RUTHFULLY YOURS

How very odd that the latest ALP candidate deemed unworthy of retaining preselection is a Muslim who goes by the name of “Christian”, but only in the company of non-believers and when presenting himself to voters. That would be Christian Kunde, who was bounced from contesting the NSW seat of Farrer when his association with the weird beard firebrands of Hizb ut-Tahrir came to light. Just by way of a reminder, it was Hizbee honcho Uthman Badar who prompted a you-can’t-be-serious outcry that saw him dropped from 2014’s Festival of Dangerous Ideas before he could lay out the case for murdering women who bring shame on their families. That’s the pair of them above, Badar to the fore, at a Hizbee gabfest in 2012.

Mr Kunde must be very unhappy that a political career has been scotched before it could begin, and so must the ABC, which did yeoman work to present him as the happy face of tolerance and multi-culti amity. A mere two weeks ago, Compass viewers were treated to an adoring profile of the now ex-candidate. It was, by ABC standards, a story that could not possibly go unreported, as it focused on his work as the coach of a women’s AFL team in Western Sydney. Talk about ticking every beluvvied box:

Women breaking gender barriers by playing footy
Muslim women playing footy in their hijabs
Muslim women accepting a lesbian teammate
An ALP candidate who could use some taxpayer-funded free publicity

The Compass episode was multiculturalism’s Potemkin Village, all smiles and falafels-with-tomato-sauce and nary a mention of the unfortunate sorts who give tolerance (and our latest PM’s office elves) a bad name by endorsing the Koranic defenestration of homosexuals. Viewers learned how Mr Kunde met a Muslim bus driver who set him to thinking Islamic values were no different to his own, how he found his way to Allah and “to make things easier” decided to go by two names — “Christian” in the wider world and “Abdullah” when in the company of his co-religionists.

“It’s difficult for Muslims, I guess, to use that name,” he said, referring to the Christian christian name that would have appeared on Farrer ballot papers, explaining that he was Coach Abdullah to his team.

kunde after shearingHow very inconsistent is this multiculturalism? “Christian” is an OK name for ballot papers and ABC promotions, but intolerable to those who themselves demand the tolerance of others.

JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia—Joudi al-Omeri drove in circles. And when cars came in her direction, she swerved. These were electric bumper cars, but in Saudi Arabia, the ride doesn’t always live up to its name.

“I come here to drive,” said Ms. al-Omeri, a 27-year-old homemaker still giddy from the roughly five-minute, mostly crash-free ride in her red-and-green two-seater. “It’s much better than bumping against others,” she adds.
At the weekly ladies-only night at the Al Shallal Theme Park in the coastal city of Jeddah, women discard head scarves and head-to-toe black gowns to reveal the latest trends—ripped jeans, tank tops, and tossed-to-the-side ’80s-style hair. For many of them, the biggest draw of the amusement park isn’t the few hours of fashion freedom. Instead, they go there to get behind the wheel—even a bumper-car wheel—in a country that bans female drivers.

There are no loud bangs or ferocious head-on crashes. There are a few slow-speed collisions, but also a lot of dodging, as many women are content with just gliding over the smooth surface. For some, the biggest risk of bumping into each other is while taking a selfie.

“They love driving the cars,” Aman al-Abadi, the ride attendant, said of the women who were getting back in line for another spin. “Men are always bumping.”

With the exception of remote corners of the desert kingdom—where Bedouin women sometimes get behind the wheel—the amusement park offers a rare, hassle-free environment for women to hone their driving skills. That is partly why, on ladies nights, there is a winding queue at the bumper cars. CONTINUE AT SITE

…….This is the fraying world in which Britain is making its Brexit choice. It may be that a “leave” vote will not have such dire consequences as the “remain” campaign predict, and that the U.K. will join the happy ranks of Switzerland and Norway as a rich, European, non-EU state. In normal eras, the benefits of disruption often outweigh the costs.
But this is not a normal era. If the U.K. leaves the EU, why shouldn’t Scotland secede from the former to rejoin the latter? If Britain jilts Brussels, why shouldn’t Brussels return the favor when Britain returns to Europe seeking new terms of trade? If the world is taking a protectionist turn, why would an island country dependent on trade abandon the economic security of the one immense free-trade bloc to which it already has access?

And if Britain leaves the Union, what guarantees that future governments will have a Thatcherite bent? It was Thatcher who in 1975 spearheaded the Conservative Party’s campaign to remain in Europe the last time the membership question was put to British voters. Rarely do nationalist politics not end in statist economic prescriptions.

Like every country, Britain has its share of cultural anxieties and economic problems, some of which are connected to Europe. But not all of them. Britain’s housing bubble is not Europe’s fault, nor is the poor quality of its health services, or its high taxes and cost of living. It’s always easier to blame a marriage’s difficulties on your spouse than on yourself. And as in many marriages, the temptations of a single life can sometimes seem irresistible. They’re worth resisting.

It may be that one day Britain will have another Thatcher, and the U.S. another Reagan, and another Brexit referendum could be a flight to safety and not a leap in the dark. Till then, Brexit would be that most un-British of acts: Imprudent.

The British people go to the polls Thursday in their most important vote since they elected Margaret Thatcher in 1979. While we hope Britain votes to remain in the European Union, the reasons have less to do with the sturdy British than with the damage an exit could do to a Europe that is failing to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

America’s interests lie in a free and prosperous Europe, and we’ve long thought this is best served with Britain as part of the European Union to balance France and Germany. The British look west across the Atlantic more than continentals, and the Brits have largely been a voice of reason in Europe’s councils.

This is especially valuable today given the manifest failures of Europe over the last decade. With rare exceptions like Spain and Ireland, the EU and eurozone have failed to restore the economic growth the Continent so desperately needs. Its leaders can’t, or won’t, ask their citizens to sacrifice to reform their creaky welfare states or solve the turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa. They have bungled the migrant crisis in a way that has undermined public confidence and increased support for nativist right-wing parties.

Many British watching this from across the Channel understandably think they can do better on their own. And in many respects they have. They never joined the euro, despite predictions of doom at the time, yet Britain has prospered. Its growth rate since the financial panic is among the strongest in Europe. The British are also exempt from the Schengen rules of passport-free travel, which has spared them from the migrant fiasco.

Yet the main arguments for Brexit are less persuasive on close examination. The first—near and dear to our heart—is the promise of freedom from regulation by Brussels. No one has mocked the EU’s diktats more than we have. Yet the Brexiteers aren’t exactly promising a return to Thatcherism. Boris Johnson, the most prominent Tory supporting Leave, is happy with the National Health Service and subsidies for British business. Nigel Farage’s UKIP is protectionist. CONTINUE AT SITE