- ‘Can you imagine making a joke and facing death as a result?
- “During his interrogation, Sina was told that if he signed a confession and repented, he would be pardoned and let go,” said the source in an interview with CHRI on March 21, 2017. “Unfortunately, he made a childish decision and accepted the charges. Then they sentenced him to death.” “Later he admitted that he signed the confession hoping to get freed,” said the source. “Apparently the authorities also got him to confess in front of a camera as well.” — Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI).
- When the Islamists gain power, they immediately create their own “judiciary system” in order to “legitimize” their implementation of sharia law. In fact, the judiciary system is used less as a tool for bringing people to justice, and more as a tool to suppress freedom of speech and of the press.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10170/iran-insulting-islam
‘Sina Dehghan, 21, has been sentenced to death in Iran for “insulting Islam”. There are many people like him in Iran who are currently imprisoned, tortured on a daily basis, or awaiting their execution for “insulting Islam”, “insulting the prophet”, “insulting the Supreme Leader” — the examples are endless. (Image source: Center for Human Rights in Iran)’
Australia has a couple of Muslims in government now. What does the future hold? Read again what is taking place in Iran, lest you forget.
Australia
All posts tagged Australia
This video pushing sodomite marriage is described as ‘Acceptance and belonging are at the heart of Airbnb. Which is why we felt compelled to throw our support behind marriage equality in Australia by creating the Acceptance Ring. This incomplete ring symbolises the gap in marriage equality that we need to close. Until the day comes when two people who love each other can celebrate that love through commitment, we want Australians to wear this ring and show their acceptance of marriage equality.’
That day when sodomites are allowed to call their sin ‘marriage’ will be another nail in the free speech/thought coffin. Airbnb ‘is an online marketplace and hospitality service, enabling people to lease or rent short-term lodging including vacation rentals, apartment rentals, homestays, hostel beds, or hotel rooms.’ https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Airbnb&rlz=1C1CHFX_enAU685AU685&oq=Airbnb&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I believe Qantas is one of the best airlines flying but it is pushing this agenda as are other corporations. Sadly but not surprisingly ‘As one Qantas employee said in an email: “I’d hate to be a Christian flight attendant explaining to their manager why I wasn’t intending on wearing the ring… or to a gay colleague on the other end of a cart doing a meal service. Talk about a bad initiative for crew cohesion and its impact on service, let alone safety.
“Of course Qantas would say they’ll never force someone to wear the ring. But the spokesperson and the CEO are not the ones at a safety critical coalface being forced to deal with the potential fallout of rainbow ideology being shoved down people’s throats and potential conflict in an environment where teamwork is critical.”’ http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/miranda-devine-if-you-dont-wear-this-ring-youre-a-bigot-what/news-story/e3d8097796866e7ecb98c8991dc5c0bb
Photo by AAP/Paul Miller of Alan Joyce CEO of Qantas
This push for so-called same-sex marraige is really a slap in the face of the Creator God who said He ‘…also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet’ Romans 1:24-27.
In Australia the left leaning ABC’s ‘…Q&A panellists launched into an emotive discussion around freedom of speech, largely powered by the absence of controversial anti-Islamic activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali who was due to appear as a member of Monday night’s panel.
While the exact “security concerns”, among other reasons, that led to Ms Hirsi Ali’s 
cancelled Australian tour remain unconfirmed, Federal Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg blamed it on the need to reform Section 18C to “protect and promote freedom of speech”.
“It is very regrettable people have sought to prevent her coming to Australia because they see her as the enemy of tolerance. I see her as an enemy of intolerance,” Mr Frydenberg said.
“Personally I don’t agree with everything that she has said about Islam but … she sends a very powerful message as well about how secular laws should be above Sharia law.
“My view is she would have received a lot of support here in Australia for airing what are somewhat controversial views. And she should be allowed to speak her mind and people who disagree with her should be able to challenge that. That’s the point of a free country like Australia.”
But Q&A host Tony Jones suggested the security concerns were exaggerated, citing a petition which expressed “disappointment” in response to Ms Hirsi Ali’s Australian tour that attracted fewer than 400 signatories.
Mr Frydenberg said he was “shocked” that the petition had garnered the support of psychologists, doctors, lawyers and community activists; all in agreement that she should not visit Australia and speak her mind.
Shadow Human Rights Minister Linda Burney said she found Mr Frydenberg’s comments “ironic”.
“It seems a little ironic that the party that was arguing against freedom of speech would propose it here tonight,” she said.
The Australian editor-at-large Paul Kelly agreed Ms Hirsi Ali’s absence was “a great shame”.
“I do think that the overwhelming majority of the Australian people would have been prepared to welcome her to this country. I am disturbed at the fact we have a petition signed by about 400 people, some of them quite prominent, suggesting that she should not come to this country.
“I think this is contrary to the fundamental values of Australian democracy.
“This is a courageous and inspiring woman. Now I don’t agree with all her positions, but she certainly raised fundamental questions about Islam which we should be prepared to debate as a society, debate and confront frankly.”
Former Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said freedom of speech should have no limits.
“Of course she should have the right to come to Australia to put her points of view across,” she said.
“This is what democracy is all about.”
While Nobel Peace Prize winner and social entrepreneur Muhammad Yunus said he agreed that everyone had the right to speak freely, he moved that there should be limitation when opinions were reduced to insults.
“You can come up with your opinion about certain aspects of Islam and so on. But that should not go into a level of inciting people, and kind of bringing intolerance into the discussion. The key thing is intolerance … You do it in a friendly way.
“Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the licence to insult somebody, cut down the respect and the feelings of other people.”
Ms Thorning-Schmidt argued that if freedom of speech was limited, it could silence people trying to bring about important social change.
“When women were fighting for their rights in the ’60s and ’70s, I think a lots of people thought they had a very insulting tone to some of the men they were fighting against,” she said.
“I think you have to use a language — not an insulting language if you can avoid it — but you can’t limit freedom of speech. But you can be responsible for how you use it … That’s what is lacking in the world.”’ http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/04/03/ayaan-hirsi-alis-absence-freedom-speech/?utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170404_TND
Is Ayaan Ali anti-Islam as much as she is pro-free speech and women’s rights? Australia has a very small percentage of Muslims but they carry a lot of clout and therefore people such as Ali and Gert Wilder receive death threats and much opposition when they come to Australia. So much for freedom of speech!
There is always a price to be paid for standing for truth!
‘No government entity has the authority to license, commission, accredit, and certify any Christian ministry–unless said groups go hat in hand asking for state or federal funds. A license is permission to do what would be illegal without it. No preacher should ever permit the government to license his work. Even in other professions, a license does not guarantee quality but does provide control and income for the government. In some states, a license is required to use your truck to haul dirt, rocks, etc.; to shampoo hair in a beauty shop; to own a gun; to teach school, and on and on and on.
It is obvious that a medical doctor’s license does not protect patients from sexual abuse or unnecessary medical procedures; nor protect students from incompetent or predatory teachers; nor guarantee a reasonable-looking haircut from barbers; nor assure a fair, reasonable defense by attorneys; nor, but then you get the idea.
In the mid-400s, Theodosius II, Eastern Roman Emperor from 408 to 450, made it a punitive offense for a man to teach the public without a state license; and soon such licenses were given only to “Christians.” Now that the Church was in control, they decided to keep the unbelievers out of teaching by requiring permission from the church-controlled government.
As early as 1534, the English clergy were forbidden to preach without a government license and John Bunyan got caught up in government machinery that tried to control preachers and teachers.
John Bunyan has been one of my major heroes all my adult life. But, I recently discovered that 
John, after spending more than 12 years in jail for preaching the Gospel, finally accepted a license to preach! While that was wrong in my opinion, it does not diminish Bunyan’s courageous stand against King Charles II and the king’s demand that John and other dissidents (those who disagree) not preach the Gospel. Preaching the Gospel was very costly to all except the Church of England preachers and even they did not have total freedom of conscience since they had to obey the King and Parliament regarding religious matters.
In the seventeenth century, all religious groups hated the Roman Catholics who like all dissidents met in homes. Everyone in England and Europe remembered the Inquisition where “the papists” mangled, mauled, and murdered hundreds of thousands of “heretics.” All the dissidents and the Church of England preachers agreed–“No popery, no popery!” Of course, everyone should have had freedom of conscience–Catholics, Anglicans, Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, and even the religious weirdos. Moreover, all the groups were against the Baptists because of their insistence on baptism by emersion of only those who had trusted Christ as Savior. No babies under any circumstance.
King Charles I had feuded, fussed, and fought with Parliament and ended up being beheaded in 1649 followed by Oliver Cromwell becoming Lord Protector until his death in 1658. Although a strict Puritan, Cromwell provided religious freedom for everyone. Into this religious mix, mess, and maelstrom walked two men who would make their mark on English history–a preacher and a king.
When Charles II restored the monarchy in 1660, he reneged on his promise of religious freedom he had made in his Declaration of Breda a few weeks earlier (a mistake I hope Trump does not make). The people had experienced about twenty years of freedom of worship but now nonconformist (Baptist, Presbyterian, Independent, etc.) services were banned, and ministers were rounded up and arrested. The major hero in this religious mix was a born-again tinker, a Baptist preacher named John Bunyan. The resultant clash was titanic.
Soon after his conversion, Bunyan began preaching in 1655 and was arrested in 1660 while preaching in an unapproved religious meeting (conventicle). He served a prison stretch until 1672 when he was released with other dissidents. He was jailed again for a few months in 1675.
The Act of Uniformity 1662 required every preacher to adhere to and accept the doctrine of the Church of England or leave the country. That included all preachers of the Church of England (many of them Puritans) and all the various independent groups. Everyone had to attend the Church of England regularly with fines, banishment, and then hanging for a third offense. (That would sure help one decide whether or not to sleep in on Sunday morning!) The act required all clergymen to use the Book of Common Prayer; consequently, about 2,000 Puritan clergymen were forced to resign. Some of them recanted while others became dissident preachers, others got other employment.
As to unbiblical ceremonies in the Church of England, Puritans (and all dissidents) objected to kneeling during the Lord’s Supper, the observation of holy days, the use of the surplice (outer garment worn by priests), and the signing of the cross in baptism.
The noose got tighter when the Conventicle Act 1664 became law forbidding more than five people, not members of the same family, to meet for worship. This was followed the next year by the Five Mile Act that forbade any preacher from coming within five miles of any incorporated town or their former place of abode. The noose was now tight and the preachers were standing on a very fragile, shaky platform.
The Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other dissidents from the Church of England continued to meet surreptitiously in homes, barns, and abandoned buildings while the Quakers very bravely continued to meet openly. This was a time of persecution without parallel as Protestants (Anglicans) persecuted Protestants (Puritans and dissidents).
However, Charles and the Anglicans did not have it easy in hounding, hunting, and harassing the dissidents. In 1668, the Bawdy House Riots proved that sane citizens recognized the insanity of persecution of decent people. London crowds attacked brothels as they protested against a government which had tolerated prostitution while persecuting devout, principled preachers!
Present day parallels are numerous as the state asserts its authority to control religious colleges, license Christian counsellors, certify Christian teachers, regulate school curriculum, prohibit anti-homosexual regulations, restrict military chaplains, etc.
The modern state is as arrogant, asinine, and aggressive as King Charles II was and it’s time for principled Christians to resist to the point of jail.’ http://donboys.cstnews.com/government-cannot-license-a-ministry-john-bunyan-was-wrong
The following is thought provoking so some may find it hard to read just as they find thinking hard!
‘The United States has become a cesspool as it relates to the covering of women. However, the nakedness of women seems also to be a symbol of Americanism today as much as apple pie, kind of like the following, “Our women take their clothes off, and we’re proud of it.” As this relates to Islam, we’re not like those nasty Moslem countries that force their women to cover themselves either with the burqa or the hijab. The hijab brings an American gag reflex and the burqa induces all out vomiting. On the other hand, flag waving and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue now parallel one another. The patriotism of this goes back to wartime pinups of women, I guess, to motivate these men to sacrifice themselves or at least to provide distraction from their fears or anxieties.
The hijab and burqa are distinguishing garments in Islam. They reflect Moslem teaching on 
modesty for women. They don’t have identical rules for men, because they distinguish between men and women. Is this good? It’s not wrong for sure. You could argue from the Bible that it is right to do so.
As I think about what scripture says about female dress, the following is how I see these two articles of clothing. One, the Bible doesn’t require the hijab or the burqa. Two, the Bible doesn’t say that a woman would be 
superior or a better person or more moral because she wore a hijab or a burqa. Three, the Bible doesn’t forbid the hijab or the burqa. Four, there are similar principles in the Bible for the hijab or the burqa as there are in Islam. Five, the biblical principles themselves don’t require a hijab or burqa, but they do require something for women similar to the hijab or burqa.
I’m saying here that the hijab or burqa are not a good argument against Islam by Americans, either liberal or conservative. Neither of these are forbidden in the United States. Women can wear them if they want. Men
can’t force women to wear them in the United States. However, in European countries, those bastions of freedom and expression, that’s what they want to outlaw. They don’t want the burqa or the burqini, the Moslem beachwear.
Permit me to digress for a moment. I don’t like the burqa as apparel. It reflects a perverted belief and culture. As a result, I attach the hijab to the burqa, because they both come from the same source. I get a feeling of repulsion, looking at them, because I know from which they come. If I can separate myself from the religious aspect, the hijab can look nice, feminine and modest. As I tamp down the religious repulsion, as an item, I see it in a good way, because of the distinguishing nature of it. The hijab looks attractive to me when I get past what I see it represent. On the other hand, the burqa looks like something Cousin It would wear in the Addams Family. It would look stylish maybe on a weeble. I’m not for a hazmat suit as regular apparel.
I don’t think that Muslim covering on women should enter the argument against Islam. Why is it used? There’s nothing wrong with it. You shouldn’t use what’s not wrong as an argument. It presents a weak argument. There is something right about it’s underlying philosophy, distinction and modesty. I believe it is used as an argument because it’s emotional. Women will feel emotional about it. Men want to look at women’s bodies, so it works for them too. If the burqa took off as a fashion, men wouldn’t see anything except in the bedroom, and they don’t want to wait for that.
The burqa argument also works in the matter of men and women’s roles. What makes America great is that our women are free and equal to men — sure, after 1920. Before that, women couldn’t vote. Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Women’s vote didn’t come up once in those books. It wasn’t even up for debate. Big laughter from Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton on the woman’s vote. Are. you. kidding. me?
The cultural degradation of America follows a trajectory that matches the dress of women. The more they dress like men and the more they take their clothes off, the more that things fall apart. We’re not better off from those activities. This is the slouch or slide toward Gomorrah.
Masculine and immodest dress on women are not better for intimacy. They are not better for solid marriages. They are not better for family cohesiveness. They are not better for family solidity. They are not better for role accomplishment. They are not better for protection for women from all sorts of crimes. Women are not better off because they can dress like men and take more clothes off.
People feel more American for opposing the burqa and allowing for the shredding fad, allowing for big rips in clothing to see through. Lingerie used to be bedroom wear alone, and now it is a regular feature of outer wear. If we replaced all of the masculine, immodest dress on women with the burqa, we wouldn’t be worse off. I’m not arguing for either. If we’re going to point the finger at one, we should be able to point the finger at the other, except that the burqa in and of itself isn’t wrong. Only women wear it and it is modest. Obviously modest. The only thing more modest are those moving blankets at UHaul, but not wrong. What I’m saying is that we’re wrong, and they’re not wrong. I’m not saying they’re right, but they are at least not wrong. We are wrong, and wrong in a big way.
The burqa isn’t what destroys Moslem society. They suffer for many other reasons. We are not helping them by using lame and hypocritical arguments against their covering of women.’ http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com
- ‘The mayor of Brampton, Ontario, Linda Jeffrey, was also seemingly unconcerned about the calls in Toronto to murder Jews.
- The political establishment also does not seem concerned that imams are saying that the Islamic ruling allowing slaves is still in force. Meanwhile, statistics show that when it comes to hate crimes, Jews are by far the most targeted group.
- No one — neither media, nor politicians — even bothered to ask whether there is a significant connection between the virulent Jew-hatred being preached in mosques and the disproportionately high occurrence of hate crimes against Jews. Instead, the entire Canadian parliament is preoccupied with banning “Islamophobia”.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10083/canada-islamization
Genesis 1:26,27 ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.’
Why all this recent gender questioning? Could it be open rebellion against the Creator God? What will be the result of all this gender changing in twenty or less years? God’s answer to all one’s burdens is in Matthew 11:28-30 ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light’ and accepting the truth of Psalm 139:14 ‘I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.’
At about 39 seconds note that the woman is warning all non-Muslims that when Islam becomes the majority things will change!
The following article will (I trust) make you think. Dr. Don Boys writes ‘The allegation is made that present day America has benefited greatly from the slavery of 150 years ago, and consequently it is only reasonable that we should pay the descendants of those who “built this nation.” Hold it. If that is true, then how can
one say that only white Americans have benefited? Haven’t blacks also benefited? After all, American Blacks, as a group, have more money than many of the nations of the world! According to David Horowitz, their income is up to fifty times more than that of Blacks “living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped.” So if present-day Whites have benefited from slavery, so have present-day Blacks.
American Blacks had and have incredible opportunities to be successful in our nation for which I am grateful; they have opportunities they would not have had in Africa. It is also a fact that the poorest Black in the roughest U.S. ghetto is many times better off than those Blacks living in totalitarian “nations” in Africa. In fact, if I were a Black, I would thank God that my ancestors were brought here so I would have the privilege to live in such a free country where I had the opportunity to hear the Gospel of Christ instead of living in constant fear of pagan gods, pandemic diseases, predator animals, tribal wars, starvation, cannibals, etc. While the slave trade was horrific and all connected to it were incredible criminals, there are some positive residual effects for which I would be thankful if I were black.
My boyhood hero Booker T. Washington wrote in Up From Slavery, “Then, when we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe.”
While we must never slip into the darkness of defending slavery, we must also not veer into the academic crime of inventing history or not revealing the totality of an issue for fear of being thought infamous, incompetent, or ignorant.
It is a fact that the Romans conquered Great Britain (then a gaggle of uncivilized tribes) at an enormous price in savagery; but the basic infrastructure, the foundation for law, and technology that they left behind had much to do with Britain becoming a world-girdling empire upon which it was said, “The sun never sets.”
Julius Caesar invaded Great Britain in 55 and 54 B.C. and installed a local boy as king who was responsible to Rome. Rome permitted the locals to take care of Rome’s business. The empire was ruled from the towns where councils formed of local citizens were responsible for tax-collection and keeping order in the surrounding countryside. It was a masterful plan that worked well for everyone. A great nation was in the making.
While the victims of Roman invasion could not have seen anything positive in the Roman invasion of Great Britain, the present generation would be dishonest or uninformed if the many positive residual benefits were not recognized. The crude villages became replicas of Roman towns with market squares, temples, bathhouses, shopping malls, and hotels. Caesar was very wise to not position foreign overlords to administrate the towns and collect taxes but permitted the locals to rule for them. Everyone was happy as Britain rather quickly morphed into a miniaturized Rome. But Rome was crumbling and under constant attack from pagan tribes and the emperor left Roman soldiers stationed in Britain to fend for themselves. By mid-fifth century, the Roman influence had almost disappeared as the soldiers (not getting paid from Rome) became farmers, laborers, outlaws, and vagabonds in far-away England.
Rome left its mark on Great Britain using their troops (occupied in fighting only 10% of the time) to build water systems, sewage, and sanitation systems, beacons, canals, ports, aqueducts, walls, bridges and roads which are legendary–some even being used today! Even with that, the major contribution of Rome on England was the extent which Roman law played in the development of common law of England and consequently in the United States.
For an Englishman to say that he owes nothing or very little to the Roman invaders (or that they owe him) is foolish and not factual. And for modern Blacks not to recognize that there were major residual effects from slavery is not factual but foolishness and false and has the earmarks of fanaticism.
While no sane person defends slavery, all honest people recognize that modern Blacks are far better off than their ancestors who sat around camp fires with a lifetime threat from cannibals, hunger, pagan religion, and often rival chieftains and slavers.
Yes, Muhammad Ali was right to be delighted his granddaddy “didn’t miss that boat.” Being a rich World Champion boxer was better than sitting around a jungle campfire swatting mosquitos and cuddling with a cobra in a thatched hut.’ http://donboys.cstnews.com/positive-residual-benefits-from-slavery
Recently ABC’s Q & A had Muslim Yassmin Abdel-Magied
Yassmin Abed-Magied
and Senator Jacqui Lambie on the show. Part of the show may be viewd at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdfpaftrOwc or the entire show at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gINbYZFZoA.
Senator Jacqui Lambie
The conversation became quite heated with Magied defending Sharia law and proclaiming how much freedom women have within the Islamic faith. Hmmmm.
Interestingly Muslims are holding their 2017 Australian Islamic Peace Conference (AIPC) March 11-12 in Melbourne. Now, this is interesting because one of the flyers distributed has the faces of the women who will be speaking blackened out. Another has the photos of the male speakers but not the photos or names of the women speakers. Why? 
There are over fifty Islamic nations in the UN’s Organization of Islamic Cooperation; http://www.oic-oci.org/states/?lan=en. One of the member Islamic states is Iran. How do women fare in Iran under Sharia? In fact go through the entire list and be honest, which of these OIC countries would offer a woman the freedom Yassmin has in Australia?
Why does a woman have more freedom in Australia and the USA? It is mainly because they were both established on the Scriptures of Christianity. In Australia and the USA both men and women have freedom not known to women in Sharia compliant countries .
Sadly, freedoms are being stifled in Australia and other Western nations due to the immigration of those from Islamic countries. For instance the Q Society recently held a dinner at Victoria Univesity. When those who disagree with the stand of the Q Society they had the freedom to protest, which they did. What was it about the Q Society that was so distasteful that they had to protest? “The Q Society’s platform opposes Islamic immigration and halal certification.” http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-13/victoria-university-apologises-for-hosting-q-society-fundraiser/8266646?pfmredir=sm
Do these people really understand Islamic Sharia law?
Even “Inside the building, a strong police presence patrolled downstairs, while guests upstairs had their ID checked and were issued with wristbands before entering.” So opposing Islamic immigration and halal certification is worthy of a protest?!
Well, the Q Society is such a threat that “Victoria University staff and students have lodged a letter of protest with vice-chancellor Professor Peter Dawkins, saying the society goes against the university’s values of openness, and of welcoming students from all backgrounds.’ Of course ‘Professor Dawkins apologised to staff and students on Monday, saying the university regretted “inadvertently” taking the Q Society’s booking.’ He said ‘”Victoria University is a proudly diverse and multicultural institution,”‘ but that diverseness does NOT seem to include the Q Society! Is there a bit of hypocrisy here?
So, to conclude this post, Yassmin has her liberty as a woman because she lives in Australia which was founded on Christianity and not one of the OIC countries! MAY HER AND OUR FREEDOM CONTINUE!
