While it did not surprise me one bit that the Islamists' agenda would find a way through procedural legerdemain to raise its malicious visage in this sitting of Parliament through an airing of Hadi’s bill, I was extremely upset that the amendments to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 was postponed for “refinements”.

“Extremely upset” is a rather twee expression considering the deep anger I felt that this issue of unilateral conversion was not resolved because the Islamists in this country want to steal minors in the name of religious and racial supremacy. This is a fact. There is no other reason why this issue was not resolved and the reality is that nobody in support of unilateral conversion has attempted to provide an alternate rationale to this agenda. Indeed, proponents of unilateral conversion have relied on the theme of religious and racial supremacy in support of this agenda and have twisted the constitution of this country and played up racial and religious sentiments to bolster their arguments.

They have relied on the state security apparatus to enforce their will contrary to the rulings of civil courts and have had the overt approval of the ruling hegemon to carry out this agenda, all the while promoting the idea of a “moderate” Islam. There is nothing moderate about unilateral conversion. When people ask me, why I am so “obsessed” about “Islam” and why I consider this issue the existential threat facing this country, I ask them to think about this for a moment. Let us take the issue of unilateral conversion. Islamists like Hadi and the numerous other peddlers of hate like to remind us that their laws do not affect non-Muslim communities.

We are told that we are bullying the Muslim community by arguing for rights applicable to all. We are warned that our secular trespass into their religious domain would lead to violence. Unilateral conversion is the corrosive truth that it is the Islamists who would invade our scared domain of family in the name of their religion. When you convert a child unilaterally to Islam, you are denying that child the right to choose his or her religion.

Faith by fiat is what I call it, with the onerous obligation that comes with a state-sanctioned religion. This non-Muslim child is suddenly converted, thus becoming a Muslim and thus subjected to Islamic laws, and the narrative that only Muslims are subject to Islamic laws is exposed for the lie that it is.

Please consider two points that I made last year when discussing unilateral conversion as a means of cultural cleansing -