KAWAN ANWAR - XENOPHON DIHAMBAT BALIK... KITA MENJADI GALANG-GANTI
Mengapa Pakatan terutama yang menyokong Anwar Ibrahim dan mendaulatkan LGBT marah sangat apabila mendapat tahu, salah seorang Senator Australia yang sebelum ini bebas keluar masuk ke negara ini, tiba-tiba sahaja disekat dan pihak Imigresen telah menggunakan kuasa yang diperuntukkan kepada mereka, dengan tidak membenarkan agen-agen subversif seperti Xenophon masuk ke negara ini.
Tidak kisahlah apa alasan yang diberikan oleh Imigresen atau Kementerian Dalam Negeri. Hak membenarkan mana-mana pihak masuk atau dihambat keluar, adalah hak mutlak serta eksklusif Imigresen.
Anehnya, puak-puak pecacai begitu beria-ia mengatakan, Imigresen Malaysia telah melanggar protokol dan hubungan diplomatik apabila tidak membenarkan Xenophon masuk ke negara ini. Walhal kalau hendak diikutkan, syarat-syarat Imigresen dan Kastam Australia beratus kali ganda lebih ketat berbanding Malaysia.
Mengapa pula kita perlu melonggarkan syarat-syarat kemasukan untuk manusia seperti Xenophon? Apakah kerana dia seorang yang menyokong kuat Anwar Ibrahim, maka dia perlu dibenarkan bebas masuk ke negara ini dan berbuat apa-apa sahaja?
Malulah konon sebab Xenophon yang anti Islam dan mempromosikan LGBT kerana tidak dibenarkan masuk? Takutlah konon dengan Australia sebab tidak membenarkan senator mereka masuk ke negara ini dan menunjuk ajar bagaimana hendak menjadi pecacai seumur hidup?
Barangkali ada baiknya kalau puak-puak yang beria-ia sangat membela Xenophon, cuba pergi ke Australia dengan keadaan seperti sekarang. Kita nak tengok, bebas atau senang tak mereka masuk ke Australia dari mana-mana pintunya. Terutama pula bagi mereka yang berjanggut, berserban dan bertanda dahi di hitam!!!
Satu sahaja pertanyaan kepada puak-puak yang tidak pernah baca sejarah, semenjak bila pula Australia menjadi tuan besar di negara ini yang akan memberitahu apa yang perlu dilakukan oleh Malaysia dan apa yang tidak boleh...
Senator Nick Xenophon on gay marriage
Senator Nick Xenophon (Ind, SA) explained why following the gay bashing
death of a lecturer of his, that on reflection he considered that gay
marriage was preferable to civil unions:
The Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012, which intends to legalise same-sex marriage, is not an easy issue for me to speak on. Unlike a number of my colleagues, who have held longstanding, definite if not definitive views on whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal in Australia, I have not been deeply involved in this debate. I have been working on a whole range of other issues. This does not mean, however, as one member of the House of Representatives suggested, that this is an eleventh-hour issue.
The Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012, which intends to legalise same-sex marriage, is not an easy issue for me to speak on. Unlike a number of my colleagues, who have held longstanding, definite if not definitive views on whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal in Australia, I have not been deeply involved in this debate. I have been working on a whole range of other issues. This does not mean, however, as one member of the House of Representatives suggested, that this is an eleventh-hour issue.
I know that many in the community have
passionate, strongly held views as to whether same-sex marriage should
be legalised. Insofar as those views are considered and respectful, I
believe it is important in a great democracy such as Australia's to
carefully take those views into account before making a decision on this
bill. It is my job—indeed, my duty—to do my best to understand both
those who support and those who oppose this change to the Marriage Act,
and to do so in a way that is not judgemental but both fair-minded and
mindful of those who will support and of those who will reject the
position I take.
Unlike other members of parliament whose party
had a policy at the last election to not support such changes to the
Marriage Act, as an Independent I am not constrained by any party room
decision. So, like every other vote I exercise in this place, this is a
conscience vote for me, one that is especially significant because of
the competing arguments and principles at stake. This bill raises
fundamental issues of whether same-sex couples should be afforded the
same rights as heterosexual couples. It of necessity raises questions
about the way homosexuals are treated in our society, and we have seen
the changes to our laws at state and federal levels since the early
1970s.
In 1976, I was a first year law student at the
University of Adelaide. To this day, I remember well how a number of my
lecturers were still grieving and campaigning for justice over the death
of their fellow lecturer, Dr George Duncan, who died on 10 May 1972. Dr
Duncan was a brilliant academic, respected by his peers and students
alike. He was walking along the banks of the River Torrens near the
university when he was set upon and viciously assaulted by at least
three men, and thrown into the river. This occurred late at night. He
drowned. Dr Duncan was homosexual at a time when being a homosexual
could carry a jail term.
After a subsequent inquiry, it was found that
the area where Dr Duncan was set upon was a so-called 'gay beat', where
other homosexual men would illicitly meet, and the assault was part of
the victimisation by those who derided, if not hated, those men by
virtue of their sexuality. In the days, weeks and months following Dr
Duncan's death, and after a grossly compromised and botched police
investigation, nothing happened to the perpetrators. It was not until
many years later that three men were charged with manslaughter, but they
were acquitted in 1988. No-one has ever been held accountable for his
death. Dr Duncan's death was a tragic, criminal consequence of
discrimination.
As a result of the public outrage and media
attention, the Hon. Murray Hill, a Liberal member of the Legislative
Council of South Australia, introduced a bill into the South Australian
parliament on 26 July 1972. The bill sought to amend the criminal law in
South Australia that made homosexuality illegal. That bill, in an
amended form, was assented to on 9 November 1972. It was the beginning
of legislative moves across the nation to remove discrimination against
homosexuals.
The most recent significant reforms at a Commonwealth level
occurred only a few years ago as a result of the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission's recommendations that equality of treatment
should be extended to same-sex couples.
Those pieces of legislation, which form the
Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law
Reform) Act 2008, effectively recognise same-sex couples in respect of
many rights and obligations, including superannuation. In essence, the
rights and obligations that heterosexual couples have now also apply to
same-sex couples. That significant, landmark legislation was passed with
bipartisan support. However, the proponents of same-sex marriage
consider the 2008 bills as unfinished business, and for the opponents
that was the end of the road for reform.
At its heart, this issue, this debate, revolves
around whether the definition of marriage should be confined to
heterosexual couples. Those who oppose changing the law say that to
legalise same-sex marriage would undermine the traditional definition of
marriage, and that it would also affect children. Let us deal fairly
with those two arguments.
I find myself substantially in agreement with
the considered speech that the member for Wentworth, the Hon. Malcolm
Turnbull, recently gave at the Southern Cross University on the Gold
Coast in honour of former High Court Justice Michael Kirby. Like Mr
Turnbull, I cannot see how allowing a same-sex couple to marry would
somehow affect the sanctity and strength of a marriage between a
heterosexual couple. As for children, as Mr Turnbull pointed out,
unfortunately, some biological parents are neither loving nor wise. What
is important is that a child is brought up in a safe and loving
environment. The reality is that this bill does not change the right of
same-sex couples to raise children. That was in part dealt with at a
federal level several years ago, with bipartisan support. Nor does this
bill change state laws about adoption or IVF. But, this bill would give
recognition to the inherent commitment that marriage brings with it.
It was my preference, until I considered the
issues in this debate, to legislate immediately for civil unions for
same-sex couples as, in a sense, a transitional measure before
legislating for same-sex marriage. But I can see the argument that,
while that measure would be a further reform to reduce discrimination,
it would not remove it. In the event this bill does not pass, I would
urge the senators and members who oppose same-sex marriage to consider
supporting a new bill that would at least allow civil unions.
To date, 11 other countries have legalised
same-sex marriage: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. This is
proof that our traditions are continuing to evolve. A thousand, a
hundred, even 30 years ago, marriage did not mean what it does today.
This evolution is important. Our traditions are valued because they are
still relevant, because they still mean something to us today. But this
bill will not in fact change the tradition of marriage within our
churches. Ministers of religion will be free to continue to abide by
their beliefs on their definition of marriage.
This debate has seen an intense degree of
lobbying by various churches—as they are entitled to do in our
democracy. I regard the right of a person to hold their religious
beliefs as fundamental in a free society. But beyond religion and
religious beliefs, I also believe in the law. And I believe our laws
should apply equally to all. Aristotle said: 'The law is reason, free
from passion.' This is a debate that raises passions more than almost
every other issue. But if we remove the passion from this debate, we are
looking at a simple fact: this bill rectifies discrimination in our
law. As elected representatives and law makers, we have a duty to make
the best laws we possibly can. And as to a law that excludes people from
such a significant cultural institution just because of who they
are—well, it is time that changed.
Much of this debate has focused on apparent
so-called conservative values, such as marriage and the family unit,
although I think it is unfair to suggest those values only belong to
conservatives in some political or partisan sense. I am a strong
supporter of these principles, but I believe they are reasons for, not
against, marriage equality. British Conservative Prime Minister David
Cameron said, on this very issue:
Yes, it's about equality, but it's also about
something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind
us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support
each other.
So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.
There are so many problems facing our society
today. Anything that encourages people to commit to each other
ultimately can only be a good thing. That is why I support this bill.
Terdesak hingga terpaksa menjemput Seorang Senator Bebas dari Australia Nick Xenophon untuk menjadi pemerhati himpunan BERSIH.
Tapi yg dijemput oleh Anwar Ibrahim ini ialah Senator Bebas yg Anti ISLAM malahan penyokong kuat perkahwinan sejenis di Australia..Si Anwar Ibrahim ni dh tk ada kekawan lain ke dlm dunia politik ni???kenapa semua kekawan baik beliau didalam negara mahupun antarabangsa kebanyakkannya dikalangan ahli2 politik yg ANTI ISLAM n Penyokong2 KUAT LGBT???
Sebagai RAKYAT MALAYSIA yg berAGAMA ISLAM kita patut menolak Anwar Ibrahim serta kuncu2 yg membawa kita kearah kemungkaran...perjuangan beliau semakin hari semakin jauh bersimpang dari ajaran2 ISLAM yg suci...makanya beliau begitu diterima oleh perjuang2 LGBT Antarabangsa...bukannya ULAMA2 ISLAM yg dihormati.
Disini saya serta sepotong ayat untuk renungan kita bersama...
“Dalam surah al Maidah ayat lima, Allah telah menegaskan maksud ayat yang berbunyi, Dan hendaklah kamu bertolong-tolongan untuk membuat kebajikan dan bertaqwa, dan janganlah kamu bertolong-tolongan pada melakukan dosa maksiat dan pencerobohan. Dan bertaqwalah kepada Allah, kerana sesungguhnya Allah Maha Berat azab seksaNya bagi sesiapa yang melanggar perintahNya.”
Jadi saya mengingatkan diri saya,keluarga serta masyarakat agar pemimpin2 yg memperjuangkan LGBT serta mendapat dokongan pemimpin2 antarabangsa yg ANTI ISLAM wajib ditolak.
DEMI AGAMA BANGSA & NEGARA.
oleh - fazli mohammad
KUALA LUMPUR, 16 Feb (Bernama) -- Ahli
politik warga Australia Senator Nick Xenophon dilarang masuk ke negara
ini kerana melanggar peraturan Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia (JIM) dan
undang-undang negara ketika lawatan beliau sebelum ini.
Ketua Pengarah Imigresen Datuk Alias
Ahmad berkata larangan kemasukan membabitkan Xenophon itu adalah
mengikut Seksyen 8(3) Akta Immigresen 1959/63 sebagai orang yang
dilarang masuk.
"Xenophon pernah beberapa kali memasuki
Malaysia sebelum ini dan didapati pernah menyertai aktiviti haram yang
melanggar undang-undang negara," katanya dalam kenyataan Sabtu.
Alias berkata senator itu juga didapati
menyebar maklumat negatif yang tidak berasas berkaitan Malaysia menerusi
pelbagai tuduhan liar.
"Tindakan larangan kemasukan terhadap
Senator Nick Xenophon adalah hak kerajaan Malaysia, selaras dengan
undang-undang dan Perlembagaan negara ini," katanya.
Xenophon tiba di Terminal Penerbangan
Tambah Murah (LCCT) Sepang pada 6.50 pagi dari Melbourne, dan beliau
dimaklumkan tentang larangan itu oleh pegawai imigresen di LCCT, kata
Alias.
"Xenophon kini berada di bilik menunggu
JIM di LCCT Sepang sementara menunggu untuk berlepas pulang ke Melbourne
menaiki pesawat berikutnya," kata pengarah imigresen itu.
Alias menarik perhatian Xenophon berada
di bawah jagaan JIM dan diberi layanan biasa sebagai individu yang
dilarang masuk ke negara ini, dan bukan sebagai penjenayah.
"Xenophon juga dibenarkan menghubungi pihak Suruhanjaya Tinggi Australia di Kuala Lumpur menerusi telefon," katanya.- BERNAMA
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Pemerhati BERSIH yg DiJemput ANWAR..Senator bebas Australia Nick Xenophon yg ANTI ISLAM & Perjuang Perkahwinan Sesama Jenis di Australia.
Terdesak hingga terpaksa menjemput Seorang Senator Bebas dari Australia Nick Xenophon untuk menjadi pemerhati himpunan BERSIH.
Tapi yg dijemput oleh Anwar Ibrahim ini ialah Senator Bebas yg Anti ISLAM malahan penyokong kuat perkahwinan sejenis di Australia..Si Anwar Ibrahim ni dh tk ada kekawan lain ke dlm dunia politik ni???kenapa semua kekawan baik beliau didalam negara mahupun antarabangsa kebanyakkannya dikalangan ahli2 politik yg ANTI ISLAM n Penyokong2 KUAT LGBT???
Sebagai RAKYAT MALAYSIA yg berAGAMA ISLAM kita patut menolak Anwar Ibrahim serta kuncu2 yg membawa kita kearah kemungkaran...perjuangan beliau semakin hari semakin jauh bersimpang dari ajaran2 ISLAM yg suci...makanya beliau begitu diterima oleh perjuang2 LGBT Antarabangsa...bukannya ULAMA2 ISLAM yg dihormati.
Disini saya serta sepotong ayat untuk renungan kita bersama...
“Dalam surah al Maidah ayat lima, Allah telah menegaskan maksud ayat yang berbunyi, Dan hendaklah kamu bertolong-tolongan untuk membuat kebajikan dan bertaqwa, dan janganlah kamu bertolong-tolongan pada melakukan dosa maksiat dan pencerobohan. Dan bertaqwalah kepada Allah, kerana sesungguhnya Allah Maha Berat azab seksaNya bagi sesiapa yang melanggar perintahNya.”
Jadi saya mengingatkan diri saya,keluarga serta masyarakat agar pemimpin2 yg memperjuangkan LGBT serta mendapat dokongan pemimpin2 antarabangsa yg ANTI ISLAM wajib ditolak.
DEMI AGAMA BANGSA & NEGARA.
oleh - fazli mohammad
