Australia, what the F#@*k is wrong with you?

So, Rosie Batty has worked really hard at raising awareness of family violence. We know even better that some women end up with bad guys, end up being beaten, abused and in Rossie’s horrid case, her child was murdered.

We therefore should be more open to sympathy about women and children who become victims of vicious men.

Then we talk about the family of Khaled Sharrouf – the Australian citizen Islamic Jihadist supposedly killed in Syria. His wife and five children Zaynab, Hoda, Abdullah, Zarqawi and Humzeh are left in Syria wanting to come home to Australia.

Should they be allowed to return to the country of their birth?

The vast majority of Australians are saying ‘no way’.  There is a spiteful response in Australia fed by the constant stream of anti islamic rhetoric tied to refugees since the Tampa in 2001. The feelings expressed by many Australians include “they made their bed…. ‘or ‘they followed their father there so they can stay there’. These are on the mild end of the responses.

Is this response correct. Should the wife and children of the dead Jihadist be allowed back into Australia?

Lets start with the wife.

It seems to me that there are two options. Either she willingly went to Syria (remember she is Australian by BIRTH not naturalisation). The second possibility that some now claim is that she was taken to Syria without her consent. It seems that possibly she went overseas thinking that they were going to Malaysia and her husband tricked, cajoled and forced her.

Now, we know from Rossie Batty that men can do some rotten stuff. We know that this can, in theory happen to some women. But did it happen in this case?

So here is my view. Tara Sharrouf (nee Nettleton) should be allowed back into the country. She should be investigated and monitored. If she willingly broke an Australian law by travelling to Syria then she should be charged and if appropriate imprisoned. A court of Law not Court of Public Opinion should determine this.

If however she was a victim of male abuse, we should treat her as such – a victim. We should help her, give her support and assist as we do other victims of male abuse.

1435091600673Now to the children – five of them with the maximum age of 14.

Indeed reports say the 14 year old GIRL (read CHILD) was married to her father’s jihadist friend. Even with supposed consent, we know 14 year olds can not marry. We consider it abuse to marry another jihadist at such a young age.

Is this not child trafficking? Is she not the victim of abuse. Is she not the victim of the worst sort of abuse i.e. forced into sexual service by her FATHER?

Are we such a country full of ‘arsehollery’ that we even turn our back on an abused CHILD because of the actions of her father?

And what of the other four children, all under 14, one as young as seven?

All of whom were BORN Australian citizens.

Are we really that big a country of pricks that the five children in this photo are such enemies of Australia that we will not allow them back into the country of their own birth??

4 Replies to “Australia, what the F#@*k is wrong with you?”

  1. The boy from the father whose father enjoyed, the boy who held the severed head. … We must consider all values and all later possible negative results from our emotional choices made this day. We must consider the result of each choice and the good or harm it may bring to others further down the road from our narrow minded judgements or ideals today. What of this boy who without our care today, could harm someone else’s child. What of the boy who grows to become his father, or worse. The seed is as much to consider, as was the weed. … Considerations need be thought widely and carefully, and the result of any decision needs to be monitored consistently, especially if they are permitted back into Australia. Otherwise, whatever happens to the unsuspecting innocent, is it then ours as much blame.


    1. The boy is an Australian citizen. he is a child. Regardless of what he may become he is an Australian citizen. Therefore there is not question of ‘letting him in’, the child has an absolute irrevocable RIGHT to come in. How far has Australia stooped that we even debate about letting our own children back into their country?


  2. So, we should never consider the high risk possibilities of harm becoming to other children and/or people from those who enter or re-enter this country? (regardless anyone’s origin, it is the threat to others more innocent that should be the first and highest priority here.) … What when the monster’s boy grows into the youth or man only to become a monster himself with want more to commit harm upon other children and/or people. What then of this ignorance today and our not considering those others tomorrow who may be harmed or killed from this narrow minded fairytale idealism? … The rights of a majority more innocent are certainly entitled the first priority of safety beyond any shortsighted ideal. If he kills or harms other children, or grows to kill many. Should we then consider those who allowed him do so, an accessory to the act? Hope is not a bad thing, but hope as such via shortsighted consideration can become a very sad and dangerous thing for many others.


  3. The boy is an Australian citizen. He was born here and brought up here. He has the right to come home. And if he becomes a problem child then it is our responsibility to look after one of our own.


Your view is welcome. Please comment here.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s