unlawful under section 94 of the Act.
Some of the region’s most influential Muslim leaders met in secret in Mecca last year at the behest of a Saudi-born Wahhabi leader to sign an agreement that would set up a new umbrella organisation and an investment fund to control much of the booming halal certification market.
The accord, obtained by The Australian, brought together the unlikeliest of figures under the “honorary presidency” of World Muslim League general secretary Abdallah Ben Abdel Mohsen al-Turki.
Dr Turki had brought the figures, including embattled Australian Federation of Islamic Councils president Hafez Kassem and “Mr Saudi” in Australia, Shafiq Khan, to Mecca to conquer and divide the multi-million-dollar halal certification market.
Leaders from Fiji and New Zealand, hardline preacher Sheik Omar El-Banna and Australia’s Grand Mufti Ibrahim Abu Mohammed were all present and all signed the document.
Abdallah Ben Abdel Mohsen al-Turki (left) Worldwide, the halal food market is worth more than $1 trillion and certification proceeds are worth tens of millions of dollars in Australia.
“The federation shall seek to set up an Islamic investment fund to invest in good-return projects, especially in the area of halal food of all kinds, as well as investing in the establishment of an Islamic abattoir,” the agreement says.
The federation more broadly would “adhere to the middle-of-the-road approach to Islam in all aspects of life, without melting in the others or staying on the sidelines” and would introduce “Islam through books, leaflets, lectures, conferences and the internet”.
Though the agreement also enshrines the establishment of a “fund to support Islamic associations, centres and schools in the South Pacific Islands” and other groups, The Australian understands the real concern was to control more of the halal market.
According to those familiar with the meeting, it was discussed that 70 per cent of the profits from the investment fund would be distributed among the various signatories and 30 per cent would go to the World Muslim League. The agreement has never been made public and one signatory, when confronted with a copy, tore it up on the spot.
The Grand Mufti, Dr Mohammad, signed the agreement representing his own centre — the Australian Islamic Culture Establishment — and not the Australian National Imams Council.
Sheik Omar El-Banna is considered by the community to follow teachings of the Tablighi Jamaat, a conservative strain of Islam.
None of the parties to the agreement responded to detailed questions put by The Australian.
“The intention was that a bank account would be created, a kitty, and these people would be the custodians of the fund,” one man told The Australian.
“They worked out the distribution formula and some of that money would go to the league. Whether that goes to their Australian office (in Melbourne) or back to Saudi Arabia, we do not know.”
The Australian has corroborated this account with three unrelated sources.
The US Central Intelligence Authority estimates the Saudis have spent almost $100 billion since the oil boom exporting their nation’s homegrown interpretation of Islam, which is based on an 18th-century revivalist preacher, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Their man in Australia has for years been Mr Khan, the guiding hand of hundreds of millions of Saudi dollars designed to influence the content and practice of Islam across the continent.
The Muslim World League is funded by the Saudi regime and Dr Turki has the ear of internal officials.
In 2003, Mr Khan was caught up in a legal battle for control of halal certification profits from the Supreme Islamic Council of Halal Meat in Australia when his former supporters accused him of siphoning more than $1 million into his own charities and Al Faisal College, in Sydney’s west, where he is director.
Mr Khan settled out of court and agreed to pay $1m back to the council.
Worldwide, the halal food market is worth more than $1 trillion and certification proceeds are worth tens of millions of dollars in Australia.
Australia exports about $1bn worth of food to Saudi Arabia each year and $2.5bn to Indonesia, which is home to the world’s largest Muslim population.
The battle for influence and power in Australia took on a comical turn when Dr Turki made it clear he wished to hold a conference in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra in 2013.
He approached the national peak body — AFIC — to organise the event but a host of community organisations boycotted the event because of concerns over the management of AFIC, which has been accused of questionable accounting practices.
Dr Turki was instead treated to a forum at Sydney’s Malek Fahd Islamic School — also in Sydney’s west, and controlled by AFIC — with the Saudi ambassador Nabil al-Saleh before being hosted at a dinner by Mr Khan, the Saudi fixer, who brought along a coterie of Australia’s most influential Muslim leaders.
Mr Kassem flew with Dr Turki on his private jet with his entourage of 12 people to New Zealand and eventually Jakarta. The plane broke down and had to land in north Queensland for repairs so the entourage paid $3000 in excess baggage fees and carried on to Indonesia.
“It was not a very successful trip for AFIC: it made Dr al-Turki realise they had no real influence in Australia,” one man said.
“That influence was with Mr Khan.”
And so the “Mecca charter” was invented.
It includes AFIC, which has control of a significant portion of halal certification trade, but mostly contains supporters of or people loyal to Mr Khan.
Years after he was forced on to the sideline of the halal trade, Mr Khan appears to have made a spectacular comeback, at least in terms of his strategic position.
Not that the new federation has been officially formed.
There is no evidence the organisation has been registered as a not-for-profit in Australia as the agreement foreshadowed and those familiar with its operation are unsure if the investment fund has been created.
Some of AFIC’s state member councils have not been told about the agreement, the name of the umbrella group or the other signatories.
The Muslim World Leage did not respond to a request for comment. – from The Australian
There are 36 Muslims living in Bendigo at that number has remained constant for many years. There is now an Islamic plan to build a Mosque to accommodate 2000 worshipers that will make it the largest mosque in the southern hemisphere at a cost of $15.5 million. Government officials and Bendigo Councilors are set to make a fortune out of this project.
This video below reveals damning information you need to know:
The corrupt banks have closed accounts opened by protesters seeking donations to stop the Jihad of Bendigo – [click here]
Grand Mufti Dr Mustafa Ceric: To Conquer the World through Halal Movement
THE STORY FROM “Q SOCIETY”
Halal food by itself is not of concern. Nearly all food is naturally halal (permissible under Islamic sharia law) and observant Muslims can make food of unknown origin halal by pronouncing ‘bismillah’ over their meal. What is of concern is the recent invention of halal certification schemes. To fully understand how these schemes work, why we should object and what you and your family can do about them, please watch the following video produced in conjunction with HalalChoices.com.au.
PLEASE NOTE: Mohamed El-Mouelhy as sole director of the private company Halal Certification Authority Pty Ltd, has commenced legal proceedings against Q Society, Q member Kirralie Smith, three members of the board and Youtube LLC. We face defamation action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and ask for donations towards the considerable legal expense associated with defending freedom of expression in Australia. Please read president Debbie Robinson’s letter for more details. The complete Statement of Claim can be downloaded here (6MB) as well as our donation form for those who can contribute to the legal defence fund.
Unlike the older and more complex Kashrut (Jewish dietary laws) designed to serve the small observant Jewish community, Halal certification schemes are widely imposed on non-Muslims. Certification schemes began in the 1980s and are funded by consumers through a multi-level system of one off and recurring fees, paid by suppliers to Islamic organisations.
It is in effect a hidden Islamic tax on goods and services.
The extent of this Islamic ‘tax’ becomes clear when we understand who contributes to these schemes:
- The four major dairy companies
- Over 75% of poultry suppliers
- Over 60% of abattoirs processing sheep
- More than 50% of abattoirs processing cattle
- Generalists like Simplot, Unilever, Nestle, Kraft and many more
The global market for halal-certified products and services is estimated to be worth more than USD2.3 trillion, expanding by 20% per year. These schemes are not limited to food alone, with products and services ranging from halal certified cosmetics to water, trucks, warehousing and sharia finance there is no limit to the schemes. Plans are in place to certify every step of the market from suppliers of animal feed, to food processing and eventually the transport to your supermarket and shopping bag.Companies who believe non-Muslims do not care, pass on the extra cost to consumers. Few products are labelled as certified halal, when in fact most meat and dairy produce bought in supermarkets, or when eating out, are now halal certified for a fee. There is no other religious group imposing such a broad, tax-like scheme on our supply chain.
We propose the following policies:
1. Apply The ‘User Pays’ Principle
2. Insist On Clear Labelling
3. End Workplace Discrimination
Watch our halal certification info video and share it with your family and connections.Order a copy of our “Getting Through” handbook and learn how to talk to non-Muslims about the disturbing nature of Islam.
Read, download and distribute our Q on: Halal Food and Halal Certification paper and our petition form.
Pick up a stack of our “Why Swallow This?” fliers at the next Q meeting and do letter boxing each week in your area.
Talk and write to your local state and federal MP and Senators. Ask them to consider our three policy proposals
Be mindful when shopping and ask for non-halal certified options. You are not a bad person if you do not want to support Islamic organisations with your shopping dollar.
“Malaysia is the global leader in developing the halal industry and putting forth the highest standards, according to industry leaders. JAKIM (the Malaysian government halal certification authority) does not recognise Mr El Mouelhy nor does it recognise his company as an accredited certifier” – pickeringpost.com
VIDEO: Has El-Mouelhy mirrored England Halal Fraudsters – [HERE]
- This is compelling reading – http://pickeringpost.com/story/the-deceptive-world-of-mr-el-mouelhy/4604
- Government recognises El-Mouelhy’s – Halal Certification Authority-Australia – a self promoted Hala Certifier unaccepted by Indonesia importing from Australia.
- SMH Paul Sheehan exposes Hala Mafia – [HERE]
- Identify products and companies to boycott that are compliant to the Halal Mafia here on this search engine – http://halalchoices.com.au/product_lists.php
- Read the statement of claim against Q Society people by Mohamed El-Mouelhy – [HERE]
- Mohamed Elmouelhy wife Nadia was on the scene at the Sydney Lindt Chocolate Cafe siege (Lindt refused to pay the Hala extortion) – [HERE]
Our expert investigation team over many months have reviewed these findings by “Q Society” much further uncovering evidence reflecting a much larger picture concerning the operations of Mr Mohamed El-Mouelhy. We welcome any opportunity to discuss our findings and evidence with mainstream media and a judge any time Mr El-Mouelhy chooses to test the water.
from Larry Pickering
I want to make it clear that I would never endorse, condone, or encourage the use of someone else’s trademark. That is an unlawful activity and is punishable by court order.
What interests me from disclosed documents from the Federal Court of Australia is that they show just how substantial halal certification fees are and that there is disagreement among Muslims about what does and does not require certification.
It also highlights the giant pyramid-style scheme of halal certification in this country.
Two small retail outlets were taken to court for unknowingly displaying halal certification documents that had been falsified. The court documents show that had these two small kebab retail outlets paid for the halal certification it would have cost them $5000 each per year.
That is quite an overhead for a small business to have to absorb in this economic climate.
It is also noted that they believed the meat supplied to them from “Quality Kebabs” was halal certified so they didn’t think it was necessary for them to have to pay for “certification” as well.
The court document goes on to say:
“Quality Kebabs has obtained the benefit of operating its business on the basis that it has been certified by the applicant when, in fact, it has not. There are no great difficulties in assessing the expense Quality Kebabs has avoided having to pay by falsely asserting it was certified by the applicant. Mr El-Mouelhy’s documentary evidence was that his fee (without GST) to wholesalers was $27,090 in 2012, $33,580 in 2013 and $34,510 in 2014. I accept that Mr El-Mouelhy’s prices are likely to be at the upper end of the market (he is, after all, a Rolls-Royce and not a Mini) but it was Mr Kose who chose to steal a Rolls-Royce.”
So the two small retail outlets were charged just nominal damages of $10.00
But note this; “Quality Kebabs” had to pay what was equivalent to the 2012 fee of $27,090.00 plus a 50% uplift which equates to $13,545.00. On top of that they had to pay the 2013 halal certification fee of $33,580.00, plus 50% uplift, which equals $16,790.00!
That makes a total of $91,015.00. Now that doesn’t include what “Quality Kebabs” would have had to pay for 2014 which would have been $34,510.
What these court documents don’t address (because they don’t need to) is the fact that for “Quality Kebabs” to be halal certified they would have to source their meat or chicken from a halal certified abattoir or chicken processor, in this case Steggles.
We know some abattoirs pay up to $27,000 a month to be halal certified. That is $324,000 a year. We have also seen a receipt where one chicken processor is paying $40,000 per year!
I have reported previously on a driver who drove a chicken supply van from a chicken processor to the take-away shops and he was charged $500 in halal certification fees. He also had to back-pay fines to the imam when he failed to get certification for a few years.
This is one example of the giant pyramid scheme going on within the Australian halal certification industry. So you can have an abattoir spending $324,000 in halal fees. Then the transport company is paying hundreds to drive the product to the supplier. In this case the supplier has to pay $34,510 in halal fees. Then the transporter may again have to pay a few hundred dollars to a halal certifier. Finally the little retail outlet has to pay $5000 in halal certification fees.
This totals in excess of $364,000 paid in halal fees, just on a small part of the kebab market!
Is this all absorbed by each company and NOT passed on to the consumer? I seriously doubt that!
So the next time you hook in to a kebab, sit back and think about how you have just lined the pockets of halal certified agents along the way.
The person in this court case (Mr El-Mouelhy) has been quoted on national television as saying the profits have made him a millionaire and he is in it, “to buy his wife’s shoes!”
So who are the bullies?
Are they Australian consumers who have had enough of paying for an Islamic religious rituals imposed on their fast food and grocery products, or are they the halal certifiers making a motza out of the unregulated and highly debated practice of charging fees for halal certification?
from Larry Pickering
Halal is heading for school tuckshops
Do not buy these products or deal with the retail outlets that flog the bogus halal certification. Funds derived from this scam go to financing the Islamic Isis terrorist mob.
Australia’s best known household brands are among hundreds of food items, now funding halal certification schemes to the benefit of Islamic agenda and personal wealth by fortune hunters.
Woolworths, Coles, Aldi, IGA, Franklins, Food Land, Cadbury, Nestle, Kraft, Kellog’s, Allowrie, SPC Ardmona, Sanitarium, Paul’s, Harris Farm, Parmalet, Tip Top, Helga’s, Purina, Bega, Blackmores, Ingham, Steggles, Lilydale, Sara Lee, Buttercup, Saxa Salt, Johnson & Johnson, Capilano Honey, Leggo’s, Sunbeam, Maggi, Top Taste, Mainland, Vegemite, Marmite, Promite, Nutella, CSR, Masterfoods, Dairy Farmers, Meadow Lea, Vittoria Coffee, Fountain, Devondale, Dilmah Tea, Dolmio, White Wings, Eta, Wrigley’s, and Four ‘N Twenty are just the tip of a Titanic-sized iceberg.
Fast food outlets, and restaurants like McDonald’s, Hungry Jacks, Burger King, Red Rooster, KFC, Subway, The Cheesecake Shop, Krispy Kreme, Wendy’s, Mrs Field’s Cookies, Nudie, Nando’s, Le Wrap, Curry Express, Salsa’s Mexican, Garlo’s Pies, Dougie’s Flamed Grilled and retail butchers and chicken shops like Red Lea Poultry are either certified by group, store, or by individual item and many others including independent and chain sushi stores, pie shops, kebab shops, cafes, pizza shops, bakeries, ice cream shops, burger shops, poultry shops, grills, pubs, theme parks and restaurants are all financing the halal certification tsunami to the extent of $12 billion a year, and that’s only what we know of. Now that equates to any proposed GST increase!
The Government is also losing the same amount in company tax deductions and very few certifiers pay tax as it is claimed to be a religious related income.
The certifiers have now got our kids’ kindergarten canteens in their sights with the intent to halal certify every school canteen in the nation by 2018. Even our national airline QANTAS is halal accredited, requiring all food suppliers be halal certified.
The controversial certification fee has become a local and global industry upsetting both non-Muslim consumers and devoutly religious Muslims, who are dismayed and angered that unscrupulous moneymen are profiting from misrepresenting Islamic teachings.
The funding of terrorism was not the concern of this investigation, but it must be noted there is clear evidence halal certification schemes overseas were found to be directly funding organisations such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood – all are proscribed terrorist organisations determined to destroy the West.
In the US, France and Canada it has been proven that halal certification schemes directly funded these organisations. In Canada it was found that $14.8 million dollars over a short period was funnelled to Hamas from halal certification money. It was found that Canadian halal certifier MAC (Muslim Association of Canada) sent funds to IRFAN Canada (an Islamic front charity), which in turn contributed to terrorist organisations. These scams have now been broken up and the ringleaders charged.
In the US, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is a major halal certifying body. ISNA is listed by the US Administration in court documents as an unindicted co-conspirator with links to the Muslim Brotherhood and their various front groups. The judge’s ruling reads: “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the association of ISNA, with the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas”.
In France, researchers of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre documented ties between one of the largest certification organisations UOIF (Union des Organisations Islamiques de France) and the Muslim Brotherhood as well as radical clerics involved in jihad campaigns. The report states: “Furthermore, the UOIF participates directly in the financing of Hamas, through a French-registered charitable organisation, the CBSP (Palestinian Charitable and Relief Committee)”.
In Australia, an entry in the annual report of the Islamic Council of Western Australia (ICWA) a halal certifier confirms using profits for “…ongoing donations to Syria. Because of the difficult civil conditions, the donations were made through ‘Al Imdaad’ (another front charity) to ensure that no recriminations could be directed at ICWA”.
Is it any surprise there are questions raised in Australia as to where halal money goes to?
Where there has been alleged corruption and bribery overseas, governments have imposed regulations. Overseas government standards apply and are enforced for halal certification. These include qualifications in Islamic law and food science. In Australia only Islamic organisations are supposed to be halal certifiers, but this condition is being grossly breached.
Halal businessmen have even labeled pork as halal in a push for market expansion. Nothing is off limits in the frantic effort for a share of the rich pickings in halal certification.
Ku Klux Klan protest at Parliament House
They were met by a security official outside the building, who advised the men that the helmet and the KKK hat were not allowed inside.
He told the protester wearing the niqab that his face would have to be revealed during the normal security screening process.
The media was unable to witness the security process, but all three men emerged without their head coverings.
“It seems that you’re allowed to wear a full-faced covering into Parliament if you’re a Muslim woman, but no other group is allowed to have that same privilege,” Sergio Redegalli told reporters.
“We, as males, are not allowed to wear any face coverings in Parliament House.”
Under new Parliament House security rules, Muslim women wearing a burqa are allowed inside once they have shown their face at the normal security checkpoint.
Speaker Bronwyn Bishop last week backed down from a plan to force Muslim women wearing the burqa to sit behind glass enclosures when in the parliamentary chamber.
Today’s protest was organised by a group called Faceless.
Members of the ‘Faceless’ group wearing face coverings are seen leaving Parliament House in Canberra. Protesters of the ‘Faceless’ group came Parliament House wearing face coverings advocating for a nationwide burqa ban. Photo: AAP
Mr Redegalli said it was “fantastic” that they were not allowed inside the building with facial coverings, but argued it should be applied to everyone.
“The next time, the next group of people that go to any security point to be asked to identify themselves – it may be too late because they’re already in Parliament,” he said.
“No-one should be walking up the [parliamentary] forecourt or in [the] public domain hidden from sight.”
Faceless group previously ‘tested security’ at NSW Parliament
It is not the first time the group has pulled a similar stunt.
In 2012, Faceless members walked through the Sydney CBD to “test security” at various buildings, including the New South Wales Parliament.
It caused tension between local Muslim groups.
A number of federal Coalition MPs – including Liberal senator Cory Bernardi – have been pushing for a ban on the burka inside Parliament House, arguing there are security and identity issues with the facial covering.
In 2011, Senator Bernardi praised Mr Redegalli – who was today wearing the KKK outfit – as a “friend” and someone who has become “an eloquent spokesman for freedom of speech”.
“I happen to agree with Mr Redegalli that the burka has no place in Australia,” Senator Bernardi said in 2011.
“I consider it a security risk and a symbol of repression and Islamic fundamentalism.
“Many Muslims [and opinion polls suggest a vast majority of other Australians] agree with me.”
At the time, Mr Redegalli was under attack for painting a “Say no to burkas” mural on his Sydney glass sculpting studio.
He made clear today that he found the KKK outfit offensive, but said he was wearing it to make a point about facial coverings in public